G.R. No. 207229 - People vs. Cabellon y Cabanero

Case Summary (G.R. No. 207229)

Factual Background

Appellant exhibited progressive abdominal enlargement from late 2009 into 2010 and consulted Dr. Delia Futalan on December 18, 2009 and again on May 17, 2010. Neighbors and a nonmedical therapist observed a bulging abdomen and appellant admitted delayed menses. Appellant sometimes attributed her condition to an uray or evil spirit and reportedly told a neighbor she would strangle whatever she would give birth to. On July 17, 2010 witnesses heard a baby crying inside an abandoned family shanty and later saw appellant and her mother in blood-stained clothes and bloodied rags in the shanty. Neighbors observed a freshly dug hole there. On July 20, 2010 a newborn female infant with placenta and umbilical cord intact was found floating in Arabe Creek, decomposing and estimated by Dr. Futalan to have died two to three days earlier. On July 20, 2010 Dr. Futalan examined appellant and found clinical signs compatible with recent vaginal delivery.

Investigation and Physical Evidence

Police recovered photographic exhibits of the scene and prepared a blotter entry regarding the discovery of the infant. The prosecution offered affidavits and photographs marked in the record as exhibits “A” through “R,” Dr. Futalan’s medical certificates dated December 18, 2009 and July 20, 2010, and her certification of examination of the infant’s body. The prosecution moved for exhumation of the buried infant for DNA testing; the trial court granted the motion on August 16, 2013, but the infant’s remains could not be located thereafter.

Trial Proceedings and Verdict Below

Appellant pleaded not guilty and presented no testimonial or documentary evidence at trial. The prosecution presented eight witnesses including neighbors, police officers, and Dr. Futalan. By Decision dated February 23, 2016, the trial court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of infanticide under Article 255 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced her to reclusion perpetua. The trial court also ordered payment of civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and temperate damages in amounts reflected in the record.

Appellant’s Contentions on Appeal

Appellant contended that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was pregnant, that she gave birth to a live child, or that she killed the child. She emphasized the absence of direct eyewitnesses to the birth or killing, the initial medical assessment that did not confirm pregnancy, the poverty of her circumstances and lack of prenatal care, and her alleged physical incapacity to strangle the child because she was bleeding and weak. Appellant also argued that the lesser penalty under Article 255 should apply if the killing was committed to conceal dishonor and that reclusion perpetua was excessive.

Prosecution’s Position on Appeal

The Office of the Solicitor General urged affirmance and relied on established jurisprudence permitting conviction on circumstantial evidence where crimes are committed in secrecy, citing People v. Pentecostes and People v. Casitas, Jr. The OSG stressed the unbroken chain of circumstances: consistent observations of pregnancy, admissions and inculpatory statements by appellant, clinical findings by Dr. Futalan indicative of recent delivery, the discovery of a fully developed newborn in the creek, appellant’s opposition to exhumation, and the subsequent disappearance of the infant’s remains.

Court of Appeals’ Ruling

By Decision dated July 6, 2017 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02210, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s conviction. The appellate court held that lack of direct evidence did not preclude conviction because the prosecution established more than one proven circumstance that, taken together, formed an unbroken chain pointing to appellant as the perpetrator. The Court of Appeals modified some awards and imposed penalties, including a pronouncement that appellant was ineligible for parole in accordance with RA No. 9346 as stated in its decision.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

The sole principal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming appellant’s conviction based on circumstantial evidence.

Supreme Court’s Ruling and Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction for infanticide under Article 255 of the Revised Penal Code, with modifications to the monetary awards and the parole qualification. The Court sentenced appellant to reclusion perpetua. It reduced the awards for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages from P100,000.00 each to P75,000.00 each in accordance with People v. Jugueta, and affirmed temperate damages of P50,000.00. The Court removed the phrase “without eligibility for parole” because Administrative Matter No. 15-08-02-SC reserves that qualification for cases where the proper penalty would otherwise have been death. All monetary awards were ordered to earn legal interest of six percent per annum from finality until fully paid.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reiterated the elements of Article 255: that a child was killed, that the child was less than three days old, and that the accused killed the child. It applied the well-settled rule allowing conviction on circumstantial evidence where the requisites articulated in People v. Pentecostes concur: more than one circumstance, proof of the facts from which inferences are drawn, and a combination of circumstances sufficient to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The Court catalogued the circumstances proven at trial: corroborated medical observations and certificates showing pregnancy and recent delivery, multiple lay witnesses who observed the growing abdomen and postdelivery signs, contemporaneous statements by appellant expressing intent to strangle the infant, the presence of blood and dug holes in the family shanty, discovery of the decomposing newborn with placenta and umbilical cord intact in the creek, appellant’s opposition to exhumation for DNA testing, and the disappearance of the remains after the court order. The Court gave deference to the trial court’s credibility assessm

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 207229)

Parties and Posture

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES was the plaintiff-appellee and GIRALYN P. ADALIA was the accused-appellant charged with infanticide.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 31, Dumaguete City convicted GIRALYN P. ADALIA of infanticide and imposed reclusion perpetua and awards of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages and P100,000.00 as temperate damages.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction by Decision dated July 6, 2017 and modified the awards and sentence by declaring appellant ineligible for parole and ordering specified damages.
The present appeal to the Supreme Court was docketed as G.R. No. 235990 and sought reversal and acquittal or, alternatively, reduction of penalty.

Key Factual Allegations

Appellant consulted Dr. Delia Futalan on December 18, 2009 for abdominal pain and urinary symptoms and again on May 17, 2010 for irregular menstruation and scanty vaginal bleeding.
Multiple neighbors and community members observed appellant's progressive abdominal enlargement beginning late 2009 or early 2010 and noted her repeated denials that she was pregnant.
Appellant told one neighbor that she would strangle "whatever creature" she would give birth to and attributed her condition to an uray or evil spirit.
On July 17, 2010 several witnesses heard an infant cry briefly from an abandoned shanty belonging to appellant's family and thereafter saw appellant and her mother in blood-stained clothes with bloodied rags scattered on the floor.
A dead newborn female was found floating in Arabe Creek on July 20, 2010 with the umbilical cord and placenta intact and with signs of decomposition.
Dr. Delia Futalan examined appellant on July 20, 2010 and found breast engorgement with milk, a lax abdomen with linea negra, a cervix admitting one finger, perineal lacerations, and foul-smelling bloody discharge, and concluded appellant had delivered two to three days earlier.
The prosecution moved for exhumation of the infant for DNA testing, which the trial court ordered, but the infant's remains could not be located in the grave.
Appellant presented no witness testimony or documentary evidence in her defense at trial.

Procedural History

The Information charged appellant with infanticide under Article 255, Revised Penal Code for allegedly throwing a live infant into Arabe Creek on or about July 17, 2010.
Appellant pleaded not guilty at arraignment and the case proceeded to trial where the prosecution presented lay witnesses, police officers, photographs, medical certificates, and medico-legal opinions.
The trial court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt by Decision dated February 23, 2016 and sentenced her to reclusion perpetua.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modifications on July 6, 2017.
The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed with modification by Decision rendered January 22, 2020.

Statutory Framework

Article 255, Revised Penal Code penalizes the killing of any child less than three days of age and prescribes, in relation to Article 248, Revised Penal Code, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, subject to special mitigation where the mother killed the child to conceal her dishonor.
Article 63, Revised Penal Code supplies the rule on application of indivisible penalties and mandates the imposition of the lesser penalty when neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances are present.
Republic Act No. 9346 abolished the death penalty and thus converted any capital sentence to reclusion perpetua where applicable.
Administrative Matter No. 15-08-02-SC prescribes the proper use of the phrase "without eligibility for parole" in indivisible penalties only where death would have been the proper penalty but