Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court of the Philippines

10th Judicial Region
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
Branch 2, Hall of Justice
Libertad, Butuan City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

-versus- CRIMINAL CASE No. 26442

For: Slight Physical Injuries

CAREL MAE CABARON y

LUYAHAN,
Accused.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
NOTICE OF APPEAL

Accused-appellant, through the undersigned counsel,

and within the reglementary period prescribed by the
Rules of Court hereby files this notice of appeal from
the judgment of conviction rendered by this Honorable
Court and appeals the said judgment to the Regional Trial
Court.

Butuan City, Philippines, December 8, 2016.

PRIAM LAW FIRM

Counsel for Accused-Appellant
Luz Village, Butuan City
By:

ATTY. AIKO ELENI PALER

IBP Lifetime No. I-123456; 5/10/2016
PTR No. P-123456; 1/10/2016
Roll of Attorneys No. 2016-10098
MCLE Compliance No. M-12345

CC: ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR JOSE NIKKO M. MENCIDOR

Office of the City Prosecutor
JC Aquino Avenue, Butuan City
 Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court of the Philippines
10th Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Hall of Justice
Libertad, Butuan City

CAREL MAE CABARON y

LUYAHAN,
Appellant,

-versus- CRIMINAL CASE No. 26442

For: Slight Physical Injuries

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Appellee.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLANT

PRIAM LAW FIRM

Counsel for Accused-Appellant
Luz Village, Butuan City
___________________________

INDEX

Page
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS ------------------------ 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ----------------------- 1
STATEMENT OF FACTS -------------------------- 2
STATEMENT OF ISSUES ------------------------- 3
ARGUMENT ------------------------------------ 4
PRAYER --------------------------------------

CASES CITED

STATUTES CITED
 Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court of the Philippines
10th Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Hall of Justice
Libertad, Butuan City

CAREL MAE CABARON y

LUYAHAN,
Appellant,

-versus- CRIMINAL CASE No. 26442

For: Slight Physical Injuries

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Appellee.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLANT

I. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

1. The Municipal Trial Court committed reversible error

in convicting the accused-appellant for the crime of
Slight Physical Injuries.

2. The Municipal Trial Court committed a reversible

error in awarding the plaintiff-appellee the amount
of Php 50,000 as actual damages, Php 10,000.00 as
moral damages, and Php 10,000.00 as nominal damages.

II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction by

the court a quo against the accused-appellant for the
crime of Slight Physical Injuries.

The controversy involved in this case arose when

one Archibald R. Quistadio indicted accused-appellant
Carel Mae L. Cabaron for the crime of slight physical
injuries as the former claims that he was unjustly
kicked in the groin by the latter, causing him to be
hospitalized for several days. The latter however
denies the assertion as she claims that her act was
justified for she was only protecting and preserving
her honor against real and imminent danger and injury.
 III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

3. Complainant and Accused were friends who first met

last June 20, 2015 at a town fiesta after the
complainants best friend, Jose Wilson Esparcia,
Jr., introduced the former to the latter. However,
they did not become close friends thereafter
because the accused did not find the complainants
character interesting and pleasing.

4. Complainant allegedly began courting the accused

last July 1, 2015 however the accused never
expressed her consent in any way because the latter
never felt that the former was serious about his
courtship as she often see him fooling around with
other women.

5. At around 4 oclock in the afternoon of July 8,

2016, the complainant together with his best
friend, Jose Wilson Esparcia, Jr., proceeded to the
accuseds house.

6. Accused was on her way to a sari-sari store to buy

soy sauce and was accompanied by her best friend
and neighbor, Precious Tancinco.

7. At about 5:02 in the afternoon, complainant

together with Jose Wilson Eparcia, Jr., arrived and
immediately saw the accused at the sari-sari store
near her house. Complainant then approached her,
bringing with him one stem of Vanda orchid and
three pieces of bar nuts.

8. When the complainant was near enough to the

accused, the former placed his arm over the
latters shoulder because of which the accused
immediately moved away. When the accused turned to
see who it was, she figured it was the complainant
who was then looking at her with a smirk. The
complainant greeted the accused with Hi, baby
girl and handed over the stem of Vanda orchid and
the three bar nuts. The latter refused to take the
orchid and the bar nuts and warned the former not
to place his arm over her shoulder because she
doesnt like him doing that and that she has
 already a boyfriend. However, the complainant did
not heed to the accuseds warning and instead
pulled her towards him. The accused warned him for
the second time with a stronger tone of voice to
take away his arm but the complainant replied,
Sugta na lagi ko mas lamion pako kaysa imong uyab,
sige na Carel, ako nalang pilia. He then pulled
the accused closer to him again and this time with
a strong grip, slowly neared his face towards the
accuseds cheek and pouted his lips as if trying to
kiss the latter. In order to defend herself from
imminent danger to her honor, the accused kicked
the complainant but did not expect to hit the
complainants in the groin area.

9. Accused saw the complainant fell to the ground. She

then immediately went to Aling Golda to get the soy
sauce she was buying, walked away with Precious
Tancinco and returned to their respective houses.

10. A confrontation between the complainant and the

accused took place before the Punong Barangay of
Barangay Libertad but no settlement was reached
because the accused believes that she is the real
aggrieved party and that she cannot just take the
blame for something that in first place the
complainant must be blamed for as she was just
defending her honor against someone who is about to
taint and destroy it.

IV. STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether or not the Municipal Trial Court is correct

convicting the accused-appellant for the crime of
Slight Physical Injuries.

2. Whether or not the Municipal Trial Court is correct

in awarding the plaintiff-appellee the amount of Php
50,000 as actual damages, Php 10,000.00 as moral
damages, and Php 10,000.00 as nominal damages.

V. ARGUMENTS
1. The Municipal Trial Court is incorrect in
convicting the accused-appellant for the crime of
Slight Physical Injuries.

The lower court anchored its decision upon the

alleged admission by the accused in her judicial
affidavit of a defense of one mitigating circumstance
particularly the line which says,

x x x But I did not intend to hit him in the

groin. Maybe it was out of anger and frustration to
let loose from his grip that I was not able to guard
my actions. x x x

The mitigating circumstance referred by the said

lower court was paragraph 3 of Article 13 of the
Revised Penal Code which provides,

[t]hat the offender had no intention to commit

so grave a wrong as that committed.

However, according to U.S. v. Reyes, 36 Phil

904, 907,

The circumstance can be taken into account ONLY

WHEN the facts proven show that there is a notable
and evident disproportion between the means employed
to execute the criminal act and its consequences.

It should be considered that the accused in

this case only had a limited period of time within
which to act. In fact, she only had a matter of
seconds in order to prevent the aggressor from
consummating his unlawful intentions. Because of
the brevity of the matter of time available to her,
she was left with no choice but to act on instinct
at once. The accused contended that she was held
tightly by the arm, tight enough to prevent her
from getting away from the grip. So when she
noticed that the complainant was about to kiss her
and was already close enough, the only thing she
could do was to do what she has done, and that is,
to kick him, unmindful of where her knee might land
as long as he gets distracted.

Therefore, it cannot be said that there exists

a notable and evident disproportion between the
means employed and the consequence thereof as
kicking the complainant was the only feasible means
the accused could employ under the circumstances.
The accuseds response therefore, to the imminent
danger to his honor caused by the complainant is
but just and adequate considering the surrounding
circumstances.

And since the required circumstance of notable

and evident disproportion between the means
employed and its consequences is wanting, the
provision cited above cannot apply.

Citing, Boado, Leonor D. (2012). Notes and

Cases on the Revised Penal Code. Quezon City,
Philippines: Rex Printing Company, Inc.,

In determining whether the defender has chosen

a reasonable means to defend himself, self-
preservation is of paramount consideration. A
person trapped by circumstances of person, time and
place will not examine the weapon of the aggressor
and calculate the weapon that he should use,
whether or not it is proportionate to that of the
aggressor. The only thing in mind of a trapped
defender is how to preserve his life from imminent
peril.

On the other hand, on the aspect of alleged

lack of intention as professed by the accused in
her judicial affidavit, intention being an internal
state, must be judged by external acts.

Hence, in the case of People v. Orongan, et.

Al., 58 Phil. 426, 429, when the defendant alleged
as mitigating circumstance that he did not intend
to commit so grave an injury, the court ruled that
the plea was groundless since the defendant used a
knife six inches long therefore, the fatal injury
was the natural and almost inevitable consequence.

Further, as ruled by the court in People v.

Flores, 50 Phil. 548, 551,

Intention must be judged by considering the

weapon used, the injury inflicted, and his attitude
of the mind when the accused attacked the deceased

Therefore, the weapon used, the part of the

body injured, the injury inflicted, and the manner
it is inflicted may show that the accused intended
the wrong committed.
 When the accused decided to kick the
complainant she knew very well that she would cause
him pain such pain that would make him loosen his
grip and free her. She knew she might him hit him
in the groin as raising his knee could reach his
groin and even if it might if she raised it high
enough she still proceeded with the act as she
believes it is the only feasible way to stop the
complainant and free her from his grip.

More importantly, the accused did not admit a

defense of one mitigating circumstance when she
professed that she did not intend to hit the
complainant in the groin. It should be noticed that
the accused gave a direct answer when she was asked
on what she did after the complainant tried to kiss
her and that is, she kicked him. She then added that
she had to defend herself from imminent danger to her
honor because she was being sexually harassed. The
accuseds state of mind therefore, was that she had
to kick him otherwise he would succeed in kissing
her. Without doubt, the accused admitted that she
kicked the complainant because she felt the need of
doing it and was compelled to do so under the
circumstances otherwise the complainant would succeed
in transgressing her honor. She therefore, intended
to kick and do whatever it takes in order to stop the
complainant from whatever he was doing. NOW, it would
be absurd if we regard the initial statements as
implying one thing and the subsequent statements as
another. The subsequent statements therefore only
serve to justify the preceding ones.

Hence, when the accused said in her judicial

affidavit that she did not intend to hit him in the
groin what she meant was that she did not want to
hurt the complainant however, she was left with no
choice given the proximity of the complainants face
to hers and the brevity of time in consummating the
complainants unlawful intension towards her because
under a different circumstance she would not do what
she has done. On the contrary, she did not regret in
one way or another that she had done what she did to
the complainant as she was just defending her honor
against imminent danger and injury which every woman
considers her priced possession.
 2. The Municipal Trial Court is not correct in awarding
the plaintiff-appellee the amount of Php 50,000 as
actual damages.

Article 2199 of the new Civil Code provides:

Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one

is entitled to an adequate compensation only for
such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has
duly proved. Such compensation is referred to as
actual or compensatory damages.

He who claims actual or compensatory damages must

establish and prove by competent evidence actual
pecuniary loss.In in OMC Carriers, Inc. v. Nabua, G.R.
No. 148974, July 2, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that:

For one to be entitled to actual damages, it is

necessary to prove the actual amount of loss
with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised
upon competent proof and the best evidence
obtainable by the injured party. Actual damages
are such compensation or damages for an injury
that will put the injured party in the position
in which he had been before he was injured. They
pertain to such injuries or losses that are
actually sustained and susceptible of
measurement. To justify an award for actual
damages, there must be competent proof of the
actual amount of loss (emphasis supplied).
Credence can be given only to claims which are
duly supported by receipts.

In the same vein, the High Court held in PNOC Shipping

and Transport Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
107518 October 8, 1998:

A party is entitled to adequate compensation

only for such pecuniary loss actually suffered
and duly proved (emphasis supplied). Indeed,
basic is the rule that to recover actual
damages, the amount of loss must not only be
capable of proof but must actually be proven
with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised
upon competent proof or best evidence obtainable
of the actual amount thereof. 2 The claimant is
duty-bound to point out specific facts that
afford a basis for measuring whatever
3
compensatory damages are borne. A court cannot
merely rely on speculations, conjectures, or
guesswork as to the fact and amount of damages 4
 as well as hearsay 5 or uncorroborated testimony
whose truth is suspect.

In the instant case, the award of P50,000.00 as actual

damages was not convincingly proved by competent and
admissible evidence. The complainant merely presented a
pro forma receipt allegedly issued by the hospital in
which the complainant was admitted. However, said receipt
was not in any way signed by an authorized representative
of the hospital, which makes it incredible and self-
serving. There was no witness presented who would
corroborate complainants claim on the exact amount he
paid the hospital for the treatment of injuries he
allegedly sustained. For this reason, complainants claim
that he sustained actual damages in the amount of
P50,000.00 should be disregarded because it was a mere
assertion, and there was no competent corroborating
evidence presentedwhether testimonial or documentary.

An evidence that is presented for the purpose of proving

the contents thereof is deemed to be a documentary
evidence. The Rules of Court provides that for a
documentary evidence to be admissible, the following
requisites must concur:

1. The evidence is relevant;

2. The evidence has been authenticated;
3. The evidence has been authenticated by a competent
witness; and
4. The evidence is formally offered as evidence in
court.

Applying the foregoing rules in the case at bar, the

hospital receipt presented by the complainant is clearly
inadmissible for lack of the second and third requisites.
The evidence was not authenticated due to the lack of
signature of a duly authorized representative of the
hospital. Furthermore, the evidence was not authenticated
by a competent witness as there was no witness presented
to identify the receipt as the same instrument issued by
the hospital to complainant.

Therefore, being inadmissible in evidence, the claim of

complainant as to actual damages must fail for being
unsubstantiated and self-serving.
 3. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most

respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that the
questioned Judgment dated November 19, 2016 issued by the
Municipal Trial Court in Cities in Criminal Case No.
26442 in favor of the appellee be set aside and annulled.

Such other reliefs as maybe deemed just and equitable

under the premises.

Butuan City, Philippines, December 8, 2016.

PRIAM LAW FIRM

Counsel for Accused-Appellant
Luz Village, Butuan City
By:

ATTY. AIKO ELENI PALER

IBP Lifetime No. I-123456; 5/10/2016
PTR No. P-123456; 1/10/2016
Roll of Attorneys No. 2016-10098
MCLE Compliance No. M-12345
CC: ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR JOSE NIKKO M. MENCIDOR
Office of the City Prosecutor
JC Aquino Avenue, Butuan City

VERIFICATION

I, CAREL MAE L. CABARON, of legal age, Filipino,

single, and residing at Purok 3A, Barangay Libertad,
Butuan City after being duly sworn to in accordance with
law, depose and attest:

That I am the Accused in the above titled case; that

I have caused the preparation of the foregoing position
paper and understood the contents thereof, and I hereby
declare that all the allegations contained therein are
true and correct according to my personal knowledge and
based on authentic records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this

7th day of October 2016, City of Butuan, Philippines.

CAREL MAE L. CABARON

Affiant
CTC No. 12345
Issued on: January 1, 2016
Issued at: Butuan City
Drivers License No. 12345
Issued on: January 1, 2016
Issued at: Butuan City

J U R A T

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this 7th day of

October 2016, in the City of Butuan, Philippines, affiant
having exhibited to me her Community Tax Certificate No.
12345 issued on January 1, 2016 and Drivers License No.
12345 issued on January 1, 2016 both at Butuan City,
Philippines.

ATTY. AIKO ELENI PALER

Counsel for Accused
Until December 31, 2016
 PRIAM LAW FIRM
Luz Village, Butuan City
Doc. No. 01 PTR No. P-123456
Page No. 01 TIN 111-163-224
Book No. 01 IBP No. I-123456
Series of 2016. Roll No. 2016-10098

CC: ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR JOSE NIKKO M. MENCIDOR

Office of the City Prosecutor
JC Aquino Avenue, Butuan City