PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. XXX277980, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus XXX277980

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines, as plaintiff, seek to sustain the conviction of XXX277980, the accused, for the killing of an eight-year-old boy, AAA277980, the child of his common-law partner. The accused was charged with murder in relation to Sections 5(a) and 6(a) of Republic Act No. 9262, the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act. The case matters because it shows how the special law works together with the Revised Penal Code: the act of violence against a woman and her child is punished under the special law, but where that act amounts to murder, the penalty is taken from the Revised Penal Code, with the added fine and mandatory psychological counseling.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court tried the accused on the Information and, after trial, rendered a Decision finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder. The trial court sentenced him to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and ordered him to pay the heirs of the victim civil indemnity, moral damages, actual damages, and exemplary damages, with interest. The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction with modification. It changed the nomenclature of the crime to violation of Section 5(a), in relation to Section 6(a), of Republic Act No. 9262, constituting murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. It sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordered him to pay a fine of 100,000 pesos, and required him to undergo psychological counseling and to report his compliance to the trial court. It also decreased the civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to 75,000 pesos each.

The accused then filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court. The Court required the parties to file supplemental briefs, but both the accused and the People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, manifested that they would adopt their briefs already filed before the Court of Appeals.

Facts

The accused and BBB277980 were common-law partners for two years and had one child together. AAA277980, eight years old, was BBB277980's child from a previous relationship. According to BBB277980, the accused treated the boy like a stranger and neither cared for nor attended to him.

At around noon on March 12, 2021, the couple had a heated argument inside their apartment because BBB277980 was uncomfortable with the accused chatting with other women. The accused ordered her and the boy to leave, pointed his finger at the crying child, and said the boy was useless. BBB277980 slapped him. The accused pushed her, grabbed a kitchen knife, pressed it against her face and chest, and stabbed her on her right side. When the boy screamed and ran toward the door, the accused ran after him and locked the door. He lifted the boy, threw him toward BBB277980, and repeatedly stabbed him while the child screamed and struggled. BBB277980 begged and tried to protect the boy, but the accused repeatedly stabbed her in the back.

BBB277980 lost consciousness twice. When she regained it the second time, the accused and their baby were gone. A neighbor brought her to the hospital, and the next day her father told her that AAA277980 had died. The autopsy showed ten incised wounds on the boy's back, neck, and shoulders, which penetrated and perforated his right lung. The attending physician opined that the wounds were concentrated at the back, indicating the boy was in a prone position, and that the number of wounds showed intent to kill. The accused, testifying alone for the defense, claimed he blacked out after being hit on the head and knew nothing of the stabbing until his arrest.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the accused's conviction for violation of Section 5(a), in relation to Section 6(a), of Republic Act No. 9262, constituting murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.

Applicable Provisions

Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 9262 defines violence against women and their children:

Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 9262 defines "violence against women and their children" as "any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty."

This definition brings the accused within the special law, because he had a common child with BBB277980 and the victim was her child.

Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 9262 provides:

Section 5. Acts of Violence Against Women and Their Children. The crime of violence against women and their children is committed through any of the following acts: (a) Causing physical harm to the woman or her child.

This is the act charged, the infliction of physical harm on the woman's child.

Section 6(a) of Republic Act No. 9262 provides:

Section 6. Penalties. The crime of violence against women and their children, under Section 5 hereof shall be punished according to the following rules: (a) Acts falling under Section 5(a) constituting attempted, frustrated or consummated parricide or murder or homicide shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the Revised Penal Code. If these acts resulted in mutilation, it shall be punishable in accordance with the Revised Penal Code; those constituting serious physical injuries shall have the penalty of prision mayor; those constituting less serious physical injuries shall be punished by prision correccional; and those constituting slight physical injuries shall be punished by arresto mayor. Acts falling under Section 5(b) shall be punished by arresto mayor; Acts falling under Section 5(c) shall be punished by prision correccional; Acts falling under Section 5(d) shall be punished by prision mayor; Acts falling under Section 5(e) shall be punished by prision correccional; Acts falling under Section 5(f) shall be punished by prision mayor; Acts falling under Section 5(g) shall be punished by prision mayor; Acts falling under Section 5(h) shall be punished by prision mayor; Acts falling under Section 5(i) shall be punished by prision mayor. In addition to the above penalties, the court shall also impose upon the offender the penalty of fine of not less than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) but not more than Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00), and mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment and shall report compliance to the court.

This provision supplies the rule that where the violence amounts to murder, the penalty of the Revised Penal Code applies, plus the fine and counseling.

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code defines and penalizes murder:

Article 248. Murder. Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.

This is the felony whose elements and penalty the Court applies to the killing.

Ruling

The Court denied the appeal. On the single issue, it held that the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the conviction. The evidence established that the accused committed acts of violence against AAA277980 and that those acts constituted murder. Since the accused and BBB277980 were common-law partners and AAA277980 was her child, the accused is liable under Republic Act No. 9262 and must suffer the penalty for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.

The Court restated the elements of murder: that a person was killed; that the accused killed him or her; that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances in Article 248; and that the killing is not parricide or infanticide. The first and fourth elements were not disputed, since the death certificate showed the boy died of cardio-respiratory arrest secondary to severe chest injuries from the stabbing, and the killing was neither parricide nor infanticide because the boy was not the accused's parent, child, ascendant, descendant, or spouse, and was not a child less than three days old.

On the second element, the Court relied on BBB277980's positive identification of the accused as the killer, drawn from her testimony in open court. The Court affirmed the finding of treachery, since the boy was attacked without warning and could not defend himself. It also held that abuse of superior strength is absorbed in treachery and cannot serve to qualify or aggravate the felony. With no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the penalty is reclusion perpetua, the lesser of the two indivisible penalties for murder. Finally, the Court modified the ruling of the Court of Appeals as to the damages to be awarded.

Doctrine

First, violence against women and their children under Republic Act No. 9262 includes acts committed against the child of a woman with whom the offender has a common child, whether the child is legitimate or illegitimate. Second, where the act of violence under Section 5(a) constitutes murder, Section 6(a) directs that it be punished in accordance with the Revised Penal Code, and the court must additionally impose a fine of not less than 100,000 pesos but not more than 300,000 pesos and mandatory psychological counseling, with a report of compliance to the court. Third, the elements of murder under Article 248 are the killing of a person, by the accused, attended by a qualifying circumstance, and neither parricide nor infanticide. Fourth, treachery qualifies the killing where the victim is attacked without warning and is unable to defend himself, and abuse of superior strength, when it concurs with treachery, is absorbed in it and cannot aggravate the penalty.

Disposition

The appeal was denied, and the Court affirmed with modification the ruling of the Court of Appeals as to the damages to be awarded, sustaining the accused's conviction and his sentence of reclusion perpetua, with the fine and mandatory psychological counseling.

Remember This

Remember the rule that when violence against a woman or her child amounts to murder, the offender is convicted under Republic Act No. 9262 but punished under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, with the added fine and counseling. Examiners use this case to test the interplay of the special law and the Revised Penal Code, and the rule that abuse of superior strength is absorbed in treachery.