G.R. No. L-11653; August 19, 1916
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GENOVEVA AQUINO and LAZARO CASIPIT, defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
On January 1, 1916, in Binalonan, Pangasinan, Genoveva Aquino, a widow, felt labor pains while working in a field with Lazaro Casipit and his wife. They sought lodging in a nearby house. Late that night, Aquino gave birth. According to Aquino, Casipit, and Casipit’s wife, the child was stillbornit did not cry, move, or show any signs of life. Aquino instructed Casipit to bury the body. Due to the darkness, Casipit placed the wrapped body in a water-filled hole about 150 meters from the house instead of digging a grave. The next day, the barrio lieutenant reported the discovery of the child’s body. The justice of the peace retrieved it. The owners of the house where the birth occurred testified they awoke and saw the child was born alive, though they did not approach to assist or examine it closely. The provincial fiscal charged Aquino with parricide and Casipit with murder. The Court of First Instance convicted them, sentencing Aquino to reclusion perpetua and Casipit to cadena perpetua. They appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the child was born alive, thereby establishing the crimes of parricide and murder.

RULING:
NO. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of conviction and acquitted both defendants. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the child was born alive, which is an essential element for the crimes charged. The positive and consistent testimony of Aquino, Casipit, and his wife that the child was stillborn was not sufficiently contradicted. The testimony of the house owners was unreliable as they admitted they remained lying down, did not approach the mother, and did not examine the child at close range. The Court noted the absence of a post-mortem examination, which could have definitively established whether the child was born alive, and held that this failure should not prejudice the defendants. No motive was established for Aquino to kill her child, as she was a widow and had not concealed her pregnancy. At most, Casipit may have violated burial laws, but he was not charged for that. Since the child’s live birth was not proven, the crimes of parricide, infanticide, abandonment of a child, or murder were not established. The defendants were acquitted and ordered released.