Case Summary (G.R. No. 172156)
Procedural Posture
An Information filed June 6, 1982 charged Lydia with the complex crime of direct assault with unintentional abortion arising from an incident on July 17, 1981. Lydia pleaded not guilty, was tried, and on October 11, 2002 the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Cebu City, Branch 23, convicted her of the complex crime and sentenced her accordingly. Lydia appealed. The Court of Appeals (CA) vacated the RTC judgment and found petitioner guilty only of slight physical injuries under Article 266(1) of the Revised Penal Code, imposing a penalty of arresto menor (minimum ten days). Lydia then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Factual Narrative — Prosecution Version
Both Lydia and Gemma were public school teachers at Nailon Elementary School. Lydia’s son, Roseller, was a pupil of Gemma. On July 17, 1981, around 10:00 a.m., after learning from Roseller that Gemma had called him a “sissy,” Lydia confronted Gemma in the classroom. Lydia allegedly slapped Gemma on the cheek and pushed her, causing Gemma to fall and hit a wall divider. A medical certificate from Bogo General Hospital documented a contusion in Gemma’s maxillary area. Gemma reportedly experienced abdominal pain and began bleeding two days after the incident; on August 28, 1981 she was admitted to Southern Islands Hospital and diagnosed with incomplete abortion, for which a medical certificate was issued.
Factual Narrative — Defense Version
Lydia maintained she merely approached Gemma to instruct her to stop calling her son names. She claimed Gemma attacked first by holding Lydia’s hands and kicking her, prompting Lydia to push Gemma against a wall in self-defense or in retaliation.
Trial Court Ruling
The RTC found Lydia guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of direct assault with unintentional abortion and imposed an indeterminate penalty comprising an attributable term (six months arresto mayor minimum to four years two months prision correccional maximum under the RTC’s dispositive calculation), plus awards of P10,000 actual and P15,000 moral damages to the offended party.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The CA vacated the RTC verdict as to the complex crime. It concluded Lydia could not be held liable for direct assault because Gemma allegedly ceased to be a person in authority when, instead of pacifying Lydia or reporting to the principal, she engaged in fighting. The CA also held Lydia could not be convicted for unintentional abortion because there was no evidence that Lydia knew of Gemma’s pregnancy at the time of the incident and no competent medical testimony linking the assault to the abortion. The CA nevertheless found Lydia guilty of slight physical injuries under Article 266(1) of the Revised Penal Code and imposed arresto menor (minimum ten days).
Issues Raised on Petition
Lydia contended the CA erred (1) in finding her liable for slight physical injuries under Article 266(1) and sentencing her to arresto menor, and (2) in convicting her of slight physical injuries when the Information charged direct assault with unintentional abortion.
Supreme Court Standard on Appellate Review
The Supreme Court reiterated that an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for appellate review and that an accused who appeals waives the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy, thereby allowing the appellate court to correct errors and render judgment as law and justice dictate. The Court therefore reviewed the entire record de novo to determine the correct legal disposition.
Legal Elements of Direct Assault (Article 148)
The Court identified the elements of direct assault under Article 148 (second mode, the more common form applicable here): (1) the offender makes an attack, employs force, seriously intimidates, or resists; (2) the person assaulted is a person in authority or an agent thereof; (3) at the time of assault the person assaulted is engaged in the actual performance of official duties or is assaulted by reason of past performance; (4) the offender knows that the assaulted is a person in authority or agent; and (5) there is no public uprising. The Court noted that teachers are expressly deemed persons in authority in Article 152 as amended.
Application of Facts to Elements — Direct Assault
The Court found that on the day of the incident, Gemma was engaged in official duties (attending to paperwork and supervising pupils); Lydia entered the classroom already angered, verbally abused Gemma, followed her toward the principal’s office, slapped and pushed her, causing Gemma to fall against a wall divider. Because Gemma was a public school teacher she fell within the class of persons in authority under Article 152. The Court rejected the CA’s reasoning that Gemma lost her status as a person in authority by allegedly fighting with Lydia; the Court emphasized that at the moment Lydia initiated the confrontation, Gemma was performing official functions and her subsequent attempts to pacify were reasonable. The Court concluded the prosecution proved direct assault beyond reasonable doubt and reversed the CA’s lesser conviction.
Causation and Unintentional Abortion — Evidentiary Shortcoming
Although the Court sustained the conviction for direct assault, it found insufficient proof that Lydia’s assault proximately caused Gemma’s abortion. The medical certificates documenting contusion and incomplete abortion were in evidence, but the attending physician, Dr. Susan Jaca, did not testify to connect the assault to the abortion. The Court highlighted the 42-day interval between the July 17 assault and Gemma’s hospital admission for incomplete abortion on August 28, 1981; the Court reg
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 172156)
Case Caption, Citation and Tribunal
- Full citation: 640 Phil. 109, FIRST DIVISION, G.R. No. 173150, July 28, 2010.
- Parties: Lydia C. Gelig, Petitioner; People of the Philippines, Respondent.
- Decision authored by Justice Del Castillo; concurrence by Corona, C.J. (Chairperson), Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, and Perez, JJ.
- Procedural posture: Appeal to the Supreme Court from a Court of Appeals decision (CA-G.R. CR No. 27488, Decision promulgated Jan. 10, 2006) which had vacated the RTC conviction in Criminal Case No. CU-10314 (Regional Trial Court, Cebu City, Branch 23, Decision dated Oct. 11, 2002).
Facts — Basic Factual Antecedents
- Date and place of incident: July 17, 1981, at around 10:00 in the morning, at Barangay Nailon, Municipality of Bogo, Province of Cebu, Philippines.
- Persons involved: Petitioner Lydia Gelig (teacher), private complainant Gemma B. Micarsos (Gemma) (public classroom teacher at Nailon Elementary School), and Lydia’s son Roseller (student of Gemma).
- Triggering circumstance: Lydia learned from her son Roseller that Gemma had called him a "sissy" in class.
- Alleged assault: Lydia confronted Gemma in the classroom, slapped Gemma on the cheek and pushed her, causing Gemma to fall and hit a wall divider.
- Immediate injury: Gemma suffered a contusion in her “maxillary area,” as shown by a medical certificate issued by a doctor at Bogo General Hospital (Exhibit "A").
- Subsequent medical events: Gemma began experiencing abdominal pains and bleeding two days after the incident; on August 28, 1981 she was admitted to Southern Islands Hospital and diagnosed with incomplete abortion (medical certificate, Exhibit "B").
- Timing of abortion-related hospitalization: Admission on August 28, 1981, which is 42 days after the July 17, 1981 incident.
- Lydia’s claim of provocation/defense: Lydia averred she approached Gemma to ask her to stop name-calling; Gemma allegedly attacked Lydia by holding her hands and kicking her, prompting Lydia to push Gemma against the wall in retaliation.
Procedural History — Lower Court Outcomes
- Information filed: June 6, 1982, charging Lydia with Direct Assault with Unintentional Abortion as described in the Information.
- Arraignment: Lydia pleaded not guilty.
- Trial court (RTC, Branch 23, Cebu City) Decision (Oct. 11, 2002): Convicted Lydia of the complex crime of direct assault with unintentional abortion. Dispositive portion ordered an indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum to four (4) years, two (2) months of prision correccional as maximum; ordered payment of P10,000 actual damages and P15,000 moral damages. Lydia appealed that conviction.
- Court of Appeals (CA) Decision (Jan. 10, 2006): Vacated and set aside the RTC Decision; declined to sustain conviction for direct assault and for unintentional abortion; found petitioner guilty only of slight physical injuries under Article 266(1) of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced her to arresto menor minimum of ten (10) days. CA reasoning included: (a) Gemma had descended from the status of a person in authority to a private individual because she engaged in a fight, and (b) no evidence existed that Lydia knew of Gemma’s pregnancy at the time of the incident.
Issues Raised by Petitioner to the Supreme Court
- Issue 1: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding petitioner liable for Slight Physical Injuries under Article 266(1) RPC and sentencing her to arresto menor minimum of ten days.
- Issue 2: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in convicting petitioner of Slight Physical Injuries under an information charging Direct Assault with Unintentional Abortion.
Legal Principles and Authorities Cited
- Appeal effect in criminal cases: An accused who appeals waives double jeopardy protection and the entire case is open for appellate review; the appellate tribunal must correct errors in the appealed judgment (People v. Pajarillo, 183 Phil. 392, 399 (1979); People v. Rondero, 378 Phil. 123, 143 (1999) cited).
- Definition and penal provision for Direct Assault: Article 148, Revised Penal Code, as quoted in full; direct assault can be committed in two distinct modes (employing force or intimidation to attain ends related to rebellion/sedition; or attacking/using force/seriously intimidating or resisting a person in authority or agent while engaged in official duties).
- Persons in authority for purposes of Articles 148 and 151: Article 152, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 873 — teachers and those charged with supervision in schools are expressly included.
- Indeterminate Sentence Law: Section 1, as amended by Act No. 4225 — court should sentence to an indeterminate sentence with a maximum properly imposed under the Code and a minimum within the range of the next lower penalty.
- Article 64(1) RPC: Pertains to fixing penalties in the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances (referenced in relation to fixing penalty in medium period).
- Secondary authorities cited: Rivera v. People, 501 Phil. 37, 44-45 (2005); Reyes, Luis B., The Revised Penal Code (specific pages cited in source).
Elements of Direct Assault (as articulated in the Decision)
- The decision enumerates the elements (applicable to the second mode — attack against person in authority):
- That the offender (a) makes an attack, (b) employs force, (c) makes a serious intimidation, or (d) makes a serious resistance.
- That the person assaulted is a person in authority or his agent.
- That at the time of the assault the person