Genoveva Aquino and Lazaro Casipit were charged with infanticide after Aquino gave birth in a field and Casipit buried the infant. The court found them not guilty, as the evidence showed the child was stillborn. Testimony from Aquino, Casipit, and his wife indicated the child did not cry or move, showing it was stillborn. The owners of the house where she gave birth testified they only briefly observed the birth from a distance while lying in bed. This was insufficient to prove the child was born alive against the defendants' testimony. They were found not guilty of infanticide or other charges.
Genoveva Aquino and Lazaro Casipit were charged with infanticide after Aquino gave birth in a field and Casipit buried the infant. The court found them not guilty, as the evidence showed the child was stillborn. Testimony from Aquino, Casipit, and his wife indicated the child did not cry or move, showing it was stillborn. The owners of the house where she gave birth testified they only briefly observed the birth from a distance while lying in bed. This was insufficient to prove the child was born alive against the defendants' testimony. They were found not guilty of infanticide or other charges.
Genoveva Aquino and Lazaro Casipit were charged with infanticide after Aquino gave birth in a field and Casipit buried the infant. The court found them not guilty, as the evidence showed the child was stillborn. Testimony from Aquino, Casipit, and his wife indicated the child did not cry or move, showing it was stillborn. The owners of the house where she gave birth testified they only briefly observed the birth from a distance while lying in bed. This was insufficient to prove the child was born alive against the defendants' testimony. They were found not guilty of infanticide or other charges.
THE UNITED STATES , plaintiff-appellee, vs . GENOVEVA AQUINO and
LAZARO CASIPIT , defendants-appellants.
Arsenio Locsin for appellants.
Attorney-General Avanceña for appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. INFANTICIDE; SUFFICIENCY OF PROOF. — When the proceedings disclose
no proof that a widow was forced to conceal the disgrace of her pregnancy as a motive which may have impelled her to direct another person to throw her newly-born child into a pit, in order that it might die, it appearing that she had no scruples in going about the town in a pregnant condition and that for two weeks previous she was working in a field in broad daylight; and when, furthermore, the record shows that the child was stillborn, it is improper to hold that the crime of infanticide was committed. Nor may it be presumed that the said widow wickedly intended to deprive her child of its life, it being born alive, for, against this presumption the natural law of maternal love will prevail, unless the contrary be fully proven. With much less reason may it be held that the mother, aided by another persons, determined to abandon her child and expose it to the danger of certain death, and the failure to hold an autopsy on the body of the newly- born child, an examination which would have shown whether it was in fact born dead or alive, can not redound to the prejudice of the mother. 2. DEAD BODIES; BURIAL. — The fact of a newly-born child being thrown into a pit, when it should have been buried in the cemetery or some other appropriate place, constitutes at most the crime or misdemeanor punished by article 334 or 581 of the Penal Code, for violation of the laws governing the interment of human bodies.
DECISION
TORRES , J : p
The present proceedings were brought by a complaint led by the provincial