G.R. No. 262122 - Rowena B. Plasan vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 262122)

Factual Background

On August 2, 2013, the Information alleged that at about 11:00 a.m. in a public place, Rowena B. Plasan uttered statements concerning the physical condition of the then sixteen-year-old AAA262122. The Information recited vernacular phrases and their English translation alleging that the victim “is not a virgin anymore,” that she “had an abortion,” and that these remarks were made in the presence of the minor and amounted to “emotional abuse” and “other form[s] of psychological maltreatment to the prejudice of the psychological and mental development” of AAA262122. Upon arraignment, Rowena B. Plasan pleaded not guilty.

Trial Court Proceedings

Trial on the merits commenced before the RTC. The prosecution presented AAA262122, Jaja B. Contadan, BBB262122, and Catherine C. Caingkoy as witnesses. The defense called the accused, Apple B. Plasan, and Ramon J. Sierez. The RTC found the testimony of AAA262122 and Jaja credible, accepted their account that the statements were made loudly and in the victim’s presence, and concluded that the remarks caused shame and emotional disturbance that led the minor to refrain from leaving the house. The RTC convicted Rowena B. Plasan of violating Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610 and sentenced her to six years and one day to eight years and eight months imprisonment and ordered payment of PHP 25,000 as moral damages.

Court of Appeals Proceedings

Rowena B. Plasan appealed to the Court of Appeals. The CA affirmed conviction but, in an Amended Decision, applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law and modified the sentence to an indeterminate term of six years and one day as minimum to eight years as maximum. The CA rejected the defense of physical impossibility, reasoning that the accused’s place of work was accessible to the scene by public transportation. The CA found that the utterances were not provoked and were made with intent to debase, degrade, or demean the intrinsic worth of the child.

Issues Presented

This Court stated the issues as: (1) whether the accused may be punished under Republic Act No. 7610 when the acts complained of fall under the Revised Penal Code; (2) whether Section 10(a) requires proof of an intent to debase, degrade, or demean the child’s intrinsic worth and whether such intent was proven; and (3) whether the Court of Appeals imposed the correct penalty.

Petition for Review and the Parties’ Contentions

In the petition under Rule 45, Rowena B. Plasan argued that she could not be punished under Republic Act No. 7610 for conduct covered by the Revised Penal Code; that Section 10(a) requires proof of an intent to debase, degrade, or demean the child and the prosecution failed to prove such specific intent; and that the Indeterminate Sentence Law was misapplied. The Office of the Solicitor General contended that only questions of law were proper in a Rule 45 petition but maintained that guilt under Section 10(a) was proven beyond reasonable doubt and recommended modification of the penalty in accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

Legal Analysis on Applicability of Republic Act No. 7610

Relying on this Court’s recent exposition in San Juan v. People (G.R. No. 236628, January 17, 2023), the Court explained that Congress enacted Section 10(a) to fill gaps in protection of children by bringing within the ambit of Republic Act No. 7610 acts enumerated under Article 59 of P.D. No. 603, whether or not those acts are covered by the Revised Penal Code. The Court therefore held that it was erroneous for the accused to contend that she could not be punished under Republic Act No. 7610 for conduct that may also fall under the Revised Penal Code; Section 10(a) was intended to encompass a wide range of abusive acts against children and to increase penalties where appropriate.

Legal Analysis on the Intent Requirement under Section 10(a) and Section 3(b)

The Court read Section 10(a) together with Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 7610, which defines “child abuse” and includes both (1) psychological and physical abuse and emotional maltreatment and (2) “any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child.” The Court distinguished liability under Section 3(b)(1) from Section 3(b)(2), noting that Section 3(b)(2) requires specific intent to debase, degrade, or demean, whereas Section 3(b)(1) requires only the general criminal intent to commit psychological abuse. Citing Malcampo-Repollo v. People and San Juan v. People, the Court observed that specific intent must be alleged in the Information or required by the statutory provision before the prosecution must prove it. Because the Information in this case charged “emotional abuse” and “psychological maltreatment,” the Court concluded that the applicable provision was Section 3(b)(1) and that only general criminal intent was required.

Sufficiency of Evidence and Findings of Guilt

Although cognizant that Rule 45 limits review to questions of law and that this Court is not a trier of facts, the Court found no exceptional ground to depart from factual findings of the lower courts. The Court determined that the prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It observed that the utterances attacked the minor’s character and dignity in the victim’s presence, that the statements exposed the minor to contempt and humiliation, and that testimony showed the victim suffered shame and withdrawal. The Court credited testimony that the remarks were made loudly and without provocation, and it rejected the defense of physical impossibility in light of corroborating evidence as to accessibility and the lower courts’ credibility assessments. The Court affirmed the finding that these facts constituted psychological abuse under Section 3(b)(1) and thus a violation of Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610.

Penalty and Application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law

The Court addressed the penalty. It n

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 262122)

Parties and Posture

Rowena B. Plasan filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 assailing the Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming with modification the conviction rendered by the Regional Trial Court.
People of the Philippines prosecuted Rowena for violation of Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610 as charged in Criminal Case No. 18277.
The petition challenged (a) the applicability of Republic Act No. 7610 where the acts allegedly fall under the Revised Penal Code, (b) whether the prosecution proved the specific intent to debase, degrade, or demean the child, and (c) the correctness of the penalty imposed.

Key Facts

The Information alleged that on August 2, 2013 at or about eleven o'clock in the morning, Rowena uttered statements accusing a sixteen-year-old female (hereinafter the victim) of not being a virgin and having undergone an abortion.
The prosecution's version placed the incident at about two o'clock in the afternoon while the victim was near a barbecue stand and alleged that the accusatory remarks were made in the victim's presence.
The victim reported feeling ashamed and thereafter refraining from leaving her house because of the humiliation caused by the remarks.
The defense presented an alibi that Rowena was at work all day, supported by the testimony of co-worker Ramon J. Sierez.

Procedural History

Rowena pleaded not guilty at arraignment and underwent trial on the merits.
The RTC found Rowena guilty and sentenced her to suffer imprisonment of six years and one day to eight years and eight months and ordered payment of PHP 25,000.00 as moral damages.
Rowena appealed to the Court of Appeals which denied the appeal in its Decision and later, in an Amended Decision, modified the penalty to the indeterminate term of six years and one day as minimum to eight years as maximum under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Rowena filed the present Rule 45 petition to the Supreme Court.

Trial Evidence

The prosecution presented the victim, Jaja B. Contadan, BBB262122, and Catherine C. Caingkoy as witnesses.
The defense presented Rowena, Apple B. Plasan, and Ramon J. Sierez as witnesses.
Jaja testified that Rowena spoke loudly and within two meters of the victim so that the victim could hear the offending statements.
The victim testified that she felt ashamed, angry, and thereafter avoided leaving the house.
Ramon testified that Rowena was at their workplace throughout the day, including lunch break, to support the defense of physical impossibility.

Issues Presented

Whether Rowena may be punished under Republic Act No. 7610 when the acts complained of fall under the Revised Penal Code.
Whether Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610 requires proof of an intent to debase, degrade, or demean the intrinsic worth of the child and whether such intent was proven.
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly imposed the penalty.

Statutory Framework

Section 10(a), Republic Act No. 7610 punishes "any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or to be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child's development" including acts covered by Article 59 of P.D. No. 603, but not covered by the Revised Penal Code.
Section 3(b), Republic Act No. 7610 defines "Child Abuse" to include (1) psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional maltreatment, and (2) any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child.
The Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 7610 define psychological injury as harm manifested by severe anx