Case Summary (G.R. No. 250671)
Facts
AAA and other children were throwing sand and gravel on a public road. AAA reprimanded them, prompting EEE to report the incident to her mother, petitioner. Petitioner allegedly confronted AAA, pointed a finger, and shouted invectives—“Huwag mong pansinin ‘yan. At putang ina ‘yan. Mga walang kwenta ‘yan. Mana-mana lang ‘yan!” AAA thereafter suffered nightmares and ceased playing outdoors. Petitioner denied addressing AAA, claiming instead she told EEE to ignore AAA’s reprimand with simpler admonitions.
Procedural History
An Information for child abuse under Section 10(a), Article VI of RA 7610 was filed in RTC-X in Criminal Case No. 1169-V-12. The RTC convicted petitioner on October 6, 2017, sentencing her to an indeterminate term of four years, nine months, eleven days (prision correccional, minimum) to six years, eight months, one day (prision mayor, maximum), and ordering P20,000 moral damages. On July 30, 2019, the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 40871 affirmed the conviction and denied reconsideration on November 28, 2019. Petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court ensued.
Issue
Whether the specific intent to debase, degrade, or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child victim—an essential element of Section 10(a), Article VI of RA 7610—was sufficiently established to sustain petitioner’s conviction.
Legal Framework
RA 7610 Section 3(b)(2) defines child abuse to include “any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being.” Section 10(a), Article VI penalizes other acts of child abuse malum prohibitum. Jurisprudence (Bongalon v. People; Jabalde v. People; Calaoagan v. People; Escolano v. People) requires proof of specific intent to debase, degrade, or demean for conviction under Section 10(a), even where the act is malum prohibitum.
Analysis
The record contains no proof that petitioner intended to humiliate or demean AAA. AAA’s own testimony established the utterances arose spontaneously out of anger and annoyance, without any calculation to degrade his self-worth. There is likewise no evidence of a public display meant to embarrass hi
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 250671)
Procedural History
- Petition for review on certiorari filed before the Supreme Court assails:
- Decision dated July 30, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 40871.
- Resolution dated November 28, 2019 of the same court denying reconsideration.
- Both CA rulings affirmed the October 6, 2017 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of xxxxxxxxxxx, Criminal Case No. 1169-V-12.
- RTC had found petitioner guilty of violating Section 10(a), Article VI of RA 7610 (“Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act”).
Facts of the Case
- On the morning of November 5, 2011, AAA (11 years old) and playmates scattered gravel and sand on a public road.
- AAA reprimanded them to stop; offended playmate EEE reported this to her mother, petitioner Lina Talocod.
- Petitioner confronted AAA, pointed her finger at him, and shouted expletives:
“Huwag mong pansinin yan. At putang ina yan. Mga walang kwenta yan. Mana-mana lang yan!” - AAA ran home crying, later claimed trauma manifested by nightmares and refusal to play outdoors.
Charge and Information
- Information dated October 23, 2012 charged petitioner with child abuse under Section 10(a), Article VI of RA 7610.
- Accusatory portion alleged willful, unlawful utterance of words amounting to psychological abuse, cruelty, and emotional maltreatment prejudicial to AAA’s development.
RTC Decision
- In its October 6, 2017 Decision, the RTC found all elements of Section 10(a), Article VI of RA 7610 established beyond reasonable doubt.
- Sentence imposed:
- Indeterminate imprisonment: minimum 4 years, 9 months, 11 days of prision correcciona