l\epublit of tbe ~bilippines

~upreme (!Court
;fffilanila

THIRD DIVISION

ROMMEL Z. BORJA, G.R. No. 258417

Petitioner,
Present:

CAGUIOA, J., Chairperson,

INTING,
- versus - GAERLAN,
DIMAAMPAO, and
SINGH,JJ.

Promulgated:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
January 29, 2024
Respondent.
X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~\ ~~-..,~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
,

DECISION

INTING,J.:

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 under Rule

45 of the Rules of Court filed by Rommel Z. Borja (petitioner) which
assails the Decision2 dated October 13, 2020, and the Resolution3 dated
November 22, 2021 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No.
41059. The CA affirmed the Judgment4 dated January 5, 2018, of Branch
93, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Balanga City, Bataan in Criminal Case
No. 16965 that found petitioner guilty of violation of Section 5 (a) of
Republic Act No. 9262 otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence Against

1
Rollo, pp. 34-53.
2
Id. at 12-27. Penned by Associate Justice Alfredo D. Ampuan and concurred in by Associate
Justices Pedro B. Corales and Pablito A. Perez.
3
Id. at 29-30.
4
Id. at 77-90. Penned by Presiding Judge Philger Noel B. Inovejas.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 258417

Women and Their Children Act of 2004," 5 committed against his live-in
partner and herein private complainant Aileen Joy G. Adriatico (Aileen). 6

Meanwhile, in Criminal Case No. 16966, the RTC acquitted

petitioner of violating Section 5(e)(4) 7 of the same law for failure of the
prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Antecedents

The case stemmed from two separate Infonnations charging

petitioner with violation of Sections 5(a) and 5(e)(4) of Republic Act No.
9262.The accusatory portions of the Informations read:

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 16965

[Violation of Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 9262]

That on or about August 3, 2016, in Orion, Bataan, Philippines,

and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused,
then and there inflict physical harm on his live-in partner Aileen Joy G.
Adriatico, while a gun was tucked in his waist, by then and there
grabbing her shirt, holding her hands tightly and punching her
repeatedly, as a result of which, the latter sustained physical injuries
which required medical attention for three (3) to nine (9) days or
incapacitated her for labor for the same period, to the damage and
prejudice of the said Aileen Joy G. Adriatico.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 8

Republic Act No. 9262, sec. 5 (a) states:

sec. 5. Acts of Violence Against Women and Their Children. ~ The crime of violence against
women and their children is committed through any of the following acts:
(a) Causing physical hann to the woman or her child[.]
6 Pursuant to Amended Administrative Circular No.83-2015, dated September 5, 2017, which
requires the preparation of a first copy of Decisions/Resolutions/Orders where the real or genuine
name/s or identities and personal circumstances of the victim/s are used.
7 Republic Act No. 9262, sec. 5(e) states:
sec. 5....

(e) Attempting to compel or compelling the woman or her child to engage in conduct which the
woman or her child has the right to desist from or desist from conduct which the woman or her
child has the right to engage in, or attempting to restrict or restricting the woman's or her child's
freedom of movement or conduct by force or threat of force, physical or other hann or threat of
physical or other harm, or intimidat.ion directed against the woman or child. This shall include, but
not limited to, the following acts committed with the purpose or effect of controlling or restricting
the woman's or her child's movement or conduct:

4. Preventing the woman in engaging in any legitimate profession, occupation, business or

activity or controlling the victim's own money or properties, or solely controlling the conjugal or
common money, or properties[.]
Rollo, p. 77. -
Decision 3 G.R. No. 258417

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 16966

[Violation of Section 5(e)(4) of Republic Act No. 9262]

That on or about August 3, 2016, in Orion, Bataan, Philippines,

and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused,
did then and there willfully and feloniously threatening [sic] to close
the business of his live-in partner Aileen Joy G. Adriatico, with the
effect of restricting her movement or conduct, to her damage and
prejudice.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 9

Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded "Not Guilty" to the charges. 10

Trial on the merits ensued.11

Version of the Prosecution

Private complainant Aileen is a businesswoman who operated spas

in Balanga City, Bataan, and Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija; while
petitioner, her former boyfriend, is a contractor for the Department of
Public Works and Highways. Aileen and petitioner were common-law
partners and were living in the latter's house in Orion, Bataan. On August
3, 2016, they came home from Manila. When they were about to sleep,
Aileen asked petitioner that they face each other while sleeping. Petitioner
suddenly took: his gun from the cabinet nearby and tucked it on his waist.
Armed with the gun, petitioner walked towards Aileen and grabbed her by
the collar of her shirt. He gripped her hand and punched her left leg thrice
while uttering ''putang ina mo. " 12

The following day, petitioner continued to threaten Aileen through

text messages. Petitioner said that he will ruin her life and her businesses.
At that point, Aileen went to the Orion Municipal Police Station where
she executed her sworn statement detailing the previous night's incident.
The Police Station then referred her to the Bataan General Hospital (BGH)
for medical examination. Based on the Medico-Legal Report, 13 Aileen
sustained hem.atom.a on her right hand and on the lateral side of her left
leg which incapacitated her to work. 14
9
Id. at 77-78.
10
Id. at 14.
II Id.
12
Id. at 14-15; See also id. at 78.
13 Records, p. 9.
14
Rollo, p. 15.

(jJl
Decision 4 G.R. No. 258417

Version of the Defense

For his. defense, petitioner denied the allegations against him. He

alleged that on August 3, 2016, when he and Aileen arrived at their house,
they chatted with his mother about their trip to DPWH Manila and his
upcoming projects. Thereafter, they took a bath together and dressed up
for bed. In bed, Aileen insisted that they face each other and have sexual
intercourse. Feeling tired however, he denied her request until they finally
dozed off. All was well the following day and they had breakfast
together. 15

The Ruling of the RTC

In a Judgment 16 dated January 5, 2018, the RTC found petitioner

guilty of violating Section 5(a} of Republic Act No. 9262, but acquitted
him of the charge under Section 5(e)(4) of the same law. 17 The RTC held
that the prosecution satisfied all the elements of violation of Section 5(a)
Republic Act No. 9262, given that petitioner, who was at that time in a
dating relationship with Aileen, inflicted physical harm upon the latter. It
further concluded that petitioner's bare denial of the charges cannot
prevail over Aileen's positive identification of him as the person who
physically harmed her. 18 Thefallo of the RTC Judgment reads:

WHEREFORE, accused ROMMEL BORJA y ZUNIGA is

ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. 16966 for failure of the
prosecution to prove his guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court finds accused ROMMEL BORJA y ZUNIGA in

Criminal Case No. 16965 GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Violence against Women as defined and penalized under
Section 5(a), R.A. 9262. He is hereby SENTENCED to suffer a straight
penalty of FOUR (4) MONTHS OF IMPRISONMENT of arresto
mayor. He is likewise ordered to PAY complainant [Aileen] the amount
of Five Hundred Pesos (Php500) as nominal damages, Five Thousand
Pesos (Php5,000.00) as moral damages, and Five Thousand Pesos
(Php5,000.00) as exemplary damages. The damages awarded shall earn
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from· the date of finality of the
judgment until fully paid.

15 Id. at 15-16.
16
Id. at 77-90.
17 Id. at 88-89.
18
Id. at 84.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 258417

SO ORDERED. 19

Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the CA. 20

The Ruling of the CA

In the assailed Decision,21 the CA affirmed the RTC Judgment in

toto. It noted that Aileen, who is a woman, had a sexual and dating
relationship with petitioner prior to the incident. 22 On August 3, 2016,
petitioner caused physical harm upon Aileen by gripping her hand tightly
and punching her leg. 23 Aileen's testimony was bolstered by her sworn
statement executed at the Orion Municipal Police Station, the Medico-
Legal Report, and the various authenticated text messages between her
and petitioner, among others. 24 In contrast, petitioner could only offer
denial and feeble attempts to evade culpability. 25 Absent any proof that
the RTC has overlooked a material fact, the CA upheld the R TC' s findings
and conclusion. The CA decreed as follows:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 5

January 2018 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 93, Balanga City,
Bataan is AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 26

Hence, the present petition. 27

In a Resolution28 dated November 23, 2022, the Court resolved to

require the Offic~ of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the People
of the Philippines, to comment on the petition.

Petitioner alleges that the CA committed a grave error when it

affirmed the RTC Judgment by failing to appreciate the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender in his favor. 29 Furthennore, he insists
that Aileen's assertion that he got angry, threatened her, and inflicted

19 Id. at 89-90.
20 See id. at 12.
21 Id. at 12-27.
22 Id. at 19-20.
23
Id. at 21.
24 Id. at 23.
25 Id. at 23-24.
26 Id. at 26.
27 Id. at 34-53.
28 Id. at 93-94.
29
Id. at 44-47.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 258417

violence upon her for the flimsy reason that he rejected her request to sleep
face-to-face was highly illogical, contrary to human experience, and
unbelievable. 30 Lastly, petitioner avers that he had no knowledge as to
how Aileen sustained her bruises. According to him, Aileen is capable of
inflicting injury upon herself; she slashed her own wrists in an attempt to
take her own life. 31

In its Comment, 32 the OSG states that the CA correctly upheld the
RTC's findings. According to the OSG, the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses were unequivocal, definite, and straightforward. They were also
consistent in material respects with each other and with other testimonies,
as well as the physical evidence. 33

Issue

The core issue to be resolved is whether petitioner is guilty beyond

reasonable doubt of violating Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 9262.

The Ruling of the Court

The Court denies the petition.

The Court finds no reason to deviate from the factual findings of

the RTC and the CA. The R TC' s findings, when adopted and confirmed
by the CA, are binding and conclusive on the Court. In the case, the issue
on which the petition is hinged is purely factual and not appropriate in a
34
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

In any case, Aileen's testimony was categorical and unequivocal.

She narrated that on August 3, 2016, at about 1:30 a.m., she asked
petitioner to face her as they were about to go to sleep. However,
petitioner got furious; he took a gun from the cabinet at the right side of
the bed and tucked it on his waist. He then went near Aileen, pulled her
shirt, and squeezed her collar. At that point, he held Aileen's hands and
35
punched her leg as he berated her and shouted: "putang ina mo/" The
RTC's determination of the credibility of the witness is seldom disturbed
on appeal unless significant matters were overlooked. Absent any

30 Id. at 48.
31 Id. at 49.
32 Id. at 109-120.
33 ld.atll7.
34 Pryce Properties Corp. v. Nolasco, Jr., 879 Phil. 292,301 (2020).
35 See rollo, pp. 14-15, 21-22, 82.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 258417

indication that the RTC committed any error in the evaluation of the
evidence, the Court sees no reason to deviate from the following factual
findings: 36

In Criminal Case No. 16965, the prosecution was able to

establish that the accused caused physical harm upon Aileen on August
03, 2016 at around 1:30 in the morning. At that particular time, Aileen
and the accused were inside the room of the accused in the latter's
house located at Brgy. Lati, Orion, Bataan. They just arrived from
Manila and they were about to sleep when the accused got angry when
Aileen wanted him to face her. The accused suddenly got furious[,]
took a gun from the cabinet and tucked the same in his waist. The
accused held her hands and then punched her leg. On August 4, 2016,
Aileen reported the incident to the police. At 3:56 in the afternoon on
August 4, 2016, Aileen went to Bataan General Hospital where she was
treated and was diagnoser- to have suffered hematoma in her right and
hematoma in the lateral I side of her left leg which injuries required
medical attention or intjapacitated her for three to nine days. The
accused's bare denial ca~not prevail over the positive testimony of the
accused. 37 i

Republic Act No. 9262 defines "violence against women and their
I

children" as follows: I

SECTION 3. Definition of Terms. - As used in this Act,

i
a. "Violence agaf nst women and their children"
refers to any act or a I series of acts committed by any person
against a woman who is ~is wife, former wife, or against a woman with
whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with
I

whom he has a common bhild, or against her child whether legitimate

or illegitimate, within or tithout the family abode, which result in or is
likely to result in physica[, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or
economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault,
coercion, harassment or a~bitrary deprivation of liberty. It includes, but
is not limited to, the folloiwing acts:
I

I
A. "Physical Violenbe" refers to acts that include bodily or
physical harm[.]

The law covers ph~sical violence: (1) when it is committed

against a woman or her chil~, if the woman is the offender's wife, former
wife, or someone with whdm the offender has or had sexual or dating
relationship or with whom hb has a common child; and (2) when it results
in or is likely to result in physical hann or suffering.
I

36 People v. XXX, 891 Phil. 655, 666-!667 (2020).

37
Rollo, p. 84.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 258417

Pertinently, Section 5 enumerates the different acts of violence that

are penalized by the law. This includes causing physical harm to the
woman or her child. The elements of violation of Section 5(a) ofRepublic
Act No. 9262, are present in the case; thus:

(1) The offended party is a woman and/or her child or children;

(2) The woman is either the wife or former wife of the offender, or is a
woman with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating
relationship, or is a woman with whom such offender has a common
child. As for the woman's child or children, they may be legitimate or
illegitimate, or living within or without the family abode; and

(3) The offender caused physical harm upon the said woman and/or her
child and/or children.

The CA properly held that petitioner's acts fall under the term
"physical violence" as punished by Republic Act No. 9262 and that there
is sufficient evidence to support petitioner's conviction. 38

The first and second elements are undisputed. Aileen is a woman

with whom petitioner had sexual relationship. 39 Petitioner admitted:

Q: Despite the fact that on August 3 you were sleeping together and you
admit that this came from you. And when you said mahal na mahal kita
and despite all of it Mr. Witness, you still denied that she was just your
friend and business partner?
A: Actually sir, we do not have a label such as girlfriend and boyfriend
because first of all she has husband and a child. And at the same time she
also has a boyfriend at that time. And we are concealing our relationship
because of that reason sir.

Q: So meaning to say that despite she was your love making body [sic] still
she was just your friend?
A: We are special friend's [sic] sir, because of the frequent time, long time
that we are together we develop a special feelings toward each other sir.

Q: So meaning Mr. Witness, you have this sexual relationship with the
beautiful complaining witness?
40
A: I admit sir, that we have had a sexual relationship sir.

As regards the third element, the Court notes that Aileen's

allegations were consistent with the medical diagnosis of the BGH that
she suffered hematoma both in her right hand and in the lateral side of her
38 Id. at 11-12.
39 See id. at 20.
40 Id. at 20-21.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 258417

left leg. By reason of her injuries, she was incapacitated for three to nine
days. The CA discussed:

Furthermore, in support of her testimony [Aileen] sufficiently

presented other documentary evidence to bolster her accusations
namely: (1) sworn statement she executed at the Orion Municipal
Police Station; (2) Medico-Legal Report; (3) various authenticated text
messages between her and Borja; (4) several other documents that
confirm Borja's cellphone number (calling card, bid forms, RZB
company profile). Noticeably also, the incident has left [Aileen] shaken
as she applied for a Barangay Protection Order against Borja on 24
November 2016.

In an attempt to escape liability, Borja denies inflicting physical

harm on [Aileen] and insists that the evidence he presented [,]
specifically photographs and a PNP Certification of No Fire Arms [,]
would reveal that [Aileen] inflicted them on herself. However, Borja's
testimony remains self-serving and did nothing to refute [Aileen]'s
allegations. The same can b,e said about [his mother] Cristina's
testimony given that she is naturally interested in his acquittal.

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.

In this case, Borja could only offer constant denial of the crime
charged and feeble attempts to evade culpability. Assuming arguendo
that indeed [Aileen] has the propensity to inflict self-harm, this does
not predude the possibility that the injuries she sustained as reflected
in the Medico-Legal report were inflicted by Borja. Similarly, the PNP
Certificate of No Fire Arms is, at most, a proof that Borja is not a
registered firearms holder but this does not also forego the probability
that he is possessing such weapon illegally.

Meanwhile, [Aileen] has consistently positively identified

Borja as her assailant. More importantly, per text messages she offered
as exhibits, it was revealed that Borja himself admitted, albeit
sarcastically downplaying the act, to inflicting physical harm on
[Aileen].

As against Borja's bare denial of the crime charged versus

[Aileen]' s testimony coupled with ample pieces of documentary
evidence, We find [Aileen]' s version of facts worthy of credence. Thus,
absent any proof that the RTC has overlooked a material fact which
[Aileen] has successfully established, We uphold the RTC's findings of
fact. 41

41
Id. at 23-25.
 Decision G.R. No. 258417

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
te,stimonies" and their factual findings are binding "absent any clear
showing of abuse, arbitrariness, or capriciousness." 42 In the case, the
Court appreciates the manner by which the RTC relayed its observations
regarding the deportment and demeanor of the witness, Aileen. Thus, the
Court fully adopts the findings of fact of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA.

Penalties and Damages

It is undisputed that Aileen's physical injury required three to nine

days of medical attention. Hence, it falls under Article 266(1) of the
Revised Penal Code which states:

Article 266. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment. - 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.

Under Section 6(a) of Republic Act No. 9262, 43 acts falling under
Section S(a) constituting slight physical injuries shall be punished by
arres to mayor with the range of one ( 1) month and one ( 1) day to six (6)
months. The Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply as the said law
excludes from its coverage cases where the penalty imposed does not
exceed one year. 44 The RTC thus properly imposed the penalty of

42
Quimvel v. People, 808 Phil. 889, 927-928 (2017).
43
Republic Act No. 9262, sec. 6 (a) states:
sec. 6. Penalties. - The crime of violence against women and their children, under Section 5
hereof shall be punished according to the following rules:
(a) Acts falling under Section 5(a) constituting attempted, frustrated or consummated parricide or
murder or homicide shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the Revised Penal Code.
If these acts resulted in mutilation, it shall be punishable in accordance with the Revised Penal
Code; those constituting serious physical injuries shall have the penalty of pris[i]on mayor; those
constituting less serious physical injuries shall be punished by prision correccional; and those
constituting slight physical injuries shall be punished by arresto mayor.

In addition to imprisonment, the perpetrator shall (a) pay a fine in the amount of not Jess than One
hundred thousand pesos (PHP 100,000.00) but not more than three hundred thousand pesos (PHP
300,000.00); (b) undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment and shall
report compliance to the court.
44
Indeterminate Sentence Law sec. 2 states:
Decision 11 G.R. No. 258417

imprisonment of four months against petitioner. It bears pointing out that

Republic Act No. 11362, or the Community Service Act, 45 allows the
rendition of community service in lieu of imprisonment in the service of
the penalties of arresto menor and arresto mayor. Section 3 of the law
states:

SECTION 3. Community Service. -Article 88a of Act No. 3815 is hereby

inserted to read'as follows:

ARTICLE 88a. Community Service. - The court in its discretion

may, in lieu of service in jail, require that the penalties of arresto menor and
arresto mayor be served by the defendant by rendering community service in
the place where the crime was committed, under such terms as the
court shall determine, taking into consideration the gravity of the offense and
the circumstances of the case, which shall be under the supervision of a
probation officer: Provided, That the court will prepare an order imposing the
community service, specifying the number of hours to be worked and the
period within which to complete the service. The order is then referred to the
assigned probation officer who shall have responsibility of the defendant.

The defendant shall likewise be required to undergo rehabilitative

counseling under the social welfare and development officer of the city or
municipality concerned with the assistance of the Department of Social
Welfare and Development (DSWD). In requiring community service, the
court shall consider the welfare of the society and the reasonable probability
that the person sentenced shall not violate the law while rendering the
service.

Community service shall consist of any actual physical activity which

inculcates civic consciousness, and is intended towards the improvement of a
public work or promotion of a public service.

If the defendant violates the terms of the community service, the

court shall order his/her re-arrest and the defendant shall serve the full term
of the penalty, as the case may be, in jail, or in the house of the defendant as
provided_ under Article 88. However, if the defendant has fully complied with
the terms of the community service, the court shall order the release of the
defendant unless detained for some other offense.

The privilege of rendering community service in lieu of service in

jail shall be availed of only once. (Emphasis in the original and supplied)

However, given the gravity and seriousness of the offense, taken

together with the special protection given by the law to women who are

Sec. 2. This Act shall not apply to persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life
imprisonment; to those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason; to those
convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage; to those convicted of piracy;
to those who are habitual delinquents; to those who have escaped from confinement or evaded
sentence; to those who having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive shall have
violated the terms thereof; to those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one
year; nor to those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of approval of this Act, except
as provided in section five hereof.
45
Approved on August 8, 2019.
Decision 12 G.R. No. 258417

"usual victims" of violence and abuse, as well as the widespread bias and
prejudice against women, 46 the Court finds it proper to impose upon th~
petitioner the penalty of imprisonment. The above provision states that in
exercising its discretion in imposing community service in lieu of the
penalties of arresto menor and arresto mayor, the Court must consider the
circumstances of the case. Here, petitioner's reprehensible behavior and
act should not be perpetuated. The State's policy of affording special
protection to women and children who are victims of violence and child
abuse is unequivocal and is a policy that the Court fully supports. 47

Under the circumstances, petitioner is sentenced to suffer the

straight penalty of four months of imprisonment for arresto mayor. In
addition, following Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9262, the Court
imposes a fine in the amount of PHP 100,000.00. Petitioner shall also
undergo mandatory psychological counseling and shall report compliance
thereof to the RTC within 15 days after the completion of such counseling
or treatment.

As for damages, under the Article 2219 paragraph (1) of the New
Civil Code, the moral damages may be recovered in relation to a criminal
offense resulting in physical injuries. 48 Moral damages compensate for the
mental anguish, serious anxiety, and moral shock suffered by Aileen and
her family as a proximate result of the wrongful act. Pursuant to prevailing
jurisprudence, an award of PHP 5,000.00 as moral damages is appropriate
for slight physical injuries. 49 The award of PHP500.00 and PHP 5,000.00
as nominal and exemplary damages, respectively, is deleted for lack of
sufficient basis.

Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, the moral damages awarded

to Aileen shall earn legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date
of finality of this Decision until full payment. 50

ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is

DENIED. The Decision dated October 13, 2020 and the Resolution dated
November 22, 2021 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No: 41059
are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner Rommel Z. Borja is
found GUILTY of violation of Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 9262, in
Criminal Case No. 16965 filed with Branch 93, Regional Trial Court,

46 See Garcia v. Drilon, 712 Phil. 44, 144 (2013).

47 Re: Recommendation of Victoria, A.M. No. 12-7-15-SC, September 4, 2012.
48 People v. Villacorta, 672 Phil. 712, 729 (2011).
49 Javarez v. People, 881 Phil. 546, 560-561 (2020).
50 People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 854 (2016), Lara's Gift & Decors, Inc. v. Midtown Industrial
Sales, G.R. No. 225433, September 20, 2022.
. .
Decision 13 G.R. No. 258417

Balanga City, Bataan. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of

imprisonment of four months of arresto mayor.

He is likewise ORDERED to PAY private complainant Aileen Joy

G. Adriatico the amount of PHP 5,000.00 as moral damages which shall .
earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of this Decision
until fully paid.

In addition, he is ORDERED to PAY a fine in the amount of PHP

100,000.00 and is DIRECTED to undergo a mandatory psychological
counselling or psychiatric treatment, and to REPORT his compliance
therewith to the court of origin within 15 days after the
completion of such counseling or treatment.

SO ORDERED."

HEN

WE CONCUR:

-;;s;~
SAMUEL H.GARAN-
Associate Justice
Decision 14 G.R. No. 258417

..~ i

M"FIL~Aii:sJNGH
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached
in consultation before the case was assign to the writer of the opinion
of the Court's Division.

NS. CAGUIOA
tice
Chairperson, Third Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division
Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court's Division.

AL_d~ .GESMUNDO
~~Justice