8/10/2019 sabay vs. pp digest (2014)

1/2

Sabay vs. People of the PhilippinesG.R. No. 192150

October 01, 2014

Petitioner !e"erico SabayRespon"ent People of the PhilippinesPonenter #rion, $.

!%&'SOn June 12, 2001,in Caloocan City, Metro Manila, the petitioner, Federico Sabay, and his daughter,

Erlinda, had an argument with odo!redo which later turned into a "erbal altercation# Such argument wasrooted !rom the alleged intrusion o! Federico and his daughter to the property o! odo!redo# $n the course o! theheated dispute among the parties, Erlinda hit odo!redo on the head with a hard ob%ect and the petitioner also

%oined in by throwing a stone at odo!redo&s !ace#$mmediately therea!ter, Jer"ie 'ope( came and paci!ied the parties# )owe"er, he was hit in the hand

with a bolo#On June 1*, 2001, odo!redo and Jer"ie !iled a complaint against Federico Sabay be!ore the barangay#

+he Medico 'egal Certi!icates showed that odo!redo su!!ered contusion on the le!t parietal area o! his headand an abrasion in his le!t chee , while Jer"ie sustained a wound in his right palm# 'ater on, the parties arri"edat an agreement called Kasunduang Pag-aayos as recommended by the building inspector# )owe"er, such

Kasunduan was not implemented due to the !ailure o! the building inspector to ma e the promisedrecommendation# +hus, the O!!ice o! the -arangay Captain issued a Certi!icate to File an .ction be!ore theMetropolitan +rial Court, wherein, the petitioner was !ound guilty beyond reasonable doubt o! 2 counts o! slight

physical in%uries# Furthermore, the court re%ected the petitioner&s claim o! sel!/de!ense !or lac o! clear,con"incing and satis!actory supporting e"idence that there had been unlaw!ul aggression by odo!redo# $n duecourse, the petitioner appealed the %udgment to the egional +rial Court, which !ully a!!irmed the Metropolitan+rial Court&s decision# +he petitioner sought recourse with the Court o! .ppeals which had also a!!irmed thedecision o! the egional +rial Court# $t held that e"en i! there had been no !ormal o!!er o! e hibit pursuant toSection * , ule 1*2 o! the ules on E"idence, the Certi!ication to File an .ction could still be admitted againstthe ad"erse party# On March 22, 2010, the C. denied the petitioner&s motion !or reconsideration# )ence, it leadto the present petition !or re"iew on certiorari be!ore the Supreme Court#

(SS)*Sa#3 4hether or not the Metropolitan +rial Court has %urisdiction o"er the case in "iew o! the allegedinadmissibility o! the Certi!ication to File .ction5 and

b#3 4hether or not the lower court&s !inding o! guilt, its appreciation o! the e"idence and its re%ection o! theclaim o! sel!/de!ense is "alid#

+* -a. /*S. +he conciliation procedure is not a %urisdictional re6uirement as e pressly pro"ided by 7residentialdecree 8o# 190:# $n line with this, the non/compliance to such cannot a!!ect the %urisdiction which the lower court had ac6uired o"er the sub%ect matter o! the case# Furthermore, the Certi!ication to Filed an .ction isadmissible# Section * o! ule 1*2 o! the ules on E"idence pro"ides that the court cannot consider anye"idence that has not been !ormally o!!ered# .ccording to the cases o! 7eople "s# 8apat/a, 7eople "s# Mate, and+he )eirs o! omana Sa"es "s# +he )eirs o! Escolastico Sa"es, such re6uirement on the !ormal o!!er rule may

be rela ed which is sub%ect to the !ollowing e ceptions; first , the e"idence must ha"e been duly identi!ied bytestimony duly recorded and, second , the e"idence must ha"e been incorporated in the records o! the case# $nthe present case, the re6uisites !or the rela ation o! the !ormal/o!!er rule are present# odo!redo identi!ied theCerti!ication to File an .ction during his cross/e amination# .lthough the Certi!ication was not !ormally o!!eredin e"idence, it was mar ed as E hibit

8/10/2019 sabay vs. pp digest (2014)

2/2

)ence, the Supreme Court denied the appeal and a!!irmed the decision o! the Court o! .ppeals#