Borja vs. People

A conviction under Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 9262 for physical violence requires proof that the offended party is a woman with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship, and that the offender caused bodily or physical harm upon her; the positive, unequivocal testimony of the victim, when corroborated by medical findings, prevails over bare denial and unsubstantiated claims of self-inflicted injury. Factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive on the Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, absent any showing of abuse, arbitrariness, or capriciousness.

Rommel Z. Borja and Aileen Joy G. Adriatico were live-in partners residing at Borja’s house in Orion, Bataan. On the night of August 3, 2016, after returning from Manila, the two were about to sleep. When Adriatico asked Borja to face her, he became enraged, retrieved a firearm from a nearby cabinet, tucked it in his waist, approached Adriatico, grabbed her shirt, squeezed her collar, held her hands tightly, and punched her left leg repeatedly while shouting profanities at her. The following day, he continued to threaten her via text messages, stating he would ruin her life and businesses. Adriatico reported the incident to the police, executed a sworn statement, and was medically examined at Bataan General Hospital. The medico-legal report confirmed hematoma on her right hand and the lateral side of her left leg, requiring three to nine days of medical attention.

• Nature of the relationship: Private complainant Aileen Joy G. Adriatico and petitioner Rommel Z. Borja were live-in partners who had a sexual relationship. They resided together in Borja’s house in Orion, Bataan. Adriatico operated spa businesses in Balanga City, Bataan, and Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija; Borja was a contractor for the Department of Public Works and Highways.

• The incident: On August 3, 2016, the couple returned home from Manila. At around 1:30 a.m., as they were about to sleep, Adriatico asked Borja to face her. Borja suddenly became furious, took a gun from a cabinet near the bed, tucked it in his waist, approached Adriatico, grabbed her by the collar of her shirt, held her hands tightly, and punched her left leg three times while shouting “putang ina mo.”

• Subsequent threats and reporting: The following day, Borja sent Adriatico text messages threatening to ruin her life and her businesses. Adriatico proceeded to the Orion Municipal Police Station, where she executed a sworn statement detailing the attack. The police referred her to Bataan General Hospital for medical examination.

• Medical findings: The medico-legal report disclosed that Adriatico sustained a hematoma on her right hand and on the lateral side of her left leg. The injuries required medical attention and incapacitated her from labor for three to nine days. She also later applied for a Barangay Protection Order against Borja.

• Defense version: Borja denied the allegation. He claimed that on the night in question, he and Adriatico chatted with his mother, bathed together, and prepared for bed. Adriatico insisted they face each other and have sexual intercourse, but he declined because he was tired, and they eventually fell asleep. He asserted that all was well the next day and they had breakfast together. He further argued that Adriatico was capable of self-harm and had previously slashed her own wrists, implying that her injuries were self-inflicted. He also presented a PNP certification that he was not a registered firearm holder.

• Lower court findings: The RTC found that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all elements of violation of Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 9262. It gave full credence to Adriatico’s positive, unequivocal testimony over Borja’s bare denial. The CA affirmed these factual findings in toto, emphasizing that the documentary evidence—sworn statement, medico-legal report, authenticated text messages, and victim’s consistent identification—constituted sufficient proof.

• Mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender: Petitioner contended that the CA gravely erred in affirming the RTC judgment without appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in his favor.

• Incredibility of the complainant’s account: Petitioner insisted that Adriatico’s narrative—that he became angry and violent merely because she asked him to sleep face-to-face—was highly illogical, contrary to human experience, and unbelievable.

• Self-inflicted injuries: Petitioner maintained that he had no knowledge of how Adriatico sustained her bruises and claimed that she was capable of inflicting injury upon herself, citing a prior incident where she allegedly slashed her own wrists in a suicide attempt.

• Credibility of prosecution evidence: The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the People, argued that the CA correctly upheld the RTC’s factual findings because the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were unequivocal, definite, straightforward, and consistent with each other and with the physical evidence.

• Guilt for physical violence under Section 5(a) of R.A. No. 9262: Whether petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 9262, considering his challenge to the credibility of the private complainant’s testimony, his claim of self-inflicted injury, and the alleged failure to appreciate voluntary surrender.

• Guilt for physical violence under Section 5(a) of R.A. No. 9262: The petition was denied, and the conviction was affirmed. Factual findings of the trial court, especially when adopted and confirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, and the Court found no reason to deviate from them. The prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that: (1) Aileen Joy G. Adriatico is a woman; (2) she and petitioner had a sexual and dating relationship, as petitioner himself admitted in open court; and (3) petitioner caused physical harm upon her by gripping her hands tightly and punching her leg, resulting in hematoma that incapacitated her for three to nine days, as documented in the medico-legal report. The trial court’s assessment of the credibility of the complainant’s categorical and unequivocal testimony was accorded great weight and respect; bare denial and unsubstantiated assertions of self-inflicted injury could not overcome the positive identification corroborated by medical and documentary evidence, including petitioner’s own sarcastic admissions in text messages. The question of voluntary surrender was not reached, as the core issue hinged on the factual finding of guilt.

• Elements of physical violence under Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 9262 — The crime requires proof of: (1) the offended party is a woman and/or her child; (2) the woman is the wife, former wife, or a woman with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child; and (3) the offender caused physical harm upon the said woman and/or child. Here, all elements were satisfied by the complainant’s testimony, petitioner’s admission of a sexual relationship, and the medico-legal report showing injuries.

• Finality of factual findings in Rule 45 petitions — Findings of fact of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive on the Supreme Court, and will not be disturbed absent any clear showing of abuse, arbitrariness, or capriciousness. This doctrine is rooted in the trial court’s unique vantage point in observing the deportment and demeanor of witnesses.

• Penalty for slight physical injuries under Section 5(a) in relation to Section 6(a) of R.A. No. 9262 — Acts constituting slight physical injuries (incapacitating the offended party for labor from one to nine days, or requiring medical attendance during the same period) are punished by arresto mayor with a range of one month and one day to six months. The Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply because the law excludes from its coverage penalties not exceeding one year. In addition to imprisonment, the perpetrator shall pay a fine of not less than PHP 100,000 but not more than PHP 300,000, and undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.

• Community service in lieu of imprisonment under Republic Act No. 11362 (Community Service Act) — The court may, in its discretion, allow the penalties of arresto menor and arresto mayor to be served through community service instead of jail. However, the court must consider the gravity of the offense and the circumstances of the case. It was not applied here because of the seriousness of the offense, the special protection afforded to women as “usual victims” of violence, and the need to deter petitioner’s reprehensible behavior.

• Moral damages for physical injuries — Under Article 2219(1) of the New Civil Code, moral damages may be recovered in a criminal offense resulting in physical injuries. PHP 5,000 was deemed appropriate for slight physical injuries.

• “The Court must stress that great weight and respect are accorded to the RTC and the CA’s factual findings in criminal prosecutions because the observance of the deportment and demeanor of witnesses are within the exclusive domain of the lower courts. Due to their unique vantage point, ‘trial courts in particular are in the best position to assess and evaluate the credibility and truthfulness of witnesses and their testimonies’ and their factual findings are binding ‘absent any clear showing of abuse, arbitrariness, or capriciousness.’” — This passage reinforces the binding nature of lower courts’ factual assessments on appeal.

• “Denial, as a defense, is inherently weak and is viewed with disfavor by the courts due to the facility with which it can be concocted. The same cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by the prosecution witness.” — The Court invoked this principle in rejecting petitioner’s bare denial against the complainant’s positive and corroborated testimony.

• Pryce Properties Corp. v. Nolasco, Jr., 879 Phil. 292 (2020) — Cited for the rule that factual issues are not appropriate in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 and that findings of fact of the CA are generally binding.

• People v. XXX, 891 Phil. 655 (2020) — Cited to support the principle that the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is binding on appeal unless significant matters were overlooked.

• Quimvel v. People, 808 Phil. 889 (2017) — Cited for the doctrine that great weight and respect are accorded to the RTC and CA’s factual findings because trial courts are in the best position to assess witness credibility.

• Garcia v. Drilon, 712 Phil. 44 (2013) — Invoked in relation to the State’s policy of providing special protection to women and children against violence and abuse, which justified denial of community service.

• People v. Villacorta, 672 Phil. 712 (2011) — Cited for the recovery of moral damages under Article 2219(1) of the Civil Code in crimes resulting in physical injuries.

• Javarez v. People, 881 Phil. 546 (2020) — Authority for the award of PHP 5,000 as moral damages for slight physical injuries.

• People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Established the legal interest rate of 6% per annum on damages from finality of judgment until fully paid.

• Section 3(a), Republic Act No. 9262 — Defines “violence against women and their children,” encompassing physical violence committed against a woman with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship, resulting in physical harm or suffering. The Court applied this to locate petitioner’s acts within the statute’s protective scope.

• Section 5(a), Republic Act No. 9262 — Penalizes causing physical harm to the woman or her child. The elements were proven: Adriatico is a woman in a dating relationship with petitioner, and he caused her physical harm.

• Section 6(a), Republic Act No. 9262 — Prescribes the penalty of arresto mayor for acts under Section 5(a) constituting slight physical injuries, plus a fine of at least PHP 100,000 and mandatory psychological counseling. The Court imposed imprisonment, a PHP 100,000 fine, and counseling.

• Article 266(1), Revised Penal Code — Defines slight physical injuries as those incapacitating the offended party for labor from one to nine days or requiring medical attendance for the same period. The victim’s injuries fell under this article, meriting the corresponding penalty under R.A. No. 9262.

• Section 2, Indeterminate Sentence Law — Excludes from its coverage offenses where the maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year. Because the penalty of arresto mayor does not exceed six months, the Indeterminate Sentence Law was inapplicable.

• Section 3, Republic Act No. 11362 (Community Service Act) — Allows community service in lieu of arresto menor and arresto mayor in the court’s discretion, considering the gravity of the offense and circumstances. The Court declined to apply this provision due to the seriousness of the offense and the need to protect women.

• Article 2219(1), New Civil Code — Allows recovery of moral damages in criminal offenses resulting in physical injuries. PHP 5,000 in moral damages was awarded.

Caguioa (Chairperson), Gaerlan, Dimaampao, and Singh, JJ., concurred.