THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 185833. October 12, 2011.]

ROBERT TAGUINOD , petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, respondent.

DECISION

PERALTA, J : p

For this Court's consideration is the petition for review 1 dated

February 5, 2009 of petitioner Robert Taguinod seeking to reverse the
Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated September 8, 2008 and its
Resolution 3 dated December 19, 2008 affirming the Decisions of the
Regional Trial Court of Makati City (RTC) 4 and the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Makati City (MeTC) 5 dated September 6, 2007 and November 8, 2006,
respectively.
The following are the antecedent facts:
This case started with a single incident on May 26, 2002 at the parking
area of the Rockwell Powerplant Mall. Pedro Ang (private complainant) was
driving his Honda CRV (CRV) from the 3rd basement parking, while Robert
Taguinod (petitioner) was driving his Suzuki Vitara (Vitara) from the 2nd
basement parking. When they were about to queue at the corner to pay the
parking fees, the respective vehicles were edging each other. The CRV was
ahead of the queue, but the Vitara tried to overtake, which resulted the
touching of their side view mirrors. The side view mirror of the Vitara was
pushed backward and naturally, the side view mirror of the CRV was pushed
forward. This prompted the private complainant's wife and daughter,
namely, Susan and Mary Ann, respectively, to alight from the CRV and
confront the petitioner. Petitioner appeared to be hostile, hence, the private
complainant instructed his wife and daughter to go back to the CRV. While
they were returning to the car, petitioner accelerated the Vitara and moved
backward as if to hit them. The CRV, having been overtaken by the Vitara,
took another lane. Private complainant was able to pay the parking fee at
the booth ahead of petitioner. When the CRV was at the upward ramp
leading to the exit, the Vitara bumped the CRV's rear portion and pushed the
CRV until it hit the stainless steel railing located at the exit portion of the
ramp. EAIcCS

As a result of the collision, the CRV sustained damage at the back

bumper spare tires and the front bumper, the repair of which amounted to
P57,464.66. The insurance company shouldered the said amount, but the
private complainant paid P18,191.66 as his participation. On the other hand,
the Vitara sustained damage on the right side of its bumper.
Thereafter, an Information 6 was filed in the MeTC of Makati City
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 against petitioner for the crime of Malicious Mischief as defined in and
penalized under Article 327 7 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The
Information reads as follows:
That on or about the 26th day of May, 2002, in the City of Makati,
Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, with deliberate intent to cause damage, and
motivated by hate and revenge and other evil motives, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously bump the rear portion of a
Honda CRV car bearing Plate No. APS-222 driven by Pedro N. Ang, thus,
causing damage thereon in the amount of P200.00.
CONTRARY TO LAW.

Petitioner pleaded Not Guilty during the arraignment on March 10,

2003. Consequently, the trial on the merits ensued. The prosecution
presented the testimony of private complainant. The defense, on the other
hand, presented the testimonies of Mary Susan Lim Taguinod, the wife of
petitioner, Jojet N. San Miguel, Jason H. Lazo and Engr. Jules Ronquillo.
Afterwards, the MeTC, in its Decision dated November 8, 2006, found
petitioner guilty of the crime charged in the Information, the dispositive
portion of which, reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered
finding the accused ROBERT TAGUINOD y AYSON GUILTY of Malicious
Mischief penalized under Article 329 of the Revised Penal Code, and
sentencing accused to FOUR (4) MONTHS imprisonment.

Accused Robert Taguinod y Ayson is likewise ordered to pay

complainant Pedro Ang the amount of P18,191.66, representing
complainant's participation in the insurance liability on the Honda CRV,
the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages, and the amount of
P25,000.00 as attorney's fees; and to pay the costs. ESaITA

SO ORDERED. 8

The case was appealed to the RTC of Makati City, which rendered its
Decision dated September 6, 2007, affirming the decision of the MeTC,
disposing the appealed case as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated 8
November 2006 is AFFIRMED in all respects.

SO ORDERED. 9

Undaunted, petitioner filed a petition for review with the CA, praying
for the reversal of the decision of the RTC. The CA partly granted the petition
in its Decision dated September 8, 2008, ruling that:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the petition for
review filed in this case is hereby PARTLY GRANTED. The assailed
decision dated September 6, 2007 of Branch 143 of the Regional Trial
Court in Makati City in Criminal Case No. 07-657 is hereby MODIFIED as
follows:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 1. The petitioner is penalized to suffer the penalty of
30 days imprisonment;
2. The award of moral damages is reduced to
P20,000.00; and
3. The award of attorney's fee is reduced to
P10,000.00.
SO ORDERED. 10

Petitioner filed with this Court a petition for review on certiorari dated
February 5, 2009. On March 16, 2009, this Court denied 11 the said petition.
However, after petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration 12 dated May 14,
2009, this Court reinstated 13 the present petition and required the Office of
the Solicitor General to file its Comment. 14 CHEIcS

The grounds relied upon are the following:

A. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE
REVERSIBLE ERROR IN UPHOLDING PETITIONER'S CONVICTION.

B. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE

REVERSIBLE ERROR IN AWARDING MORAL DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY'S
FEES TO PRIVATE COMPLAINANT. 15

This Court finds the petition partly meritorious.

The first argument of the petitioner centers on the issue of credibility
of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence presented. Petitioner insists
that between the witness presented by the prosecution and the witnesses
presented by the defense, the latter should have been appreciated, because
the lone testimony of the witness for the prosecution was self-serving. He
also puts into query the admissibility and authenticity of some of the pieces
of evidence presented by the prosecution.
Obviously, the first issue raised by petitioner is purely factual in nature.
It is well entrenched in this jurisdiction that factual findings of the trial court
on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to the
highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any
clear showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or
circumstances of weight and substance that would have affected the result
of the case. 16 This doctrine is premised on the undisputed fact that, since
the trial court had the best opportunity to observe the demeanor of the
witnesses while on the stand, it was in a position to discern whether or not
they were telling the truth. 17 Moreover, the testimony of a witness must be
considered and calibrated in its entirety and not by truncated portions
thereof or isolated passages therein. 18
It is apparent in this present case that both the RTC and the CA
accorded respect to the findings of the MeTC; hence, this Court finds no
reason to oppose the other two courts in the absence of any clear and valid
circumstance that would merit a review of the MeTC's assessment as to the
credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies. Petitioner harps on his
contention that the MeTC was wrong in not finding the testimony of his own
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 witness, Mary Susan Lim Taguinod, to be credible enough. However, this
Court finds the inconsistencies of said petitioner's witness to be more than
minor or trivial; thus, it does not, in any way, cast reasonable doubt. As
correctly pointed out by the MeTC:
Defense witness Mary Susan Lim Taguinod is wanting in
credibility. Her recollection of the past events is hazy as shown by her
testimony on cross-examination. While she stated in her affidavit that
the Honda CRV's "left side view mirror hit our right side view mirror,
causing our side view mirror to fold" (par. 4, Exhibit "3"), she testified
on cross-examination that the right side view mirror of the Vitara did
not fold and there was only a slight dent or scratch. She initially
testified that she does not recall having submitted her written version
of the incident but ultimately admitted having executed an affidavit.
Also, while the Affidavit stated that Mary Susan Lim Taguinod
personally appeared before the Notary Public, on cross-examination,
she admitted that she did not, and what she only did was to sign the
Affidavit in Quezon City and give it to her husband. Thus, her
inaccurate recollection of the past incident, as shown by her testimony
on cross-examination, is in direct contrast with her Affidavit which
appears to be precise in its narration of the incident and its details.
Such Affidavit, therefore, deserves scant consideration as it was
apparently prepared and narrated by another. TCacIE

Thus, the Court finds that the prosecution has proven its case
against the accused by proof beyond reasonable doubt. 19

What really governs this particular case is that the prosecution was
able to prove the guilt of petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. The elements
of the crime of malicious mischief under Article 327 of the Revised Penal
Code are:
(1) That the offender deliberately caused damage to the
property of another;
(2) That such act does not constitute arson or other crimes
involving destruction;
(3) That the act of damaging another's property be
committed merely for the sake of damaging it. 20

In finding that all the above elements are present, the MeTC rightly
ruled that:
The following were not disputed: that there was a collision
between the side view mirrors of the two (2) vehicles; that immediately
thereafter, the wife and the daughter of the complainant alighted from
the CRV and confronted the accused; and, the complainant, in view of
the hostile attitude of the accused, summoned his wife and daughter to
enter the CRV and while they were in the process of doing so, the
accused moved and accelerated his Vitara backward as if to hit them.
HEDSIc

The incident involving the collision of the two side view

mirrors is proof enough to establish the existence of the
element of "hate, revenge and other evil motive." Here, the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 accused entertained hate, revenge and other evil motive
because to his mind, he was wronged by the complainant when
the CRV overtook his Vitara while proceeding toward the booth
to pay their parking fee, as a consequence of which, their side
view mirrors collided. On the same occasion, the hood of his Vitara
was also pounded, and he was badmouthed by the complainant's wife
and daughter when they alighted from the CRV to confront him for the
collision of the side view mirrors. These circumstances motivated the
accused to push upward the ramp complainant's CRV until it reached
the steel railing of the exit ramp. The pushing of the CRV by the Vitara
is corroborated by the Incident Report dated May 26, 2002 prepared by
SO Robert Cambre, Shift-In-Charge of the Power Plant Mall, as well as
the Police Report. . . . 21

The CA also accurately observed that the elements of the crime of

malicious mischief are not wanting in this case, thus:
Contrary to the contention of the petitioner, the evidence for the
prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt the existence of the
foregoing elements. First, the hitting of the back portion of the
CRV by the petitioner was clearly deliberate as indicated by the
evidence on record. The version of the private complainant that the
petitioner chased him and that the Vitara pushed the CRV until it
reached the stairway railing was more believable than the petitioner's
version that it was private complainant's CRV which moved backward
and deliberately hit the Vitara considering the steepness or angle of the
elevation of the P2 exit ramp. It would be too risky and dangerous for
the private complainant and his family to move the CRV backward
when it would be hard for him to see his direction as well as to control
his speed in view of the gravitational pull. Second, the act of
damaging the rear bumper of the CRV does not constitute
arson or other crimes involving destruction. Lastly, when the
Vitara bumped the CRV, the petitioner was just giving vent to
his anger and hate as a result of a heated encounter between
him and the private complainant.
In sum, this Court finds that the evidence on record shows that
the prosecution had proven the guilt of the petitioner beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of malicious mischief. This adjudication
is but an affirmation of the finding of guilt of the petitioner by both the
lower courts, the MeTC and the RTC. 22

Petitioner likewise raises the issue that the CA was wrong in awarding
moral damages and attorney's fees to the private complainant claiming that
during the trial, the latter's entitlement to the said monetary reliefs was not
substantiated. This Court finds petitioner's claim, with regard to the award of
moral damages, unmeritorious.
In Manuel v. People , 23 this Court tackled in substance the concept of
the award of moral damages, thus:
Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright,
serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral
shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of
pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 t h e proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act or
omission. An award for moral damages requires the confluence of the
following conditions: first, there must be an injury, whether
physical, mental or psychological, clearly sustained by the
claimant; second, there must be culpable act or omission
factually established; third, the wrongful act or omission of the
defendant is the proximate cause of the injury sustained by
the claimant; and fourth, the award of damages is predicated
on any of the cases stated in Article 2219 or Article 2220 of the
Civil Code. 24 aCITEH

It is true that the private complainant is entitled to the award of moral

damages under Article 2220 25 of the New Civil Code because the injury
contemplated by the law which merits the said award was clearly
established. Private complainant testified that he felt bad 26 and lost sleep.
27 The said testimony is substantial to prove the moral injury suffered by the

private complainant for it is only him who can personally approximate the
emotional suffering he experienced. For the court to arrive upon a judicious
approximation of emotional or moral injury, competent and substantial proof
of the suffering experienced must be laid before it. 28 The same also applies
with private complainant's claim that his wife felt dizzy after the incident and
had to be taken to the hospital. 29
However, anent the award of attorney's fees, the same was not
established. In German Marine Agencies, Inc. v. NLRC, 30 this Court held that
there must always be a factual basis for the award of attorney's fees. This
present case does not contain any valid and factual reason for such award.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review dated February 5, 2009 of
petitioner Robert Taguinod is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals
dated September 8, 2008 and its Resolution dated December 19, 2008 are
hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the attorney's fees are
OMITTED.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., Abad, Mendoza and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1.Rollo , pp. 13-152.
2.Penned by Associate Justice Isaias Dicdican, with Associate Justices Juan Q.
Enriquez, Jr. and Marlene Gonzales-Sison, concurring; id. at 35-44.
3.Id. at 46-47.
4.Id. at 91-98.
5.Id. at 61-67.

6.CA Decision, p. 8, rollo, p. 37.

7.Art. 327. Who are liable for malicious mischief. — Any person who shall
deliberately cause to the property of another any damage not falling within
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 the terms of the next preceding chapter shall be guilty of malicious mischief.

8.Rollo , p. 67.
9.Id. at 98.
10.Id. at 44.
11.Id. at 154-155.
12.Id. at 156-164.

13.Id. at 164.
14.Dated November 9, 2009, id. at 194-210.
15.Id. at 19.
16.People v. De Leon , G.R. No. 180762, March 4, 2009, 580 SCRA 617, 624, citing
People v. Clidoro, 449 Phil. 142, 149 (2003).
17.People v. De Leon , 428 Phil. 556, 572 (2002), citing People v. Baltazar , 405 Phil.
340 (2001); People v. Barrameda , 396 Phil. 728 (2000).
18.People v. Roma, G.R. No. 147996, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 413, 420,
citing People v. San Gabriel , G.R. No. 107735, February 1, 1996, 253 SCRA
84, 93.
19.MeTC Decision, p. 6; rollo, p. 66.
20.Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Vol. II, p. 326.
21.MeTC Decision, p. 5, rollo, p. 65. (Emphasis supplied.)
22.CA Decision, pp. 7-8, id. at 41-42. (Emphasis supplied.)

23.G.R. No. 165842, November 29, 2005, 476 SCRA 461.

24.Id. at 489, citing Francisco v. Ferrer, Jr., G.R. No. 142029, February 28, 2001,
353 SCRA 261, 266 (Emphasis supplied.)
25.Art. 2220. Willful injury to property may be legal ground for awarding
moral damages if the court should find that, under the
circumstances, such damages are justly due. The same rule applies to
breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.
(Emphasis supplied.)
26.TSN, August 26, 2003, p. 30.
27.Id.
28.Quezon City Government v. Dacara, G.R. No. 150304, June 15, 2005, 460 SCRA
243, 256.
29.TSN, August 26, 2003, p. 27.

30.403 Phil. 572, 597 (2001). Also see Concept Placement Resources, Inc. v. Funk,
G.R. No. 137680, February 6, 2004, 422 SCRA 317.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com