G.R. No. 199522, June 22, 2015
Ricky Dinamling, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Ricky Dinamling and AAA were in a five-year relationship with two common children. On March 14, 2007, Dinamling, after a drinking session, went to AAA’s boarding house and ordered her and the children to leave, accusing her of using the place as a “whore house.” He told her to pack their things in a trash bag and a carton box. When AAA hesitated, Dinamling threw a baby’s feeding bottle outside, causing it to break, prompting AAA to leave. On March 20, 2007, Dinamling went to the house where AAA was staying, shouted for her to come out, punched her left ear causing it to bleed, kicked her until she fell, and in public, pulled down her pants and panty, shouting insults. AAA later experienced back pain, was hospitalized, and suffered an incomplete abortion, having been 19 weeks pregnant. Dinamling was charged with two counts of violating Section 5(i) in relation to Section 6(f) of Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004). The Regional Trial Court convicted him. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions with a modification on the penalty for one count. Dinamling filed a petition for review, assailing the factual findings and raising defenses of denial and alibi, and claiming that a prosecution witness’s testimony was exculpatory.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner Ricky Dinamling’s conviction for violations of R.A. No. 9262, despite his defenses of denial and alibi and the alleged exculpatory testimony of a witness.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit but modified the penalties. The Court held that the petition raised questions of fact, which are generally not reviewable under a Rule 45 petition. None of the recognized exceptions to this rule were sufficiently invoked or present. Upon examination, the Court found no error in the appellate court’s factual findings and conclusion of guilt. AAA’s testimony was clear, categorical, and credible, detailing the psychological and physical violence inflicted. The defense of denial and alibi could not prevail over the positive identification by the victim. The testimony of Dr. Mae Codamon Diaz did not exculpate Dinamling; while she stated she could not be certain the abortion was solely due to the mauling, she did not rule it out as a possible cause. The acts committed—public humiliation, verbal abuse, physical assault, and the deprivation of custody—constituted psychological violence and emotional abuse under R.A. No. 9262. The penalties were modified in accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as the special law adopted penalties from the Revised Penal Code.