Case Summary (G.R. No. 246017)
Key Dates
February 20, 2014 – Incident date
May 2, 2017 – Regional Trial Court conviction
October 24, 2018 – Court of Appeals decision affirming conviction with modified penalty
March 18, 2019 – Court of Appeals denial of reconsideration
November 25, 2020 – Supreme Court decision
Applicable Law
1987 Constitution, Article XV, Section 3(2) (State’s duty to protect children)
Republic Act No. 7610, Section 10(a) (Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and Other Conditions Prejudicial to the Child’s Development)
Facts
On February 20, 2014, AAA alleged that Malcampo-Repollo pinched and hit him on the back for talking in class, then slapped him upon returning from painting duties. Terrified, AAA went home and his mother reported the incident to the Makati Women and Children Protection Desk and secured a Philippine General Hospital medical report noting an oval bruise on his left trunk. The defense denied the acts, presenting AAA’s classmate Julie Ann, who claimed she pinched AAA, and a principal’s certification of the teacher’s good character.
Procedural History
The Regional Trial Court found AAA credible and convicted Malcampo-Repollo of child abuse under Section 10(a) of R.A. 7610, sentencing her to six years and ordering indemnities. The Court of Appeals affirmed but reduced the indeterminate sentence to a minimum of 4 years, 9 months, 11 days of prision correccional and a maximum of 6 years, 6 months, 1 day of prision mayor. Malcampo-Repollo petitioned the Supreme Court under Rule 45.
Issues
- Whether factual questions may be resolved in a Rule 45 petition.
- Whether the prosecution proved the elements of child abuse under Section 10(a) of R.A. 7610.
Rule 45 and Factual Review
A Rule 45 petition is generally limited to questions of law; factual issues may be reviewed only under narrow exceptions (e.g., findings based on speculation, grave abuse of discretion, or misapprehension of facts). Here, the petitioner’s factual challenges—credibility of witnesses and the absence of physical evidence linking her to the injuries—did not satisfy those exceptions.
Elements of Child Abuse under Section 10(a), R.A. 7610
To convict under Section 10(a), the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt:
- The victim’s minority;
- Acts of abuse by the accused;
- That the acts are punishable under R.A. 7610.
The petition contended that specific intent “to demean, degrade or debase” the child’s dignity was missing. The Court clarified that while certain forms of child abuse (e.g., cruelty, lascivious conduct) require proof of that specific intent if so alleged in the information or mandated by the law, physical maltreatment per se under Section 10(a) is malum prohibitum and does not demand proof of specific intent unless expressly stated.
Specific Intent Requirement
Jurisprudence (Bongalon, Jabalde, Escolano) establishes that specific intent to demean is essential only when:
- The information charges cruelty or lascivious conduct defined to include that intent; or
- A statutory provision expressly requires it.
Absent such allegations, proof of prohibited acts (hitting, pinching, slapping) against a minor suffices for conviction under Section 10(a).
Credibility and Corroboration
The Supreme Court gave due deference to the RTC’s finding of AAA’s credibility, corroborated by the medical repor
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 246017)
Facts of the Case
- Maria Consuelo Malcampo-Repollo, a grade school teacher at Maximo Estrella Elementary School in Makati City, was charged under Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610 for child abuse.
- On February 20, 2014, Malcampo-Repollo allegedly pinched and hit a ten-year-old student, AAA, on his back for purportedly chatting with a seatmate.
- After ordering AAA to transfer seats, the teacher left to paint school program materials. Upon return, mistaking another student for AAA tapping a pen, she slapped AAA in the face.
- Terrified and embarrassed, AAA left the classroom, reported the incident to his mother, BBB, and to the Women and Children Protection Desk of the Makati Central Police Station.
- AAA underwent a medical examination at the Philippine General Hospital’s Child Protection Unit, which noted an oval bruise on his left trunk, consistent with non-accidental injury.
Procedural History
- The Regional Trial Court (RTG), Branch 136, Makati City, rendered judgment on May 2, 2017, convicting Malcampo-Repollo of “Other Acts of Child Abuse” under R.A. 7610, sentencing her to six years of prision correccional to seven years of prision mayor and awarding moral, exemplary, and temperate damages.
- On October 24, 2018, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of four years, nine months, eleven days of prision correccional as minimum, to six years, six months, one day of prision mayor as maximum.
- The CA denied Malcampo-Repollo’s motion for reconsideration on March 18, 2019.
- Malcampo-Repollo filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, challenging factual findings and alleging insufficient proof of intent and inadequate evidence.
Issues Presented
- Whether this Court may re-evaluate factual findings in a Rule 45 petition.
- Whether the prosecution established all essential elements of child abuse under Section 10(a), R.A. 7610, particularly the alleged intent to demean or degrade AAA’s intrinsic worth and dignity.
Applicable Law
- Republic Act No. 7610, Section 10(a),