CASE 2016-0069: RICARDO DEL POSO y DELA CERNA,  V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (G.R. No. 210810, 7 DECEMBER 2016,  PERALTA, J.) (R.A. 7610; CHILD ABUSE; WHO ARE CHILDREN; WHEN QUESTIONS OF FACT CAN BE RAISED UNDER RULE 45; QUESTION OF FACT VIS A VIS QUESTION OF LAW; WHEN MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF LACK OF MOTIVE AND PASSION/OBFUSCATION APPLIES) (BRIEF TITLE: DEL POSO VS PEOPLE)


DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 dated January 28, 2014 of Ricardo Del Poso y Dela Cerna is DENIED for lack merit and the Decision dated July 22, 2013, dismissing petitioner’s appeal and affirming the Decision dated July 1, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, Manila in Criminal Case No. 05-239429, convicting petitioner of violation of Section 10 (a) of R.A No. 7610 and imposing upon petitioner the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of four ( 4) years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, is AFFIRMED.

 

SO ORDERED.”


SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

MAY QUESTIONS OF FACT BE RAISED UNDER RULE 45?

 

AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULE, QUESTIONS OF FACT MAY BE RAISED IN A RULE 45 PETITION IF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING IS PRESENT:


(1) WHEN THERE IS GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION;

 

(2) WHEN THE FINDINGS ARE GROUNDED ON SPECULATIONS;

 

(3) WHEN THE INFERENCE MADE IS MANIFESTLY MISTAKEN;

 

( 4) WHEN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS BASED ON A MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS;

 

(5) WHEN THE FACTUAL FINDINGS ARE CONFLICTING;

 

 (6) WHEN THE COURT OF APPEALS WENT BEYOND THE ISSUES OF THE CASE AND ITS FINDINGS ARE CONTRARY TO THE ADMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES;

 

(7) WHEN THE COURT OF APPEALS OVERLOOKED UNDISPUTED FACTS WHICH, IF PROPERLY CONSIDERED, WOULD JUSTIFY A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION;

 

(8) WHEN THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ARE CONTRARY TO THOSE OF THE TRIAL COURT;

 

(9) WHEN THE FACTS SET FORTH BY THE PETITIONER ARE NOT DISPUTED BY THE RESPONDENT; AND

 

(10) WHEN THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ARE PREMISED ON THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE AND ARE CONTRADICTED BY THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD. 8

 

WHEN DOES QUESTION OF FACT EXIST?

 

A QUESTION OF FACT EXISTS “WHEN THE DOUBT OR DIFFERENCE ARISES AS TO THE TRUTH OR THE FALSEHOOD OF ALLEGED FACTS.

 

WHEN DOES QUESTION OF LAW EXISTS?

 

ON THE OTHER HAND, A QUESTION OF LAW EXISTS “WHEN THE DOUBT OR DIFFERENCE ARISES AS TO WHAT THE LAW IS ON A CERTAIN STATE OF FACTS.”

 

WHAT IS CHILD ABUSE?

 

SECTION 3 OF THE SAME LAW DEFINES CHILD ABUSE AS

 

3 (B) “CHILD ABUSE” REFERS TO THE MALTREATMENT, WHETHER HABITUAL OR NOT, OF THE CHILD WHICH INCLUDES ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

 

(1) PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL ABUSE, NEGLECT, CRUELTY, SEXUAL ABUSE AND EMOTIONAL MALTREATMENT;

 

(2) ANY ACT BY DEEDS OR WORDS WHICH DEBASES, DEGRADES OR DEMEANS THE INTRINSIC WORTH AND DIGNITY OF A CHILD AS A HUMAN BEING.

 

DEFINE CHILDREN?

 

THE SUBJECT STATUTE DEFINES CHILDREN AS PERSONS BELOW EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS OF AGE; OR THOSE OVER THAT AGE BUT ARE UNABLE TO FULLY TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES OR PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM ABUSE, NEGLECT, CRUELTY, EXPLOITATION OR DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF A PHYSICAL OR MENTAL DISABILITY OR CONDITION.13

 

PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THE COURT A QUO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF LACK OF INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG. IS HE CORRECT?

 

NO.

 

SUCH MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE CAN BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ONLY WHEN THE FACTS PROVEN SHOW THAT THERE IS A NOTABLE AND EVIDENT DISPROPORTION BETWEEN THE MEANS EMPLOYED TO EXECUTE THE CRIMINAL ACT AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.

 

CAN THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF PASSION OR OBFUSCATION APPLY?

 

NO.

 

THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF PASSION OR OBFUSCATION ONLY APPLIES IF THE ACT OF THE VICTIM IS BOTH UNLAWFUL AND SUFFICIENT TO PRODUCE SUCH CONDITION OF MIND.

 

A CHILD WHO FELL ASLEEP WHILE ATTENDING TO A BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT :S NOT AN OFFENSE AT ALL AND COULD NOT GIVE RISE TO AN IMPULSE SUFFICIENT AND POWERFUL TO NATURALLY PRODUCE A JUSTIFIED DIMINUTION OF AN ADULT’S SELFCONTROL. IN THIS CASE PETITIONER BURNT THE CHILD WITH HOT IRON.

 

TO BE ENTITLED TO THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE [OF PASSION AND/OR OBFUSCATION THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS MUST BE PRESENT: (1) THERE SHOULD BE AN ACT BOTH UNLAWFUL AND SUFFICIENT TO PRODUCE SUCH CONDITION OF MIND; (2) THE ACT THAT PRODUCED THE OBFUSCATION WAS NOT FAR REMOVED FROM THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME BY A CONSIDERABLE LENGTH OF TIME, DURING WHICH THE PERPETRATOR MIGHT RECOVER HIS NORMAL EQUANIMITY.


 TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

scd-2016-0091-ricardo-del-poso-y-dela-cerna-vs-people-of-the-philippines

 

 NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.