As a result of the above incidents, petitioner Ricky Dinamling was charged in two (2) criminal
Informations in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for violation of Section 5(i), in relation to Section
6(f)7 of RA No. 9262. The two Informations against him read:
Criminal Case No. 1701:
That on or about the evening of March 14, 2007, at XXX, Ifugao, the above-named accused did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously inflict psychological violence upon AAA, a woman with
whom he has two common children, resulting to mental and emotional anguish and public ridicule or
humiliation by repeated verbal and emotional abuse consisting of several bad and insulting
utterances directed against the victim and a feeding bottle being thrown against the latter in anger.
CONTRARY TO LAW, with the offense being attended by the special qualifying aggravating
circumstance of the victim being pregnant at the time.
Criminal Case No. 1702:
That on or about the evening of March 20, 2007 at XXX, Ifugao, the above-named accused did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously inflict psychological violence upon AAA, a woman with
whom he has two common children, resulting to mental and emotional anguish and public ridicule or
humiliation by boxing the victim on the head, kicking her at the back and removing her pant(sic) and
panty (sic).
CONTRARY TO LAW, with the offense being attended by the special qualifying aggravating
circumstance of the victim being pregnant at the time.
Upon arraignment, Dinamling pleaded Not Guilty to both charges. Thereafter, the cases were tried
jointly.8
For the prosecution, AAA, her mother DDD and Dr. Mae Codamon Diaz testified. For the accused,
only petitioner testified for and in his own defense. His defense was denial and alibi, claiming that he
was on duty at the town's police station at the time that the offenses were committed.9
After trial, the RTC rendered its decision on August 4, 2009 finding Dinamling guilty of both charges.
For Criminal Case No. 1701, the court sentenced him to suffer imprisonment of from ten (10) years
and one (1) day to twelve (12) years of prision mayor.10 For Criminal Case No. 1702, the court
ordered him to suffer imprisonment of from ten (10) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years of
prision mayor in its maximum period.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the decision in Criminal Case No. 1701 was affirmed and the one
in Criminal Case No. 1702 was affirmed with the modification on the penalty, by applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, such that Dinamling was sentenced to imprisonment of nine (9) years,
four (4) months and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12) years of prision mayor,
as maximum.
Hence, the present petition.
The petition assails the findings of the Court of Appeals for allegedly disregarding his defenses of
denial and alibi as well as in discounting the supposedly exculpatory nature of a part of a
prosecution witness' testimony. Allegedly, the witness, Dr. Diaz, testified that she was unsure if the