REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 54, NAVOTAS CITY

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
Crim. Case No. 18-20828
For: Slight Physical Injuries
- versus -

EDWIN SABULAO,
Accused.
X=================================x

JUDGMENT
Accused Edwin Sabulao is charged with the crime of Slight Physical
Injuries under Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code in an Information that
reads as follows:

“XXX

That on or about the 29 th day of July 2018, in the City of Navotas,

Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault and use personal violence upon the person
of one CHARITO AMBROCIO y REYES, by punching, kicking and
hitting the victim on different parts of her body, which required medical
attention for less than nine (9) days and incapacitated her from
performing her usual customary labor for the same period of time.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”1

When arraigned, accused, assisted by Atty. Sabrina C. Datu of the

Public Attorney’s Office and in the presence of Senior Assistant City
Prosecutor (SACP) Golda Pablo-Salamat for the State, entered a plea of
not guilty to the Information. Thereafter, the court proceeded with pre-trial
conference proper and the parties entered into stipulations and admissions
of facts and identify their respective witnesses. On the basis thereof, a
Pre-Trial Order was issued by the court. (FOOTNOTE)

Trial ensued and the prosecution presented two (2) witnesses,

namely: (1) Charito Ambrocio y Reyes, the complainant herself, and (2)
Elizabeth Illustrisimo y Quita, the cousin of the complainant. Documentary
evidence was likewise adduced.

The prosecution established that in Barangay NBBS-Kaunlaran,

Navotas City on July 29, 2018 at around 12:00 noon, complainant was in
front of her house giving her dog a bath and tied it afterwards in the open
1
Record, p. 1.
JUDGMENT
Criminal Case No. 18-20828
Page |2

space near the gamecocks (manok panabong) of the accused. Shortly

thereafter, accused went out of his house and angrily shouted at her “Bakit
mo nilagay ang aso mo alam mong may mga manok.” Complainant replied
“Ayos ka ha, kung makaasta ka parang pag-aari mo ang lugar na ito…”

Accused, however, ignored her, and instead untied the dog leash and
uttered in an arrogant loud voice “PAGBINALIK MO ULIT DITO ANG ASO
MAGKAKALINTIKAN TAYO.”

Complainant ignored what the accused said and instead chased her
dog and brought it back to where it was previously tied to dry off. After
merely a few steps, accused suddenly grabbed the leash, untied it, coiled
around the dog’s neck and body, and then threw the dog away. The dog
was smashed into the tire of the parked van.

Because of what accused did, complainant turned her attention to

accused’s gamecock and tried to unleashed the same to no avail because
it was fastened tightly. While complainant was still holding the gamecock,
accused suddenly punched her left face then grabbed her hair all through
her nape and hit her back with his knee and kicked her. Complainant used
her both hands to prevent herself from falling against the wall.
Complainant loose hold of the gamecock. Complainant used her arms to
prevent her from smashing to the wall where the gamecock was tied.

When complainant got back to her knees, she again attempted to

snatch the gamecock from its leash but the accused attacked her again by
punching her in her forearms. Facing each other, complainant tried to grab
the face of the accused but her efforts were in vain since he was tall and
stronger than her. Thereafter, accused raised his hands against
complainant which made her raised her hand too in fear of his next attack.
Accused suddenly grabbed complainant’s breasts and pushed her.
Complainant felt pain.

After the incident, complainant immediately proceeded to the

Detachment Police Station for police assistance. After narrating the
mauling incident, a certain sir Bolivar advised her to seek medical attention
so that they could have a basis in arresting the accused. The barangay
staff, a certain Vivian, likewise, advised her to undergo medical check-up
and secure a medico legal certificate.

Complainant, together with her cousin Elizabeth, proceeded to Tondo

Medical Center and was subjected to medical examination by Dr. Roberto
Carlo O. Atienza. The Medico-Legal Slip 2 reads:

“Name: Charito Ambrocio Age: 50 Date of Treatment: July 29,

2018
2
Exhibit “B”, Record, p. 11.
2|Page
JUDGMENT
Criminal Case No. 18-20828
Page |3

Diagnosis: soft tissue swelling, zygomatic area left

9 days treated and discharged sgd

Duration disposition Medico-Legal
Officer”

After being examined and armed with a medico legal slip issued by
Tondo Medical Center, she went back to the detachment and handed the
said medical slip to Bolivar. Bolivar explained to complainant that since the
medical slip stated nine (9) days of treatment, the same should be referred
to the barangay.

Meanwhile, Bolivar advised her to undergo a CT scan. She

immediately went to Jose Reyes Memorial Medical Center for another
medical examination and was issued a medico-legal slip dated July 29,
20183 which reads:

“x x x
DIAGNOSIS: soft tissue swelling due to mauling.

Sent home sgd.

DISPOSITION ATTENDING PHYSICIAN”

A Konta-Reklamo was filed by the accused against her before the

barangay. Several meeting were conducted and on October 13, 2018, she
and accused had settled their differences. On October 7, 2018, she
returned to the barangay to revoke their agreement as she did not
understand the import of their agreement because she was not feeling well
at that time. Considering that no amicable settlement was reached by the
parties, the barangay issued a Certificate to File Action. 4

Instead of presenting to the witness stand the attending physicians

who treated complainant, the prosecution and defense entered into the
following stipulations:

1. That Dr. Michael Matias is a doctor from Jose Reyes Memorial

Medical Center and that Dr. Roberto Carlo O. Atienza is a medical
doctor at Tondo Medical Center;
2. That on July 29, 2018, both Dr. Matias and Dr. Atienza examined
the private complainant Charito Ambrocio based on the medico-
Legal Slips; and
3. That they reduced their findings on Charito Ambrocio in a Medico-
Legal Slip.

3
Exhibit “C”, Record, p. 11.
4
Exhibit “D”, Record, p. 9.
3|Page
JUDGMENT
Criminal Case No. 18-20828
Page |4

with a counter-stipulation that Dr. Matias and Dr. Atienza have no personal
knowledge of how complainant sustained the injuries referred to in the
medico-legal slips.5

Thereafter, the prosecution formally offered its documentary evidence

and rested its case.6

The defense, on the other hand, presented three (3) witnesses,

namely: (1) Edwin Sabulao, the accused himself; (2) Lorna S. Ral; and (3)
PCpl Georgeson Bolivar, Jr., the police officer to whom complainant
reported the incident.

The defense established that on July 29, 2018, accused was inside
the gate of their house when he saw complainant tying the leash of her dog
at the tree near his gamecocks in a vacant lot. He heard noise from his
gamecocks so he went out to check on them. He saw that complainant’s
dog was upsetting his gamecocks so confronted the complainant and said
“Bat diyan mo tinali yung aso mo, alam mo ng nandyan yung manok ko?”
Complainant got mad and hurled several unsavory words at him.

Accused removed the leash from the tree to transfer the dog to
another place away from his gamecocks but complainant grabbed the
leash and tied it again. This resulted to an argument that turned physical.
While the two were fighting over the leash, the rope got broken. Instead of
running after her dog, complainant attempted to snatch his gamecock but
accused was quick enough to get hold of it. He held his gamecock tightly
so that complainant could not grab its neck. All the while, the complainant
was shouting invectives at him. She also punched and kicked him several
times but he did not retaliate as he was holding his gamecock. He then
used his arms to block the attacks of complainant.

When the attack ceased, the complainant threatened him that she will
file a case to the barangay.

The accused and his cousin Lorna Ral, who witnessed the incident,
decided to go to the barangay when complainant returned. The latter
changed clothes and took several pictures including that of the gamecocks
not actually owned by the accused. Thereafter, he and Lorna proceeded to
the barangay to report the incident. At the barangay, the desk officer, a
certain Vivian, advised them to wait for the complainant because the latter
already went to their office to report the said incident. When the
complainant arrived at the barangay, she was went hysterical and looking
frail as if her body parts were aching.

5
Order dated July 15, 2019, Record, pp.46-47.
6
Order dated August 23, 2019, Record, pp. 128-130.
4|Page
JUDGMENT
Criminal Case No. 18-20828
Page |5

Meanwhile, complainant went to PCP 4 and asked officer Bolivar,

who was assigned at the Police Detachment beside the barangay, to arrest
the accused. Bolivar did not arrest the accused because there were no
external signs showing that complainant was indeed physically attacked by
the accused. Bolivar advised the parties to bring the issue to the barangay
as the same was a barangay matter.

Before this incident, there were previous misunderstanding,

altercations and complaints between the accused and complainant.

After the testimony of its last witness, the defense formally offered its
documentary evidence and rested its case. Thereafter, the court ordered
this case submitted for decision.7

The issue before the court is whether or not the accused is guilty of
the crime charged in the Information.

The Information charges the accused with slight physical injuries “by
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and use
personal violence upon the person of one CHARITO AMBROCIO y
REYES, by punching, kicking and hitting the victim on different parts of her
body, which required medical attention for less than nine (9) days and
incapacitated her from performing her usual customary labor for the same
period of time.”

Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No.

10951, provides that the crime of Slight Physical Injuries shall be punished:

1. By arresto menor when the offender has inflicted physical

injuries which shall incapacitate the offended party for
labor from one to nine days, or shall require medical
attendance during the same period;
2. By arresto menor or a fine not exceeding forty
thousand pesos (P40,000) and censure when the
offender has caused physical injuries which do not
prevent the offended party from engaging in his
habitual work nor require medical attendance;
3. By arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not
exceeding Five thousand pesos (P5,000) when the
offender shall ill-treat another by deed without causing any
injury.

The elements8 of the crime of Slight Physical Injuries are as follows:

1. That the offender has caused physical injuries; and

7
Order dated October 23, 2020, Record, pp. 170-173.
8

5|Page
JUDGMENT
Criminal Case No. 18-20828
Page |6

2. That the physical injuries inflicted: a) incapacitated the

offended party for labor from one (1) to nine (9) days, or
shall require medical attendance during the same period;
b) does not prevent the offended party from engaging in
his habitual work nor require medical assistance; and c)
when the offender shall ill-treat another by deed without
causing any injury.

To prove the crime, the prosecution presented the complainant

wherein she identified her “Sinumpaang Salaysay ng Reklamo” which was
marked as Exhibit “A”9 for the prosecution. On cross-examination,
complainant further testified as follows:

“xxx
ATTY. DATU:
xxx

Q: Ms. Witness, you mentioned that the accused physically hurt you,
correct?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
Q: Did any other person in the area came to your aide, Ms. Witness?
A: None, Ma’am.
Q: Ms. Witness, you mentioned that you were being physically hurt,
did you fight back against the accused?
A: No. Ma’am.
Q: Ms. Witness, you confirm your statement in your Sinumpaang
Salaysay that you were kicked on your back, correct?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
Q: And you were also punched on your arm, correct?
A: Yes, Ma’am.

Q: Ms. Witness, when you went to the hospital for medical

examination, did you show your back to the medical professional?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
Q: Your face was examined Ms. Witness?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
Q: How about your back Ms. Witness, was it examined?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
Q: How about your arm, was it examined Ms. Witness?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
COURT:
Mayroon po ba kayong pasa noong araw na iyon?
A: Meron po.
COURT:
Saan ang pasa niyo?
Witness pointed at her face.
COURT:
Bukod sa mukha meron pa bang iba?
Witness pointed at her left arm.
COURT:
9
Record, pp.4-6.
6|Page
JUDGMENT
Criminal Case No. 18-20828
Page |7

Proceed.
ATTY. DATU:
Q: And yet Ms. Witness, in the medico-legal slip, it was not
mentioned that you had any injury on your arm, did you know
that?
A: only soft swelling.
xxx. 10

As to whether accused has caused physical injuries upon the person

of the complainant, the latter testified that accused punched her left face
and grabbed her hair all through her nape and hit her back with his knee
and kicked her. Accused attacked her again by punching her in her
forearms and grabbed complainant’s breasts and pushed her.
Complainant’s testimony is direct, positive and straightforward. She
particularly described how the crime was committed and expressly
identified the accused as the perpetrator thereof. Complainant’s testimony
was corroborated by her cousin who testified that she saw the accused hit
complainant on her left cheek.11

The medico legal slip12 issued by Dr. Atienza of Tondo Medical

Center likewise states “diagnosis: soft tissue swelling, zygomatic area
left, duration: 9 days; treated and discharged.” The Medico-Legal Slip
issued by the Jose Reyes Memorial Medical Center, 13 on the other hand,
states “diagnosis: soft tissue swelling due to mauling.” Notably,
complainant was examined on July 29, 2018 which is also the date of the
incident subject of the Information.

The accused himself denies having committed the subject act and
claims that he did not punch and kick complainant. Physical evidence on
record runs counter to the testimonial evidence of the defense witnesses, in
which case the former prevails. Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent
manifestation of truth, and it ranks high in the hierarchy of our trustworthy
evidence.14 It is inconsequential whether complainant did not sustain
injuries on the other parts of her body. The fact that complainant was
found to have sustained injuries, no matter how slight, on her face is
sufficient to convict the accused.

In its attempt to exonerate the accused, the defense tries to impute ill
or improper motive on the part of the complainant in filing the instant case.
The defense claims that complainant harbors ill feelings against the
accused because they had several heated altercations and misunderstand.
Accused’s flimsy allegation deserves scant consideration. Ill-motives
become inconsequential if there is an affirmative and credible declaration
10
TSN of February 22, 2019, pp. 8-11.
11
TSN of August 23, 2019, p.7.
12
Exhibits “B”, Record, p. 11.
13
Exhibit “C”, Record, p.11.
14
People v. Uycoque, 246 SCRA 769 [1995].
7|Page
JUDGMENT
Criminal Case No. 18-20828
Page |8

from the complainant that accused indeed inflict injuries on her, which
clearly establishes the liability of the accused. Settled is the rule that alibi
and denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony and
identification of an accused by the complainant. Positive identification
where categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill motive on
the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over a denial
which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative
and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. They cannot be
given greater evidentiary value over the testimony of credible witnesses
who testify on affirmative matters.15

As to the penalty, Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code, as

amended by R.A. No. 10951, provides that the crime of Slight Physical
Injuries shall be punished by arresto menor when the offender has inflicted
physical injuries which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor from
one to nine days, or shall require medical attendance during the same
period. There being no generic mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the
penalty shall be imposed in its medium period 16 which is eleven (11) to
twenty (20) days.

As to the award of damages,

Under par. (1), Art. 2219 of the Civil Code, moral damages may be
recovered in a criminal offense resulting in physical injuries. Moral
damages compensate for the mental anguish, serious anxiety, and moral
shock suffered by the victim and his family as being a proximate result of
the wrongful act.17 In the instant case, there was nothing in the evidence of
the prosecution that showed that the victim suffered mental anguish,
serious anxiety and moral shock as a result of the wrongful actions of the
accused against him.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds accused

EDWIN SABULAO GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Slight Physical Injuries. Accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the straight
penalty of twenty (20) days of arresto menor.

SO ORDERED.
November 20, 2020, Navotas City.

AMY S. RIVAS-MAGDANGAL
Presiding Judge

15
People v. Ernesto Gani y Tupas, G.R. No. 195523 [June 5, 2013].
16
Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code.
17
Calaoagan vs. People, G.R. No.222974, March 20, 2019.
8|Page
JUDGMENT
Criminal Case No. 18-20828
Page |9

Copy Furnished:

SACP Golda Pablo-Salamat

Office of the Public Prosecution
Navotas City

Atty. Sabrina C. Datu

Defense Counsel
Public Attorney’s Office

Charito Ambrocio
Complainant
Blk. 36, Lot 38, Phase 1-A, Asohos St., Brgy. NBBS, Kaunlaran Village
Navotas City

Edwin Sabulao
Accused
Blk. 46, Lot 39 Phase 1-A, Asuhos St., Brgy. NBBS, Kaunlaran Village
Navotas City

9|Page