GR No.

L-37271 July 1, 1933

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
MAGDALENA CALISO, defendant-appellant.

Juan Sumulong for appellant.

Attorney-General Jaranilla for appellee.

ABAD SANTOS, J .:

The appellant in this case was convicted of the crime of murder by the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros,
and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua , to indemnify the parents of the deceased in the sum of
P1,000, with the accessory penalties prescribed by law, and to pay the costs. On this appeal, her counsel de
officioattacks the findings of fact of the trial court, but does not raise any question of law.

The questions of fact involved in this case are fully discussed in well considered decision of the trial court, presided
over by then Judge Quirico Abeto, which decision reads as follows:

Magdalena Caliso is accused of the crime of murder of a 9-month-old boy, in La Carlota, Negros
Occidental, on February 8 of this year, 1932. The complaint alleges that the accused, being a servant of
the Messrs. Emerald (Emilio), voluntarily, illegally and criminally and with the purpose of satisfying a
vengeance, I administer a certain amount of concentrated acetic acid, which is a poisonous substance, to
Emilio Esmeralda, Jr., a 9-month-old boy, causing him burns in the mouth, throat, intestines and other
vital parts of the internal organs that necessarily caused the death of the victim, who succumbed a few
hours later; that in the commission of this crime, the aggravating circumstances of alevosia have
concurred,

After presenting the evidence, both of the accusation, as well as of the defense, and after hearing the
brilliant reports adduced both by the Provincial Prosecutor and by the ex officio lawyerof the accused, the
Court has reserved the decision for this day, but not before congratulating both the accusation and the
defense, the first for the conscientious in the meeting and presentation of their evidence, and the second
for the great interest with which has shown in favor of the accused. The Court has wanted to take time to
decide this cause, because it realizes how serious the crime is and the circumstances of both the accused
and those offended in this case. On the one hand, there is the accused, who is a woman who belongs to
the weak sex, in the spring of her life, whom a sentence could deprive of all the benefits that life offers
her. On the other hand, a mother mad with pain who has lost the only male son of the family and who
considers the cause as the person who has taken her only love.

And of the evidence presented, the Court finds that on the afternoon of February 8, 1932, while the
spouses. Messrs. Emilio Esmeralda and Flora Gonzalez were sleeping taking a nap, suddenly Mrs.
Esmeralda woke up because she heard a sharp cry from her son Emilio Esmeralda, 9 months old, who was
sleeping in a bed opposite the place where She was sleeping with her husband. When Mrs. Esmeralda
arrived, followed by her husband, to the bed where she had left her son asleep, when she lifted the bed
net, she immediately perceived a strong smell of acetic acid and found her son, who was still crying loudly
, with blank eyes, swollen and whitish lips and bruised face, and when raised, he perceived the smell of
acetic acid in the child's breathing. Then she shouted asking who had put acetic acid in her son's mouth,
and since she is a pharmacist by profession, she immediately remembered an antidote that could
neutralize the effects of acetic acid and she herself took out lime water and wetting a hydrophilic cotton,
clean the child's mouth, while sending her husband to call the doctor. A few moments later Dr. Augusto
Locsin arrived, who according to his statement, immediately noticed the smell of acetic acid in the child's
breathing, and wanted to make the first cure, washing the child's stomach, but the mother did not want
the washing to come to the stomach, for fear of hurting the throat of the child with the 'catheter', and for
this reason the washing could only be done to the throat of the child. After some time, they arrived, from
Bacolod, Drs. Orosa and Ochoa, who by phone had also been called by the victim's father. Dr. Orosa is the
chief medical officer of the Provincial Hospital of this province, and Dr. Ochoa is one of the doctors
residing in that hospital, a specialist in diseases of the five senses. Both doctors stated positively that they
had perceived the smell of acetic acid in the child's breathing, and having concluded that the boy had
taken acetic acid, applied the cure to remove said substance from the child's organism, and after making
the first cures, They took the child to the Provincial Hospital and died there a few minutes after
arriving. Orosa is the chief medical officer of the Provincial Hospital of this province, and Dr. Ochoa is one
of the doctors residing in that hospital, a specialist in diseases of the five senses. Both doctors stated
positively that they had perceived the smell of acetic acid in the child's breathing, and having concluded
that the boy had taken acetic acid, applied the cure to remove said substance from the child's organism,
and after making the first cures, They took the child to the Provincial Hospital and died there a few
minutes after arriving. Orosa is the chief medical officer of the Provincial Hospital of this province, and Dr.
Ochoa is one of the doctors residing in that hospital, a specialist in diseases of the five senses. Both
doctors stated positively that they had perceived the smell of acetic acid in the child's breathing, and
having concluded that the boy had taken acetic acid, applied the cure to remove said substance from the
child's organism, and after making the first cures, They took the child to the Provincial Hospital and died
there a few minutes after arriving.

Both doctors, as well as Dr. Locsin, are unanimous in the claim that the boy's death was due to poisoning
by acetic acid, and everyone, especially Dr. Ochoa, agrees in the opinion that death has been due to
suffocation, because acetic acid has wreaked havoc on the child's larynx and he could not breathe. Dr.
Ochoa, who, as said, is a specialist in all five senses, examined the child's mouth and throat and found
burns caused, according to him, by acetic acid. And so sure are the doctors that the child had taken acetic
acid and that the death of it was due to this substance, that Dr. Orosa himself, who is a very long-standing
doctor and an expert surgeon, I assure the Prosecutor that there was no need for an autopsy to reach a
conclusion on the safety of the cause of the chiquillio's death, and that even when the autopsy showed
that there was no acetic acid in the intestines of, child, because this had been absorbed by the organism,
or because the stomach had been washed, he was sure that death was due to acetic acid poisoning,
because he had smelled that substance, whose smell is unmistakable, in the child's breathing and has
seen the ravages of the substance in the throat and in the mouth of the deceased. Both doctors, in a
positive way, without hesitation, assured the Court that the cause of death, as has been repeated several
times, is due to acetic acid poisoning. And the Court agrees that in such circumstances,

The Court has no doubt of the competence of these two doctors, especially in the opinion of Dr. Ochoa,
who is a specialist in the five senses and has recognized the throat and mouth of the child, in which he
found burns induced by acetic acid.

Apart from this, the mother of the deceased, who is a pharmacist, accustomed to smell and distinguish
substances, perceived the smell of acetic acid in the first moments in which she raised her son from the
bed. This lady's husband, Mr. Emilio Esmeralda, is also a chemist and I also assure that I have smelled the
strong smell of acetic acid from the first moments. Apart from these two people who may be mistaken,
whether for their passion or for the concerns at the moment of being interested in their son, is Mr. Julian
Gomeri, another chemist who lived in the same house, who assured the Court that when entering the
room where the boy was in his mother's arms, immediately smelled the suffocating smell of acetic acid,

That is why the Court repeats that it is proven beyond all rational doubt that the boy Emilio Esmeralda, Jr.,
died as a result of acetic acid poisoning, and it is unsustainable the theory that he published having had an
indigestion for having ingested orange juice from California after drinking milk, and that the smell of
acetic acid could be derived from the vomiting of the kid by mixing it with orange juice and milk. Three
doctors and three chemicals are impossible to confuse the smell of orange juice that has become acidic
when mixed with milk, with the strong smell of concentrated acetic acid.

Having reached this conclusion that the death of the child Emilio Esmeralda, Jr., was due to acetic acid
poisoning, the other issue that the Court has to solve is: who administered this substance.

From this point the tests are all circumstantial only.

It is a proven fact that days before this event, when Mr. Emilio Esmeralda returned to his house, from the
factory of the Central La Carlota, at about dawn, not a certain lump that moved in the bottom of his bed
in the room-room of him and his lady when she spent a few days in La Carlota. Fearing that some thief
had entered under the bed, he picked up his gun and threatened to shoot him who was there if he did not
leave. Indeed, a man came out of there and, all trembling, he told Mr. Esmeralda that he was not a thief,
but that he was there because he had been called by the accused with whom he was in love. Mr.
Esmeralda then recriminated him for his act and let him go, telling him not to repeat the act again. When
mrs. Flora Gonzalez arrived in La Carlota a few days later, that is, on the day of the car, Mr. Esmeralda,
after breakfast and then being absent the accused for having gone to the market, he told his wife what
had happened in one of the past few days, that is, having surprised a man in his own room and under his
bed, attending an appointment he had with the accused. Mrs. Esmeralda, given her education and being a
woman at last, felt very offended and outraged by the act of her maid and, very nervous, I await the
return of the accused, and when she arrived, Mrs. Esmeralda I search in the kitchen, he began to insult
her from head to toe, recriminating her for her immoral act and for allowing herself to hide her lover in
her master's own room, and after scolding the accused, she returned to her room, and the recrimination
that he had just done to the defendant seemed little to him, Mrs. Esmeralda again returned to the kitchen
to reprimand her again, and as Mrs. Esmeralda's nerves did not calm down on these two occasions, as He
returned to the kitchen, undertook new insults to the accused, in terms that when Mrs. Esmeralda put her
son to sleep in the bed, when she found something dirty the pillow covers, again she went to the kitchen
and returned to admonish the accused by recriminating her and saying that she only knew how to have
lovers and did not know how to fulfill her duties as a maid. Hardly two hours scarce to occur these insults,
the event occurred that gave rise to the death of the boy Emilio Esmeralda, Jr. and as Mrs. Esmeralda's
nerves did not calm down on these two occasions, as she returned to the kitchen, she made new insults
to the accused, in terms that when Mrs. Esmeralda put her son to sleep in the When he found something
dirty on the pillow covers, he went to the kitchen again and reprimanded the accused recriminating her
and saying that she only knew how to have lovers and did not know how to fulfill her duties as a
maid. Hardly two hours scarce to occur these insults, the event occurred that gave rise to the death of the
boy Emilio Esmeralda, Jr. and as Mrs. Esmeralda's nerves did not calm down on these two occasions, as
she returned to the kitchen, she made new insults to the accused, in terms that when Mrs. Esmeralda put
her son to sleep in the When he found something dirty on the pillow covers, he went to the kitchen again
and reprimanded the accused recriminating her and saying that she only knew how to have lovers and did
not know how to fulfill her duties as a maid. Hardly two hours scarce to occur these insults, the event
occurred that gave rise to the death of the boy Emilio Esmeralda, Jr. When he found something dirty on
the pillow covers, he went to the kitchen again and reprimanded the accused recriminating her and saying
that she only knew how to have lovers and did not know how to fulfill her duties as a maid. Hardly two
hours scarce to occur these insults, the event occurred that gave rise to the death of the boy Emilio
Esmeralda, Jr. When he found something dirty on the pillow covers, he went to the kitchen again and
reprimanded the accused recriminating her and saying that she only knew how to have lovers and did not
know how to fulfill her duties as a maid. Hardly two hours scarce to occur these insults, the event
occurred that gave rise to the death of the boy Emilio Esmeralda, Jr.

Proceeding by elimination, the Prosecutor's Office has tried to prove to the Court, and thus alleges in its
report, that at the time of the incident of the child's poisoning, only ten people were living in the house
where the event occurred, , namely: the Esmeralda spouses, their two daughters, Lilia and Elsa, the boy
Emilio Esmeralda, Jr., Julai Gomeri, Jose Colmenares, Catalino Ramos, a maid about 12 years old, named
Magdalena Soriano, and the one accused here . The Prosecutor says they cannot be the perpetrators of
the poisoning, neither Mr. Esmeralda, nor his wife. The Court, of course, agrees with this elimination. It is
not possible that these are the authors of such poisoning; In addition to being parents, the mother's
attitude, mad with pain at the death of her son, removes all doubt. It would be absurd the most remote
assumption that these people were the authors of such poisoning. It could not be Elsa Esmeralda because
this, apart from her few years, was sleeping with her little brother in the same bed where the incident
occurred. It could not be Lilia, nor the maid Magdalena Soriano, because both were then in the toilet,
according to the evidence; also that the assumption could not fit that, or Magdalena Soriano, or Lilia
mistakenly administered acetic acid to the sleeping child, because the bottle that contained it was in the
kitchen, according to the accused herself, near the water jug where she She had put, and the accused,
according to herself, was in the kitchen all afternoon washing dishes, so that if Magdalena Soriano or Lilia
had wanted to reach the acetic acid bottle, The accused would have seen them. Julian Gomeri was asleep
in his room; He was a companion of Mr. Esmeralda at work, an unfriendly friend of the family and has had
no dislike with any member of her and there is no reason to attribute that he has put acetic acid in the
child's mouth. Jose Colmenares was in the plant of the Central, which is half a kilometer from the house
occupied by Messrs. Esmeralda, occupied in his work as an employee of said Central. Catalino Ramos was
absent then in the town, because he was in the town of Talisay. Once these people have been eliminated,
only the accused remains as the possible author of the act of administering acetic acid to the child Emilio
Esmeralda, Jr. Intomo friend of the family and has not had any disgust with any member of her and there
is no reason to attribute that he has put in the mouth of the child acetic acid. Jose Colmenares was in the
plant of the Central, which is half a kilometer from the house occupied by Messrs. Esmeralda, occupied in
his work as an employee of said Central. Catalino Ramos was absent then in the town, because he was in
the town of Talisay. Once these people have been eliminated, only the accused remains as the possible
author of the act of administering acetic acid to the child Emilio Esmeralda, Jr. Intomo friend of the family
and has not had any disgust with any member of her and there is no reason to attribute that he has put in
the mouth of the child acetic acid. Jose Colmenares was in the plant of the Central, which is half a
kilometer from the house occupied by Messrs. Esmeralda, occupied in his work as an employee of said
Central. Catalino Ramos was absent then in the town, because he was in the town of Talisay. Once these
people have been eliminated, only the accused remains as the possible author of the act of administering
acetic acid to the child Emilio Esmeralda, Jr. occupied in his work as an employee of said Central. Catalino
Ramos was absent then in the town, because he was in the town of Talisay. Once these people have been
eliminated, only the accused remains as the possible author of the act of administering acetic acid to the
child Emilio Esmeralda, Jr. occupied in his work as an employee of said Central. Catalino Ramos was
absent then in the town, because he was in the town of Talisay. Once these people have been eliminated,
only the accused remains as the possible author of the act of administering acetic acid to the child Emilio
Esmeralda, Jr.

Of course, the evidence that the accused, a few hours before the event, was the only one in the house
who had received insults from the child's mother, is circumstantial evidence against her. None had
grounds for resentment towards any member of the deceased's family other than the accused. She
herself admitted during her testimony that on that day she had been rebuked by her mistress. When the
boy Emilio Esmeralda, Jr., gave a high-pitched scream that woke his mother, Julian Gomeri, who was
asleep in the other room, he could open his eyes and saw the accused coming out of the living room door
and heading towards the kitchen. This room had to go out of the room where the child was asleep, to go
to the kitchen; and the distance from the door of this room to the place where the child was sleeping was
only 4 or 5 meters. The defendant has not been able to deny this statement by Julian Gomeri, nor has she
been able to give any explanation because at that moment she was leaving the room to go to the
kitchen. It is possible that after having put the acetic acid in the child's mouth, he could not scream
immediately, but a few seconds later when he felt the effects of the acid, so that the accused had time to
leave the site and return to the cooking and being in the room, the boy gave the first shout that made
Julian Gomeri open his eyes. This fact is another quite strong circumstantial evidence, according to the
Court, against the accused. When the child's mother was healing him, he ordered the accused and
Magdalena Soriano to boil water in the kitchen, and while these two maids fulfilled the order, the
defendant, without any plausible reason, He put his hands under Magdalena Soriano's nose and said: "My
hands are smelling acetic acid because something has been spilled there when I made vinegar this
morning with acetic acid." This unsolicited explanation made by the accused does not seem to indicate
anything other than some fear she had in case someone could smell acetic acid on her hands. Another
circumstantial evidence against the accused is the fact that in the house she was the only one who had in
her custody this Exhibit A bottle that contained acetic acid. Magdalena Soriano did not even know where
this bottle was placed. When Mrs. Esmeralda searched for this bottle, whose memory she remembered
when she smelt the acetic acid in her son's mouth, the defendant was the one who took the bottle from
the kitchen and handed it to Mrs. Esmeralda, saying it ,

The defendant, when declaring in the testimony chair as a witness in his favor, when asked by the Court if
he has smelled acetic acid when entering the room, did so much; but he immediately replaced himself
and strongly denied having smelled acetic acid. The Court addressed this question several times, and the
accused insisted on her refusal. The Court asked him if he knew the acetic acid and the smell of it, and
affirmed that he did and returned to affirm that he had not perceived such a smell in the room upon
entering and for as long as he had remained there. Now, three impartial doctors, chemists and a
pharmacist, apart from Magdalena Soriano, have smelled the unmistakable smell of acetic acid in the
room. The only one who has not been able to smell this substance is the accused. In the commission of a
crime, the only one who has an interest in denying the existence of a body of crime is almost always, or
almost without, the author of it. And this attitude of the accused of denying such an obvious thing and
about which the Court has no doubt, corroborates, in the judgment of the Court, all the circumstantial
evidence that has been presented by the accusation.

The defense emphasizes the fact that the accused, far from escaping, entered the room to help the child's
mother to save this, and so much so that the same accused, according to Julian Gomeri, as soon as Ms.
Esmeralda asked for cotton, it was the one that took the cotton from Julian Gomeri and handed it to Mrs.
Esmeralda. This fact is not, in the opinion of the Court, sufficient to prove the innocence of the
accused. How many times has it happened that he who has performed a criminal act repents his crime
and tries to remedy it! The one who has just hurt a man, after the first moment of obcecation has passed,
if he could heal him, he would undoubtedly not find a better doctor for the injured. It can also happen
that the accused, having wanted to cause damage only to the creature, He wanted to use all his ability so
that the effects of the damage were not so great. The defendant's attitude, therefore, is perfectly
explainable and not incompatible with her guilt. Another attitude of the accused that seems to have a lot
of weight is her attitude when she returned in the afternoon of the day after the event at the police
station when the Chief of Police told her to return in that afternoon. And the defendant's lawyer is right to
emphasize this circumstance. The defendant has been arrested almost midnight the same day as the
event. She was released at 11 a.m. the next day, given that no arrest warrant was coming against her; but
the Chief of Police told him to return at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, and at 3 o'clock that afternoon the
defendant returned to the municipal building. The defendant's lawyer argues that a criminal conscience
would not proceed as the defendant has proceeded; She would have escaped. The Court has carefully
considered this aspect of the matter; he has meditated long on this act of the accused; but the conclusion
of the Court is that if the defendant returned in the afternoon of that day to the municipal building, it was
because the defendant did not know that the child Emilio Esmeralda, Jr., had died. In addition, she should
know that, woman she was, she could not go anywhere without being reached by the corresponding
authorities and, therefore, it was better for her to appear before the authorities pretending to have a
clear conscience and preparing her future defense in that way. .

It may be said that it is not usual that, having the mother of the child offended by the accused, this,
instead of taking revenge of the mother, that many opportunities she would have had because, as the
defense lawyer has tried to highlight, the accused slept in the same room of the Esmeralda husbands and
 prepared their food, directed her avenging action to an innocent creature, especially considering that the
accused is a woman and women, as a rule, are more charitable than the men. In the first place, be it a
man, be it a woman, when they are obscured by hatred and revenge, they no longer consider the
circumstances and seek to direct their revenge to those who have offended them there where it is easier
to execute. In this case, the boy Emilio Esmeralda, Jr., He was the one who slept closest to the door
entering immediately, coming from the kitchen, and he was the one who, by his tender age, could
immediately feel the effects of acetic acid, thus being able to execute his revenge with greater certainty
on his part. Causing damage to the child, who, being the only male in the family, was the most beloved by
Messrs. Esmeralda, caused greater damage to Mrs. Esmeralda. The Court, of course, accepts the theory
that women are much more charitable than men and much weaker than common consensus; but
precisely because she is more charitable, because she is weaker, when the woman becomes bad and
wants revenge, her revenge seeks the weakest too and on this makes that revenge fall, and daily
experience teaches us that the weakest beings, be men or women, when they become bad, they are
worse enemies; and it is not strange, therefore, that the accused, fearing to attack Mr. Esmeralda and
Mrs. Esmeralda, because against them he was not assured of the execution of his revenge, has chosen as
a victim a defenseless creature of 9 months age.

Based on the above considerations, the Court finds it beyond reasonable doubt that 9-month-old Emilio
Esmeralda, Jr. died on February 8, 1932, as a result of concentrated acetic acid poisoning, and that the
accused, Taking advantage of the occasion in which their masters were sleeping, I administer a small
amount of this substance to said child, thus burning his mouth and throat, as a result of which said child
died.

Therefore, the accused Magdalena Caliso is found guilty of the crime of murder, and considering in the
commission of the crime the concurrence of the aggravating circumstance of alevosia, because it is a
defenseless being, and the circumstance of having performed the act in the own residence of the victim's
parents, whose circumstances are compensated with the mitigating circumstances of lack of instruction
and having acted on the basis of impulses of a feeling that has caused her outburst and obsession,
condemns her to the penalty of life imprisonment , to compensate the parents of the deceased in the sum
of P1,000, with the accessory of the law, and to pay the costs of the trial. That's how it is ordered.

We agree to the conclusions of fact reached by the trial court. As to the application of the law to the facts of the
case, we are inclined to the proposition advanced by the Attorney-General that in the commission of the crime the
aggravating circumstance of grave abuse of confidence was present since the appellant was the domestic servant
of the family and was sometimes the deceased child's amah. The circumstance of the crime having been
committed in the dwelling of the offended party, considered by the lower court as another aggravating
circumstance, should be disregarded as both the victim and the appellant were living in the same
house. (US vs. Rodriguez, 9 Phil., 136; US vs.. Destrito and De Ocampo, 23 Phil., 28.) Likewise, threachery cannot be
considered to aggravate the penalty as it is inherent in the offense of murder by means of poisoning (3 Viada, p.
29). Similarly the finding of the trial court that the appellant acted under an impulse so powerful as naturally to
have produced passion and obfuscation should be discarded because the accused, in poisoning the child, was
actuated more by a spirit of lawlessness and revenge than by any sudden impulse of natural and uncontrollable
fury (People vs. Hernandez, 43 Phil., 104, 111) and because such sudden burst of passion was not provoked by
prior unjust or improper acts of the victim or of his parents (US vs. Taylor, 6 Phil., 162), since Flora Gonzalez had
the perfect right to reprimand the defendant for indecently converting the family's bedroom into a rendezvous of
herself and her lover.

The aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence being offset by the extenuating circumstance of defendant's
lack of instruction considered by the lower court, the medium degree of the prescribed penalty should, therefore,
be imposed, which, in this case, is perpetual reclusion .
The penalty imposed by the lower court upon the appellant being thus within the limits fixed by law, the judgment
appealed from is affirmed with costs. So ordered.

Street, Malcolm, Hull, and Imperial, JJ., Concur.