JR HAULING SERVICES AND OSCAR MAPUE, PETITIONERS, VS. GAVINO L. SOLAMO, RAMIL JERUSALEM, ARMANDO PARUNGAO, RAFAEL CAPAROS, JR., NORIEL SOLAMO, ALFREDO SALANGSANG, MARK PARUNGAO AND DEAN V. CALVO, RESPONDENTS.

Ricardo Del Poso y Dela Cerna Vs. People of the Philippines
G.R No. 210810. December 7, 2016

The victim, VVV was given by her biological mother to the petitioner when she was 7 years old and the latter then acted as her guardian. On September 10, 2005, when VVV was 9 years old, petitioner ordered her to attend to petitioner's photocopying         business. While attending the business, VVV fell asleep. When petitioner saw VVV asleep, the former became furious and laid VVV on top of an ironing board and placed a heated flat iron on her. When VVV tried to evade the heat emanating from the flat iron, her forehead, right elbow, left cheek, left buttock and back got burned. Thereafter, petitioner got her down from the ironing board and ordered her to sleep. The following morning, petitioner's wife saw the burns on VVV and told petitioner not to do it again. Later on, VVV went to her Lola Ma. Luisa to watch TV and the latter, and several other people, saw the burns prompting Lola Ma. Luisa to bring VVV to the Barangay Hall where the incident was put on blotter. Thereafter, VVV was brought to the hospital and then to the police station. Hence, an Information was filed against petitioner, which reads as follows:

That on or about September 10, 2005, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and knowingly commit cruelty and abusive acts upon VVV, a minor, 9 years old, by then and there injuring the said minor on the forehead, right cheek, abdomen and at her right forearm with a hot flat iron, inflicting upon her multiple 1st degree burns, which debases and demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of said VVV as a human being, an act prejudicial to her normal growth and development, to her damage and prejudice.

Contrary to law.

1.       What are the elements of Section 10 of R.A. No. 7610 otherwise known as "An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, and for Other Purposes?

(1) the minority of the victim; (2) the acts constituting physical abuse, committed by petitioner against the victim; and (3) the said acts are clearly punishable under R.A. No. 7610.

2.       May the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong be appreciated in this case?

No.

It is a hornbook doctrine that this mitigating circumstance can be taken into account only when the facts proven show that there is a notable and evident disproportion between the means employed to execute the criminal act and its consequences. In this case, when petitioner pressed the hot iron upon the body of the victim, it must be presumed that his intention was to physically abuse her since such act was sufficient to produce the evil which resulted from such act is also worth noting.

3.       May the mitigating circumstance of passion and/or obfuscation be appreciated in this case?

No.

The mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation only applies if the act of the victim is both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind. A child who fell asleep while attending to a business establishment is not an offense at all and could not give rise to an impulse sufficiently powerful to naturally produce a justified diminution of an adult's self­control.

Petition for Review on Certiorari. Exception to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court? Distinguish question of the fact and question of law. Elements of Section 10 of R.A. No. 7610.

4.       What may be raised in the Petition for Review on Certiorari?

Under Rule 45, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised in a Petition for Review on Certiorari:

Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. - A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment, final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Regional Trial Court or other courts, whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition may include an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or other provisional remedies and shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. The petitioner may seek the same provisional remedies by verified motion filed in the same action or proceeding at any time during its pendency.

5.       What is the exception to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court?

As an exception to the rule, questions of fact may be raised in a Rule 45 Petition if any of the following is present:

(1) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (2) when the findings are grounded on speculations; (3) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (4) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the factual findings are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case and its findings are contrary to the admissions of the parties; (7) when the Court of Appeals overlooked undisputed facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (8) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (9) when the facts set forth by the petitioner are not disputed by the respondent; and (10) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.

6.       Distinguish question of the fact and question of law.

A question of fact exists "when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts." On the other hand, a question of law exists "when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts."