Case Digest (G.R. No. 210810)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 210810)
Facts:
Ricardo Del Poso y Dela Cerna v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 210810, December 07, 2016, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Ricardo Del Poso y Dela Cerna (petitioner) sought reversal of the Court of Appeals’ July 22, 2013 decision which affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 38, Manila’s July 1, 2011 conviction of petitioner for violation of Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act). The RTC decision was penned by Presiding Judge Ma. Celestina C. Mangrobang; the CA decision was penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales‑Sison.The victim, referred to as VVV, was given by her biological mother to petitioner as a guardian when she was seven. On September 10, 2005, when VVV was nine, petitioner asked her to attend to his photocopying business; she fell asleep while attending it. According to the prosecution, petitioner laid VVV on an ironing board and placed a heated flat iron on her, causing first‑degree burns to her forehead, right elbow, left cheek, left buttock and back. VVV’s grandmother and other relatives observed the burns, reported the matter at the barangay, and VVV was taken to the hospital and later to the police. An Information was filed charging petitioner with cruelty and abusive acts under R.A. No. 7610.
At trial the prosecution presented seven witnesses including social workers, the investigator, a barangay kagawad, medical records custodian, a doctor, and VVV, whose testimony included prior abusive acts by petitioner. Petitioner claimed the injury was accidental and maintained he only intended to scare VVV with the hot iron; he asserted he applied medication thereafter. The RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610 and imposed an indeterminate sentence. The CA affirmed the RTC in all respects on July 22, 2013.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 on January 28, 2014, arguing (1) the victim’s admission that she sustained the burns while evading the iron showed the act was accidental and (2) the courts erred in not appreciating mitigating circumstances—lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong and passion/obfuscation—warranting reduction of sentence. The Office of the Solicitor General filed a Comment urging affirmation. The Supreme Court resolved the petition.
Issues:
- Does the Petition for Review under Rule 45 properly raise questions of law, or are the issues raised predominantly questions of fact outside Rule 45 review?
- Were the elements of Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610 proven beyond reasonable doubt so as to sustain petitioner’s conviction?
- Are the mitigating circumstances of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong and passion and/or obfuscation applicable to reduce petitioner’s penalty?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)