REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 54, Manila

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Complainant,

- versus Crim. Case No. _________ For: Parricide SPS. PATRICK A. GONZALES and MA. VIRGINIA L. GONZALES, Accused. x-----------------------x

MEMORANDUM
The STATE, by the undersigned state prosecutor, and in compliance with the Order of this Honorable Court, respectfully submits this Memorandum in support of its case, and, states:

PREFATORY STATEMENTS
Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves.1 The child,
1

Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 170 (1944), quoted in Rippberger, 283 Cal. Rptr. at 123; Walker, 763 P.2d at 870; Barnhart, 497 A.2d at 624-25; Norman, 808 P.2d at 1163.

by reason of his mental and physical immaturity, needs special safeguard and care, including appropriate legal protection before as well as after birth.2 In case of assault on his rights by those who take advantage of his innocence and vulnerability, the law will rise in his defense with the singleminded purpose of upholding only his best interests.3

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

1. Patrick A. Gonzales and Ma. Virginia L. Gonzales, are the

parents of Renesme L. Gonzales (Renesme).

2.

At the age of three (3) years old, Renesme was diagnosed with

diabetes. However, her parents, Patrick A. Gonzales and Ma. Virginia L. Casihan, failed to give and provide medical attention because they believe that it is against their religious belief and that they can settle to natural healing and prayers. 3. Renesmes grandparents insisted that their grandchild be given

medical attention but to no avail, the parents did not heed the insistence. 4. diabetes. At the age of nine (9) years old, Renesmes died due to

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether or not the spouses Gonzales are guilty of parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code for the death of their daughter, Renesme L. Gonzales.
I.

Whether or not the constitutional provision regarding free exercise clause may be used as a defense of the parents against the crime of parricide.
II.

Universal Declaration of the Rights of the Child. CONCEPCION vs. Court of Appeals, (G.R. No. 123450. August 31, 2005)

ARGUMENT/DISCUSSION
I. The spouses Gonzales are guilty of parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code since their act of not providing medical attention to their daughter Renesme was the proximate cause of his death. In the case at bar, the proximate cause of death of Renesmes is her diabetes. Proximate cause is that cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and without which the result would not have occurred.4 As pronounced in a similar case of State vs. Norman5 wherein a child died of diabetes, the court ruled that in previous cases, Aaron could have survived if he had received treatment as late as the day before he died. Since it has been established that medical attention of the diabetes could have prevented the death of Renesme, it is only but logical to conclude that the failure to provide such medical attention to such disease was the proximate cause of the death of the Renesme. As provided by Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code, the element of the crime of parricide can be committed, to wit:
(1) the death of the deceased; (2) that she was killed by the accused; and (3) that the deceased was a legitimate ascendant or descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused6

The above-cited elements of the crime of parricide had been sufficiently established. First, the death of the child, Renesme. Second,

4 5

Jarcia, Jr. and Bastan vs. People of the Philippines, G. R. No.187926, February 15, 2012. 808 P.2d 1159 (Wash. App. 1991). 6 Article 246, Revised Penal Code; People vs. Embalido, 58 Phil 154 [1933]

there was willful and deliberate failure to provide medical attention for a prolonged period of time by the accused spouses thus establishing that the proximate cause Renesmes death was the fault of the latter. Lastly, that the deceased was the legitimate descendant of the accused spouses. Having established the elements crime of parricide, the accused spouses should be convicted of such crime.

II. The

constitutional provision regarding right to religious profession and worship may not be used as a defense since the freedom to believe in a particular religion is absolute, the freedom to act on that belief is not. The right to religious profession and worship has a two-fold

aspect, vis., freedom to believe and freedom to act on one's belief. The first is absolute as long as the belief is confined within the realm of thought. The second is subject to regulation where the belief is translated into external acts that affect the public welfare7. Consequently, the freedom to believe in a particular religion is absolute, the freedom to act on that believe is not. Moreover, The Supreme Court of California rejected this argument and stated that parents have no right to free exercise of religion at the price of a child's life. The court found that imposition of criminal liability on parents who refuse to seek medical care for their ill - children is justified by a compelling state interest, namely to protect the lives of children. Furthermore, the court concluded that less restrictive means were unavailable to further the state's compelling interest because ordinarily the
7

J. Cruz, Constitutional Law, 1991 Ed., pp. 176-177

case of a true believer in faith healing will not even come to the attention of the authorities, unless and until someone dies. 8

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed for that a JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION be rendered against the Spouses PATRICK A. GONZALES and MA. VIRGINIA L. CASIHAN for the commission of the crime of parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code. Other relief just and equitable is likewise prayed for. Manila, February 28, 2013. By:

MA. ISABELITA R. CASIHAN State Prosecutor PTR NO.576503; 01/20/12; Manila IBP NO. 802969; 12/15/12; Manila Roll No. 34951 MCLE Compliance No. III-0014957; 05/05/12 Department of Justice Padre Faura, Manila

EXPLANATION
8

Journal of Legal Medicine June, 1996 Commentary *301 TREATING CHILDREN BY FAITH COLLIDING CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES by Elizabeth A. Lingle, p.6

(In compliance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court ) The undersigned counsel respectfully explains that the foregoing MEMORANDUM is being served by registered mail to the counsel of the accused due to distances of their offices and lack of office personnel to serve the same personally.

MA. ISABELITA R. CASIHAN

Copy furnished: ATTY. KRISTINE LEGASPI Counsel for the Accused 2nd Floor, Ermita Center Bldg. Roxas Boulevard, Makati