GLORIA PILAR S. AGUIRRE, petitioner, vs.

SECRETARY OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, MICHELINA S. AGUIRREOLONDRIZ, PEDRO B. AGUIRRE, DR. JUVIDO AGATEP
and DR. MARISSA B. PASCUAL, respondents.
G.R. No. 170723 | March 3, 2008 (3D)
Facts:
Petitioner Gloria Aguirre instituted a criminal complaint for the
violation of Revised Penal Code particularly Articles 172 and
262, both in relation to Republic Act No.7610 against private
and several John/Jane Doe alleging that John/Jane Doe upon
the apparent instructions of respondents Michelina AguirreOlondriz and Pedro Aguirre actually scouted, prospected,
facilitated solicited and/or procured the medical services of
respondents Dr. Pascual and Dr. Agatep on the intended
mutilation via bilateral vasectomy of Laureano Aguirre.
Olondriz denied that the prospected, scouted, facilitated,
solicited and/or procured any false statement mutilated or
abused his common law brother, Laureano Aguirre. She
further contends that his common law brother went through a
vasectomy procedure but that does not amount to mutilation.
Dr. Agatep contends that Vasectomy does not in any way
equate to castration and what is touched in vasectomy is not
considered an organ in the context of law and medicine. The
Assistant City Prosecutor held that the facts alleged did not
amount to mutilation, the vasectomy operation did not
deprived Larry of his reproductive organ. Gloria Aguirre then
appealed to the Secretary of the DOJ but Chief State
Prosecutor dismissed the petition.
Issue: Whether or not respondents are liable for the crime of
mutilation
Held: No
Art. 262 of the Revised Penal Code defines the crime as
Art. 262. Mutilation. The penalty of reclusion temporal to
reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who
shall intentionally mutilate another by depriving him, either
totally or partially, of some essential organ for reproduction.
Any other intentional mutilation shall be punished by prision
mayor in its medium and maximum periods.
A straightforward scrutiny of the above provision
shows that the elements of mutilation under the first
paragraph of Art. 262 of the Revised Penal Code to be:
1. that there be a castration, that is, mutilation of
organs necessary for generation; and
2. that the mutilation is caused purposely and
deliberately, that is, to deprive the offended party
of some essential organ for reproduction.
According to the public prosecutor, the facts alleged did not
amount to the crime of mutilation as defined and penalized
above, i.e., the vasectomy operation did not in any way
deprived Larry of his reproductive organ, which is still very
much part of his physical self. Petitioner Gloria Aguirre,
however, would want this Court to make a ruling that bilateral
vasectomy constitutes the crime of mutilation.
This we cannot do, for such an interpretation would be
contrary to the intentions of the framers of our penal code.
A fitting riposte to the issue at hand lies in United States v.
Esparcia, in which this Court had the occasion to shed light on
the implication of the term mutilation. Therein we said that:
The sole point which it is desirable to discuss is whether or not
the crime committed is that defined and penalized by article
414 of the Penal Code. The English translation of this article
reads: "Any person who shall intentionally castrate another

shall suffer a penalty ranging from reclusion temporal to

reclusion perpetua." The Spanish text, which should govern,
uses the word "castrare," inadequately translated into English
as "castrate." The word "capar," which is synonymous of
"castrar," is defined in the Royal Academic Dictionary as the
destruction of the organs of generation or conception. Clearly
it is the intention of the law to punish any person who shall
intentionally deprived another of any organ necessary for
reproduction. An applicable construction is that of Viada in the
following language:
"At the head of these crimes, according to their order of
gravity, is the mutilation known by the name of
'castration' which consists of the amputation of
whatever organ is necessary for generation. The law
could not fail to punish with the utmost severity such a crime,
which, although not destroying life, deprives a person of the
means to transmit it. But bear in mind that according to this
article in order for 'castration' to exist, it is indispensable that
the 'castration' be made purposely. The law does not look only
to the result but also to the intention of the act. Consequently,
if by reason of an injury or attack, a person is deprived of the
organs of generation, the act, although voluntary, not being
intentional to that end, it would not come under the provisions
of this article, but under No. 2 of article 431." (Viada, Codigo
Penal, vol. 3, p. 70. See to same effect, 4 Groizard, Codigo
Penal, p. 525.)
Thus, the question is, does vasectomy deprive a man,
totally or partially, of some essential organ of
reproduction? We answer in the negative.
In the male sterilization procedure of vasectomy, the tubular
passage, called the vas deferens, through which the sperm
(cells) are transported from the testicle to the urethra where
they combine with the seminal fluid to form the ejaculant, is
divided and the cut ends merely tied. That part, which is cut,
that is, the vas deferens, is merely a passageway that is part
of the duct system of the male reproductive organs. The vas
deferens is not an organ, i.e., a highly organized unit of
structure, having a defined function in a multicellular
organism and consisting of a range of tissues. Be that as it
may, even assuming arguendo that the tubular passage can
be considered an organ, the cutting of the vas deferens
does not divest or deny a man of any essential organ
of reproduction for the simple reason that it does not
entail the taking away of a part or portion of the male
reproductive system. The cut ends, after they have
been tied, are then dropped back into the incision.
Though undeniably, vasectomy denies a man his power
of reproduction, such procedure does not deprive him,
either totally or partially, of some essential organ for
reproduction. Notably, the ordinary usage of the term
mutilation is the deprivation of a limb or essential partof the
body with the operative expression being deprivation. In the
same manner, the word castration is defined as the removal
of the testies or ovaries. Such being the case in this present
petition, the bilateral vasectomy done on Larry could not have
amounted to the crime of mutilation as defined and punished
under Article 262, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code.
And no criminal culpability could be foisted on to respondent
Dr. Agatep, the urologist who performed the procedure, much
less the other respondents. Thus, we find sufficient evidence
to explain why the Assistant City Prosecutor and the DOJ ruled
the way they did. Verily, We agree with the Court of Appeals
that the writ of certiorari is unavailing; hence, should not be
issued.
ENGR. CARLITO PENTECOSTES, JR., Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 167766 | April 7, 2010 (3D)
Facts: An Information was filed by the Provincial Prosecutor of
Aparri, Cagayan, charging the petitioner of frustrated murder

Case Digest and Related Provisions on Legal Medicine based on Atty. Rodel
Capules Syllabus
Rivad, Sherine L. | 1st Sem AY 2015 2016 | Arellano University School of Law

committed against Rudy Baclig. It was alleged that petitioner

attached and shoot the victim, inflicting upon the latter
gunshot injuries.
RTC rendered a Decision finding petitioner guilty of the crime
of attempted murder. On appeal, CA modified the RTCs
decision, finding appellant guilty of less serious physical
injuries.
In convicting the petitioner to a lesser offence, the CA opined
that it was not established that petitioner intended to kill Rudy
when he shot him. Petitioners act of shooting Rudy once was
not followed by any other assault or any act which would
ensure his death. Considering that petitioner was driving a
car, he could have chased Rudy if he really intended to kill the
latter, or run him over since Rudy went to the rear of the car.
Petitioners desistance displayed his nonchalance to cause the
death of Rudy. Moreover, Rudy only sustained a gunshot
wound on the arm, which required only 10 days of medical
attendance.
Issue: Whether or not petitioner is guilty of attempted murder
Held: No
The principal and essential element of attempted or frustrated
murder is the intent on the part of the assailant to take the
life of the person attacked. Such intent must be proved in a
clear and evident manner to exclude every possible doubt as
to the homicidal intent of the aggressor.
In the present case, intent to kill the victim could not be
inferred from the surrounding circumstances. Petitioner only
shot the victim once and did not hit any vital part of the
latters body. If he intended to kill him, petitioner could have
shot the victim multiple times or even ran him over with the
car. Favorably to petitioner, the inference that intent to kill
existed should not be drawn in the absence of circumstances
sufficient to prove this fact beyond reasonable doubt. When
such intent is lacking but wounds are inflicted upon
the victim, the crime is not attempted murder but
physical injuries only. Since the Medico-Legal Certificate
issued by the doctor who attended Rudy stated that the
wound would only require ten (10) days of medical
attendance, and he was, in fact, discharged the following day,
the crime committed is less serious physical injuries only. The
less serious physical injury suffered by Rudy is defined under
Article 265 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides that
"Any person who inflicts upon another physical injuries
not described as serious physical injuries but which
shall incapacitate the offended party for labor for ten
(10) days or more, or shall require medical attendance
for the same period, shall be guilty of less serious
physical injuries and shall suffer the penalty of arresto
mayor."
ARTEMIO VILLAREAL, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 151258 | February 1, 2012 (2D)

informed that there will be physical beatings and that they

can quit anytime. The rites were scheduled to last 3 days.
They were subjected to traditional Aquilan initiation rites such
as the Indian Run, Bicol Express, Rounds, Auxies
Privilege Round, rough basketball, comic plays, and other
forms of paddling. Lenny received several blows, one of which
was so strong that it sent him sprawling to the ground. When
they were already sleeping, the neophytes were roused by
Lennys shivering and mumblings. He was brought to the
hospital but was pronounced dead on arrival.
Consequently, a criminal case for homicide was filed against
35 Aquilans.
This Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 seeks the reversal of
the CAs Decision, insofar as it acquitted 19 (Victorino et al.)
and convicted 4 (Tecson et al.) of the accused Aquilans of the
lesser crime of slight physical injuries According to the
Solicitor General, the CA erred in holding that there could
have been no conspiracy to commit hazing, as hazing or
fraternity initiation had not yet been criminalized at the time
Lenny died.
In the alternative, petitioner claims that the ruling of the trial
court should have been upheld, inasmuch as it found that
there was conspiracy to inflict physical injuries on Lenny.
Since the injuries led to the victims death, petitioner posits
that the accused Aquilans are criminally liable for the resulting
crime of homicide, pursuant to Article 4 of the Revised Penal
Code.
Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in convicting accused of
the lesser offense of slight physical injuries instead of
homicide
Held:
In order to be found guilty of any of the felonious acts under
Articles 262 to 266 of the Revised Penal Code, the
employment of physical injuries must be coupled with dolus
malus. As an act that is mala in se, the existence of malicious
intent is fundamental, since injury arises from the mental
state of the wrongdoer iniuria ex affectu facientis consistat.
If there is no criminal intent, the accused cannot be found
guilty of an intentional felony. Thus, in case of physical injuries
under the Revised Penal Code, there must be a specific
animus iniuriandi or malicious intention to do wrong
against the physical integrity or well-being of a person,
so as to incapacitate and deprive the victim of certain
bodily functions. Without proof beyond reasonable doubt of
the required animus iniuriandi, the overt act of inflicting
physical injuries per se merely satisfies the elements of
freedom and intelligence in an intentional felony. The
commission of the act does not, in itself, make a man guilty
unless his intentions are.

In the present case, even if the specific acts of punching,

kicking, paddling, and other modes of inflicting physical pain
were done voluntarily, freely, and with intelligence, thereby
satisfying the elements of freedom and intelligence in the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. The
felony of physical injuries, the fundamental ingredient of
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ANTONIO MARIANO
criminal intent was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. On
ALMEDA, DALMACIO LIM, Jr., JUNEL ANTHONY AMA, ERNESTO
the contrary, all that was proven was that the acts were done
JOSE MONTECILLO, VINCENT TECSON, ANTONIO GENERAL,
pursuant to tradition. Although the additional "rounds" on the
SANTIAGO RANADA III, NELSON VICTORINO, JAIME MARIA
second night were held upon the insistence of Villareal and
FLORES II, ZOSIMO MENDOZA, MICHAEL MUSNGI, VICENTE
Dizon, the initiations were officially reopened with the consent
VERDADERO, ETIENNE GUERRERO, JUDE FERNANDEZ,
of the head of the initiation rites; and the accused fraternity
AMANTE PURISIMA II, EULOGIO SABBAN, PERCIVAL BRIGOLA,
members still participated in the rituals, including the
PAUL ANGELO SANTOS, JONAS KARL B. PEREZ, RENATO
paddling, which were performed pursuant to tradition. Other
BANTUG, JR., ADEL ABAS, JOSEPH LLEDO, and RONAN DE
than the paddle, no other "weapon" was used to inflict injuries
GUZMAN, Respondents.
on Lenny. The targeted body parts were predominantly the
G.R. No. 154954
legs and the arms. The designation of roles, including the role
of auxiliaries, which were assigned for the specific purpose of
Facts: Seven freshmen law students of ADMU signified their
lending assistance to and taking care of the neophytes during
intention to join the Aquila Legis fraternity. They were met by
the initiation rites, further belied the presence of malicious
members of AL at the lobby of Ateneo Law. They were
intent. All those who wished to join the fraternity went
Case Digest and Related Provisions on Legal Medicine based on Atty. Rodel
2
Capules Syllabus
st
Rivad, Sherine L. | 1 Sem AY 2015 2016 | Arellano University School of Law

through the same process of "traditional" initiation; there is no

proof that Lenny Villa was specifically targeted or given a
different treatment. We stress that Congress itself
recognized that hazing is uniquely different from
common crimes. The totality of the circumstances must
therefore be taken into consideration.

(1) Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual

abuse and emotional maltreatment;

The underlying context and motive in which the infliction of

physical injuries was rooted may also be determined by
Lennys continued participation in the initiation and consent to
the method used even after the first day.

(3) Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for survival,

such as food and shelter; or

GEORGE BONGALON, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 169533 | March 20, 2013 (1D)
Not every instance of the laying of hands on a child
constitutes the crime of child abuse under Section 10 (a) of
Republic Act No. 7610. Only when the laying of hands is
shown beyond reasonable doubt to be intended by the
accused to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth
and dignity of the child as a human being should it be
punished as child abuse. Otherwise, it is punished under the
Revised Penal Code.
Facts: The case began as a simple altercation between the
daughter of accused George Bongalon, Mary Rose Ann, and
the son of private complainant Rolando Dela Cruz, Jayson,
both minor children.
During a religious procession in Legazpi City, Mary Rose Ann
threw stones at Jayson and called him sissy as he and his
brother passed by the front of the Bongalon residence. In the
belief however that it was his daughter who was being
harmed, the accused confronted Jayson and struck him on the
back and slapped him on the face. Outraged by the acts
committed against his son, Jaysons father filed a criminal
complaint against Bongalon and the latter was eventually
tried and convicted for the crime of child abuse, which carried
a minimum penalty of six years imprisonment.
Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of child abuse and
not physical injuries
Held: No
The law under which the petitioner was charged, tried and
found guilty of violating is Section 10 (a), Article VI of Republic
Act No. 7610, which relevantly states:
Section 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or
Exploitation and other Conditions Prejudicial to the Childs
Development.

(2) Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or

demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human
being;

(4) Failure to immediately give medical treatment to an

injured child resulting in serious impairment of his growth and
development or in his permanent incapacity or death.
xxxx
Although we affirm the factual findings of fact by the RTC and
the CA to the effect that the petitioner struck Jayson at the
back with his hand and slapped Jayson on the face, we
disagree with their holding that his acts constituted child
abuse within the purview of the above-quoted provisions. The
records did not establish beyond reasonable doubt
that his laying of hands on Jayson had been intended
to debase the "intrinsic worth and dignity" of Jayson as
a human being, or that he had thereby intended to
humiliate or embarrass Jayson. The records showed the
laying of hands on Jayson to have been done at the
spur of the moment and in anger, indicative of his
being then overwhelmed by his fatherly concern for
the personal safety of his own minor daughters who
had just suffered harm at the hands of Jayson and
Roldan. With the loss of his self-control, he lacked that
specific intent to debase, degrade or demean the
intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being
that was so essential in the crime of child abuse.
Considering that Jaysons physical injury required five to
seven days of medical attention, the petitioner was liable for
slight physical injuries under Article 266 (1) of the Revised
Penal Code
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
MAMERTO ALTERADO, JR. and GILBERTO PATAGNAN,
accused-appellants.
G.R. No. 79039-41 | October 27, 1989 (2D)
Facts: Accused-appellants were convicted for the crime of
murder committed against Maribeth Maglasang. To support
the conviction, the prosecution presented an autopsy report
indicating that Maribeth Maglasang suffered seven external
wounds with four (4) of these wounds penetrating thoracic
cavity, the cause of her death was loss of blood due to these
wounds.

(a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of child
abuse, cruelty or exploitation or be responsible for other
conditions prejudicial to the childs development including
those covered by Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, as
amended, but not covered by the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its
minimum period.

Accused-appellants have denied the commission of the

felonies and have put up the defense of alibi, as supported by
a negative paraffin test conducted on them.

xxxx

The declarations of other prosecution witnesses, taken singly,

may have been circumstantial and lacking in full details. The
totality of their testimonies, however, corroborates in no small
measure the narrative of the two eyewitnesses, Victor Caquit
and Angelina Maurillo, and as the Trial Court has found,
deserves full credence. The inconsistencies and contradictions
referred to by accused- appellants refer to minor details,
which do not destroy credibility. Trivial discrepancies indicate
that the witnesses were not previously rehearsed.

Child abuse, the crime charged, is defined by Section 3 (b) of

Republic Act No. 7610, as follows:
Section 3. Definition of terms.
xxxx
(b) "Child Abuse" refers to the maltreatment, whether
habitual or not, of the child which includes any of the
following:

Issue: Whether or not accused-appellants are guilty of murder

Held: Yes

The paraffin test

were negative for
only four (4) days
Lt. Liza B. Madeja

Case Digest and Related Provisions on Legal Medicine based on Atty. Rodel
Capules Syllabus
Rivad, Sherine L. | 1st Sem AY 2015 2016 | Arellano University School of Law

may have shown that accused-appellants

gunpowder residue. However, it was taken
after the incident. As the forensic chemist,
PCCL, categorically stated, after four (4)

days, gunpowder nitrate residue on a person's hands

completely disappear. We have also had occasion to hold
that a paraffin test showing negative results for powder
burns may be disregarded where made three (3) days
after the shooting incident

firing the gun or had worn gloves or the direction of a

strong wind was against the gunman at the time of
firing. In these cases, the Court ruled that the absence
of nitrates in a suspects hand is not conclusive proof
that he did not fire a gun.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

AM WILSON MANIJAS y LIM, accused-appellant.
G.R. No. 148699 | November 15, 2002 (2D)

In any event, the paraffin test which in this case showed

accused-appellants right hand to be positive for nitrates,
constitutes only corroborative evidence of his guilt. Even
without the paraffin test, the positive identification by
prosecution witnesses T/Sgt. Bona and M/Sgt. Agadier of
accused-appellant as the assailant is more than sufficient to
convict him of the crime charged.

Facts: Accused-appellant was found guilty of the crime of

murder for the killing of M/Sgt. Emerme S. Malit. In convicting
him, the prosecution presented a paraffin examination result
which shows that appellants right hand positive for
gunpowder nitrates.
Accused-appellant contends that firing an M16 Baby Armalite
requires the use of both hands. Since only his right hand was
positive for gunpowder nitrates, he could not have been the
assailant.
Issue: Whether or not a positive result of the presence of
gunpowder nitrates on both hands of the accused is required
to properly convict him for the crime charged
Held: No
The contention has no merit.
As pointed out by the Solicitor General, the victim sustained
gunshot wounds in his liver, second and third ribs and right
lung, upper right arm, and on the head which severed his
scalp. The fact that different parts of his body were hit
shows that the assailant did not have control of the
armalite when he pulled the trigger. This raises the
possibility that only one hand was used when the
trigger of the armalite was pulled. Moreover, the paraffin
testing on accused-appellant was done more than twelve
hours after the incident occurred. Hence, the partial or total
absence of nitrates on his hands is possible.
Indeed, there are several reasons why no nitrate
powder may be found on the hands of a suspect. We
recognized several factors which may account for such
absence of gunpowder nitrates on the hands of the gunman,
e.g., because the assailant had washed his hands after

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

HERMENEGILDO BARBOSA and RUBEN BARBOSA,
defendants-appellants.
G.R. No. L-39779 | November 7, 1978 (2D)
Facts: Defendants-appellants were convicted for the crime of
murder committed against Francisco Ballolong. Accusedappellant Hermenegildo herein contends that the conviction
was improper on the ground that the negative result of the
paraffin test conducted on him was disregarded.
Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in disregarding the
negative result of the paraffin test made on Hermenegildo
Barbosa
Held: No
It should be stressed that the shooting was perpetrated at
about eleven-thirty in the evening of June 30, 1972 and that
the paraffin test was made three days later or at nine o'clock
in the morning of July 3 after the powder burns could have
been obliterated.
NBI Agent Javier testified that the negative result of a
paraffin test is not conclusive that the person on whom
the test was made never fired the gun used in the
killing. That is why in spite of the fact that the NBI was aware
of the negative result of the paraffin test, as certified by its
senior chemist, its agent at Vigan, Ilocos Sur, nevertheless,
filed the complaint for murder against Hermenegildo.

Case Digest and Related Provisions on Legal Medicine based on Atty. Rodel
Capules Syllabus
Rivad, Sherine L. | 1st Sem AY 2015 2016 | Arellano University School of Law