G.R. No. 210810 - Del Poso y Dela Cerna vs. People

Petitioner Ricardo Del Poso y Dela Cerna was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 38, Manila, under Criminal Case No. 05-239429, for violation of Section 10 (a) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610.
The victim, VVV, a minor of 9 years old at the time of the incident, was entrusted to the petitioner by her biological mother and was under his guardianship.

On September 10, 2005, petitioner ordered VVV to attend to his photocopying business.
While at the business, VVV fell asleep. Petitioner became angry, laid VVV on an ironing board, and placed a heated flat iron on her.
VVV sustained multiple first-degree burns on her forehead, right elbow, left cheek, left buttock, and back as she tried to evade the heat.
The next morning, petitioner’s wife noticed the burns and admonished petitioner.
VVV was later taken to her grandmother (Lola Ma. Luisa), who saw the injuries and brought VVV to the Barangay Hall, where the incident was recorded in the blotter.
VVV was subsequently brought to a hospital and to the police station.

An Information was filed against petitioner for cruelty and abusive acts, causing injury to VVV with a hot flat iron, inflicting first-degree burns that demeaned her dignity and were prejudicial to her growth and development.
The prosecution presented seven witnesses, including social workers, police personnel, Barangay Kagawad, hospital records custodian, victim herself, and medical doctor.
VVV testified about the burns inflicted and other prior physical abuses committed by petitioner.
Petitioner claimed the injury was accidental and that he intended to only scare VVV for playing under a table, not knowing she was hurt immediately.

The RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt under Section 10 (a) of R.A. No. 7610 and sentenced him to imprisonment ranging from minimum prision correccional to maximum prision mayor.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC Decision and dismissed the appeal.

Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing:

The burns were accidental and occurred while trying to scare VVV.
Mitigating circumstances of no intent to commit grave wrong, passion, and obfuscation were wrongly denied.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) opposed the petition, asserting the correct application of the law and appropriate penalties.
Petitioner reiterated his arguments in his Reply.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of petitioner for violation of Section 10 (a) of R.A. No. 7610 despite petitioner’s claim of accidental injury.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not appreciating the mitigating circumstances of:

Whether the Petition for Review on Certiorari raising factual issues is proper under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.