For: ATTY.

IAN ENCARNACION

From: JOHN LEO BAWALAN

Date: October 26, 2020

Re: MARY GRACE MERCADERO MERCA

RE: SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURY

You have tasked us to prepare a legal memorandum concerning the

case of our client Miss Mary Grace Mercadero Merca who wants to file a
case against Ms Glenda Jose for Slight Physical Injury. I have presented here
the key facts, issues, applicable jurisprudence and laws that can be our
basis to defend our client, including possible counterarguments from the
opposing and our answer to that counter arguments.

I. KEY FACTS

Our client, Miss Mary Grace Mercadero Merca, Filipino, married and
resident of No. 849-B Sampaguita St. Plaridel Bayang Luma, Imus Cavite was
interviewed by our group last October 21, 2020 regarding the incident
happened last August 29, 2020 between her and Miss Glenda Jose resulted
to the former’s injury and damaged to her property.

Merca claimed that on the morning, around 8:00 a.m., of August 29,
2020 Jose and her husband approached their house shouting and alleging
the former that she poked the wheel of latter’s motorcycle. Jose destroyed
the screen door of Merca while shouting “Lumabas ka diyan! Walanghiya ka
bakit mo binutas ang gulong ng motor namin!” Shocked of what Jose was
saying, Merca immediately go out from their house and denied the
allegations of Jose. After the confrontation, Jose, without hesitation, rushed

1
to Merca and started to beat her. In able to protect herself, Merca fought
back resulting to their commotion on ground. Merca’s neighbour was able
to record the commotion in his cellphone. Merca suffered injuries in the
head and in other parts of her body. This was supported by a Medical
Report. The incident was recorded in their Barangay. Merca demanded to
pay her Php 5,000 which includes the Medical Fee and expenses for fixing
their screen door. Jose refused to pay Merca which resulted to their non
settlement. This was also certified by the Barangay Officials.

Prior to the incident, on August 28, 2020 a birthday celebration

happened in the compound of Merca and Jose. Eight families live in the
compound. Six families were invited except Jose’s family. In that situation,
Jose shouted “Mga patay gutom!” Jose even called one of her neighbour
“Pokpok” to which Merca defend her neighbour from Jose. This is the last
incident of confrontation happened between them prior to incident on
August 29, 2020.

II. ISSUES

1. Whether or not Merca has the cause of action to file case against Jose for
Slight Physical Injury

2. Whether or not the prescriptive period already lapsed to file case for
Slight Physical Injury.

III. BRIEF ANSWERS

1). Yes. Merca suffered injuries in the head and other parts of the body
which was supported by Medical report from the Physician. Such injuries
made her incapacitated for labor in two days.

2
2.) No, light offenses such as slight physical injury prescribed in two
months.

IV. DISCUSSIONS/ANALYSIS

The first issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not Merca has a
cause of action to file slight physical injury against Jose.

As enumerated by Judge Luis B. Reyes, there are three kinds of slight

physical injuries:

1. Physical injuries which incapacitated the offended party for labor

from one to nine days, or reqired medical attendance during the
same period;

2. Physical injuries which did not prevent the offended party from
engaging in his habitual work or which did not require medical
attendance;

3. Ill-treatment of another by deed without causing any injury.

Bruises in her arms and head which were confirmed by a Physician cause
Merca not able to work for two days. The injuries suffered by Merca falls
within the first category.

In Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code. Slight physical injuries and
maltreatment. – The crime of slight physical injuries shall be punished:

1. By arresto menor when the offender has inflicted physical injuries

which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor from one to nine days,
or shall require medical attendance during the same period.

3
 2. By arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 20 pesos and censure when
the offender has caused physical injuries which do not prevent the offended
party from engaging in his habitual work nor require medical assistance.

3. By arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding 50

pesos when the offender shall ill-treat another by deed without causing any
injury.”

The second issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not the

filing of this case falls within the prescriptive period.

Article 90 (6) of the Revised Penal Codes states that light offenses
prescribe in two months.

Article 91 of the Revised Penal Codes states that the period of

prescription shall commence to run from the day on which the crime is
discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall
be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and shall
commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the
accused being convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any
reason not imputable to him.

The term of prescription shall not run when the offender is absent
from the Philippine Archipelago.

The incident happened last August 29, 2020. The two months
prescriptive period for Merca to file complaint against Jose should end on
October 30, 2020. But since they undergone Barangay Conciliation, the
prescriptive period has been interrupted.

Under Section 410(c) of the Local Gov't Code provides: “While the
dispute is under  mediation,  conciliation, or arbitration, the prescriptive
periods for offenses and cause of action under existing laws shall be
interrupted upon filing of the complaint with the punong barangay.

4
 Merca and Jose underwent conciliation in the barangay from
September 4-14, 2020. Three hearings have been conducted but the result
came to non-settlement. A certificate to file action was issued by the
Barangay on September 14, 2020.

Hence the new prescriptive period will lapse until November 9, 2020.

V. COUNTER ARGUMENTS

Jose came to the house of Merca just to ask her about what
happened to their motorcycle and has no intention to hurt anyone. Merca
refused to confront Jose reason why Jose shouted at her. It was Merca who
rushed to Jose and started to beat her. For self defence, she fought back
against Merca.

VI. RESPONSE TO THE COUNTER ARGUMENTS

Witness will prove that it was Jose who started the commotion. Her
act of destroying Merca’s door screen is a clear manifestation of anger and
wants to hurt someone. She presented no evidence regarding her
allegation that it was Merca who poked the wheel of their motorcycle.

V. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS

Merca has a cause of action to file case against Jose. There is a clear
intent from Jose to hurt Merca by her action of provoking Merca to come
out. Her allegation that Merca poked the wheel of their motorcycle was not
supported by any evidence. It was just a presumption that it was Merca
who made it. It is highly recommended that we present the the Barangay
Report and the Medical Certificate.

5
 We also recommend to present Merca’s neighbors as our witnesses
so that they will attest to the facts that it was Jose who initiated the
commotion. If it also possible, we show the captured pictures and video by
their neighbours at the time Jose started to beat Merca.