Gamon vs. People of the Philippines

A Murder conviction may be sustained on circumstantial evidence where the requisites of Rule 133, Section 4 of the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence are strictly met and the combined circumstances exclude every other hypothesis but guilt; prior similar acts of child abuse are admissible under the doctrine of chances to prove intent, absence of accident, and identity, and the child's spontaneous identification of her abusers is admissible as part of res gestae. A Rule 45 petition that raises factual issues and lacks a Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping and a valid verification is dismissible outright.

Roger L. Gamon, a former Senior Police Officer III of the Opol Police, and Yvonne Estenso were devotees of a religious group whose "mission" Madiline Cardines, her father Felix Fabroa, and her husband Danny later joined. Madiline's daughter Danlyn, then five years old, lived with Roger and Yvonne at Scions Subdivision, Cagayan de Oro City, after Madiline began work as a stay-in worker at Cebu Royale Bakery and Fastfood. The charge against Roger and Yvonne was Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, qualified by treachery and other circumstances alleged in the Information. The procedural backdrop includes Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, governing appeals by certiorari raising only questions of law, and the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence on circumstantial evidence, similar acts, and res gestae.

Roger L. Gamon, a former Senior Police Officer III of the Opol Police, and Yvonne Estenso were devotees of a religious group. In January 2009, Roger asked Felix Fabroa, a barangay official and Madiline Cardines's father, to help hide Yvonne because someone was "hunting" her. Felix allowed Roger and Yvonne to stay with him and Madiline at their house in Malanang, Opol, Misamis Oriental. After a flashflood, Yvonne collapsed and spoke in a male voice; Felix, Madiline, and Madiline's husband Danny became devotees of the group and prayed novena with the two accused, who stayed at the Opol residence from January to August 2009.

In September 2009, Madiline helped the two accused find a place to rent at Scions Subdivision, Cagayan de Oro City. The accused moved there, and Madiline, Danny, and their daughter Danlyn resided with them as members of the group. In January 2010, the accused instructed Madiline to live with her husband and in-laws in Pangatucan, Bukidnon, then later directed her to return to Cagayan de Oro City and stay at the house of Boyet Abragan, Jr. Around that time, the accused took custody of Danlyn, who had been living with them at Scions. Danny left Madiline after their relationship soured. On June 23, 2010, Madiline began work as a stay-in worker at Cebu Royale Bakery and Fastfood in Macasandig, Cagayan de Oro City.

The accused often visited Madiline at work but seldom brought Danlyn; on the few visits, Madiline noticed that Danlyn was afraid of Yvonne and visibly shaking in her presence. Yvonne said she was disciplining Danlyn. In the first week of April 2011, Madiline went to Scions and saw swelling and hematoma or "black eye" in Danlyn's left eye. Danlyn said Roger, whom she called "Tito Gamon," punched her. When Madiline confronted the accused, Yvonne told her, "What are you looking for, you will not work until one of you will be gone." Madiline replied that the group's "mission" involved only her and Felix and that Danlyn should be excluded. Yvonne then instructed Roger to slap and punch Madiline, and Roger did so in front of Danlyn. On April 10, 2011, Madiline brought medicine to Scions for a wound on Danlyn's feet; on an earlier visit, she had found the child's feet bound with a rope, and Danlyn said the accused had bound her feet.

On April 11, 2011, at about 11:00 a.m., while Madiline was at work, Yvonne called her and told her to go to Scions due to an emergency. Madiline immediately left work and went to Scions. Roger opened the door and told her to look for Danlyn at the bodega. There, Madiline saw Yvonne sitting on a sack of sand with Danlyn in her lap, leaning against Yvonne's chest; Danlyn looked pale, limp, and lifeless. Yvonne was massaging the child and trying to revive her. Roger told Yvonne to check for a pulse at the child's neck, but Madiline believed Danlyn had already been dead for about two hours. Roger asked Madiline, "Now what will you do?" Yvonne placed Danlyn's body on the floor, stood up, and, with a strange male voice, said: "What is your plan now that your daughter is dead; it is you who's to be blamed for her death." The voice told Madiline to bury Danlyn. The accused then left together to look for a multicab. At around 4:00 a.m. on April 12, 2011, they returned with a box and a black garbage bag and instructed Madiline to put Danlyn's body inside the garbage bag. Out of fear that Roger would maul her, Madiline complied. Roger and Madiline placed the body inside the box in a fetal position, while Yvonne acted as a lookout. They boarded a multicab and went first to a cemetery in Indahag, but it was crowded; the accused angrily reproached Madiline and they transferred to the cemetery in Iponan. Roger and Yvonne borrowed a shovel, dug a grave, and buried Danlyn.

Out of fear, confusion, and belief that she was still on a "mission" for the group, Madiline did not immediately tell anyone about Danlyn's death. On February 4, 2012, she finally told her father Felix, and they went to the police station to report the child's death. On February 9, 2012, with police assistance, Danlyn's body was exhumed from the IFI cemetery. On February 12, 2012, Dr. Christian Karl Terence L. Caballes, a medico-legal officer of the Region 10 Office of the Philippine National Police, performed an autopsy. The autopsy showed a linear fracture of the occipital bone measuring 8 cm, bisected by the PML, with a secondary linear fracture 5 cm in length, and a suture line fracture of the right temporal bone measuring 6 cm. Dr. Caballes found no external injuries but explained that Danlyn had an extended crack at the back of her head and a secondary crack that could result in instantaneous death, with blood clots on the left and right sides of her skull. He concluded that the cause of death was a blunt traumatic injury to the head, which he translated to "bukol," normally caused by hitting a person's head with a blunt object such as wood. He opined that the injury was inflicted while Danlyn was still alive because of discoloration and hematoma or rupture of blood vessels around the area, which cannot occur if the damage was sustained after death. Boyet Abragan, Jr. also testified that he accompanied Danlyn to Canitoan Day Care Center on several occasions, although Roger usually walked her to school; when Boyet fetched her, the accused waited at a nearby food store. According to Boyet, Danlyn appeared rattled and sweating in the presence of Roger and Yvonne, and he once noticed swelling in her cheek, but the child did not say anything when asked.

The accused denied the charges. They admitted living in Scions with Danlyn but claimed she was like a baby to their family and was never mistreated. According to them, on April 11, 2011, Yvonne was cleaning the house while Roger was reading a book; Yvonne noticed Danlyn looked pale and eventually fainted. Yvonne instructed Roger to bring lukewarm water, sponged-bathed Danlyn, and rubbed scented oil on her body, then called Madiline to rush to Scions. Yvonne asserted that on April 8, 2011, she saw Madiline, who seemed irate and late for work, hit Danlyn's head with a piece of wood used to feed the child; Danlyn had intermittent fever but Madiline refused to take her to a hospital despite their prodding. The accused further claimed that Madiline asked for their help to temporarily bury Danlyn because she had no money for a proper burial, and that during the burial Madiline dropped the child, whose head hit the sharp edges of the tomb. Yvonne denied being the leader of the group, a faith healer, or possessed by a "holy child," and asserted she was a Roman Catholic; she also denied a romantic relationship with Roger, physically abusing Danlyn or tying her feet, Roger punching and slapping Madiline, and Madiline being a live-in worker at Cebu Royale. Roger corroborated Yvonne. He confirmed being at Scions with Yvonne and Danlyn on April 11, 2011, bringing lukewarm water, and Yvonne applying hot compress and oil massage. He asserted that Danlyn died in Madiline's arms and that Madiline declared her dead. Roger testified that he used to be a Senior Police Officer III in the Opol Police but was dropped from the roll due to unauthorized absences; he assisted Yvonne in Opol and lived with her in Scions although he was married to someone else, and they slept in the same bed but were not romantically related. He denied punching Danlyn or slapping and punching Madiline, and repudiated the allegation that Yvonne was a cult leader.

The RTC found the prosecution's version more credible. It found that the accused had a history of maltreating Danlyn, who was in their exclusive custody at the time of her death, and that they caused the injuries leading to her death; it held that it did not matter who between Roger and Yvonne dealt the fatal blow because they acted in conspiracy. The RTC concluded that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the two accused killed Danlyn, and that because the victim was only five years old, the crime was Murder. It found the defense of denial weak and incredible, emphasizing that Roger, a former police officer, would not have assisted in the burial without making the child's death of public record, and that it could not believe Roger and Yvonne lived together and slept on one bed if they were not romantically involved or members of the group. The CA likewise found that the circumstantial evidence as a whole pointed to the accused as the perpetrators, that Danlyn's death was due to a traumatic head injury while in the accused's exclusive care, that the accused had a motive to harm her given the history of abuse, and that their failure to report the death was unusual, especially for Roger as a police officer. The CA also ruled that the accused acted in conspiracy and that it was immaterial who delivered the fatal blow.

• Insufficient Proof of Guilt: Roger insisted that his acquittal was proper because the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Autopsy and External Injuries: He pointed out that Dr. Caballes's testimony was insufficient to prove that Danlyn suffered a traumatic head injury because Madiline herself did not see any external injuries on Danlyn before they buried the child, and no murder weapon was presented.
• Expert Credibility: He questioned the credibility of Dr. Caballes because the latter lacked medical expertise in the field of pathology, and concluded that Dr. Caballes's opinion concerning the cause of Danlyn's death did not deserve credence.
• Alternative Cause of Death: He asserted that the child's death could have been caused by an illness.
• Madiline's Credibility: He averred that Madiline's testimony as to the purported history of Danlyn's maltreatment under his care could not be believed, as it would be strange for a mother to continue to allow the alleged abusers to continue having custody over the child.
• Exclusive Custody: He asserted that Danlyn was not in their "exclusive" custody before her death because she was also in the care of Madiline.
• Conspiracy: He added that the finding of conspiracy between him and Yvonne lacked evidentiary support.

• Procedural Infirmities: The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, argued for the outright dismissal of the Petition due to procedural infirmities: failure to state the date when Roger received a copy of the CA Decision and failure to attach a Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping.
• Factual Issues: The OSG added that the Petition raised factual issues that are outside the scope of a Rule 45 petition.
• Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence: On the merits, the OSG averred that the prosecution's evidence sufficiently established the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence: (1) Danlyn's death was caused by a blunt traumatic injury in the head; (2) she died while under the exclusive custody of the accused; (3) there is a history of physical abuse inflicted by the accused upon Danlyn; and (4) the two accused did not immediately bring Danlyn to the hospital and never reported her death, which was suspicious considering that Roger was a former police officer.
• Conspiracy: The OSG further asserted that the accused acted in conspiracy because of their coordinated actions to conceal and not report the death of Danlyn.
• Murder Weapon: As to the non-presentation of the murder weapon, the OSG posited that it is not fatal to the prosecution's cause.
• Treachery: The OSG averred that the killing of Danlyn was qualified by treachery, considering that the accused, who are grown adults, attacked Danlyn when she was only five years old.

• Procedural Infirmities: Whether the Petition should be dismissed outright due to procedural infirmities.
• Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence: Whether the CA erred in sustaining the RTC's conviction of Roger for Murder based on circumstantial evidence.
• Conspiracy: Whether the finding of conspiracy between Roger and Yvonne lacks evidentiary support.
• Treachery: Whether the killing was qualified by treachery.
• Penalty and Damages: Whether the penalty and monetary awards are proper.

• Procedural Infirmities: Yes. The Petition was properly dismissed outright because no Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping was attached, the verification was defective, and the Petition raised factual issues not allowed under Rule 45.
• Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence: No. The CA did not err; the circumstantial evidence satisfied Rule 133, Section 4 of the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence and the guidelines in People vs. Jaen, establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Conspiracy: No. Conspiracy was established by the accused's coordinated acts before, during, and after the crime, and direct proof was not required.
• Treachery: Yes. Treachery qualified the killing because an adult unlawfully attacked a five-year-old child of tender years who was inherently defenseless.
• Penalty and Damages: Affirmed with modification. The penalty is reclusion perpetua, and the monetary awards are civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and temperate damages, with 6% interest.

• Procedural Infirmities: Rule 45, Section 4 requires the petition to contain a sworn certification against forum shopping; none was attached. Rule 45, Section 5 makes non-compliance a sufficient ground for immediate dismissal. The Verification attached to the Petition was also defective because it did not contain all the required contents under Rule 7, Section 4 of the 2019 Amendments to the Rules on Civil Procedure. While verification is only a formal and not jurisdictional defect, it is still among the requirements of a valid appeal by certiorari under Rule 45, Section 1. Further, the Petition improperly raised factual issues concerning the factual findings of the lower courts and the credibility of the prosecution's evidence. Under Rule 45, Section 1, only questions of law may be raised. In People vs. Olpindo, the Court explained that when an accused is convicted of a capital offense and the CA imposes reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the accused may either file an ordinary appeal by notice of appeal under Rule 122, Section 3(e) in relation to Rule 124, Section 13(c) to raise questions of fact, or appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 based purely on questions of law. Roger chose Rule 45 but assailed the credibility and sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence, which are factual matters. Although Olpindo recognizes that the Court may exceptionally treat a Rule 45 petition as an ordinary appeal for substantial justice, Roger failed to establish any special or compelling reason or that his appeal was meritorious. Dismissal was therefore proper under Rule 45, Sections 1, 4, and 5, and Rule 56, Section 5(d) and (e).

• Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence: For Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the prosecution must establish: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him or her; (3) the killing was attended by any qualifying circumstance in Article 248; and (4) the killing constitutes neither parricide nor infanticide. The first, third, and fourth elements were not seriously disputed. Danlyn's death was conceded, and the killing was qualified by treachery because an adult unlawfully attacked a five-year-old child of tender years who could not be expected to defend herself. The fourth element was uncontested. The crux was the second element. The corpus delicti of Murder consists of: (a) the death of the party alleged to be dead; (b) that the death was produced by the criminal act of someone other than the deceased and was not the result of accident, natural cause, or suicide; and (c) that the accused committed the criminal act or was in some way criminally responsible for the act which produced the death. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence. Rule 133, Section 4 of the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence requires: (1) more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances produces conviction beyond reasonable doubt. These requisites must be strictly complied with. The Court applied the guidelines in People vs. Jaen: circumstantial evidence should be acted upon with caution; all essential facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt; the facts must exclude every other theory but guilt; and the facts must establish with certainty the guilt of the accused. The circumstances are appreciated collectively, not singly. The Court found the following circumstances sufficient: first, the accused were last seen with Danlyn immediately before and after her death; they admitted being with her at Scions on April 11, 2011, and no one else was there; Yvonne called Madiline at work, so Madiline was not at Scions when Danlyn died; when Madiline arrived, only the accused were present. Second, Dr. Caballes's testimony established that a blunt traumatic injury to the head caused Danlyn's death; the injury occurred while she was alive because of hematoma around the area; it was normally caused by striking a person with a blunt object such as wood. Roger's challenge to Dr. Caballes's expertise lacked merit; no law required a pathologist, Dr. Caballes was trained in forensics, was a PNP medico-legal officer, and had examined or autopsied around 100 bodies; the law presumes regular appointment and performance of official duty. The lack of external injuries was explained by the hematoma or "bukol" inside the head, meaning the blood vessels inside ruptured. Third, because the injury could cause instantaneous death, it could only have occurred while Danlyn was at Scions with the accused on April 11, 2011; Yvonne's claims that Madiline caused the injury on April 8 or that the head hit the tomb on April 12 were rejected because Danlyn would have died instantaneously on April 8, and the post-mortem claim was belied by the hematoma. Fourth, concealment of the crime is evidence of guilt; the accused did not report Danlyn's death, which was highly unusual, especially for Roger, a former police officer who should have known his duty under Act No. 3753, Section 6 to report the death. Fifth, prior incidents of physical maltreatment were admissible under Rule 130, Section 35 of the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence, not to prove that the accused committed the charged act, but to prove intent, absence of mistake or accident, identity, plan, or scheme. American jurisprudence and the doctrine of chances support admitting prior abuse in child abuse, homicide, or murder cases to prove identity, intent to kill or injure, and the non-accidental or unnatural cause of death. The doctrine of chances applies where the prior conduct involves the same intent, the number of unusual occurrences exceeds the frequency rate for ordinary persons, and the incidents are sufficiently similar. Here, the prosecution established at least four incidents involving Danlyn: a swelling on her cheek observed by Boyet; wounds on her feet from being bound with a rope; a hematoma in her left eye; and the fatal head injury on April 11, 2011. These occurred between June 2010 and April 11, 2011, about ten months, while Danlyn resided in Scions with the accused. Danlyn identified Roger and Yvonne as the ones who caused her black eye and bound her feet. The incidents were sufficiently similar, involving the same child and the same caregivers. The Court followed People vs. Cariquez, where prior injuries and the child's statements identifying her abusers as part of res gestae supported a conviction for the death of a child under the accused's custody. Danlyn's spontaneous statements to Madiline were admissible as res gestae; the maltreatment occasions were startling occurrences, and although time may have elapsed, the statements were made while her mind was still under the influence of the occurrence, with no intervening circumstance. Her youth and immaturity were badges of truth. Intent to kill is conclusively presumed if the victim dies because of a deliberate act of the malefactor. The prior abuse and the accused's actions—Yvonne saying she was disciplining the child and Roger slapping and boxing Madiline upon Yvonne's instructions—showed intent to harm. The Court also found conspiracy: there is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it; direct proof is not essential and may be inferred from acts before, during, and after the crime. The accused were together with Danlyn on April 11, 2011; Yvonne massaged and tried to revive her while Roger told her to check for a pulse; they jointly sought a multicab, with Roger placing the body in a garbage bag and box while Yvonne acted as lookout; they jointly searched for a burial location; together they found a shovel and dug the grave; and neither reported the death. Roger also punched and slapped Madiline upon Yvonne's instructions after Madiline confronted them about the black eye. These established a common design to harm Danlyn and cause her death, so it did not matter who delivered the fatal blow; in a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. The absence of the murder weapon did not negate the murder. Madiline's credibility was not impaired by her failure to report immediately; she testified that the accused, as leaders of the religious group, exercised influence over her, corroborated by Felix, and religious leaders have moral ascendancy over their members. Her credibility was even greater because she implicated herself as an accessory and a violator of Act No. 3753, Section 17, by testifying about the burial. Boyet corroborated her testimony.

• Conspiracy: The Court concurred with the CA that it did not matter who between Roger and Yvonne inflicted the fatal blow because they acted in conspiracy. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Direct proof is not essential; it may be inferred from the acts of the assailants before, during, and after the commission of the crime. The conspiracy was demonstrated by: (1) the two accused were in Scions with Danlyn on April 11, 2011, attending to the child's body when Madiline arrived; (2) while Yvonne massaged Danlyn and tried to revive her, Roger told Yvonne to check for a pulse; (3) in disposing of the body and concealing the crime, they jointly sought a multicab, with Roger placing the body in a garbage bag and a box while Yvonne acted as a lookout; (4) they jointly searched for a location to bury the body without being seen; (5) together they found a shovel to dig the grave; and (6) neither reported Danlyn's death to the authorities. Roger's punching and slapping of Madiline upon Yvonne's instructions further demonstrated their agreement to abuse the child. These circumstances established a common design to harm Danlyn and cause her death.

• Treachery: The RTC and CA determined that the killing was qualified by treachery because Danlyn was only five years old. Treachery exists when an adult person unlawfully attacks a child of tender years and causes the latter's death, considering that young children are inherently defenseless and cannot protect themselves against such an assault. This principle applied to Danlyn, who at five years old could not be expected to defend herself against an attack by an adult such as Roger. The killing was therefore qualified by treachery.

• Penalty and Damages: Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, the penalty for Murder is reclusion perpetua to death. Absent any aggravating circumstance other than the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the proper imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua, the lower of the two indivisible penalties. In accordance with People vs. Jugueta, the RTC and CA correctly sentenced the accused to pay the heirs of Danlyn PHP 75,000.00 as civil indemnity, PHP 75,000.00 as moral damages, and PHP 75,000.00 as exemplary damages. However, the monetary award was modified to conform to Jugueta by directing Roger to pay an additional PHP 50,000.00 as temperate damages, because the prosecution did not offer documentary evidence on burial or funeral expenses, but the child's death and the exhumation of her corpse made it undeniable that the heirs incurred such expenses, although the exact amount was not proven with certainty. All monetary awards shall earn interest at 6% per annum from the date of finality of the Decision until fully paid.

• Circumstantial Evidence — Circumstantial evidence indirectly proves a fact in issue and requires the factfinder to draw an inference. Under Rule 133, Section 4 of the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence, conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires: (1) more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all circumstances produces conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The Court applied these requisites, together with the guidelines in People vs. Jaen, to affirm the conviction.
• Corpus Delicti in Murder — The corpus delicti of Murder consists of: (a) the death of the party alleged to be dead; (b) that the death was produced by the criminal act of someone other than the deceased and was not the result of accident, natural cause, or suicide; and (c) that the accused committed the criminal act or was criminally responsible for the act which produced the death. The Court used this framework to analyze the second element of Murder.
• Doctrine of Chances / Similar Acts as Evidence — Under Rule 130, Section 35 of the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence, evidence that a person did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he or she did or did not do the same or similar thing at another time, but it may be received to prove specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom, or usage. In child abuse, homicide, or murder cases, prior acts of violence toward the child are admissible to prove identity, intent to kill or injure, and the non-accidental or unnatural cause of death. The doctrine of chances requires that the prior conduct involve the same intent, that the number of unusual occurrences exceed the frequency rate for ordinary persons, and that the incidents be sufficiently similar. The Court applied it to Danlyn's prior injuries.
• Res Gestae — Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequently thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof may be admitted as part of res gestae. The Court held that Danlyn's spontaneous statements identifying Roger and Yvonne as her abusers were admissible as res gestae, despite the lapse of time, because her mind was still under the influence of the startling occurrence and there was no intervening circumstance.
• Conspiracy — Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Direct proof is not essential; it may be inferred from the acts of the assailants before, during, and after the commission of the crime. In a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. The Court found conspiracy from the accused's coordinated acts in concealing and burying Danlyn and in not reporting her death.
• Treachery Against a Child of Tender Years — Treachery exists when an adult person unlawfully attacks a child of tender years and causes the latter's death, because young children are inherently defenseless and cannot protect themselves against such an assault. The Court applied this to qualify the killing of five-year-old Danlyn as Murder.
• Concealment of Crime as Evidence of Guilt — Concealment of a crime serves as evidence of guilt; it is highly unusual for an innocent person who witnessed a crime not to report it to the proper authorities. The Court treated Roger's failure to report Danlyn's death, especially as a former police officer, as indicative of guilt.
• Medical Expert Opinion — In medicine, the opinions of doctors qualified by training and experience as to the cause of death and the victim's injuries are competent and, in numerous cases, controlling and binding upon the Court. The Court upheld Dr. Caballes's testimony, noting his forensic training, experience as a PNP medico-legal officer, and the presumption of regular appointment.
• Intent to Kill — If the victim dies because of a deliberate act of the malefactor, intent to kill is conclusively presumed. The Court applied this after finding that Danlyn's fatal head injury resulted from a deliberate act.
• Rule 45 Procedural Requirements — A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 must be verified, must raise only questions of law, and must contain a sworn certification against forum shopping. Non-compliance with these requirements is a sufficient ground for dismissal. The Court dismissed the Petition for failure to attach a Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping, defective verification, and raising factual issues.

• "To warrant a judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence, Rule 133, Section 4 of the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence requires that: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt." — This states the requisites for circumstantial evidence that the Court applied in affirming the conviction.
• "In the present case, the circumstantial evidence offered by the prosecution meets all the requisites of Rule 133, Section 4 of the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence and the guidelines in Jaen. Taken together, they lead to but one conclusion: that Roger and Yvonne killed Danlyn." — This is the Court's ratio on the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence.
• "The rule dictates that in criminal cases, evidence of other wrongful acts committed by the accused that are wholly independent of the offense for which they are on trial is not competent to prove that the accused committed the crime charged in the information." — This states the general prohibition on similar-acts evidence before the Court explains its exceptions.
• "For the doctrine of chances to apply as proof of intent, absence of mistake or accident, and the identity of the perpetrator, the prior conduct must involve the same intent that the prosecution seeks to establish in the charged crime, the number of unusual occurrences in which the accused was involved must exceed the frequency rate for the general population or for ordinary persons, and the incidents should be sufficiently similar to support a rational inference on the existence of the fact sought to be proved by the prosecution." — This defines the requisites of the doctrine of chances, which the Court used to admit prior abuse evidence.

• People vs. Olpindo, 919 Phil. 1024 (2022) — Distinguished the modes of appeal from a CA judgment imposing reclusion perpetua and was relied upon to hold that Roger's Rule 45 petition improperly raised factual issues.
• People vs. Jaen, 858 Phil. 447 (2019) — Supplied the guidelines for evaluating circumstantial evidence; the Court applied them to uphold the conviction.
• People vs. Cariquez, 373 Phil. 877 (1999) — A similar child-abuse homicide case; followed for admitting prior maltreatment and the child's statements as res gestae and for treating prior abuse as corroborative of deliberate harm.
• People vs. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Controlled the award of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages; the Court modified the award to add temperate damages.
• Quinto vs. Andres, 493 Phil. 643 (2005) — Cited for the elements of corpus delicti and the conclusive presumption of intent to kill when death results from a deliberate act.
• People vs. Magpayo, 297 Phil. 13 (1993) — Explained the rule on similar acts and its exceptions; relied upon in admitting prior abuse evidence.
• People vs. Fallorina, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Cited for treachery when an adult unlawfully attacks a child of tender years.
• Uy vs. Land Bank of the Philippines, 391 Phil. 303 (2000) — Cited for dismissal due to non-compliance with Rule 45 requirements, including the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping.
• Bello vs. Bonifacio Security Services, Inc., 670 Phil. 563 (2011) — Cited for the rule that verification is a formal, not jurisdictional, defect but is still required.
• People vs. Gunda, 726 Phil. 289 (2014) — Cited for the penalty of reclusion perpetua as the lower indivisible penalty for Murder absent other aggravating circumstances.
• People vs. Edaño, 765 Phil. 239 (2015) — Cited for temperate damages and the 6% interest on monetary awards.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 — Defines and penalizes Murder and prescribes reclusion perpetua to death; the Court used it to identify the elements of Murder and to impose reclusion perpetua absent other aggravating circumstances.
• Rule 45, Sections 1, 4, and 5, Rules of Court — Governs petitions for review on certiorari, requiring verification, only questions of law, and a sworn certification against forum shopping; non-compliance is a ground for dismissal. The Court applied these to dismiss the Petition.
• Rule 7, Section 4, 2019 Amendments to the Rules on Civil Procedure — Sets the required contents of a verification; the Court found the attached Verification defective for not containing all required contents.
• Rule 133, Section 4, 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence — Sets the requisites for conviction based on circumstantial evidence; the Court applied it to affirm the conviction.
• Rule 130, Section 35, 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence — Governs similar acts as evidence; the Court used it to admit prior abuse evidence for intent, absence of mistake or accident, and identity.
• Rule 131, Section 3(l), (m), and (ff), 2019 Amendments to the Rules on Evidence — Provides presumptions that a person acting in a public office was regularly appointed, that official duty was regularly performed, and that the law was obeyed; the Court applied these to Dr. Caballes's appointment.
• Act No. 3753, Sections 6 and 17 — Section 6 requires a death certificate before burial and requires any person having knowledge of the death to report it; Section 17 penalizes failure to report. The Court cited these in assessing Roger's failure to report and Madiline's self-implication.
• Article 19, Revised Penal Code — Defines accessories, including those who conceal or destroy the body of the crime to prevent its discovery; cited in relation to Madiline's possible liability.
• Rule 122, Section 3(e) and Rule 124, Section 13(c), 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure — Provide the option of ordinary appeal by notice of appeal when the CA imposes reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or a lesser penalty; cited in distinguishing the proper mode of appeal.
• Rule 56, Section 5(d) and (e), Rules of Court — Lists grounds for dismissal of an appeal, including failure to comply with requirements regarding contents and documents and failure to comply with Supreme Court directives; cited in dismissing the Petition.

Caguioa (Chairperson), Gaerlan, and Dimaampao, JJ., concur. Singh, J., on leave.