G.R. No. 143937. December 5, 2001.
SERAFIN ABUYEN, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Serafin Abuyen was charged with Direct Assault for an incident on May 15, 1995. The prosecution alleged that while intoxicated and armed with a bolo, he shouted challenges to a fight. SPO2 Aquilino Fabillar, a police officer, intervened to pacify him. Abuyen allegedly refused orders to drop his weapon, brandished the bolo at Fabillar, and attempted to hack him, missing by inches. Fabillar fired warning shots and eventually a shot that hit Abuyen’s sandal, causing him to flee. The bolo and sandal were recovered.
Abuyen presented a different version, claiming the charge was fabricated due to political enmity from a prior election where he supported the opponent of Fabillar’s cousin. He testified that during a drinking session, Fabillar confronted him about this, threatened him, and later shot at him without provocation while he was unarmed and fleeing. He argued he did not assault the officer.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Direct Assault upon a person in authority.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The ruling hinges on the established rule that factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are accorded great weight and finality. The Court found no compelling reason to deviate from this rule, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the lower courts overlooked or misapplied critical facts.
The trial court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, SPO2 Fabillar and SPO1 Padua, to be clear and credible, establishing that Abuyen, while armed, willfully resisted and attacked a police officer who was performing his duty. In contrast, the defense of frame-up and political vendetta was deemed unconvincing. The court noted the inherent improbability of Fabillar fabricating a serious charge and orchestrating evidence like the bolo and sandal merely over political differences. Abuyen’s flight from the scene and failure to present corroborating witnesses from the drinking session further weakened his defense.
The Court also rejected the belated challenge to the presiding judge’s impartiality. The issue of alleged kinship between the judge and Fabillar was not raised seasonably in a special civil action or even in the appeal to the Regional Trial Court. Moreover, petitioner failed to substantiate the claim of relationship within the prohibited degree or prove any actual bias or interest in the case. Consequently, the judge is presumed to have acted regularly and with impartiality.