Republic Act No.
7610 as malum in se
Child Abuse - maltreatment whether habitual or not
Section 10(a) refers to child abuse or cruelty not constituting a
crime punishable under Sections 5 to 9 of R.A. No. 7610 such as
sexual abuse or child trafficking (People v. Rayon, G.R. No. 194236,
January 30, 2013) and a felony under the Revised Penal Code such
as parental indifference. (De Guzman v. Perez, G.R. No. 156013, July
25, 2006) Section 10 (a) of RA No. 7610 is a "catch-all" provision that
penalizes other acts of child abuse not specifically addressed by other
provisions of RA No. 7610 and the Revised Penal Code. (Talocod vs.
People, G.R. No. 250671, October 07, 2020)
In Brinas vs. People, G.R. No. 254005, June 23, 2021, Section
10 (a) of RA No. 7610 is clear in that it punishes acts of child abuse
which are "not covered by the Revised Penal Code." Hence, on this
point, Briñas is correct — she cannot be convicted of grave oral
defamation under the RPC in relation to Section 10(a) of R.A. 7610.
From the plain language of Section 10(a), the acts punished under it
and those punished under the RPC are mutually exclusive. Acts
which are already covered by the RPC are excluded from the coverage
of Section 10(a).
Degrading, demeaning or debasing the dignity of the child
– In De Vera vs. People, G.R. No. 246231, January 20, 2021, the act
of masturbating in the presence of the minor is considered lascivious
conduct and constitutes psychological abuse on the minor victim or
an act that debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth of the
victim. The act of masturbation then falls within the scope of Section
10 (a) of R.A. No. 7610 and not the RPC. Coercion and influence is
not an element of child abuse under this provision.
In Brinas vs. People, accused, a directress of Montessori school,
uttered "pinakamalalandi, pinakamalilibog, pinakamahadera at
hindot, Mga putang ina kayo” against two minor students. Accused’
acts were only done in the heat of anger, made after she had just
learned that the complainants had deceivingly used her daughter's
name to send a text message to another student, in what accused
thought was part of a bigger and harmful scheme against the student
body. It appears, thus, that accused’s acts were fueled by her anger
and frustration at the complainants' mischief which caused distress
not only to her and her daughter but also to another student and
parent. The accused was acquitted of child abuse for failure to prove
intent to degrade the complainants.
In Rosaldes v. People, G.R. No. 173988, October 8, 2014 — The
victim, a 7-year-old student accidentally bumped the knee of the
accused, his teacher, who was then asleep on a bamboo sofa. Roused
from sleep, she asked him to apologize to her. When he did not obey,
she went to him and pinched him on his thigh. Then, she held him
up by his armpits and pushed him to the floor. As he fell, his body
hit a desk. As a result, he lost consciousness. She proceeded to pick
him up by his ears and repeatedly slammed him down on the floor.
Article 233 of the Family Code prohibits the infliction of corporal
punishment by teachers. A schoolteacher in employing unnecessary
violence on her minor student, who even fainted, is liable for child
abuse under RA No. 7610.
In Caballo v. People, G.R. No. 198732, June 10, 2013, the assurance of love, guarantee that she
would not get pregnant by using the withdrawal method and the promise of marriage were
classified as psychological coercion and
influence within the purview of Section 5 of R.A. No. 7610 used by
the accused to convince his minor girlfriend to have sex with him.
Hence, accused is guilty of sexual abuse.
Consent is immaterial in cases involving sexual abuse under
R.A. No. 7610 where the offended party is below 12 years of age.
However, consent is material when the offended party is a child, who
is 12 years old or above. In such a case, consent of the child is a
defense in cases involving sexual abuse. Consent as a defense is
either express or implied. Consent is implied if the prosecution failed
to prove that the child had sex with accused due to money, profit or
consideration, or coercion or influence. (People vs. Tulagan, G.R. No.
227363, March 12, 2019
The title of Article 5 of RA No. 7610 is “child prostitution and
other sexual abuse.” However, the word “lascivious conduct” is found
in the body of Section 5 (b) of RA No. 7610. In People vs. Larin, G.R.
No. 128777, October, 7 1998 and other cases, the Supreme Court
described the crime involving lascivious conduct under Section 5 (b)
of RA No. 7610 as sexual abuse. It is submitted that this is the correct
name of the crime. However, in the case of the Tulagan case, proper
nomenclature of the offense involving lascivious conduct under
Section 5 (b) is now “lascivious conduct” under RA No. 7610. (People
vs. XXX, G.R. No. 226467, October 17, 2018; People Vergara, G.R.
No. 242477, September 2, 2019) For purpose of the bar examination,
the Tulagan case should be followed.
The penalty for sexual abuse is reclusion temporal in its
medium period to reclusion perpetua, while the penalty for rape is
reclusion perpetua
For purposes of sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct in child abuse cases under RA 7610,
the sweetheart defense is unacceptable. A child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other
sexual abuse cannot validly give consent to sexual intercourse with another person.
Protecting children from violence in school
Every child has the right to go to school and learn, free from fear.
Further, Poa said that the school head was directed to submit an incident report and a Child
Protection Policy Intake Sheet to the regional director within 72 hours from the occurrence of the
incident.
RA 9344
- above 15, below 18 - exempt if acted without discernment
If with discernment - CICL shall undergo diversion programs (not exempted) from criminal
liability
Will not proceed to trial, undergo diversion or alternative/ -child appropriate process of
determining responsibility and treatment without resorting to formal court proceedings.
