Facts:

In the case of George Bongalon vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 169533, decided on March 20, 2013, the petitioner, George Bongalon, was accused of committing child abuse under Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610. The case originated from an incident on May 11, 2000, in Legazpi City, where Bongalon allegedly physically assaulted 12-year-old Jayson Dela Cruz during an evening procession. The prosecution's evidence included that Bongalon struck Jayson with his palm on the back and slapped him on the face while uttering derogatory remarks. This assault was said to have caused prejudice to the child's development and was claimed to demean Jayson’s dignity as a human being. As a result of the incident, Jayson suffered physical injuries requiring medical attention, which was documented by medical certificates.

Bongalon, on his part, denied the allegations, arguing that he confronted Jayson only in response to provocation from Jayson and his brother, and he asserted th

...

Facts:

Incident and Charges

• On May 11, 2000, in Legazpi City, Philippines, the petitioner, George Bongalon, was charged in the Regional Trial Court for allegedly committing acts of child abuse against Jayson Dela Cruz, a 12-year-old Grade VI pupil.
• The alleged acts included striking Jayson on the back with his palm and slapping him on the face, accompanied by derogatory remarks such as “aMga hayop kamo, para dayo kamo digdi, Iharap mo dito ama moa.”
• It was further alleged that these actions were prejudicial to the development of the minor and demeaned his intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being, in violation of Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610.

Circumstances Surrounding the Incident

• The event ensued when, during an evening procession for the Santo Niño in Legazpi City on May 11, 2000, the petitioner encountered Jayson Dela Cruz and his older brother Roldan.
• The petitioner’s minor daughters, Mary Ann Rose and Cherrylyn, were also present; they reported that Jayson and Roldan had thrown stones at them and that Jayson was responsible for burning Cherrylyn’s hair.
• Following these reports, the petitioner confronted the boys, engaged in a heated verbal exchange, and physically struck the child in question.

Testimonies and Evidence Presented

• The prosecution presented multiple witnesses including:
• Testimonies from Jayson Dela Cruz and his family detailing the physical abuse and verbal invectives.
• Medical certificates from the Bicol Regional Training and Teaching Hospital confirming contusions on Jayson’s left scapular and zygomatic areas.
• Mary Ann Rose testified, contradicting some allegations by clarifying that she did not throw stones and described the petitioner as a loving, protective father.
• The narrative included a confrontation at the petitioner’s house where he challenged Rolando Dela Cruz to a fight, although Rolando did not emerge to challenge him.

Procedural History Leading to the Supreme Court

• The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of child abuse under RA 7610 and sentenced him to imprisonment ranging from six years and one day to eight years of prision mayor.
• The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s conviction but modified the penalty to an indeterminate term of prision correccional to prision mayor, and it ordered the payment of moral damages amounting to ₱5,000 to the victim.
• The petitioner subsequently sought relief through a petition for certiorari, challenging both the substance of the evidence (particularly the intent behind his actions) and procedural aspects related to the remedy adopted.

Issue:

Classification of the Offense

• Whether the petitioner’s act of laying hands on the child, in the heat of the moment, fulfilled the requisite mental element for child abuse under Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610.
• Whether it is appropriate to classify the offense as child abuse when the physical contact was not intended to debase, degrade, or demean the child’s intrinsic worth, but was instead committed under a state of passion.

Appropriateness of the Remedy

• Whether the petitioner’s filing of a petition for certiorari was proper, given that an appeal on points of law (a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45) was the appropriate remedy for challenging the CA’s affirmance of the lower court’s decision.
• Whether the alleged errors pertain to errors of judgment rather than errors of jurisdiction, thereby falling outside the ambit of a special civil action for certiorari.

Sentencing and Mitigating Circumstances

• Whether the imposition of a harsher penalty as child abuse was equitable considering the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation under Article 13(6) of the Revised Penal Code.
• Whether the penalty ought to be adjusted to a less severe punishment given the petitioner’s claim of acting out of a fatherly concern for his daughters’ safety.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)