Case Digest (G.R. No. 235071)
Facts:
In Evangeline Patulot y Galia v. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 235071, January 07, 2019), the petitioner was tried for two counts of child abuse under Republic Act No. 7610 for pouring boiling oil on her neighbor, CCC, who was accompanied by her children, AAA (3 years old) and BBB (2 months old), on November 14, 2012 in Taguig City. The Informations alleged that Patulot’s act inflicted physical injuries prejudicial to the minors’ growth. At trial, CCC, her spouse DDD, and Dr. Vitales testified and presented medical receipts, birth certificates, photographs, and sworn statements. They established that hot cooking oil from a casserole held by Patulot hit both children, causing burns that required hospitalization and a thirty-day healing period. Patulot denied the accusations, claiming she intended only to curse CCC and that the children were accidentally hit. The Regional Trial Court of Pasig City found her guilty on November 19, 2014, sentencing her to indeterminate terms oCase Digest (G.R. No. 235071)
Facts:
- Charges and Informations
- Criminal Case No. 149971: Evangeline Patulot y Galia charged under R.A. No. 7610, Sec. 10(a), with child abuse of AAA (3-year-old) by throwing boiling oil on him on November 14, 2012, in Taguig City.
- Criminal Case No. 149972: Same charge for child abuse of BBB (2-month-old) under identical circumstances.
- Trial Proceedings and Evidence
- Prosecution witnesses: CCC (mother), DDD (father), Dr. Francis Jerome Vitales; documentary evidence (medical certificates, Sinumpaang Salaysay, birth certificates, photos). Testimony established that Patulot poured hot cooking oil on CCC, which also hit AAA and BBB; victims treated at Polyclinic and District Hospital; injuries heal in ~30 days; medical expenses P7,440.
- Defense: Patulot denied charges, claimed prior altercation with CCC and that she was elsewhere repacking black pepper when arrested.
- RTC Decision (Nov. 19, 2014)
- Found Patulot guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of child abuse; sentenced to indeterminate penalty of 6 years & 1 day to 7 years & 4 months prision mayor per count; actual damages P3,702 each; moral damages P10,000 each; fine P5,000 each.
- Held that R.A. No. 7610 is a special law not requiring proof of intent; negligence sufficed.
- CA Decision (Jul. 13, 2017)
- Affirmed conviction but modified penalty to indeterminate 4 years, 9 months & 11 days prision correccional as minimum to 7 years & 4 months prision mayor as maximum per count.
- Clarified that special-law status does not alone make an offense malum prohibitum; legislative intent controls. Even absent intent to harm children, intent to harm CCC suffices; no mitigating “no intent” circumstance.
- SC Petition and Issues
- Patulot argued lack of intent to demean children per Bongalon v. People, claiming only physical injuries to CCC were intended; sought conviction under RPC for slight physical injuries and application of Article 49 RPC to reduce penalty.
- Raised two issues: (1) whether CA erred in affirming child-abuse conviction without proof of intent to degrade/demean; (2) whether CA erred in not applying Article 49 RPC in penalty assessment.
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for child abuse under Sec. 10(a), R.A. 7610, despite lack of intent to degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the victim children.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in failing to apply Article 49 of the Revised Penal Code for penalty determination, given the unintended harm to the children.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)