FELINA ROSALDES vs.

PEOPLE
G.R. No. 173988
October 8, 2014
(content)

Facts:

1.) On February 13, 1996, seven yearold Michael Ryan Gonzales, then a Grade 1 pupil at Pughanan Elementary School located in the
Municipality of Lambunao, Iloilo, was hurriedly entering his classroom when he accidentally bumped the knee of his teacher,
petitioner Felina Rosaldes, who was then asleep on a bamboo sofa. Roused from sleep, petitioner asked Michael Ryan to apologize
to her. When Michael did not obey but instead proceeded to his seat, petitioner went to Michael and pinched him on his thigh.
Then, she held him up by his armpits and pushed him to the floor. As he fell, Michael Ryan’s body hit a desk. As a result, he lost
consciousness. Petitioner proceeded topick Michael Ryan up by his ears and repeatedly slammed him down on the floor. Michael
Ryan cried.

2.) After the incident, petitioner proceeded to teach her class. During lunch break, Michael Ryan, accompanied by two of his
classmates, Louella Loredo and Jonalyn Gonzales, went home crying and told his mother about the incident. His mother and his Aunt
Evangeline Gonzales reported the incident to their Barangay Captain, Gonzalo Larroza who advised them to have Michael Ryan
examined by a doctor. Michael Ryan’s aunt and Barangay Councilman Ernesto Ligante brought him to the Dr. Ricardo Y. Ladrido
Hospital where he was examined by Dr. Teresita Castigador. They, likewise, reported the incident to the Police Station.

3.) The petitioner was criminally charged with child abusein the Regional Trial Court in Iloilo City (RTC), and the case was assigned to
Branch 27 of that court. The information alleged as follows: The Provincial Prosecutor of Iloilo, upon approval and Directive of the
Deputy OMBUDSMAN for the Visayas accuses FELINA ROSALDES of the crime of VIOLATION OF CHILD ABUSE LAW. On appeal, the CA
affirmed the conviction of the petitioner.

4.) Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari. Countering, the State, through the OSG, insists that the issues the petitioner is raising are
mainly factual and, therefore, not reviewable under the mode of appeal chosen; that the affirmance of her conviction by the CA was
in accord with the pertinent law and jurisprudence, and supported by the overwhelming evidence of the trial; and that the
information charging her with child abuse was sufficient in form and substance.

Issue:

Whether or not the information charging the accused with child abuse was insufficient in form and substance, in that the essential
elements of the crime charged were not properly alleged therein; and that her constitutional and statutory right to due process of
law was consequently violated.

Ruling:

The petitioner’s submission deserves scant consideration.

Under Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, the information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the designation of
the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party;
the proximate date of the commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was committed.

The information explicitly averred the offense of child abusecharged against the petitioner in the context of the statutory definition
of child abuse found in Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610, supra, and thus complied with the requirements of Section 6, Rule 110
of the Rules of Court. Moreover, the Court should no longer entertain the petitioner’s challenge against the sufficiency of the
information in form and substance. Her last chance to pose the challenge was prior to the time she pleaded to the information
through a motion to quash on the ground that the information did not conform substantially to the prescribed form, or did not
charge an offense. She did not do so, resulting in her waiver of the challenge.

The RTC did not grant civil damages as civil liability ex delictobecause no evidence had been adduced thereon. 20 The CA saw nothing
wrong with the omission by the trial court. The explanation tendered by the trial judge for the omission was misplaced, however,
because even without proof of the actual expenses, or testimony on the victim’s feelings, the lower courts still had the authority to
define and allow civil liability arising from the offense and the means to fix their extent. The child abuse surely inflicted on Michael
Ryan physical and emotional trauma as well as moral injury. It cannot also be denied that his parents necessarily spent for his
treatment. We hold that both lower courts committed a plain error that demands correction by the Court. Indeed, as the Court
pointed out in Bacolod v. People,21 it was "imperative that the courts prescribe the proper penalties when convicting the accused,
and determine the civil liability to be imposed on the accused, unless there has been a reservation of the action to recover civil
liability or a waiver of its recovery," explaining the reason for doing so in the following manner:

It is not amiss to stress that both the RTC and the CA disregarded their express mandate under Section 2, Rule 120 of the Rules of
Courtto have the judgment, if it was of conviction, state: "(1) the legal qualification of the offense constituted by the acts committed
by the accused and the aggravating or mitigating circumstances which attended its commission; (2) the participation ofthe accused
in the offense, whether as principal, accomplice, or accessory after the fact; (3) the penalty imposed upon the accused; and (4) the
civil liability or damages caused by his wrongful act or omission to be recovered from the accused by the offended party, if there is
any, unless the enforcement of the civil liability by a separate civil action has been reserved or waived." Their disregard compels us
to actas we now do lest the Court be unreasonably seen as tolerant of their omission. That the Spouses Cogtas did not themselves
seek the correction of the omission by an appeal is no hindrance to this action because the Court, as the final reviewing tribunal, has
not only the authority but also the duty to correct at any time a matter of law and justice.1âwphi1

We also pointedly remind all trial and appellate courts to avoid omitting reliefs that the parties are properly entitled to by law or in
equity under the established facts. Their judgments will not be worthy of the name unless they thereby fully determine the rights
and obligations of the litigants. It cannot be otherwise, for only by a full determination of such rights and obligations would they
betrue to the judicial office of administering justice and equity for all. Courts should then be alert and cautious in their rendition of
judgments of conviction in criminal cases. They should prescribe the legal penalties, which is what the Constitution and the law
require and expect them to do. Their prescription of the wrong penalties will be invalid and ineffectual for being done without
jurisdiction or in manifest grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. They should also determine and set the civil
liability ex delictoof the accused, in order to do justice to the complaining victims who are always entitled to them. The Rules of
Court mandates them to do so unless the enforcement of the civil liability by separate actions has been reserved or waived. 22