GR L 46980; (May, 1987) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-46980 May 29, 1987
AUGUSTO BALDE, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Augusto Balde was convicted by the City Court of Legaspi City for the crime of qualified trespass to dwelling under Article 280(2) of the Revised Penal Code. His conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which imposed an indeterminate penalty and a fine. Balde does not deny the essential fact of having entered the dwelling of the complaining witness, Leonida Achacon, without her express permission. However, he contends that his entry does not constitute the felony, arguing that the gravamen of the offense is entrance against the will of the occupant or against a presumed or express prohibition, which he claims was absent. He further argues that he was denied his right to a preliminary investigation, specifically the opportunity to present evidence during that proceeding.
ISSUE
The core issues are: (1) whether the factual circumstances justify a finding of a presumed prohibition against Balde’s entrance, negating any valid permission from the housemaid, and (2) whether Balde was deprived of his right to present evidence during the preliminary investigation.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court emphasized the axiomatic rule that it generally does not review factual findings of the Court of Appeals. Appeals to the Supreme Court are not a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion, allowed only on questions of law distinctly set forth, except in criminal cases where the penalty is reclusion perpetua or higher. The Court found no special or important reasons to warrant a deviation from this rule in this case.
Upon examination, the record revealed no reversible error in the factual conclusions of the Court of Appeals. The appellate court correctly found that the hostile relations between Balde and Leonida, who were cousins, provided sufficient warning that his entry into her house was unwarranted and objectionable, thus falling under a presumed prohibition. It also credited the prosecution’s evidence that the housemaid did not grant Balde permission to enter. The Court of Appeals deemed the prosecution witnesses more credible than those for the defense. Furthermore, Balde’s proofs failed to establish any irregularity in the conduct of the fiscal’s preliminary investigation that deprived him of his right to present evidence. Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeals was affirmed as being in accord with the facts and the law.