View full case

LYDIA C. GELIG v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

Lydia Gelig (petitioner) appeals the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 27488 that overturned the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) decision convicting her of the complex crime of direct assault with unintentional abortion. The RTC found Lydia guilty of assaulting Gemma B. Micarsos, a public school teacher, which resulted in the unintentional abortion of Gemma.

On July 17, 1981, Lydia confronted Gemma after learning that Gemma called her son a "sissy" in class. Lydia slapped Gemma and pushed her, causing her to fall and hit a wall divider. As a result, Gemma suffered a contusion in her "maxillary area", and two days later, she started experiencing abdominal pains and bleeding, which led to an incomplete abortion.

During the trial, Lydia claimed that she only approached Gemma to tell her to refrain from insulting her son, but Gemma attacked her first by holding her hands and kicking her. Lydia pushed Gemma against the wall in self-defense.

The RTC convicted Lydia of direct assault with unintentional abortion and sentenced her to an indeterminate penalty of six months of arresto mayor to four years, two months of prision correccional. Lydia appealed the decision.

The CA overturned the RTC's ruling, stating that Lydia cannot be held liable for direct assault because Gemma, instead of pacifying Lydia or informing the principal about the situation, engaged in a fight with her. The CA also ruled that Lydia cannot be held liable for unintentional abortion since there was no evidence that she knew about Gemma's pregnancy. However, the CA found Lydia guilty of slight physical injuries and sentenced her to arresto menor for ten days.

Lydia now raises two errors in her appeal: (1) the CA erred in finding her liable for slight physical injuries, and (2) she cannot be convicted of slight physical injuries under the information charging her with direct assault with unintentional abortion.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the petitioner is liable for slight physical injuries and sentencing her to suffer the penalty of arresto menor minimum of ten days.

  2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the petitioner can be convicted of slight physical injuries under the information charging her for direct assault with unintentional abortion.

RULING:

  1. The Court finds that the petitioner is indeed liable for slight physical injuries, as determined by the Court of Appeals. The sentencing of arresto menor minimum of ten days is therefore affirmed.

  2. The Court agrees with the ruling of the Court of Appeals that the petitioner cannot be convicted of unintentional abortion under the information charging her for direct assault. However, she can be held guilty of slight physical injuries, as the evidence supports this lesser offense. Therefore, the conviction for slight physical injuries is upheld.

PRINCIPLES:

  • An examination of the entire records of a case is necessary in order to arrive at a correct conclusion. Appellate courts have the duty to correct any error found in the judgment appealed from.

  • The offense charged must be proven beyond reasonable doubt in order for the accused to be convicted. If the evidence does not support the original charge, the accused may still be convicted of a lesser offense if the elements of that offense are present.