Case Summary (G.R. No. 258417)
Factual Background and Charges
Two Informations filed: (1) Criminal Case No. 16965 charging violation of Section 5(a), RA 9262 — alleging that on or about August 3, 2016, in Orion, Bataan, petitioner inflicted physical harm on Aileen by grabbing her shirt, holding her hands tightly, and punching her repeatedly while armed with a gun, causing injuries requiring three to nine days of medical attention; and (2) Criminal Case No. 16966 charging violation of Section 5(e)(4), RA 9262 — alleging threats to close Aileen’s business to restrict her conduct. Petitioner pleaded not guilty to both charges.
Prosecution’s Narrative and Evidence
The private complainant testified that on the night of August 3, 2016, after returning from Manila she asked petitioner to face her while sleeping; petitioner allegedly retrieved a gun from a cabinet, tucked it into his waist, approached, gripped her shirt and collar, held her hands, and punched her left leg three times while shouting profanities. She reported the incident the next day to the police, executed a sworn statement at the Orion Municipal Police Station, and sought medical treatment at Bataan General Hospital where a medico‑legal report diagnosed hematomas to the right hand and lateral side of the left leg with incapacitation for three to nine days. The prosecution also offered authenticated text messages and documentary items corroborating contact and admissions.
Defense Narrative and Evidence
Petitioner denied the assault. He testified that, after returning from Manila, he and Aileen spoke with his mother, bathed, dressed for bed, and later slept; he said Aileen insisted on facing each other for sex, which he declined because he was tired, and that the following day everything was normal. He and his witnesses suggested alternative explanations for the injuries, including possible self‑infliction by Aileen; petitioner introduced photographs and a PNP certification that he was not a registered firearms holder, and his mother testified in his defense.
RTC Findings and Disposition
The Regional Trial Court found petitioner guilty of violating Section 5(a), RA 9262 (physical violence) in Criminal Case No. 16965 and acquitted him in Criminal Case No. 16966 for failure of proof. The RTC held that the prosecution established the elements of Section 5(a): the offended party was a woman with whom petitioner had a sexual relationship, and petitioner caused physical harm. The RTC credited the complainant’s positive identification and medico‑legal evidence over petitioner’s denial. Sentencing by the RTC imposed a straight penalty of four months’ imprisonment (arresto mayor) and awards of nominal damages PHP 500, moral damages PHP 5,000, and exemplary damages PHP 5,000, with interest.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC in toto. The CA found the complainant’s testimony corroborated by her sworn police statement, the medico‑legal report, authenticated text messages, and other documents linking the acts to petitioner. The CA rejected petitioner’s denials and his attempt to attribute injuries to self‑harm or to rely on a PNP certification as determinative. The CA concluded there was no oversight of material facts and denied the appeal.
Issue on Review
The sole core issue presented to the Supreme Court was whether petitioner was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5(a), RA 9262, as found by the lower courts. Petitioner also contended on appeal that the CA failed to appreciate mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and that the complainant’s account was implausible or possibly self‑inflicted.
Standard of Review and Applicable Constitutional Basis
The Supreme Court applied the ordinary Rule 45 standard: factual findings of the RTC, when affirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive on the Court absent a clear showing of oversight, arbitrariness, or caprice. Because the decision date falls after 1990, the 1987 Constitution governs the adjudication framework, but no constitutional issue was directly raised; the Court proceeded under established standards of appellate review for factual determinations.
Evaluation of Evidence and Elements of the Offense
The Court affirmed that the statutory elements of Section 5(a) were satisfied: (1) the offended party is a woman; (2) she was in a sexual/dating relationship with the offender; and (3) the offender caused physical harm. The complainant’s categorical and detailed testimony describing the gun retrieval, grabbing, squeezing, punching, and verbal abuse, together with her sworn police statement, the medico‑legal report diagnosing hematomas with incapacitation for three to nine days, and corroborative text messages, supplied sufficient evidence to establish physical violence beyond reasonable doubt. Petitioner’s admission at trial of a sexual relationship with the complainant strengthened the second element.
Credibility Findings and Rejection of Defense Contentions
The Court sustained the lower courts’ credibility assessments: the RTC was best situated to observe deportment and demeanor, and the CA properly deferred to those findings. The Court rejected petitioner’s bare denials and speculative theories of self‑infliction as inherently weak in comparison to the complainant’s consistent, corroborated account. The PNP certification that petitioner was not a registered firearms holder was held not dispositive against the complainant’s testimony that he produced a gun from the cabinet; the possibility of unlawful possession remained. Text messages showing petitioner’s sarcastic admission of having inflicted harm further undermined his denials. The Court found no error in the factual evaluation warranting reversal on a Rule 45 petition.
Penalties, Remedies, and Modifications
The Court concluded th
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 258417)
Case Caption and Procedural History
- Title and citation: THIRD DIVISION [ G.R. No. 258417, January 29, 2024 ] ROMMEL Z. BORJA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
- Nature of action: Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 challenging the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated October 13, 2020 and Resolution dated November 22, 2021 in CA‑G.R. CR No. 41059.
- Lower court proceedings: Trial and judgment by Branch 93, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Balanga City, Bataan in Criminal Case Nos. 16965 and 16966; RTC rendered judgment dated January 5, 2018.
- CA disposition: Affirmation in toto of the RTC Judgment in Decision dated October 13, 2020; denial of appeal affirmed by CA in its decretal paragraph dated October 13, 2020.
- Supreme Court action: Petition filed by Rommel Z. Borja; Court required Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to comment; Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed CA decision with modification by Decision dated January 29, 2024 (Five justices concurred).
Issues Presented
- Core legal issue: Whether the petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti‑Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004).
- Ancillary issues raised by petitioner before the Supreme Court: (1) whether the CA erred in failing to appreciate the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in his favor; (2) whether the complainant’s account—that petitioner became angry because he refused to sleep face‑to‑face and therefore threatened her and inflicted violence—was illogical and unbelievable; (3) whether petitioner lacked knowledge as to how the complainant sustained her bruises and whether she was capable of self‑inflicting them.
Charged Offenses and Accusatory Portions (Facts as Charged)
- Criminal Case No. 16965 (Violation of Section 5(a), RA 9262): Charge alleging that on or about August 3, 2016 in Orion, Bataan, petitioner inflicted physical harm on his live‑in partner Aileen Joy G. Adriatico by grabbing her shirt, holding her hands tightly and punching her repeatedly while a gun was tucked in his waist, causing physical injuries requiring medical attention or incapacitating her for three to nine days.
- Criminal Case No. 16966 (Violation of Section 5(e)(4), RA 9262): Charge alleging that on or about August 3, 2016 in Orion, Bataan, petitioner willfully and feloniously threatened to close the complainant’s business, with the effect of restricting her movement or conduct.
- Plea at arraignment: Petitioner pleaded "Not Guilty" to the charges in both cases.
Trial Pleadings and Burden
- Plea and trial: Petitioner entered not guilty pleas; trial on the merits ensued.
- Burden on prosecution: To prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the charged RA 9262 offenses.
- Standard on appeal: Factual findings of RTC adopted and affirmed by CA are binding absent clear showing of abuse, arbitrariness, or capriciousness; factual issues not ordinarily reviewable in Rule 45 petitions (citing Pryce Properties Corp. v. Nolasco, Jr.).
Prosecution’s Version and Evidence
- Relationship context: Aileen is a businesswoman operating spas; petitioner was her live‑in partner and a contractor for DPWH.
- Incident narrative (August 3–4, 2016): After returning from Manila, at about 1:30 a.m. Aileen asked petitioner to face her while sleeping; petitioner allegedly took a gun from a cabinet, tucked it in his waist, grabbed Aileen by the collar, gripped her hand, punched her left leg (thrice according to parts of the record), and berated her while uttering "putang ina mo."
- Post‑incident actions: Aileen reported the incident to Orion Municipal Police Station the following day and executed a sworn statement; she was referred to Bataan General Hospital (BGH) where the Medico‑Legal Report diagnosed hematoma on her right hand and lateral side of left leg and found she was incapacitated for three to nine days.
- Documentary and corroborative evidence offered by prosecution: sworn statement executed at Orion Municipal Police Station; Medico‑Legal Report from BGH; authenticated text messages between Aileen and petitioner; documents confirming petitioner’s cellphone number (calling card, bid forms, RZB company profile); application for Barangay Protection Order on November 24, 2016.
Defense Version and Evidence
- Denial: Petitioner denied the allegations and presented an alternative account of events for August 3, 2016—chatting with his mother, bathing and dressing for bed with complainant, complainant asking to face him for sexual intercourse, petitioner refusing due to fatigue, both dozing off, and having breakfast together the following morning.
- Additional defenses asserted: Petitioner contended he had no knowledge how complainant sustained bruises and suggested she might have inflicted them upon herself; he offered photographs and a PNP Certification of No Firearms to challenge aspects of the prosecution’s narrative.
- Testimony of petitioner’s mother: Presented but noted by appellate tribunal as naturally interested in his acquittal and therefore of limited weight.
RTC Judgment (January 5, 2018)
- Verdict: RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5(a) of RA 9262 (Violence Against Women) in Criminal Case No. 16965; acquitted in Criminal Case No. 16966 for failure of prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- RTC findings on credibility: RTC accepted Aileen’s positive identification and testimony over petitioner’s bare denial, concluding the latter could not prevail over the positive testimony.
- Penalties and awards imposed by RTC (as reflected in the fallo quoted in source):
- Sentenced to a straight penalty of four (4) months imprisonment (arresto mayor).
- Ordered to pay complainant PHP 500 as nominal damages, PHP 5,000 as moral damages, and PHP 5,000 as exemplary damages, with damages to earn interest at 6% per annum from finality.
- Appeal: Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Court of Appeals Decision (October 13, 2020)
- Disposition: CA affirmed the RTC Judgment in toto.
- Reasoning highlights:
- Affirmed that Aileen and petitioner had a sexual/dating relationship; that petitioner caused physical harm by gripping her hand and punching her leg on August 3, 2016.
- Corroborative evidence (sworn statement, Medico‑Legal Report, authenticated texts, and other documents) supported Aileen’s testimony.
- Petitioner’s defenses characterized as mere denials and feeble attempts to evade culpability; the CA emphasized the weakness of denial as