TodayisMonday,May22,2017

CustomSearch
Search

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

FIRSTDIVISION

G.R.No.169533March20,2013

GEORGEBONGALON,Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,Respondent.

DECISION

BERSAMIN,J.:

NoteveryinstanceofthelayingofhandsonachildconstitutesthecrimeofchildabuseunderSection10(a)of
RepublicActNo.7610.1Onlywhenthelayingofhandsisshownbeyondreasonabledoubttobeintendedbythe
accusedtodebase,degradeordemeantheintrinsicworthanddignityofthechildasahumanbeingshoulditbe
punishedaschildabuse.Otherwise,itispunishedundertheRevisedPenalCode.

TheCase

OnJune22,2005,2theCourtofAppeals(CA)affirmedtheconvictionofthepetitionerforthecrimeofchildabuse
underSection10(a)ofRepublicActNo.7610.

Antecedents

OnJune26,2000,theProsecutorsOfficeofLegazpiCitychargedthepetitionerintheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)
inLegazpiCitywithchildabuse,anactinviolationofSection10(a)ofRepublicActNo.7610,allegingasfollows:

Thatonoraboutthe11thdayofMay2000,intheCityofLegazpiPhilippines,andwithinthejurisdictionofthis
HonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused,didthenandtherewilfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslycommitonthe
personofJAYSONDELACRUZ,atwelveyearold,

Grade VI pupil of MABA Institute, Legazpi City, acts of physical abuse and/or maltreatment by striking said
JAYSONDELACRUZwithhispalmhittingthelatterathisbackandbyslappingsaidminorhittinghisleftcheek
andutteringderogatoryremarkstothelattersfamilytowit:"Mgahayopkamo,paradayokamodigdi,Iharapmo
ditoamamo"(Youallanimals,youareallstrangershere.Bringyourfatherhere),whichactsoftheaccusedare
prejudicial to the childs development and which demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the said child as a
humanbeing.

CONTRARYTOLAW.3

TheProsecutionshowedthatonMay11,2002,JaysonDelaCruz(Jayson)andRoldan,hisolderbrother,both
minors, joined the evening procession for the Santo Nio at Oro Site in Legazpi City that when the procession
passed in front of the petitioners house, the latters daughter Mary Ann Rose, also a minor, threw stones at
Jayson and called him "sissy" that the petitioner confronted Jayson and Roldan and called them names like
"strangers"and"animals"thatthepetitionerstruckJaysonatthebackwithhishand,andslappedJaysononthe
face4 that the petitioner then went to the brothers house and challenged Rolando dela Cruz, their father, to a
fight,butRolandodidnotcomeoutofthehousetotakeonthepetitionerthatRolandolaterbroughtJaysonto
the Legazpi City Police Station and reported the incident that Jayson also underwent medical treatment at the
Bicol Regional Training and Teaching Hospital5 that the doctors who examined Jayson issued two medical
certificatesattestingthatJaysonsufferedthefollowingcontusions,towit:(1)contusion.5x2.5scapulararea,left
and(2)+1x1cm.contusionleftzygomaticareaandcontusion.5x2.33cm.scapulararea,left.6

Onhispart,thepetitionerdeniedhavingphysicallyabusedormaltreatedJayson.Heexplainedthatheonlytalked
withJaysonandRoldanafterMaryAnnRoseandCherrylyn,hisminordaughters,hadtoldhimaboutJaysonand
RoldansthrowingstonesatthemandaboutJaysonsburningCherrylynshair.Hedeniedshoutinginvectivesat
and challenging Rolando to a fight, insisting that he only told Rolando to restrain his sons from harming his
daughters.7

To corroborate the petitioners testimony, Mary Ann Rose testified that her father did not hit or slap but only
confrontedJayson,askingwhyJaysonhadcalledherdaughters"Kimi"andwhyhehadburnedCherrlynshair.
Mary Ann Rose denied throwing stones at Jayson and calling him a "sissy." She insisted that it was instead
Jayson who had pelted her with stones during the procession. She described the petitioner as a loving and
protectivefather.8

RulingoftheRTC

Aftertrial,theRTCfoundanddeclaredthepetitionerguiltyofchildabuseascharged,towit:9

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused
GEORGE BONGALON @ "GI" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Republic Act No. 7610, and is
herebyorderedtoundergoimprisonmentofsix(6)yearsandone(1)daytoeight(8)yearsofprisionmayorinits
minimumperiod.

SOORDERED.
 RulingoftheCA

On appeal, the petitioner assailed the credibility of the Prosecution witnesses by citing their inconsistencies. He
contended that the RTC overlooked or disregarded material facts and circumstances in the records that would
have led to a favorable judgment for him. He attacked the lack of credibility of the witnesses presented against
him, citing the failure of the complaining brothers to react to the incident, which was unnatural and contrary to
humanexperience.

TheCAaffirmedtheconviction,butmodifiedthepenalty,10viz:

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,thedecisiondatedOctober20,2003oftheRegionalTrialCourt,Branch9
of Legazpi City is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that accusedappellant George Bongalon is
sentencedtosuffertheindeterminatepenaltyof(4)years,two(2)monthsandone(1)dayofprisioncorreccional,
asminimumterm,tosix(6)years,eight(8)monthsand1dayofprisionmayorasthemaximumterm.

Further, accusedappellant is ordered to pay the victim, Jayson de la Cruz the additional amount of P5,000as
moraldamages.

SOORDERED.

Issues

ThepetitionerhascometotheCourtviaapetitionforcertiorariunderRule65oftheRulesofCourt.11

Thepetitionerassertsthathewasnotguiltyofthecrimechargedandthatevenassumingthathewasguilty,his
liabilityshouldbemitigatedbecausehehadmerelyactedtoprotecthertwominordaughters.

RulingoftheCourt

At the outset, we should observe that the petitioner has adopted the wrong remedy in assailing the CAs
affirmanceofhisconviction.Hisproperrecoursefromtheaffirmanceofhisconvictionwasanappealtakenindue
course.Hence,heshouldhavefiledapetitionforreviewoncertiorari.Instead,hewronglybroughtapetitionfor
certiorari.WeexplainedwhyinPeoplev.CourtofAppeals:12

Thespecialcivilactionforcertiorariisintendedforthecorrectionoferrorsofjurisdictiononlyorgraveabuseof
discretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdiction.Itsprincipalofficeisonlytokeeptheinferiorcourtwithinthe
parametersofitsjurisdictionortopreventitfromcommittingsuchagraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolack
orexcessofjurisdiction.AsobservedinLandBankofthePhilippinesv.CourtofAppeals,etal."thespecialcivil
action for certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment.
Theraisondetrefortheruleiswhenacourtexercisesitsjurisdiction,anerrorcommittedwhilesoengageddoes
notdepriveditofthejurisdictionbeingexercisedwhentheerroriscommitted.Ifitdid,everyerrorcommittedbya
court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. In such a
scenario,theadministrationofjusticewouldnotsurvive.Hence,wheretheissueorquestioninvolvedaffectsthe
wisdom or legal soundness of the decisionnot the jurisdiction of the court to render said decisionthe same is
beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari. The proper recourse of the aggrieved party from a
decisionoftheCourtofAppealsisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45oftheRevisedRulesofCourt.

ItisofnoconsequencethatthepetitionerallegesgraveabuseofdiscretiononthepartoftheCAinhispetition.
Theallegationofgraveabuseofdiscretionnomorewarrantsthegrantingofduecoursetothepetitionasonefor
certiorariifappealwasavailableasaproperandadequateremedy.Atanyrate,areadingofhispresentationof
theissuesinhispetitionindicatesthathetherebyimputestotheCAerrorsofjudgment,noterrorsofjurisdiction.
He mentions instances attendant during the commission of the crime that he claims were really constitutive of
justifyingandmitigatingcircumstancesandspecifiesreasonswhyhebelievesRepublicActNo.7610favorshis
innocence rather than his guilt for the crime charged.13 The errors he thereby underscores in the petition
concerned only the CAs appreciation and assessment of the evidence on record, which really are errors of
judgment,notofjurisdiction.

EvenifweweretotreatthepetitionasonebroughtunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt,itwouldstillbedefective
due to its being filed beyond the period provided by law. Section 2 of Rule 45 requires the filing of the petition
within15daysfromthenoticeofjudgmenttobeappealed.However,thepetitionerreceivedacopyoftheCAs
decision on July 15, 2005,14 but filed the petition only on September 12, 2005,15 or well beyond the period
prescribedbytheRulesofCourt.

Theproceduraltransgressionsofthepetitionernotwithstanding,weopttoforegoquicklydismissingthepetition,
andinsteadsetourselvesuponthetaskofresolvingtheissuesposedbythepetitionontheirmerits.Wecannot
fairly and justly ignore his plea about the sentence imposed on him not being commensurate to the wrong he
committed.Hispleaisworthyofanotherlongandhardlook.If,ontheotherhand,weweretooutrightlydismiss
hispleabecauseoftheprocedurallapseshehascommitted,theCourtmaybeseenasanunfeelingtribunalof
lastresortwillingtosacrificejusticeinordertogivepremiumtotherigidityofitsrulesofprocedure.ButtheRules
ofCourthasnotbeenintendedtoberigidlyenforcedatalltimes.Rather,ithasbeeninstitutedfirstandforemost
to ensure justice to every litigant. Indeed, its announced objective has been to secure a "just, speedy and
inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding."16 This objective will be beyond realization here unless
theRulesofCourtbegivenliberalconstructionandapplicationasthenobleendsofjusticedemand.Thereby,we
give primacy to substance over form, which, to a temple of justice and equity like the Court, now becomes the
idealingredientinthedispensationofjusticeinthecasenowawaitingourconsideration.

Thepetitionersrighttolibertyisinjeopardy.Hemaybeentirelydeprivedofsuchbirthrightwithoutdueprocessof
lawunlessweshuntasidetherigidityoftherulesofprocedureandreviewhiscase.Hence,wetreatthisrecourse
as an appeal timely brought to the Court. Consonant with the basic rule in criminal procedure that an appeal
opensthewholecaseforreview,weshoulddeemitourdutytocorrecterrorsintheappealedjudgment,whether
assignedornot.17

Thelawunderwhichthepetitionerwascharged,triedandfoundguiltyofviolatingisSection10(a),ArticleVIof
RepublicActNo.7610,whichrelevantlystates:
Section 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and other Conditions Prejudicial to the Childs
Development.

(a)Anypersonwhoshallcommitanyotheractsofchildabuse,crueltyorexploitationorberesponsibleforother
conditionsprejudicialtothechildsdevelopmentincludingthosecoveredbyArticle59ofPresidentialDecreeNo.
603, as amended, but not covered by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall suffer the penalty of prision
mayorinitsminimumperiod.

xxxx

Childabuse,thecrimecharged,isdefinedbySection3(b)ofRepublicActNo.7610,asfollows:

Section3.Definitionofterms.

xxxx

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

(1)Psychologicalandphysicalabuse,neglect,cruelty,sexualabuseandemotionalmaltreatment

(2) Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a
childasahumanbeing

(3)Unreasonabledeprivationofhisbasicneedsforsurvival,suchasfoodandshelteror

(4)Failuretoimmediatelygivemedicaltreatmenttoaninjuredchildresultinginseriousimpairmentofhis
growthanddevelopmentorinhispermanentincapacityordeath.

xxxx

AlthoughweaffirmthefactualfindingsoffactbytheRTCandtheCAtotheeffectthatthepetitionerstruckJayson
atthebackwithhishandandslappedJaysonontheface,wedisagreewiththeirholdingthathisactsconstituted
childabusewithinthepurviewoftheabovequotedprovisions.Therecordsdidnotestablishbeyondreasonable
doubtthathislayingofhandsonJaysonhadbeenintendedtodebasethe"intrinsicworthanddignity"ofJayson
asahumanbeing,orthathehadtherebyintendedtohumiliateorembarrassJayson.Therecordsshowedthe
layingofhandsonJaysontohavebeendoneatthespurofthemomentandinanger,indicativeofhisbeingthen
overwhelmed by his fatherly concern for the personal safety of his own minor daughters who had just suffered
harmatthehandsofJaysonandRoldan.Withthelossofhisselfcontrol,helackedthatspecificintenttodebase,
degradeordemeantheintrinsicworthanddignityofachildasahumanbeingthatwassoessentialinthecrime
ofchildabuse.

Itisnottritetoremindthatunderthewellrecognizeddoctrineofproreoeverydoubtisresolvedinfavorofthe
petitionerastheaccused.Thus,theCourtshouldconsiderallpossiblecircumstancesinhisfavor.18

Whatcrime,then,didthepetitionercommit?

Considering that Jaysons physical injury required five to seven days of medical attention,19 the petitioner was
liableforslightphysicalinjuriesunderArticle266(1)oftheRevisedPenalCode,towit:

Article266.Slightphysicalinjuriesandmaltreatment.Thecrimeofslightphysicalinjuriesshallbepunished:

1.Byarrestomenorwhentheoffenderhasinflictedphysicalinjurieswhichshallincapacitatetheoffendedparty
forlaborfromonetoninedays,orshallrequiremedicalattendanceduringthesameperiod.

xxxx

Thepenaltyforslightphysicalinjuriesisarrestomenor,whichrangesfromonedayto30daysofimprisonment.20
In imposing the correct penalty, however, we have to consider the mitigating circumstance of passion or
obfuscation under Article 13 (6) of the Revised Penal Code,21 because the petitioner lost his reason and self
control, thereby diminishing the exercise of his will power.22 Passion or obfuscation may lawfully arise from
causes existing only in the honest belief of the accused.23 It is relevant to mention, too, that in passion or
obfuscation,theoffendersuffersadiminutionofintelligenceandintent.Withhishavingactedunderthebeliefthat
JaysonandRoldanhadthrownstonesathistwominordaughters,andthatJaysonhadburnedCherrlynshair,
thepetitionerwasentitledtothemitigatingcircumstanceofpassion.Arrestomenorisprescribedinitsminimum
period (i.e., one day to 10 days) in the absence of any aggravating circumstance that offset the mitigating
circumstanceofpassion.Accordingly,withtheIndeterminateSentenceLawbeinginapplicableduetothepenalty
imposednotexceedingoneyear,24thepetitionershallsufferastraightpenaltyof10daysofarrestomenor.

TheawardofmoraldamagestoJaysonisappropriate.Suchdamagesaregrantedincriminalcasesresultingin
physicalinjuries.25TheamountofP5,000.00fixedbythelowercourtsasmoraldamagesisconsistentwiththe
currentjurisprudence.26

WHEREFORE, we SET ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals and ENTER a new judgment: (a) finding
petitioner George Bongalon GUlLTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES
underparagraph1,Article266,oftheRevisedPenalCode(b)sentencinghimtosufferthepenaltyof10daysof
arrestomenorand(c)orderinghimtopayJaysonDelaCruztheamountofP5,000.00asmoraldamages,plus
thecostsofsuit.

SOORDERED.

LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:
 MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

BIENVENIDOL.REYES
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had
beenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes

1SpecialProtectionofChildrenAgainstChildAbuse,ExploitationandDiscriminationAct(ApprovedonJune
17,1992).
2Rollo,pp.1831pennedbyAssociateJusticeRodrigoV.Cosico(retired),withAssociateJusticeDaniloB.
Pine(retired)andAssociateJusticeArcangelitaRomillaLontok(retired)concurring.

3Records,pp.12.

4TSN,June4,2001,pp.911.

5TSN,February6,2001,pp.621.

6TSN,October19,2001,pp.312.

7TSN,March10,2003,pp.69.

8TSN,June28,2002,pp.716.

9Records,pp.301304.

10Supranote2.

11Rollo,pp.317.

12G.R.No.142051,February24,2004,423SCRA605,612613.

13Rollo,pp.1014.

14Id.at8.

15Id.at15.

16Section6,Rule1,RulesofCourt,whichprovides:

Section6.Construction.TheseRulesshallbeliberallyconstruedinordertopromotetheirobjective
ofsecuringajust,speedyandinexpensivedispositionofeveryactionandproceeding.(2a)

17Ferrerv.People,G.R.No.143487,February22,2006,483SCRA31,54.

18Villanuevav.People,G.R.No.160351,April10,2006,487SCRA42,58.

19Records,p.154.

20Article27,RevisedPenalCode.

21Article13.Mitigatingcircumstances.Thefollowingaremitigatingcircumstances:

xxx

6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or
obfuscation.

xxx
22UnitedStatesv.Salandanan,etal.,1Phil.464,465(1902).

23Reyes,CriminalLaw,TheRevisedPenalCode,BookOne(15thEdition),p.286,citingU.S.v.Ferrer,1
Phil.56,62,U.S.v.Macalintal,2Phil.448,451andPeoplev.Zapata,107Phil.103,109.

24Section2,IndeterminateSentenceLaw.

25Article2219(I)oftheCivilCode.

26Peoplev.Villacorta,G.R.No.186412,September7,20II,657SCRA270,288.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation