Short answer. Yes. Article 256 punishes anyone who intentionally causes an abortion, and consent does not remove liability. Consent changes only the grading: the article sets a heavier penalty where violence was used on the pregnant woman or where she did not consent, and a lighter one where she did.
What the law says
Any person who shall intentionally cause an abortion shall suffer
Revised Penal Code, Article 256 — Intentional Abortion. Read the full provision →
Three situations, one offence
Article 256 opens by providing that any person who shall intentionally cause an abortion shall suffer one of three penalties, and then distinguishes the three. The gravest applies where the offender used violence on the person of the pregnant woman. The middle one applies where there was no violence but the woman did not consent. The lightest applies where she consented. Consent therefore moves a case from one rung of the same article to a lower rung. It does not move it outside the article, and it does not make the act lawful.
Why consent does not operate as a defence here
In many offences the complainant's agreement is decisive, because the interest protected is one the complainant may give up. This provision is built on the opposite premise: the interest it protects is not treated as the pregnant woman's to waive on the offender's behalf, which is why her agreement mitigates rather than excuses. The Code deals separately with the pregnant woman who causes her own abortion or consents to another doing so, so her position under the law is governed by a different provision from the one that governs the person who performs the act.
The word doing the work is "intentionally"
Article 256 reaches an abortion that was intended. An abortion brought about without that intent — the classic case being violence directed at the woman with no thought of the pregnancy — is addressed by a different provision of the Code and carries a different treatment. So intent is not a formality in these cases; it is the element that decides which article applies at all. It has to be proved like any other element, and a person is not shown to have intended a result merely because the result followed from what he did.
This is not a page to act on alone
Anyone facing an accusation under this article, and anyone considering making one, is in an area where the facts are medical, private and contested, and where the legal grading turns on details that are easy to get wrong. The clinical records, the sequence of events and any account of what was said and agreed will matter more than the label anyone puts on the incident. Speak to a lawyer before giving statements. Nothing about the outcome of such a case can be predicted from the text of the article alone.