G.R. No. 37271 - People vs. Caliso

The appellant, Magdalena Caliso, a domestic servant who sometimes acted as the amah of the family, was convicted of the crime of murder.
The victim was a 9-month-old child, Emilio Esmeralda, Jr., who died as a result of poisoning by acid acetico.
The crime occurred on February 8, 1932, in La Carlota, Negros Occidental while the victim’s parents were asleep.

During an afternoon siesta, a piercing cry from the infant awoke Mrs. Esmeralda.
Upon inspecting the baby’s bed, she noted a strong odor of acid acetico, typical burns on the child’s mouth, throat, and other vital organs, and signs that the acid had been administered.

Dr. Augusto Locsin, arriving shortly after the cry, immediately noted the odor of acid acetico and attempted an initial cure by washing the child’s throat.
Later, Dr. Orosa (chief medical officer at the provincial hospital) and Dr. Ochoa (a specialist in diseases of the five senses) confirmed through their examinations that the child suffered from acid burns and asphyxia due to acid poisoning.
All the doctors unanimously agreed that the cause of death was poisoning by acid acetico, dismissing alternative theories (such as indigestion from an accidental mixture of orange juice and milk).

The accused was the only person in the household who could have had access to the bottle containing the acid acetico, which was kept in the kitchen.
Testimonies from several residents, including a chemical expert (Julian Gomeri), confirmed that the smell of acid was present in the room.
The victim’s parents (both with expertise in pharmaceuticals or chemistry) also confirmed having detected the unmistakable odor of acid acetico during the incident.

Prior to the poisoning, an incident had occurred wherein a male guest was discovered under the bed, following which Mrs. Esmeralda had harshly reprimanded the accused for her immoral behavior.
The accused was singled out by the victim’s mother on that day, being the only one to have received a verbal reprimand for harboring an illicit relationship, thus establishing a potential motive rooted in revenge.

While testifying, the accused denied perceiving the odor of acid acetico, a claim at odds with the testimony of medical experts, the victim’s parents, and another house member, Julian Gomeri.
Shortly after the incident, she returned to the police station on request rather than fleeing, a fact used against her argument of innocence.
Her actions later in the day (returning to the municipal building upon the police chief’s directive) were interpreted as an attempt to appear cooperative and prepare a defense, rather than evidence of an inadvertent mistake.

Based on the presented circumstantial evidence and expert testimonies, the trial court found beyond any rational doubt that:

The infant died as a direct result of acid acetico poisoning.
The accused intentionally administered the substance while the parents were asleep, targeting the vulnerable child to exact revenge.

The abuse of confidence inherent in the domestic servant’s trusted position.
The crime’s commission within the victim’s domicile, which served as an amplifying factor despite later being partly discounted by the appellate analysis.

The penalty imposed was reclusion perpetua, with additional orders that the accused indemnify the parents of the deceased in the sum of P1,000 and pay the judicial costs.

On appeal, the accused’s counsel attacked only the findings of fact made in the trial court, not raising any question of law.
The appellate court agreed with the factual determinations of the trial court and scrutinized the application of aggravating circumstances (specifically, abuse of confidence and the dwelling factor) and their role in mitigating or aggravating the penalty.

Whether the circumstantial evidence, including testimonies from multiple experts and household members, conclusively established that the child’s death was due to poisoning with acid acetico.
Whether the presence or absence of an immediate autopsy or further forensic corroboration affected the certainty of the cause of death.

Whether the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence — stemming from the accused’s position as a domestic servant — should be considered in calculating the degree of the prescribed penalty.
Whether the fact that the murder took place within the victim’s domicile (the house which both the victim and the accused shared) is an appropriate aggravating factor.
Whether the accused’s subsequent behavior (such as returning voluntarily to the police station) could be interpreted as mitigating her responsibility by indicating an attempt to remedy the situation.

Whether the mode of execution – administering acid acetico – inherently constitutes treachery or if it forms part of the natural modus operandi of poisoning, thus not warranting additional aggravation.