Child Abuse

ELEMENT: intent to debase, degrade, and demean the intrinsic worth of a

child.

Torres v People

Petitioner Torres challenges the decision of the CA which convicted him for
violation of Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610. (AN ACT PROVIDING
FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST
CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES)

The information filed against Torres, he was accused of abusing, slapping and
whipping AAA, a 14 year old minor (born on June 5, 1989) with a T-shirt hitting
his neck and shoulder and causing him to fall down on the stairs of the
barangay hall.

Petitioner argues the following contentions why whipping AAA on the neck
should not be considered as child abuse:

1. The law requires intent to abuse.

He maintains that his act was justified because AAA harassed and vexed him.
Thus, petitioner claims that there could not have been any intent to abuse on
his part.

2. Petitioner contends that the injuries sustained by AAA will not affect the
latter's physical growth or development and mental capacity. He argues that
he could not be convicted of child abuse without proof that the victim's
development had been prejudiced.

ISSUE: WON The act of whipping a child three (3) times in the neck with a
wet t-shirt constitutes child abuse.

HELD:

Yes, the SC affirmed petitioner’s conviction.

Under Section 3(b) of the Republic Act No. 7610, child abuse is defined, thus:

Section 3. Definition of Terms.

….

(b) "Child abuse" refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the
child which includes any of the following:

(1) Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and
emotional maltreatment;

(2) Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the
intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being;

(3) Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for survival, such as food and
shelter; or

(4) Failure to immediately give medical treatment to an injured child resulting

in serious impairment of his growth and development or in his permanent
incapacity or death. (Emphasis supplied)

Although it is true that not every instance of laying of hands on the child
constitutes child abuse, petitioner's intention to debase, degrade, and demean
the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child can be inferred from the manner in
which he committed the act complained of.

To note, petitioner used a wet t-shirt to whip the child not just once but three
(3) times.

Common sense and human experience would suggest that hitting a sensitive
body part, such as the neck, with a wet t-shirt would cause an extreme
amount of pain, especially so if it was done several times.

There is also reason to believe that petitioner used excessive force.

Otherwise, AAA would not have fallen down the stairs at the third strike. AAA
would likewise not have sustained a contusion.

Indeed, if the only intention of petitioner were to discipline AAA and stop him
from interfering, he could have resorted to other less violent means. Instead of
reprimanding AAA or walking away, petitioner chose to hit the latter.

In conclusion, a person who commits an act that debases, degrades, or

demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being,
whether habitual or not, can be held liable for violation of Republic Act No.
7610.
BONGALON V PEOPLE

Petitioner Bongalon was charged with the crime of child abuse, an act in
violation of Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610 for striking said JAYSON
DELA CRUZ, a 12 year- old Grade VI pupil with his palm hitting the latter at
his back and by slapping said minor hitting his left cheek and uttering
derogatory remarks to the latter’s family. In his petition, The petitioner asserts
that he was not guilty of the crime charged; and that even assuming that he
was guilty, his liability should not be that of a Child Abuse because he had
merely acted to protect her two minor daughters.

ISSUE: WON petitioner is guilty of Child Abuse

Held: NO,

1. Lack of intent to debase, degrade pr demean the intrinsic worthand dignity

of the child.

The records did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that his laying of
hands on Jayson had been intended to debase the "intrinsic worth and
dignity" of Jayson as a human being, or that he had thereby intended to
humiliate or embarrass Jayson. The records showed the laying of hands on
Jayson to have been done at the spur of the moment and in anger, indicative
of his being then overwhelmed by his fatherly concern for the personal safety
of his own minor daughters who had just suffered harm at the hands of
Jayson and Roldan. With the loss of his self-control, he lacked that specific
intent to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child
as a human being that was so essential in the crime of child abuse

Not every instance of the laying of hands on a child constitutes the crime of
child abuse under Section 10 (a) of Republic Act No. 7610.1 Only when the
laying of hands is shown beyond reasonable doubt to be intended by the
accused to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the
child as a human being should it be punished as child abuse. Otherwise, it is
punished under the Revised Penal Code.

Petitioner was convicted of slight physical injuries.