XXX271940 VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 271940
- Promulgated: 2025-01-22
- Ponente: LOPEZ, J.
Doctrine
## Facts of the Case XXX271940 was charged with child abuse under Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610. The Information alleged that on July 13, 2017, XXX271940, being the father of 8-year-old AAA271940, rushed inside their residence, closed the door while carrying a bolo, thereby giving AAA271940 the impression that he would rape or sexually assault her. AAA271940 testified that she ran away out of fear and believed it would have been the fifth time her father raped her had she not escaped. Dr. Hazel Eiza C. Soriano-Biclar conducted a psychiatric evaluation of AAA271940, revealing trauma, feelings of rejection, helplessness, immaturity, dependency, timidity, and fearfulness. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found XXX271940 guilty, crediting AAA271940's testimony and considering her age. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's judgment, finding that the acts constituting child abuse and the resulting trauma were sufficiently established. XXX271940 filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. He then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove all elements of child abuse, particularly the intent to degrade or demean the child. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) countered that the elements were proven and that the petition raises questions of fact. ## Issues 1. Whether the prosecution proved XXX271940's guilt for child abuse under Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610 beyond reasonable doubt. ## Decision / Rationale **Issue 1:** The Petition is **DENIED**. The Court affirmed the findings of the RTC and the CA that XXX271940 is guilty of child abuse under Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610. The Court generally does not entertain questions of fact in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. However, even if it scrutinizes the arguments, there is no reason to depart from the lower courts' findings. Section 10(a) of 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." This must be read with Section 3(b) of the same law, which defines "child abuse." The Court, citing **San Juan v. People** and **Plasan v. People**, distinguished between the general criminal intent required for acts under Section 3(b)(1) (e.g., psychological abuse) and the specific criminal intent (to debase, degrade, or demean) required for acts under Section 3(b)(2). The Information against XXX271940 did not allege acts falling under Section 3(b)(2) but rather focused on his conduct causing the impression of sexual assault and inflicting conditions prejudicial to the child's development, which falls under Section 3(b)(1). Therefore, the argument that specific intent to debase or demean was not proven is misplaced. The Court found that the act of rushing towards AAA271940 with a bolo constituted both child abuse and created conditions prejudicial to her development. Citing **San Juan v. People**, which held that pointing a firearm at a minor is intrinsically cruel and causes psychological harm, this Court analogized the act of XXX271940 rushing at his daughter with a bolo. The bolo, like a firearm, is an object that generates fear and causes psychological injury, especially given the history of abuse. XXX271940 provided no justification for his conduct. AAA271940's testimony, corroborated by her sister and the psychological evaluation, demonstrated the immediate fear and lasting psychological impact caused by her father's actions. Her fear that her father might kill or rape her underscored the psychological abuse and the prejudicial conditions created for her development. The Court modified the penalty imposed. Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610 prescribes the penalty of *prision mayor* in its minimum period (six years and one day to eight years). Considering the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the maximum penalty should be from the medium period.…
Keywords
Section 10(a) Republic Act No. 7610, Section 3(b) Republic Act No. 7610, Rule 45 Rules of Court, Article 2229 Civil Code, Section 31(f) Republic Act No. 7610, distinction between general criminal intent and specific criminal intent in child abuse, applicability of specific intent based on information allegations, Child Abuse, Child Protection, Violation of RA 7610, Criminal Law, Petition for Review on Certiorari, Judgment, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Court of Appeals (CA), Information, Arraignment, Pre-trial, Trial on the merits, Testimony