G.R. No. 210810, December 07, 2016
RICARDO DEL POSO Y DELA CERNA, PETITIONER V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Ricardo Del Poso y Dela Cerna was convicted for violating Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act). The victim, VVV, a 9-year-old minor, was under petitioner’s guardianship after being given by her biological mother. On September 10, 2005, petitioner ordered VVV to attend to his photocopying business. When he found her asleep, he became furious, laid her on an ironing board, and placed a heated flat iron on her. As VVV tried to evade the heat, she sustained first-degree burns on her forehead, right elbow, left cheek, left buttock, and back. The following day, petitioner’s wife saw the burns and admonished him. The burns were later seen by others, leading VVV’s grandmother to report the incident to the barangay. VVV was brought to the hospital and the police station, resulting in the filing of an Information against petitioner. During trial, VVV also testified about prior physical abuses. Petitioner claimed the incident was accidental, asserting he only intended to scare VVV as a form of chastisement and was unaware she was burned until the next day. The Regional Trial Court found petitioner guilty, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of four years, nine months, and eleven days of prision correccional, as minimum, to six years, eight months, and one day of prision mayor, as maximum. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in: (1) convicting petitioner despite the victim’s admission that the burns were sustained when she tried to evade the heated iron used to scare her; (2) refusing to appreciate the mitigating circumstances of no intention to commit so grave a wrong and passion and/or obfuscation; and (3) not modifying the sentence to one degree lower.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the convictions. The issues raised were primarily factual, which are generally not reviewable in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The Court found no compelling reason to deviate from this rule, as none of the recognized exceptions were present. On the merits, the Court held that petitioner’s acts constituted child abuse under Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610. The law defines child abuse to include maltreatment, whether habitual or not, and the infliction of physical harm upon a child. Petitioner’s act of placing a heated flat iron on the child, causing burns, clearly constituted physical harm and cruelty. The claim of lack of intent was unavailing, as the act was deliberate. The Court also rejected the claim of mitigating circumstances. The circumstance of “no intention to commit so grave a wrong” was inapplicable because the resulting burns were the necessary consequence of the intentional act of using a heated iron on a child. Passion and obfuscation could not be appreciated as they were not caused by a lawful act; petitioner’s anger over the child falling asleep did not constitute a lawful or justifiable provocation. Therefore, the penalty imposed by the lower courts was correct.