Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Manila

SPECIAL NINTH DIVISION

BRYAN PEPITO y DAYAO, CA-G.R. SP No. 165567

Petitioner, Members:

- versus - Ybañez, E.A., Chairperson

Santos, R.A.M., and
Pascua, B.S.,* JJ.:

PEOPLE OF THE Promulgated:

PHILIPPINES,
Respondent. February 26, 2020
x==============================================x

DECISION

Santos, J.

Before this Court is an appeal, via a Petition for Review1

under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, from the Decision2 dated 16
June 2020 of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City,
Branch 211 (RTC) in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction in
Crim. Case No. M-MND-18-7607-CR-ROO. In its Decision, the
RTC affirmed with modification the Decision3 dated 6 September
2019 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Mandaluyong City,
Branch 60 (MeTC), finding petitioner Byran Pepito y Dayao
(petitioner) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Resistance and Disobedience to Agents of a Person in Authority
under Article 151 of the Revised Penal Code, the dispositive
portion of which reads as follows:

* Acting Junior Member per Office Order No. 58-21-RSF dated 22 February 2021.
1 Rollo, pp. 10-28, sans Annexes.
2 Id., at 36-42, penned by Hon. Ofelia L. Calo.
3 Id., at 30-35, penned by Hon. Karen C. Maramba-Firme.
 CA-G.R. SP No. 165567
Decision
Page 2

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated

September 6, 2019 rendered by the Metropolitan Trial Court,
Branch 60, Mandaluyong City in Criminal Case No. M-MND-
18-07607-CR is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.

Accused-appellant Bryan Pepito Y Dayao is hereby

[found] GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Simple Disobedience under paragraph 2 of Article 151 of the
Revised Penal Code and is hereby sentenced to a fine of
Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00). Subsidiary
imprisonment is imposed against the accused in case of non-
payment of fine on account of insolvency.

SO ORDERED.4 (Emphasis in the original)

The Antecedents

In an Information5 dated 23 November 2018, petitioner was

charged with the crime of Resistance and Disobedience to Agents
of a Person in Authority under Article 151 of the Revised Penal
Code, committed as follows:

That on or about 22nd day of November 2018, in the City

of Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, above-named accused, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously resist, ignore and
disobey B/B VICTOR DIZON Y ALEJO, thus an agent of a
person in authority, which fact is known to the accused, who
was in the performance of his official duties of maintaining
peace and order in the community, by then and there refusing
to be elbowing [sic] B/B VICTOR DIZON Y ALEJO after he
held accused in connection with the complaint of a taxi driver
that accused did not pay his taxi fare, and continuously
dragging B/B VICTOR DIZON Y ALEJO away as accused tried
to run away.

CONTRARY TO LAW.6 (Emphasis in the original)

Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the

4 Id., at 41-42.
5 Id., at 43-44.
6 Id., at 43.
 CA-G.R. SP No. 165567
Decision
Page 3

offense charged in the Information.7 Thereafter, trial on the merits

ensued.

The prosecution presented Bantay-Bayan Victor Dizon (B/B

Dizon),8 as its witness. The prosecution’s version of the events is
as follows:

B/B Dizon testified that around 7:45 in the morning of 22

November 2018, while he was at the Barangay Office, their
Barangay Secretary Fe Belita received a call from a concerned
citizen that there is an ongoing commotion along Cavo F. Sanchez
St., Mandaluyong City.9 Thus, B/B Dizon and his companions,
who were in Bantay-Bayan uniform, proceeded to the said place
using their Bantay-Bayan patrol vehicle.10 When they arrived at
the said place, Wilson Porcales, a taxi driver, informed them that
petitioner did not pay his fare in the amount of Four Hundred
Seventy Eight Pesos (Php478.00).11 At this, B/B Dizon and his
companions chased petitioner who was walking fast towards an
alley.12 When they were able to catch up with petitioner, B/B
Dizon confronted petitioner as to why he did not pay the taxi
fare.13 Instead of settling the issue calmly, petitioner got angry.14
B/B Dizon asked petitioner to go to the Barangay to settle the
matter but petitioner refused. B/B Dizon tried to hold petitioner’s
hand.15 However, petitioner resisted and elbowed B/B Dizon
causing him to fall to the ground. 16 As a result thereof, B/B
Dizon's watch and his radio were both damaged.17 B/B Dizon
was able to grab and hold on to petitioner's pants. 18 A struggle
ensued and this led to the dragging of B/B Dizon. 19 With the help
of the other member of Bantay-Bayan, B/B Dizon was able to
apprehend petitioner and brought him to the Barangay Office for
7 Id., at 45.
8 Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN) dated 26 February 2019.
9 TSN dated 26 February 2019, pp. 6-8.
10 Id., at 4, 8, and 11.
11 Id., at 4-5, and 8.
12 Id., at 5 and 9.
13 Id., at 6 and 9.
14 Ibid.
15 Id., at 6-7, and 9.
16 Ibid.
17 Id., at 7 and 12.
18 Id., at 7.
19 Id., at 10.
 CA-G.R. SP No. 165567
Decision
Page 4

investigation.20

On 18 March 2019, petitioner filed a Demurrer to Evidence

(With Leave of Court),21 but the same was denied by the MeTC in
its Order22 dated 15 May 2019.

The defense presented petitioner as its sole witness.23

Petitioner raised the defense of denial. He denied resisting the
arrest. He claimed that he voluntarily agreed to go with B/B
Dizon to the Barangay but the latter pushed him and pulled his
clothes.24 Even though he was hurt, petitioner did not press any
charges against B/B Dizon and his companions.25

In its Decision26 dated 6 September 2019, the MeTC found

petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Serious
Disobedience to an Agent of a Person in Authority, and sentenced
him to suffer the penalty of one (1) month imprisonment and to
pay a fine of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00). The dispositive
portion of the Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby

rendered finding accused Bryan Pepito y Dayao GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Serious Disobedience
and is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of one (1)
month of Arresto Mayor and a fine of Thirty Thousand Pesos
(P30,000.00).

SO ORDERED.27

In ruling so, the MeTC found that all the elements of the
offense were present: B/B Dizon was an agent of a person in
authority, and petitioner elbowed him while he was engaged in
the performance of his official duty. It also found that there is no
20 Id., at 7, and 10.
21 Rollo, pp. 68-70.
22 Id., at 73-73.
23 TSN dated 13 August 2019.
24 Id., at 6-7.
25 Id., at 7.
26 Supra, note 3.
27 Id., at 35.
 CA-G.R. SP No. 165567
Decision
Page 5

evidence of ill-motive on the part of B/B Dizon to accuse

petitioner falsely of a crime.

Petitioner interposed an appeal before the RTC. On 16 June

2020, the RTC rendered the assailed Decision affirming with
modification the MeTC 6 September 2019 Decision. The RTC
found petitioner guilty of Simple Disobedience only and reduced
the penalty to a fine in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos
(Php20,000.00).

Hence, the instant Petition for Review.

Pursuant to this Court’s Minute Resolution28 dated 1

September 2020, respondent, through the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG) filed its Comment29 to the petition. On 25 January
2021, petitioner filed a Manifestation (in Lieu of Reply).30
Accordingly, the case is now submitted for decision.

Issue

Petitioner raised the lone issue for resolution of this Court:

WHETHER THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC) GRAVELY

ERRED IN AFFIRMING WITH MODIFICATION THE
CONVICTION OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE CRIME OF
SIMPLE DISOBEDIENCE TO AN AGENT OF A PERSON IN
AUTHORITY, DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO
PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT ALL THE
ELEMENTS THEREOF.31

This Court's Ruling

Petitioner claims that the lower courts erred in convicting

him of the the crime charged despite the prosecution's failure to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. According to petitioner,
the prosecution failed to prove that B/B Dizon was engaged in
28 Id., at 100.
29 Id., at 119-129.
30 Id., at 131-133.
31 Id., at 12.
 CA-G.R. SP No. 165567
Decision
Page 6

the performance of his official duties, and that petitioner

disobeyed him.32 He also claims that there is no proof that B/B
Dizon was a Bantay-Bayan. He claims that the report from the
concerned citizen was not established and that the taxi driver was
not presented to prove that the commotion indeed happened.33

He likewise contends that the prosecution failed to prove

that he elbowed and then dragged B/B Dizon. 34 He further harps
on the fact that B/B Dizon made a conflicting statements in his
Sworn Statement and in his testimony in open court. 35 Thus, he
claims that the trial court erred in giving full faith and credence
on the testimony of B/B Dizon.

For the State, the OSG counters that the prosecution was
able to prove the elements of the offense beyond reasonable
doubt. The OSG alleges that the RTC is correct in affirming the
Decision of the MeTC since the same is supported by credible
evidence and is consistent with law and jurisprudence.36

The Petition for Review is bereft of merit.

Resistance or disobedience to agents of a person in authority

is punished under Article 151 of the Revised Penal Code, which
provides:

ARTICLE 151. Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority

or the agents of such person. —The penalty of arresto mayor and a
fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person
who not being included in the provisions of the preceding
articles shall resist or seriously disobey any person in authority,
or the agents of such person, while engaged in the performance
of official duties.

When the disobedience to an agent of a person in authority is

not of a serious nature, the penalty of arresto menor or a fine
ranging from 10 to 100 pesos shall be imposed upon the
32 Id., at 17.
33 Ibid.
34 Id., at 21.
35 Ibid.
36 Id., at 122.
 CA-G.R. SP No. 165567
Decision
Page 7

offender.

For this crime to be proven, the following elements must be

established: 1) that a person in authority or his agent is engaged
in the performance of official duty or gives a lawful order to the
offender; and 2) that the offender resists or seriously disobeys
such person or his agent.37

In the case at bar, the prosecution has sufficiently proven

the elements of the offense charged. Petitioner knew that B/B
Dizon and his companions were barangay tanods who were
engaged in the performance of their official duties. As aptly
discussed in the Decision of the MeTC, which was affirmed by the
RTC, petitioner never refuted that B/B Dizon and his companions
were engaged in the performance of their duties and their
authority is evident in their uniform, viz:

x x x It was never refuted by the accused that B/B Victor Dizon

and his companions were engaged in the performance of their
duties as Bantay-bayan members of Barangay Hagdang Bato
Itaas, Mandaluyong City when they responded to the phone
call of a concerned citizen. His authority is evidence [sic] in the
uniform he was wearing at that time which is that of a member
of the Bantay Bayan. As established by the prosecution, the
accused got angry when he was approached by the
complainant upon the complaint of a taxi driver that he did not
pay his taxi fare. Instead of heeding the advice of the
complainant to settle the matter before the barangay, the
accused resisted and insisted in going home and when
apprehended, accused elbowed the complainant causing the
latter to fall down. Complainant was able to hold on to accused’
pants who however continued to defy the directive of the
bantay bayan to stop and face the taxi driver, as such,
complainant was dragged by accused. It was only when
complainant’s companion helped him that they were able to
control and apprehend accused.

The court notes that the incident happened in broad

daylight, during the rush hour on a Thursday morning. The
image of a bantay bayan being dragged by person who should,
at first instance heeded the lawful order of said person in
37 Sydeco v. People, G.R. No. 202692, 12 November 2014.
 CA-G.R. SP No. 165567
Decision
Page 8

authority shows manifest intent to disregard the law and the

officers enforcing it.

xxx38

Thus, there can be no quibble that B/B Dizon and his

companions are agents of a person in authority. Therefore, the act
of petitioner in elbowing B/B Dizon when the latter invited him
to go to the Barangay sufficiently proves the crime defined under
Article 151 of the Revised Penal Code.

In assailing the trial court's ruling, petitioner questions the

credibility of B/B Dizon and alleges that his testimony is
insufficient to support his conviction. He contends that B/B
Dizon contradicted what he stated in his Sinumpaang Salaysay. He
claims that B/B Dizon made inconsistent statements which put
his credibility in doubt.

Upon review of the record, however, this Court finds no

cogent reason to disturb the trial court’s assessment regarding
B/B Dizon's credibility. It is settled that when a conviction hinges
on the credibility of a witness, the assessment of the trial court is
accorded the highest degree of respect. Absent any compelling
reason to depart from this established rule, factual conclusions
reached by the lower court, which had the opportunity to observe
and evaluate the demeanor of the witness while on the witness
stand, should not be disturbed.39

In this case, this Court finds no reason to disturb the

findings of fact of the trial court as regard the assessment of the
credibility of the prosecution witness and his testimony. Although
the taxi driver did not testify in court, the testimony of B/B Dizon
is sufficient to prove the commission by petitioner of the crime
charged as the testimony clearly points out to the presence of the
elements of the crime. In People v. Cabote,40 it was ruled that:

38 Rollo, pp. 33-34.

39 Sarabia v. People, G.R. No. 142024, 20 July 2001, citing People v. Empleo, 226 SCRA 454
(1993); People v. Abarico, 238 SCRA 203 (1994).
40 G.R. No. 136143, 15 November 2001.
 CA-G.R. SP No. 165567
Decision
Page 9

We find no reason to disturb the trial court's assessment

of the lone witness. Time and again, we have ruled that the
findings of a trial court on the credibility of witnesses deserves
great weight as the trial judge has a clear advantage over the
appellate magistrate in appreciating testimonial evidence. The
trial judge is in the best position to assess the witness'
credibility as he had the unique opportunity to observe the
witness firsthand and note his demeanor, conduct and attitude
under grueling examination. Absent any showing that the trial
court's calibration of credibility was flawed, we are bound by
its assessment.

It also worthy to stress that the testimony of a lone witness,

if positive and credible, is sufficient to support a conviction
especially when the testimony bears the earmarks of truth and
sincerity and had been delivered spontaneously, naturally and in
a straightforward manner. Witnesses are to be weighed, not
numbered; hence, it is not at all uncommon to reach a conclusion
of guilt on the basis of the testimony of a single witness.41

Furthermore, there was no ill motive shown that could

impeach B/B Dizon's credibility. It has been held that where there
is no evidence showing devious reasons or improper motives
why a prosecution witness would falsely testify against or
implicate an accused in a crime, the testimony is worthy of full
faith and credit.42

Petitioner nonetheless attempts to discredit B/B Dizon's

testimony by pointing to the alleged inconsistencies in his
testimony. Petitioner contends that B/B Dizon contradicted what
he stated in his Sinumpaang Salaysay. He alleges that in B/B
Dizon's Sinumpaang Salaysay, he claimed that he handcuffed
petitioner immediately after arresting him, while in his testimony,
he claimed that he did not. He also argues that B/B Dizon's claim
that his radio was damaged after he elbowed him was not
mentioned in his Sinumpaang Salaysay.43

41 People v. Alagon, G.R. No. 126536-37, 10 February 2000.

42 People v. Gayomma, G.R. No. 128129, 30 September 1999.
43 Rollo, p. 21.
 CA-G.R. SP No. 165567
Decision
Page 10

Petitioner cannot rely on mere alleged differences between

the Sinumpaang Salaysay and the testimony of the prosecution
witness to exculpate him. As the Supreme Court held in People v.
Dabon:44

The most honest witnesses may make mistakes

sometimes, but such innocent lapses do not necessarily impair
their credibility. The testimony of a witness must be considered
and calibrated in its entirety and not by truncated portions
thereof or isolated passages therein. It is a matter of judicial
experience that an affidavit, being ex parte, is almost always
incomplete and often inaccurate, sometimes from partial
suggestions, sometimes for want of suggestions and inquiries,
without the aid of which the witness may be unable to recall the
connected collateral circumstances necessary for the correction
of the first suggestions of his memory and for his accurate
recollection of all that belongs to the subject. Affidavits taken ex
parte are generally considered to be inferior to the testimony
given in open court. Therefore, discrepancies between
statements of the affiant in his affidavit and those made by him
on the witness stand do not necessarily discredit him.

In fact, it appears that there is no real inconsistency between

the Sinumpaang Salaysay and the testimony of B/B Dizon. In his
direct examination, B/B Dizon testified that he could not have
handcuffed petitioner since he was not carrying any handcuffs
then.45 Petitioner corroborated B/B Dizon's testimony that he did
not handcuff him immediately after arresting him. Petitioner
testified that the Bantay Bayan handcuffed him at the barangay
hall.46

With respect to B/B Dizon's failure to mention that his radio

was damaged in his Sinumpaang Salaysay, there is no evidentiary
rule to the effect that the omission of certain particulars in an
affidavit would preclude or estop an affiant from making an
elaboration thereof during the trial.47 As previously stated, an

44 G.R. No. 102004, 16 December 1992.

45 TSN dated 26 February 2019, p. 10.
46 Judicial Affidavit of Petitioner Bryan Pepito dated 25 June 2019, Rollo, p. 64.
47 People v. San Juan, G.R. No. 112449-50, 31 July 2000.
 CA-G.R. SP No. 165567
Decision
Page 11

affidavit, being taken ex parte, is almost always incomplete and

often inaccurate.48

In any event, it is also worth emphasizing that the alleged

inconsistencies pointed out by petitioner refer only to trivial
matters which do not touch on any of the elements of the crime
charged. It is settled that a mere inconsistency with respect to
collateral matters does not and will not affect the credibility of the
prosecution witness so long as all the elements of the offense have
been established with certainty.49 Petitioner thus cannot rely on
the supposed inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution
witness to exculpate himself.

For his part, petitioner merely offered a defense of denial in

trying to exculpate himself from the crime charged. This Court,
however, finds such defense unavailing. The defense of denial of
petitioner cannot prevail over the positive and unequivocal
identification by the private complainant. It is axiomatic that an
affirmative testimony is far stronger than a negative testimony
especially when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness.
Denial, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is
negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in
law.50

Accordingly, this Court finds no compelling reason to

disturb the finding and ruling of the lower courts. Anent the
penalty imposed by the RTC, this Court finds it to be in
accordance with law.

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is DENIED for lack of

merit. The Decision dated 16 June 2020 of the Regional Trial Court
of Mandaluyong City, Branch 211 in Crim. Case No. M-MND-18-
7607-CR-ROO is AFFIRMED.

48 Supra, note 41.

49 People v. Nicolas, G.R. No. 170234, 8 February 2007, cited in People v. Dela Rosa, G.R. No.
185166, 26 January 2011.
50 People v. Anticamara, G.R. No. 178771, 8 June 2011.
 CA-G.R. SP No. 165567
Decision
Page 12

SO ORDERED.

RAFAEL ANTONIO M. SANTOS

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ELIHU A. YBAÑEZ
Associate Justice

BONIFACIO S. PASCUA
Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is

hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were
reached in consultation before the opinion of the Court was
written.

ELIHU A. YBAÑEZ
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Special Ninth Division
/ACQ