GR 138553; (June, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 138553 ; June 30, 2005
ENRIQUE “TOTOY” RIVERA Y DE GUZMAN, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
FACTS
On March 20, 1993, Police Inspector Edward Leygo, while enforcing Municipal Ordinance No. I-91 which prohibited the loading/unloading of chicken manure along the Halsema Highway in La Trinidad, Benguet, intercepted a truck. After initially complying, the truck driver later attempted to proceed to the petitioner’s stall upon Rivera’s orders, defying the police directive. Leygo and his team pursued and stopped the truck. Upon confrontation, petitioner Rivera uttered threats like “I’ll break your bones” and “you are only policemen,” assumed a fighting stance, and then punched Leygo on the face, causing a laceration on his lip. Rivera was subsequently subdued and arrested.
The Regional Trial Court convicted petitioner of direct assault under Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of the crime, particularly that Leygo was a person in authority engaged in official duties at the time, and that his injury was not sufficiently proven without the testimony of the attending physician.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for the crime of direct assault.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The legal logic is clear: all elements of direct assault were established. First, the victim, Lt. Leygo, was a police officer, a person in authority. Second, he was engaged in the actual performance of his official duties at the time of the assault, as he was enforcing a municipal ordinance. His act of stopping the truck and confronting Rivera for violating the ban was within his lawful functions. Third, the assault was committed with a weapon or by means of force, as Rivera employed physical force by punching Leygo. The Court held that the offense is consummated by the employment of force against the person in authority, regardless of the gravity of the injury. The medical certificate, though the doctor did not testify, was merely corroborative and not indispensable for proving the assault, as Leygo’s credible testimony on being punched was sufficient. The Court also upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, noting petitioner’s defiant demeanor, and found no improper motive for the prosecution witnesses to falsely testify.