Updates in Child Abuse

MARLO CAMPANILLA·MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2019·READING TIME: 8 MINUTES

CHILD ABUSE - Section 10 (a) of RA No. 7610 punishes four distinct acts, to wit: (a)
child abuse, (b) child cruelty, (c) child exploitation and (d) being responsible for
conditions prejudicial to the child's development. Accused can be convicted under
Section 10 (a) if he commits any of the four acts therein. The prosecution need not prove
that the acts of child abuse, child cruelty and child exploitation have resulted in the
prejudice of the child because an act prejudicial to the development of the child is
different from the former acts. (Patulot vs. People, G.R. No. 235071, January 7, 2019)

1. Physical injury – Child abuse (Section 10 of RA No. 7610) includes maltreatment,

whether habitual or not, of the child. Maltreatment includes psychological and physical
abuse (Section 3) or infliction of physical injury such as lacerations, fractured bones,
burns, internal injuries, severe injury or serious bodily harm suffered by a child (Rules
and Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases) such as
banging the heads of the minor students by their teacher (De Ocampo v. The Hon.
Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 147932, January 25, 2006)

Child abuse includes disciplinary acts by the father such as belting, pinching, and
strangulating his 8-year-old child, which caused her to limb (Lucido vs. People, G.R. No.
217764, August 7, 2017) or by teacher such as slamming him on the floor which caused
him to lost consciousness (Rosaldes v. People, G.R. No. 173988, October 8, 2014). Intent
to discipline student is not a defense since Article 233 of the Family Code prohibits the
infliction of corporal punishment by teacher. (Rosaldes v. People, supra)

2. Degrading the dignity of the child – Child abuse includes commission of acts or
uttering words which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a
child as a human being (Section 3) such as uttering statements “putang in mong bata ka
namumuro ka na sa akin at susunugin ko yong pamilya mo” (Jumaquio vs. Villarosa,
G.R. No. 165924, January 19, 2009)

In Bongalon v. People, G.R. No. 169533, March 20, 2013, accused saw the victim and
his companions hurting his minor daughters. Angered, accused struck minor-victim at the
back with his hand and slapped his face. Since the accused committed the act at the spur
of the moment, they are perpetrated without intent to degrade the dignity of the victim.
Without such intent, the crime committed is not child abuse under R.A. No. 7610 but
merely slight physical injuries.

The Bongalon principle is only applicable if the accused assaulted a child in the heat of
anger or as spontaneous reaction to his misbehavior. In Jabalde v. People, G.R. No.
195224, June 15, 2016, the accused was informed that her daughter's head was punctured,
and whom she thought was already dead. The accused slapped, struck, and choked a
minor as a result of the former's emotional rage. Absence of any intention to debase,
degrade or demean the dignity of the child victim, the accused's act was merely slight
physical injuries.

In Escolano vs. People, G.R. No. 226991, December 10, 2018, complainants, who are
minors, threw ketchup sachets against the daughter of the accused. But it was the
accused, who was hit by the sachets twice. Accused exclaimed, "Putang ina ninyo, gago
kayo, wala kayong pinag-aralan, wala kayong utak, subukan ninyong bumaba dito,
pakakawalan ko ang aso ko, pakakagat ko kayo sa aso ko."

Uttering “putang ina” to the minors in the heat of anger is not child abuse. The
expression "putang ina mo" is a common enough utterance in the dialect that is often
employed, not really to slander but rather to express anger or displeasure. In fact, more
often, it is just an expletive that punctuates one’s expression of profanity.

Threatening to release her dog to chase and bite the minors made in the heat of anger is
not child abuse. Accused merely intended that they stop their rude behavior. Absence of
any intention to degrade the dignity of minors, accused is only liable for other light
threats.
3. Physical injury without degrading the dignity of the child - Child abuse involving
infliction of physical injury is a crime independent from child abuse involving degrading
the dignity of the child. In child abuse involving infliction of physical injury, intent to
debase, degrade or demean the child is not an element thereof.

The statement "putang ina mo" and making hacking gestures with a bolo, which are
directed against the mother of two children, are not constitutive of child abuse involving
degrading the dignity of a child. Since the threatening acts are not directed against the
children, intent to degrade, debase or demean their dignity is not established. (Escolano
vs. People, G.R. No. 226991, December 10, 2018). Throwing boiling cooking oil, which
directed against the mother of a baby and 3-year-old child, which consequently burned
the faces and skin of the minors, is not constitutive of child abuse involving degrading the
dignity of a child. Since throwing boiling oil is not directed against the children, intent to
degrade, debase or demean their dignity is not established. However, the accused is still
liable of child abuse involving infliction of physical injury. (Patulot vs. People, G.R. No.
235071, January 7, 2019)

4. Aberratio ictus and child abuse - In Patulot vs. People, G.R. No. 235071, January 7,
2019, accused consciously poured hot cooking oil from a casserole on CCC,
consequently injuring AAA (3 years old) and BBB (2 months old) burning their skins and
faces. Accused is liable for child abuse involving infliction of physical injury although
there is no intent to degrade, debase or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of AAA
and BBB as human beings. In fact, the intention of the accused is merely to inflict injury
on CCC but because of aberratio ictus or mistake of blow, AAA and BBB were also
injured. In sum, because of Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, accused is liable for the
wrongful act done (child abuse against AAA and BBB) although it differs from the
wrongful act intended (physical injuries on CCC).

5. Child abuse and complex crime – If the crimes committed against the target victim
and third person, who was hit by reason of aberratio ictus, were produced by a single act,
the accused is liable for a complex crime. Thus, single act of throwing a grenade killing
one and injuring another constitutes a complex crime of murder and attempted murder.
(People v. Julio Guillen, G.R. No. L-1477, January 18, 1950) However, the accused is
liable for separate crimes despite the application of the aberratio ictus rule, and not a
compound crime in the following cases:

a. If the bullet that killed that target victim is different from the bullet that killed the third
person, who was hit by reason of aberratio ictus (People v. Flora, G.R. No. 125909, June
23, 2000; People v. Adriano, G.R. No. 205228, July 15, 2015); or

b. If the crime committed against the third person, who was hit by reason of aberratio
ictus, is merely a light felony such as slight physical injuries (People v. Violin, G.R. Nos.
114003-06, January 14, 1997); or

c. If the components of a compound crime are alleged in two different information.

(People v. Umawid, G.R. No. 208719, June 9, 2014); or

d. If the crime committed against the third person, who was hit by reason of aberratio
ictus, is child abuse, which is an offense punishable under special law (Patulot vs. People,
G.R. No. 235071, January 7, 2019)

6. Child abuse is malum in se - In People vs. Caballo, G.R. No. 198732, June 10, 2013;
Malto vs. People, G.R. No. 164733, September 21, 2007, the Supreme Court considered
sexual abuse under RA No. 7610 as malum prohibitum simply because is it punishable
under special law. However, Patulot vs. People, G.R. No. 235071, January 7, 2019 and
People vs. Mabunot, G.R. No. 204659, September 19, 2016, the Supreme Court
considered child abuse under RA No. 7610 as malum in se. Accordingly, when the acts
complained of are inherently immoral, they are deemed mala in se, even if they are
punished by a special law. Physical abuse of a child under RA No. 7610 is inherently
wrong; hence, criminal intent on the part of the offender must be clearly established with
the other elements of the crime.

It is submitted that the correct principle is Patulot case and Mabunot case, and not the
Caballo case and Malto case. The Supreme Court itself in Ysidoro v. People, G.R. No.
192330, November 14, 2012 explained that a common misconception is that all mala in
se crimes are found in the Revised Penal Code, while all mala prohibita crimes are
provided by special penal laws. The better approach to distinguish between mala in se
and mala prohibita crimes is the determination of the inherent immorality of the
penalized act. If the punishable act or omission is immoral in itself, then it is a crime
mala in se; on the contrary, if it is not immoral in itself, but there is a statute prohibiting
its commission by reasons of public policy, then it is mala prohibita. There may be mala
in se crimes under special laws, such as plunder under R.A. No. 7080. Similarly, there
may be mala prohibita crimes defined in the Revised Penal Code, such as technical
malversation.