DIGEST: George Bongalon v. People of the Philippines

GEORGE BONGALON vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 169533, March 20, 2013

FACTS:

The petitioner, George Bongalon, was charged of child abuse, an act in violation of Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610. He allegedly struck Jayson, a minor, with his hand and slapped him on the face after the latter threw stones at George's daughter.

The RTC found George guilty as charged. This was affirmed by the CA, but the said court modified the penalty.

The petitioner elevated the matter to the SC via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, ROC.

ISSUE:

1.            Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy.

2.            Whether the petitioner is guilty of child abuse, under RA 7610.

RULING:

1.            No. The SC held that the petitioner adopted the wrong remedy in assailing the CA’s affirmance of his conviction. His proper recourse from the affirmance of his conviction was an appeal taken in due course. Hence, he should have filed a petition for review on certiorari. Instead, he wrongly brought a petition for certiorari.

The special civil action for certiorari is intended for the correction of errors of jurisdiction only or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Its principal office is only to keep the inferior court within the parameters of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing such a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. As observed in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, et al. "the special civil action for certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. The raison d’etre for the rule is when a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error committed while so engaged does not deprived it of the jurisdiction being exercised when the error is committed. If it did, every error committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. In such a scenario, the administration of justice would not survive.

Hence, where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision–not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision–the same is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari. The proper recourse of the aggrieved party from a decision of the Court of Appeals is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court.

It is of no consequence that the petitioner alleges grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA in his petition. The allegation of grave abuse of discretion no more warrants the granting of due course to the petition as one for certiorari if appeal was available as a proper and adequate remedy. At any rate, a reading of his presentation of the issues in his petition indicates that he thereby imputes to the CA errors of judgment, not errors of jurisdiction. He mentions instances attendant during the commission of the crime that he claims were really constitutive of justifying and mitigating circumstances; and specifies reasons why he believes Republic Act No. 7610 favors his innocence rather than his guilt for the crime charged. The errors he thereby underscores in the petition concerned only the CA’s appreciation and assessment of the evidence on record, which really are errors of judgment, not of jurisdiction.

2.            No. The SC held that petitioner is not guilty of child abuse, but rather of the crime of slight physical injury only.

Despite the procedural transgression, the court continued to rule on the substantive issue. According to the SC, the records did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the laying of hands by George on Jayson had been intended to debase the "intrinsic worth and dignity" of Jayson as a human being, or that he had thereby intended to humiliate or embarrass Jayson. The records showed the laying of hands on Jayson to have been done at the spur of the moment and in anger, indicative of his being then overwhelmed by his fatherly concern for the personal safety of his own minor daughters who had just suffered harm at the hands of Jayson and Roldan. With the loss of his self-control, he lacked that specific intent to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being that was so essential in the crime of child abuse. Considering that Jayson’s physical injury required five to seven days of medical attention, the petitioner was liable for slight physical injuries under Article 266 (1) of the Revised Penal Code.