G.R. No. 192150 - SABAY vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 192150)

Factual Background

On June 12, 2001, at about three to four o'clock in the afternoon, Federico Sabay and his daughter, Erlinda Sabay, were working in the yard of Godofredo Lopez when Godofredo confronted them about an alleged intrusion. A verbal altercation ensued. Erlinda struck Godofredo on the head with a hard object. The petitioner then threw a stone at Godofredo, breaking the latter's eyeglasses. Godofredo claimed that he felt dizzy after being struck. The petitioner and Erlinda allegedly shouted threats to kill Godofredo. Jervie Lopez intervened to pacify the parties and was struck on the hand with a bolo during the scuffle. Neighbors later intervened and restored calm.

Medico-Legal Certificates

Medico-legal certificates dated June 12, 2001 showed that Godofredo suffered a contusion on the left parietal area of his head and an abrasion on his left cheek. The medico-legal certificate for Jervie recorded a wound on his right palm. These medico-legal findings were introduced by the prosecution at trial.

Barangay Proceedings and Kasunduan

On June 13, 2001, Godofredo and Jervie filed a complaint before the barangay. A meeting before the barangay lupon produced a Kasunduang Pag-aayos dated June 20, 2001 in which the parties initially agreed to a settlement conditioned upon a recommendation by the building inspector. The building inspector failed to make the promised recommendation, so the settlement was not implemented. The Barangay Captain issued a Certification to File an Action indicating that the parties did not reach an actual settlement.

Informations Filed and Charges

The petitioner and his daughter were charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court with two counts of Physical Injuries in Criminal Case Nos. 209934 and 209935 for assaults on Jervie Lopez and Godofredo Lopez, respectively. The petitioner and Erlinda were also charged with Light Threats under Article 285, Revised Penal Code for allegedly uttering threats against Godofredo. Both accused pleaded not guilty and trial on the merits ensued.

Trial Proceedings and Evidence

The prosecution presented eyewitnesses Rodolfo Lata, Sr., Dina Perez, Godofredo, Jervie, and Dr. Melissa Palugod. The defense presented the petitioner, Wilfredo Verdad, and Caridad Sabay. The petitioner claimed self-defense, alleging that Godofredo had hit him with an iron bar and that Jesus (Jessie) Lopez fired a .38 caliber gun at him, prompting him to throw a stone in defense. The petitioner did not produce a medical certificate or the physician he purportedly consulted to corroborate his claimed injuries.

Metropolitan Trial Court Ruling

The MTC credited the prosecution's version and found Federico Sabay guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of slight physical injuries. The MTC dismissed the light threats charge as absorbed in the crime of slight physical injuries and absolved Erlinda of light threats for lack of an allegation that she uttered threatening words. The MTC rejected the petitioner's claim of self-defense for lack of clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence and sentenced him to eleven days' imprisonment for each count.

Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals Proceedings

The Regional Trial Court, Caloocan City, Branch 126, affirmed the MTC decision on April 28, 2008. The Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR No. 31532, affirmed the RTC decision by its October 23, 2009 decision and denied reconsideration on March 22, 2010. On appeal, the petitioner argued that the MTC lacked jurisdiction because the Certification to File an Action was inadmissible and that the trial courts erred in rejecting his claim of self-defense.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered two principal issues: first, whether the MTC had jurisdiction in view of the claimed inadmissibility or invalidity of the Certification to File an Action issued by the barangay; and second, whether the lower courts erred in finding guilt and in rejecting the petitioner's plea of self-defense.

Supreme Court Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari and affirmed the October 23, 2009 decision and the March 22, 2010 resolution of the Court of Appeals. The conviction of Federico Sabay for two counts of slight physical injuries was affirmed.

Legal Reasoning — Jurisdiction and Validity of the Barangay Certification

The Court held that the barangay proceedings were referred to the lupon and that a Kasunduan had been executed but not implemented because the settlement was expressly conditioned on the building inspector's recommendation, which never materialized. The Barangay Captain therefore properly issued the Certification to File an Action stating that no settlement was reached. The Court relied on the presumption that a public officer acts regularly in the performance of official duties per Section 3(m), Rule 131, Rules on Evidence and found no contrary evidence to overcome that presumption. The Court further held that even if an irregularity had occurred in the issuance of the Certification, such irregularity is not jurisdictional and does not deprive the MTC of jurisdiction, citing Diu v. Court of Appeals and Garces v. Court of Appeals and related authorities. Noncompliance with the conciliation procedure under Presidential Decree No. 1508 therefore affected only the parties' cause of action and not the lower courts' jurisdiction.

Legal Reasoning — Admissibility of the Certification to File an Action

Addressing the petitioner's contention that the Certification was inadmissible for lack of a formal offer under Section 34, Rule 132, Rules of Court, the Court recognized the rule that evidence not formally offered is ordinarily not considered but reiterated the established exception. The Court cited prior decisions, including People v. Napat-a, People v. Mate, and The Heirs of Romana Saves v. The Heirs of Escolastico Saves, which permit admission of evidence not formally offered where two requisites are met: first, the evidence was duly identified by testimony duly recorded; and second, the evidence was incorporated into the records. In this case, Godofredo identified the Certification during cross-examination; the document was marked as Exhibit 1 and attached to the records; and the petitioner made no contemporaneous objection to the identification or marking. The Court therefore found that the Certification was properly admissible under the exception to the formal-offer requirement.

Legal Reasoning — Rejection of Self-Defense

The Court affirmed the factual findings of the trial and appellate courts and declined to disturb their conclusions absent a showing that

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 192150)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Federico Sabay was the accused and petitioner before the Supreme Court seeking review of the Court of Appeals decision and resolution in CA-G.R. CR No. 31532.
People of the Philippines was the respondent and private complainants included Godofredo Lopez and Jervie Lopez who filed the underlying complaints.
The case originated in the Metropolitan Trial Court, was affirmed by the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 126, and the decision and denial of the motion for reconsideration by the Court of Appeals, Second Division, were brought to the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari.
The Court of Appeals issued a decision dated October 23, 2009 and a resolution dated March 22, 2010 that are the subject of this petition.

Key Facts

On June 12, 2001, between three and four o'clock in the afternoon, the petitioner and his daughter were allegedly laying wood and water pipes in the yard of Godofredo Lopez when Godofredo confronted them about intrusion.
During the ensuing altercation, petitioner’s daughter, Erlinda, struck Godofredo on the head with a hard object and the petitioner allegedly threw a stone at Godofredo that broke his eyeglasses.
Godofredo claimed he felt dizzy after being struck and that Jervie Lopez was hit in the hand with a bolo while attempting to pacify the parties.
Neighbors intervened and the complainants filed a complaint with the barangay on June 13, 2001 that led to a purported Kasunduan dated June 20, 2001 which was not implemented because a promised recommendation by a building inspector did not materialize.

Medico-Legal Findings

The medico-legal certificates dated June 12, 2001 showed that Godofredo suffered a contusion on the left parietal area of his head and an abrasion on his left cheek.
The medico-legal certificate showed that Jervie sustained a wound on his right palm.
The medico-legal findings were admitted by the prosecution at trial and were used to corroborate the eyewitness testimony.

Charges

The petitioner was charged in two Informations with Physical Injuries, each alleging that he willfully and unlawfully hit Jervie Lopez and Godofredo Lopez, respectively, thereby inflicting injuries requiring medical attendance for not more than seven days.
The petitioner and his daughter were also charged with Light Threats under Article 285 of the Revised Penal Code for allegedly uttering threats against Godofredo.
Both accused pleaded not guilty at arraignment and proceeded to trial.

Trial Evidence

The prosecution presented eyewitnesses Rodolfo Lata, Sr., Dina Perez, Godofredo Lopez, Jervie Lopez, and Dr. Melissa Palugod as the attending physician.
The defense presented the petitioner and witnesses Wilfredo Verdad and Caridad Sabay and asserted a plea of self-defense, alleging that Godofredo attacked the petitioner with an iron bar and that Jessie Lopez fired a .38 caliber gun.
The parties admitted the occurrence of a barangay meeting and a Kasunduan, and the barangay issued a Certification to File an Action after the Kasunduan was not effectuated.

Rulings Below

The Metropolitan Trial Court found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of slight physical injuries and sentenced him to imprisonment of 11 day