Dinamling v. People

Facts:

Ricky Dinamling, a policeman, was in a 5-year relationship with AAA. They had 2 common children, aged 4 and 2. One night, he went to AAA’s boarding house with a friend after a drinking session. As AAA was putting the children to bed, he started to evict her for the reason that she was using the place as a “whore house” wherein she “brought her partners.” She did not want to leave but he threw a baby’s feeding bottle outside. She went to BBB’s house and requested to fetch her children. However, Dinamling already left the boarding house with the older child and only the baby was left.

In the past, he would hit AAA’s head, pull her hair, and kick her When AAA went to the police, she was merely told that it was a family problem that could be talked over.

6 days after the incident, AAA was at CCC’s house when Dinamling arrived. He shouted and counted down for AAA to come out. When she came out, Dinamling punched her at the left ear, which subsequently bled. When AAA asked him why he kept on following her when she already had left him, Dinamling shouted her family name and told her she was “good-for-nothing.” AAA left for the barangay captain's house, but Dinamling caught up with her and kicked her until she fell to the ground. On the road, Dinamling pulled down AAA's pants and panty and shouted at her while people looked on. Dinamling then threw the pants and panty back at AAA and shouted her family name. Dinamling, then intoxicated, left on a motorcycle. AAA stayed at her friend's home until she felt some back pain in the next morning. She found out she was bleeding and about to miscarry so she was immediately brought to the hospital. There, she was told that she was 19 weeks pregnant and had an incomplete abortion. She was hospitalized for four days. Dinamling visited her but showed no remorse over his acts.

Dinamling was charged with (2) criminal Informations in the RTC for violation of Section 5(i), in relation to Section 6(f) of RA No. 9262.

His defense was denial and alibi, claiming that he was on duty at the town’s police station at the time that the offenses were committed.

RTC found Dinamling gulty of both charges. CA affirmed but modified the penalty by applying ISLaw.

Issue:

Whether or not the CA erred in disregarding his defenses of denial and alibi as well as in discounting the supposedly exculpatory nature of a part of a prosecution witness' testimony.

Held:

No.

On its face, there is no reason to doubt the veracity and truthfulness of the victim AAA's evidence. In particular, AAA's testimony narrating the specific incidents which gave rise to the charges was clear, categorical and straightforward and, therefore, worthy of credence.

AAA also stated that the baby that she claims was aborted would have been her third child with Dinamling. She also testified about always being afraid of Dinamling, even fearing the sound of his motorcycle as that signalled that she or her children would be abused. She previously filed with the police a complaint for physical injuries but nothing came of it. Later, she learned from Dinamling that he had been discharged as a policeman.

In addition to AAA's testimony, her mother DDD also testified that her daughter was “like a corpse” because of Dinamling's maltreatment. DDD narrated the history of maltreatment of her daughter, including the times that she saw her with “bluish spots” and when AAA had a miscarriage from all the boxing and kicking that she had received from Dinamling. She knew that Dinamling was a married man when he had his relationship with AAA and she knew for a fact that Dinamling did not live with AAA and the children because he always went home to his own wife.

As for the first case filed against petitioner Dinamling, the elements have been proven and duly established. It is undisputed that AAA, as the victim, is a woman who was then in a five-year ongoing relationship with petitioner Dinamling. At that time, AAA and Dinamling had two common children. AAA was often in fear of petitioner due to the latter's physical and verbal abuse.

As for the second case, the crime's elements were likewise proven. In addition to the first two elements of the victim being a woman and in a relationship with the offender, the prosecution was able to prove another incident of mental or emotional anguish through public ridicule or humiliation. AAA's suffering is so much that even the sound of petitioner's motorcycle would put fear in her.

Psychological violence is an element of violation of Section 5(i) just like the mental or emotional anguish caused on the victim. Psychological violence is the means employed by the perpetrator, while mental or emotional anguish is the effect caused to or the damage sustained by the offended party. To establish psychological violence as an element of the crime, it is necessary to show proof of commission of any of the acts enumerated in Section 5(i) or similar such acts. And to establish mental or emotional anguish, it is necessary to present the testimony of the victim as such experiences are personal to this party. All of this was complied with in the case at bar.

In the face of the strong and credible testimony of AAA, petitioner Dinamling relies on a defense of denial and alibi. On the nights of March 14 and 20, 2007, he claimed that he was on duty at XXX Police Station. He denied seeing AAA on those dates. However, on cross examination, he admitted that it takes only two to three minutes to go from the police station to AAA's boarding house.

Denial and alibi, as defenses of an accused in a criminal case, have been consistently held as inherently weak and which, unless supported by clear and convincing evidence, cannot prevail over the positive declarations of the victim.

Petitioner barks up the wrong tree because the fact of AAA's physical injuries from the mauling, including her abortion, do not constitute an element of the crime with which he is charged. Such injuries are likewise not alleged in the two informations against him. Therefore, the testimony of Dr. Diaz or any physician as to the fact or existence of such physical injuries is not indispensable to petitioner's conviction or acquittal. Simply put, AAA's physical condition is not an element of the crime that petitioner was charged with, hence, proof of the same is, strictly speaking, unnecessary.

In fact, neither the physical injuries suffered by the victim nor the actual physical violence done by the perpetrator are necessary to prove the essential elements of the crime as defined in Section 5(i) of RA 9262. The only exception is, as in the case at bar, when the physical violence done by the accused is alleged to have caused the mental and emotional suffering; in which case, such acts of physical violence must be proven. In this instance, the physical violence was a means of causing mental or emotional suffering. In the case at bar, petitioner Dinamling's acts of publicly punching, kicking and stripping AAA of her pants and underwear, although obvious acts of physical violence, are also instances of psychological violence since it was alleged and proven that they resulted in AAA's public ridicule and humiliation and mental or emotional distress.

For his crime, pregnancy or the presence of the woman's child are aggravating circumstances which increase the imposable penalty, thus, they must be alleged and proven with competent evidence for the penalty to be properly imposed.