Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Manila

FIFTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE CA-G.R. CR No. 45203

PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, Members:

Bruselas, Jr., Chairman

Martin, and
- versus - Ruiz II, JJ.

KENNETH IBAÑEZ y Promulgated:

ESTINZO,* 31 AUGUST 2022
Accused-Appellant. __________________
x==============================================x
DECISION

Martin, J.

This is an appeal1 under Rule 122 of the Rules of Court filed

by Kenneth Ibanez y Estinzo (appellant) assailing the Decision2
dated 30 April 2020 rendered by the Regional Trial Court,
National Capital Judicial Region, Caloocan City, Branch 130
(RTC) in Criminal Case No. C-96075 which found him guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5(h)(5) of Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 9262 (otherwise known as Anti-Violence Against
Women and Their Children Act of 2004). The RTC imposed on
appellant the penalty of imprisonment of six months and one day
of prision correccional as minimum to six years and one day of
prision mayor as maximum and ordered him to pay a fine in the
amount of P100,000.00 and to undergo mandatory psychological
counseling or psychiatric treatment.
* This case was submitted for Decision on 5 May 2022.
1 Records, Notice of Appeal, pp. 150-151.
2 Records, Decision, pp. 140-149.
 CA-G.R. CR No. 45203
Decision
Page 2
===============
THE FACTS

Appellant was charged with violating Section 5(h)(5) of R.A.

No. 9262 in an Information3 which reads as follows:

“That sometime in the year 2009 and the period

subsequent thereto until the filing of this case in March 2015, in
Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above named accused being the legal
spouse of AAA,4 did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously committed physical violence and emotional and
psychological abuse, by mauling and beating the complainant,
inflicting upon her physical injuries, taking her monies and
savings, selling their personal belongings, threatening to kill
her, and to keep her children away from her, thereby causing
substantial emotional and psychological distress to her on top
of the physical harm caused upon private complainant AAA, in
violation of said law.”

When arraigned on 16 May 2016, appellant, assisted by

counsel de officio, pleaded “not guilty” to the offense charged. 5
Pre-trial was terminated on 8 August 20166 with the following
matters stipulated upon by the parties:
1. That the accused is the very same person charged in the
information;
3 Records, Information, p. 1.
4 The identity of the victim or any information which could establish or compromise his
identity, as well as those of his immediate family or household members, shall be
withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. 7610, An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence
and Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, And for
Other Purposes; Republic Act No. 9262, An Act Defining Violence Against Women And
Their Children, Providing For Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties
Therefor, And for Other Purposes; and Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the
Rule on Violence against Women and Their Children, effective November 15, 2004
(People of the Philippines v. Juan Richard Tionloc y Marquez, G.R. No. 212193, 15
February 2017, citing People v. Dumadag, G.R. No. 176740, 22 June 2011); Supreme Court
Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 issued on 27 July 2015, Protocols and Procedures in
the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final
Resolutions, and Final Orders using Fictitious Names.
5 Records, Certificate of Arraignment, p. 16; Order dated 16 May 2016, p. 17.
6 Records, Order, pp. 19-20.
 CA-G.R. CR No. 45203
Decision
Page 3
===============
2. That the Court has jurisdiction over his person and the
subject matter.
Trial on the merits ensued, thereafter.

Private complainant AAA filed her Sinumpaang Salaysay7

prior to her death on 8 April 2015 due to Multiple Organ Failure
essentially stating that her husband, appellant, had physically
abused her from 2009 until the filing of the instant complaint.
AAA further stated in her Salaysay that on 2 March 2015,
appellant mauled her from 3:30 a.m. to 6:30 a.m., when he used a
shirt to choke her as well as on 8 March 2015, when he sold their
32-inch LED television and took her P1,600.00 just to buy drugs.
According to AAA, appellant also threatened to deny her access
to their children and that he will kill her all the while hurling
invectives at her. AAA likewise identified a Medico-Legal
Certificate8 dated 3 March 2015 showing contusions she suffered
on her legs and left hand on account of appellant's repeated
abuse.

Dr. Federico A. Dasalla (Dr. Dasalla), for his part, identified

the Medico-Legal Certificate in relation to his examination of AAA9
and he testified that she suffered contusions measuring 3x3 cm,
2x2 cm, and 3x4 cm on the lateral aspect of her left leg, a 4x4 cm
contusion on her right leg, a 2x2 cm and 3x3 cm contusion on her
left hand.10 Dr. Dasalla further testified that the contusions were
caused by a blunt force, after being hit by a fist or a piece of
wood.11 Dr. Dasalla stated that such injuries usually takes 7 to 9
days to heal and that the examination was conducted on 3 March
7 Records, Exh. “B”, Sinumpaang Salaysay of AAA, p. 6.
8 Records, Exh. “C”, Medico-Legal Certificate, p. 7.
9 TSN dated 25 October 2016, Direct Examination of Dr. Federico A. Dasalla, p. 3.
10 Id, p. 4.
11 Id, pp. 4-5.
 CA-G.R. CR No. 45203
Decision
Page 4
===============
201512 after which AAA was immediately discharged.13

BBB, for her part, testified that she is the mother of AAA
who eventually died on 8 April 2015 as a result of appellant's
repeated physical abuse. BBB further testified that she
accompanied AAA in securing a barangay blotter complaining
about the daily physical abuse she was suffering from appellant. 14
BBB narrated that she lived far from AAA and appellant's house
and that AAA had tolerated appellant's abuses because AAA had
related to her about wanting to keep the family intact. According
to BBB, she told AAA that she needs to separate from appellant,
but that AAA would always say “Magbabago naman yan Mama.”15
BBB lamented that AAA eventually died due to the physical
abuses inflicted by appellant.16

CCC, the son of AAA and appellant,17 testified that between

3:30 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. of 2 March 2015, appellant was repeatedly
punching AAA on the stomach, and even hit her head with a
cellphone.18 CCC further testified that appellant mauled AAA out
of extreme jealousy because appellant suspected AAA of having
an affair. According to CCC, appellant had once told him “baboy
daw po siya at maghanap kami ng bagong Mommy” and he also
confirmed that appellant mauled AAA everyday.19

On the other hand, appellant testified that he married AAA

12 Id, p. 7.
13 Id, p. 8.
14 TSN dated 7 March 2017, Direct Examination of BBB, pp. 4-6.
15 Id, pp. 15-16.
16 Id, p. 16.
17 TSN dated 22 November 2017, Direct Examination of CCC, p. 3.
18 Id, pp. 5-6.
19 Id, pp. 7-9.
 CA-G.R. CR No. 45203
Decision
Page 5
===============
in 2006 until they separated around the second week of February
2015.20 Appellant denied physically, emotionally, and
psychologically abusing AAA from 2009 to 2015 arguing that if it
was true, then AAA would have filed a case long time ago. 21

Appellant also denied the incident on 2 March 2015 claiming that

since the second week of February 2015, he was residing at No. 7
Causon Compound, while AAA stayed at No. 3 Ditoon Circle,
Barangay Fairview, Quezon City. According to appellant, he
never saw AAA from the second week of February 2015 up to 2
March 2015, but that they constantly called each other about their
children. 22 Appellant added that there was never any financial
issue involved, and that they separated because of a third party
on AAA's part. 23

RULING OF THE RTC

On 30 April 2020, the RTC rendered a Decision,24 the

dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is

hereby rendered finding accused Kenneth Ibanez y Estinzo, in
Criminal Case No. C-96075, GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of Violation of Sec. 5(h)
(5) of Republic Act No. 9262 and he is hereby sentenced to
suffer the penalty of imprisonment of six (6) months and one
(1) day of prision correccional as minimum penalty to six (6)
years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum penalty.
Further, he is hereby ORDERED to pay a fine in the amount of
one hundred thousand (Php100,000.00) pesos and to undergo
mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment
and shall report compliance to this Court.

20 TSN dated 1 October 2018, Direct Examination of Kenneth Ibanez, p. 3.

21 Id, pp. 3-4.
22 Id, p. 5.
23 Id, p. 6.
24 Records, Decision, pp. 140-149.
 CA-G.R. CR No. 45203
Decision
Page 6
===============
SO ORDERED.”25

Hence, this appeal.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

“THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE

ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED
DESPITE THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM.”26

THE COURT'S RULING

Appellant's guilt was

proven beyond reasonable
doubt

In Ang v. Court of Appeals,27 the Supreme Court enumerated

the elements of violating Section 5(h)(5) of R.A. 9262 as follows: 1)
the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the
offended woman; 2) The offender, by himself or through another,
commits an act or series of acts of harassment against the woman;
and 3) The harassment alarms or causes substantial emotional or
psychological distress to her.

All the said elements are present in this case. First, appellant
is the husband of AAA. Second, appellant had repeatedly mauled
and hurled invectives towards AAA. Lastly, such harassment
caused AAA emotional and psychological distress.
25 Id, p. 149.
26 Rollo, Appellant's Brief, p. 25.
27 G.R. No. 182835, 20 April 2010.
 CA-G.R. CR No. 45203
Decision
Page 7
===============
Appellant contends that the RTC erred in convicting him as
the prosecution failed to prove that he purposely caused
substantial emotional or mental distress to AAA. Appellant
argues that the emotional or mental distress is a state of mind
which can no longer be established due to AAA's death.

However, in AAA's Sinumpaang Salaysay,28 she was able to

clearly and succinctly narrate how appellant had constantly and
repeatedly abused her, not only physically but also emotionally or
psychologically. There is no doubt that AAA suffered from
psychological abuse, considering that appellant threatened that
she will not be able to see her children, and was, in fact, likewise
threatened with death at the hands of her very own uncaring and
cruel husband. Nonetheless, the Sinumpaang Salaysay itself clearly
indicates in no unequivocal terms that she had filed a complaint
against appellant for physical and psychological abuse.

It should be noted that affidavits/sworn statements more

often than not approximate the truth as they vividly unveil the
details in an event yet unmarred by man's traitorous memory. 29
Thus, the RTC did not err in giving weight to AAA's Sinumpaang
Salaysay.

While AAA failed to identify her Sinumpaang Salaysay in

court due to her untimely death, BBB identified the Sinumpaang
Salaysay as the one executed by AAA. It must be noted that BBB
was present when AAA executed and signed the Sinumpaang
Salaysay.

28 Records, Exh. “B”, Sinumpaang Salaysay of AAA, p. 6.

29 People v. Cariño, G.R. No. 141737, 20 March 2002.
 CA-G.R. CR No. 45203
Decision
Page 8
===============
More significantly, CCC witnessed how appellant
repeatedly punched AAA on her stomach and hit her head with a
cellphone then hurled invectives at AAA. CCC also vividly
recalled how appellant had characterized to him that AAA is a
pig and that he, meaning CCC, should now look for another
mother.

In Dinamling v. People,30 the Supreme Court ruled that the

testimony of a lone witness in a case involving violation of R.A.
No. 9262 would suffice:

“It matters not that no other eyewitness corroborated

AAA's testimony of the actual incidents. The testimony of the
complainant as a lone witness to the actual perpetration of the
act, as long as it is credible, suffices to establish the guilt of the
accused because evidence is weighed and not counted. If, in
criminal cases of rape or homicide, the positive, categorical and
credible testimony of a lone witness is deemed enough to
support a conviction, then, in the case at bar, involving a case of
violation of Section 5(i) of RA No. 9262, this Court shall treat in
the same manner the testimony of a single but credible witness
for the prosecution. Especially if the testimony bears the
earmarks of truth and sincerity and was delivered
spontaneously, naturally and in a straightforward manner,
corroborative testimony is not needed to support a conviction.”

Here, CCC's account of the incident bolsters appellant's

conviction for violating Section 5(h)(5) of R.A. No. 9262. It must
be stressed that trial courts are in the best position to ascertain the
sincerity of witnesses through their actual observation of the
witnesses' manner of testifying. Thus, in People v. Gerola31 the
Supreme Court held that:

“Time and again, we have held that when it comes to the

30 G.R. No. 199522, 22 June 2015.
31 G.R. No. 217973, 19 July 2017.
 CA-G.R. CR No. 45203
Decision
Page 9
===============
issue of credibility of the victim or the prosecution witnesses,
the findings of the trial courts carry great weight and respect
and, generally, the appellate courts will not overturn the said
findings unless the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or
misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and
substance which will alter the assailed decision or affect the
result of the case. This is so because trial courts are in the best
position to ascertain and measure the sincerity and spontaneity
of witnesses through their actual observation of the witnesses'
manner of testifying, their demeanor and behavior in court.
Trial judges enjoy the advantage of observing the witness'
deportment and manner of testifying, her "furtive glance, blush
of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone,
calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath" — all
of which are useful aids for an accurate determination of a
witness' honesty and sincerity. Trial judges, therefore, can
better determine if such witnesses are telling the truth, being in
the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies. Again,
unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked
which, if considered, might affect the result of the case, its
assessment must be respected, for it had the opportunity to
observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while
testifying and detect if they were lying.”

The Court therefore finds no reason to reverse the ruling of

the RTC.

Denial and alibi are weak

defenses as compared to the
positive identification of
the witness

Appellant insists that the RTC should have given weight

and credence to his defense of denial and alibi considering that
AAA's death prevented the prosecution from proving that the
battering incident caused her emotional or mental distress.
Appellant asserts that BBB and Dr. Dasalla had no personal
knowledge on the alleged battering incidents from 2009 to 2
 CA-G.R. CR No. 45203
Decision
Page 10
===============
March 2015 and that CCC's account of the alleged 2 March 2015
incident failed to corroborate the findings in the Medico-legal
Certificate dated 3 March 2015.32

Jurisprudence is replete of cases holding that denial and

alibi are weak defenses, which cannot prevail against positive
identification. A categorical and consistent positive identification
which is not accompanied by ill motive on the part of the
eyewitness prevails over mere denial. Such denial, if not
substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative and
self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. It cannot be
given a greater evidentiary value over the testimony of credible
witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.33

Appellant's denial is a mute justification compared to the

deafening outcry for justice from a woman long suffering from
repeated physical and emotional abuse at the literal hands of an
insensitive partner whose senseless cruelty undoubtedly caused
her unfortunate demise.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED.

The Decision dated 30 April 2020 rendered by the Regional Trial
Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Caloocan City, Branch
130 in Criminal Case No. C-96075 is AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
RONALDO ROBERTO B. MARTIN
Associate Justice
32 Rollo, Appellant's Brief, p. 30.
33 Quimvel y Braga v. People, G.R. No. 214497, 18 April 2017.
 CA-G.R. CR No. 45203
Decision
Page 11
===============

WE CONCUR:

ORIGINAL SIGNED
APOLINARIO D. BRUSELAS, JR.
Associate Justice

ORIGINAL SIGNED
ALFONSO C. RUIZ II
Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is

hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were
reached in consultation before the opinion of the Court was
written.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
APOLINARIO D. BRUSELAS, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairman, Fifth Division