BONGALON VS.

PEOPLE
TOPIC: DOCTRINE OF PRO REO
CASE DIGEST
FACTS:
The case of "Bongalon v. People" involves petitioner George Bongalon, who was charged with
child abuse under Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610. The incident took place on May 11,
2000, in Legazpi City. During a religious procession, Bongalon confronted two minors, Jayson
and Roldan dela Cruz. Bongalon's daughter, Mary Ann Rose, had accused Jayson of throwing
stones and burning her sister Cherrylyn's hair. In response, Bongalon struck Jayson on the back
and slapped him on the face while uttering derogatory remarks. The incident was reported to the
police, and medical certificates confirmed Jayson's injuries. Bongalon denied the allegations,
claiming he only confronted the minors to protect his daughters. The Regional Trial Court (RTC)
found Bongalon guilty of child abuse and sentenced him to six to eight years of imprisonment.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to four years, two
months, and one day to six years, eight months, and one day of imprisonment, along with moral
damages of P5,000
ISSUES:
1. Did the petitioner, George Bongalon, commit the crime of child abuse under Section
10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610?
2. If not, what crime did the petitioner commit, if any?
3. Was the penalty imposed on the petitioner commensurate with the wrong he committed?

RULING:
1. The Supreme Court ruled that Bongalon did not commit child abuse under Section 10(a)
of Republic Act No. 7610.
2. The Court found Bongalon guilty of slight physical injuries under Article 266(1) of the
Revised Penal Code
3. The Court sentenced Bongalon to 10 days of arresto menor and ordered him to pay
P5,000.00 as moral damage
RATIO:
The Supreme Court held that not every instance of laying hands on a child constitutes
child abuse under Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610. For an act to be considered child
abuse, it must be shown beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to debase,
degrade, or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child. In this case, the Court found that
Bongalon's actions were done in the heat of the moment and out of concern for his daughters'
safety, lacking the specific intent to debase or demean Jayson. The Court emphasized the
doctrine of pro reo, resolving doubts in favor of the accused. Consequently, Bongalon's
actions were deemed to constitute slight physical injuries, not child abuse. The Court also
considered the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation, as Bongalon acted
under the belief that his daughters were harmed by Jayson and Roldan. Therefore, the penalty
was reduced to 10 days of arresto menor, and the award of moral damages was upheld.
The principle of in dubio pro reo (Latin for "[when] in doubt, for the accused") means that a
defendant may not be convicted by the court when doubts about his or her guilt remain. The rule of
lenity is the doctrine that ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the more lenient punishment.