Title
Ruego vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 226745
Decision Date
May 3, 2021
Ruego punched Calubiran, fracturing a tooth later repaired without deformity. Convicted of serious injury, SC modified to slight injury, citing repaired tooth and no visible deformity.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 234812)

Facts:

  • Charge and Arraignment
    • On September 5, 2005, Elpedio Ruego was charged by Information in Iloilo City with Serious Physical Injuries under Article 263(3) of the Revised Penal Code for fracturing Anthony M. Calubiran’s upper right central incisor, allegedly causing permanent deformity.
    • Ruego was arraigned on August 2, 2006, and pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits commenced thereafter.
  • Incident and Witness Testimony
    • Prosecution witnesses June Alfred Altura, Calubiran, Raden Selguerra, and Selguerra’s father testified that at around 10:30 p.m. on September 5, 2005, along Paho Road, Ruego challenged Calubiran (“What are you looking at?”) and punched him. Attempts to mediate by barangay officials failed.
    • Police blotter entries confirmed the report to the Philippine National Police. Ruego’s group had fled before police arrival.
  • Medical Examination and Injury
    • Dr. Owen Jaen Libaquin, medico-legal officer, found Calubiran sustained head injuries and a fractured upper right central incisor, which he opined caused permanent deformity.
    • At trial, Calubiran showed an artificial tooth—evidence that the fractured tooth had been repaired by an unspecified modern dental procedure.
  • Defense Case
    • Ruego and his witness Leomar Tondo (“Ok-Ok”) claimed Calubiran, allegedly drunk, threw the first punch after staring at Ruego. They asserted mutual agreement to a fistfight, with Ruego acting in self-defense.
    • Ruego denied deliberate intent and disputed that the tooth fracture amounted to permanent deformity.
  • Judicial Proceedings
    • The Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Iloilo (Dec. 15, 2011) and the Regional Trial Court (Aug. 17, 2012) convicted Ruego of serious physical injuries. The Court of Appeals (Jan. 26, 2016) affirmed, holding the loss of a front tooth causing permanent deformity falls under Article 263(3).
    • Ruego’s motions for reconsideration were denied at each level. This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 followed.

Issues:

  • Whether this Court may review factual findings in a criminal appeal under Rule 45.
  • Whether fracturing and later medically repairing a single tooth constitutes “serious physical injuries” (deformity or loss of a body part) under Article 263(3) of the Revised Penal Code.
  • Whether the equipoise rule applies, given the claim of mutual fistfight agreement.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.