G.R. No. 129304 September 27, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AVA MA. VICTORIA CARIQUEZ y CRUZ, and LEEZEL FRANCO y SAMSON, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Ava Ma. Victoria Cariquez y Cruz (AVA) and Leezel Franco y Samson (LEEZEL) were charged with parricide for the death of AVA’s two-and-a-half-year-old daughter, Mariel “Ethel” Cariquez y Cruz. The Amended Information alleged that on or about May 27, 1996, in Mandaluyong City, they conspired to beat and maul the child, inflicting mortal wounds. The prosecution established that AVA and LEEZEL, who were live-in partners and drug users, frequently quarreled. Neighbors and AVA’s sister, Lilia Gojul, testified to seeing the child with severe and recurring injuries—shaven head, contusions, cigarette burns, and pinch marks—on multiple occasions in April and May 1996, which the child attributed to AVA and LEEZEL. On May 27, 1996, Ethel was brought unconscious to the hospital with massive head injuries. Dr. Jose Joey Bienvenida found a combination of chronic and acute subdural hematoma, a skull fracture, and soft tissue injuries, indicating injuries sustained on different dates. Ethel died on May 31, 1996. The autopsy by Dr. Antonio Vertido concluded the cause of death was severe traumatic head injury. AVA claimed the child fell after slipping from her hold during a disciplinary incident, while LEEZEL claimed he was merely present and suggested bringing the child to the hospital. The Regional Trial Court convicted AVA of parricide and LEEZEL of homicide.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the guilt of accused-appellants for the crimes of parricide and homicide, respectively, was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of AVA for parricide but modified the conviction of LEEZEL from homicide to murder qualified by abuse of superior strength. The Court found the prosecution evidence, including the testimonies of witnesses and medical findings, conclusive and consistent, establishing that Ethel died from intentional and severe physical abuse inflicted over time, not from a simple accidental fall as claimed by the defense. The Court rejected AVA’s claim of accidental fall as inconsistent with the nature and extent of the child’s injuries. For LEEZEL, the Court found his presence, failure to prevent the abuse despite opportunity, and participation in the conspiracy proven beyond reasonable doubt, with abuse of superior strength present due to the child’s extreme vulnerability. The penalty for AVA was affirmed as reclusion perpetua. The penalty for LEEZEL was modified to reclusion perpetua. The Court also ordered accused-appellants to pay jointly and severally the death indemnity of P50,000.00 to the heirs of Ethel, except AVA.