G.R. No.

163753 January 15, 2014

DR. ENCARNACION C. LUMANTAS, M.D., Petitioner,

vs.
HANZ CALAPIZ, REPRESENTED BY HIS PARENTS, HILARIO CALAPIZ, JR. and HERLITA CALAPIZ, Respondent.

Facts:

Spouses Calapiz brought their 8-year-old son, Hanz Calapiz (Hanz), to the Misamis Occidental Provincial Hospital,
Oroquieta City, for an emergency appendectomy. Hanz was attended to by the petitioner, who suggested to the
parents that Hanz also undergo circumcision at no added cost to spare him the pain. With the parents’ consent,
the petitioner performed the coronal type of circumcision on Hanz after his appendectomy. However, Hanz
complained of pain in his penis and had difficulty urinating the following day. He was later on confined in a
hospital and was diagnosed to have a damaged urethra. Hanz underwent cystostomy, and thereafter was operated
on three times to repair his damaged urethra.

Hanz’s parents brought a criminal charge against the petitioner for reckless imprudence resulting to serious
physical injuries before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Oroquieta City (MTCC), to which the latter pleaded not
guilty on May 22, 1998. The case was transferred to the RTC which rendered a judgment acquitting the accused
but ordering him to pay Hanz P50,000.00 as moral damages. On appeal, the CA affirmed the trial court’s decision.

Issue:

Whether the CA erred in affirming the petitioner’s civil liability despite his acquittal of the crime of reckless
imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries.

Held:

The CA did not err in affirming the petitioner’s civil liability. It is axiomatic that every person criminally liable for a
felony is also civilly liable. Nevertheless, the acquittal of an accused of the crime charged does not necessarily
extinguish his civil liability. The Rules of Court requires that in case of an acquittal, the judgment shall state
"whether the evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused or merely failed to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In either case, the judgment shall determine if the act or omission from
which the civil liability might arise did not exist."

In this case, although it was found that the Prosecution’s evidence is insufficient to sustain a judgment of
conviction against the petitioner for the crime charged, the RTC and CA did not err in determining and adjudging
his civil liability for the same act complained of based on mere preponderance of evidence. Hanz had sustained the
injurious trauma from the hands of the petitioner on the occasion of or incidental to the circumcision, and the
trauma could have been avoided. The undesirable outcome of the circumcision performed by the petitioner forced
the young child to endure several other procedures on his penis in order to repair his damaged urethra. Surely, his
physical and moral sufferings properly warranted the amount of P50,000.00 awarded as moral damages.

The Court affirms the decision of the CA.

G.R. No. 161308 January 15, 2014

RICARDO MEDINA, JR. y ORIEL, Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Facts:

A fight during a basketball game arised between Ross Mulinyawe, Lino Mulinyawe’s son, and Ronald Medina, the
younger brother of Ricardo and Randolf Medina. Ronald had hit Ross with a piece of stone and was later brought
to the hospital for treatment. Lino learned that his son had sustained a head injury inflicted by one of the Medinas,
he went towards the house of the Medinas accompanied by his drinking buddies with a bread knife tucked in the
back, but his companions were unarmed. Lino encountered Randolf whom he confronted about the fight. They had
a heated argument. Lino, swung the knife at Randolf who was not hit. Randolf retreated towards the store and
took two empty bottles of beer, broke the bottles and attacked Lino with them. Petitioner Ricardo saw what was
happening, and confronted Lino. A commotion ensued between them which led Ricardo to get a kitchen knife. He
stabbed Lino on the left side of his chest, near the region of the heart, causing the latter’s death.

The RTC acquitted Randolf but convicted Ricardo of homicide. The CA affirmed the decision. Ricardo contends that
the State did not present as evidence in court the two knives wielded by him and Lino despite repeated demands
for their presentation; that had the knives been presented, it could have been demonstrated to the trial court that
the smaller knife used by Lino had more blood stains than the knife held by him and would fit the size of the mortal
wound.

Issue:

Whether the non-identification and non-presentation of the weapon actually used in the killing diminished the
merit of the conviction.

Held:

No, the non-identification and non-presentation of the weapon actually used in the killing did not diminish the
merit of the conviction primarily because other competent evidence and the testimonies of witnesses had directly
and positively identified and incriminated Ricardo as the assailant of Lino. The witnesses incriminating Ricardo
were not only credible but were not shown to have harbored any ill-motive towards him.

The issue of credibility, when it is decisive of the guilt or innocence of the accused, is determined by the
conformity of the conflicting claims and recollections of the witnesses to common experience and to the
observation of mankind as probable under the circumstances. Their positive identification of him as the assailant
prevailed over his mere denial, because such denial, being negative and self-serving evidence, was undeserving of
weight by virtue of its lack of substantiation by clear and convincing proof. Hence, the establishment beyond
reasonable doubt of Ricardo’s guilt for the homicide did not require the production of the weapon used in the
killing as evidence in court, for in arriving at its findings on the culpability of Ricardo, the RTC, like other trial courts,
clearly looked at, considered and appreciated the entirety of the record and the evidence.

The Court affirms the decision of the CA.

G.R. No. 156407, January 15, 2014

THELMA M. ARANAS, Petitioner,

vs.
TERESITA V. MERCADO, FELIMON V. MERCADO, CARMENCITA M. SUTHERLAND, RICHARD V. MERCADO, MA.
TERESITA M. ANDERSON, AND FRANKLIN L. MERCADO, Respondents.

Facts:

Emigdio died intestate on January 12, 1991, survived by his second wife, Teresita V. Mercado (Teresita), and their
five children, namely: Allan V. Mercado, Felimon V. Mercado, Carmencita M. Sutherland, Richard V. Mercado, and
Maria Teresita M. Anderson; and his two children by his first marriage, namely: respondent Franklin L. Mercado
and petitioner Thelma M. Aranas (Thelma).

Emigdio inherited and acquired real properties during his lifetime. He also owned corporate shares. Thelma filed
in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Cebu City a petition for the appointment of Teresita as the administrator of
Emigdio’s estate. The RTC granted the petition and letters of administration in favor of Teresita were issued.

Teresita submitted an inventory of the estate of Emigdio for the consideration and approval by the RTC. She
indicated in the inventory that at the time of his death, Emigdio had “left no real properties but only personal
properties” consisting of cash, furniture and fixtures, pieces of jewelry and shares of stock of Mervir Realty and
Cebu Emerson. Thelma claimed that Emigdio had owned other properties that were excluded from the inventory,
and moved to require Teresita to be examined under oath on the inventory. RTC granted the motion and set dates
to resolve the issue of what properties should be included in or excluded from the inventory. On appeal to CA,
Teresita alleged that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in refusing to approve the inventory and in
ordering her as administrator to include real properties that had been transferred to Mervir Realty.

Issue:
Whether the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion in directing the inclusion of the properties in the estate of the
decedent?

Held:

No, the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in directing the inclusion of the properties in the estate of
the decedent. The objective of the Rules of Court in requiring the inventory and appraisal of the estate of the
decedent is “to aid the court in revising the accounts and determining the liabilities of the executor or the
administrator, and in making a final and equitable distribution (partition) of the estate and otherwise to facilitate
the administration of the estate.” Hence, the RTC that presides over the administration of an estate is vested with
wide discretion on the question of what properties should be included in the inventory.

In this case, the RTC acted with circumspection, and proceeded under the guiding policy that it was best to include
all properties in the possession of the administrator or were known to the administrator to belong to Emigdio
rather than to exclude properties that could turn out in the end to be actually part of the estate. As long as the RTC
commits no patent grave abuse of discretion, its orders must be respected as part of the regular performance of its
judicial duty.

The Court reverses and sets aside the decision of the CA.