Republic of the Philippines

Department of Interior and Local Government

Philippine Public Safety College
NATIONAL POLICE COLLEGE
Camp General Mariano N Castaneda, Silang Cavite

Submitted by:
PSI AZURA, ALBERT G.
POOC Class 0-1

Submitted to:

ATTY. FE EDITHA HERNANDEZ-ORONICO

1 | RA 7610 Case Digests

 Table of Contents

a. People v. Fragrante | G.R. No. 182521 | February 09, 2011…………………………………. 3 – 6

b. People v. Pangilinan | G.R. No.183090 | November 14, 2011………………………………… 6 – 9

c. Acuzar v. Jorolan | G.R. No. 177878 | April 7, 2010……………………………………………10 – 11

d. Garingarao v. People | G.R. No. 192760 | July 20, 2011……………………………………… 12-13

e. People v. Bonaagua | G.R. No. 188897 | June 06, 2011……………………………………….14 -15

f. People v. Dahilig | G.R. No. 187083 | June 13, 2011…………………………………………… 16

g. People v. Dominguez | G.R. No. 191065 | June 13, 2011……………………………………17 – 18

h. Flordeliz v. People | G.R. No. 186441 | March 3, 2010……………………………………….19 – 20

i. People v. Degay | G.R. No. 182526 | August 25, 2010…………………………………….. 20 – 21

j. Bongalon vs. People IG.R. NO. 169533I March 20, 2013 ………………………………… 21 – 22

2 | RA 7610 Case Digests

 A. People of the Philippines v. Ernesto Fragrante | G.R. No. 182521 | February 09, 2011 | J. Carpio

FACTS: Ernesto Fragrante was married to CCC; they had three children and the victim (AAA) is their third child.
Three or four months before her eleventh (11) birthday, she woke up early because her father promised them that
they will have driving lessons that day. Her father enterd her room, lie beside her on her bed, he was talking about a
lot of things to her and then he started to fondle her breast and suck her nipples.

The said incident was repeated between June and August 1993 and on some other occasions. In September 1995
when AAA is at the age of thirteen (13), she was raped by her father Ernesto. She was told to get inside his room. He
scolded her and told her to lie down on his bed. And then he raped her. She bbegged and struggled for him to
remove his penis inside her but despite all her pleas he stayed on top of him.

In the evening of October 25, 1997 AAA was left home with his father because her mother and siblings went to a
wake. Her father started massaging her breast. Her father strangled her and asked her whether she preferred to be
strangled first and she answered no. He started touching her private parts and then she told him that her mother has
arrived, that was the only time that she was allowed to leave but she was warned to not tell her mother what
happened. After that, they report the incident to the NBI. The appellant was charged with nine (9) counts of acts of
lasciviousness and (1) count of rape.

ISSUE: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant's conviction for nine (9) counts of acts of
lasciviousness and one (1) count of rape
.
RULING: The court sustained the appellant’s conviction for (7) counts of acts of lasciviousness and (1) count of rape.
He was acquitted for (2) counts of acts of lasciviousness on the ground of reasonable doubt.
The prosecution sufficiently established appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of rape.

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

Art. 335. When and how rape is committed. - Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any
of the following circumstances:

1. By using force or intimidation;

2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.

As correctly found by the Court of Appeals, all the essential elements of rape are present in this case. The evidence
on record clearly proves that appellant had carnal knowledge of his own minor daughter AAA.

It must be stressed that the gravamen of rape is sexual congress with a woman by force and without
consent. In People v. Orillosa, we held that actual force or intimidation need not be employed in incestuous rape of a
minor because the moral and physical dominion of the father is sufficient to cow the victim into submission to his
beastly desires. When a father commits the odious crime of rape against his own daughter, his moral ascendancy or
influence over the latter substitutes for violence and intimidation. The absence of violence or offer of resistance would

3 | RA 7610 Case Digests

not affect the outcome of the case because the overpowering and overbearing moral influence of the father over his
daughter takes the place of violence and offer of resistance required in rape cases committed by an accused who did
not have blood relationship with the victim.

In this case, AAA's testimony clearly showed how appellant took advantage of his relationship with and his moral
ascendancy over his minor daughter when he had carnal knowledge of her. As found by the Court of Appeals,
appellant instilled fear on AAA's mind every time he sexually molested her, thus: [AAA] also admitted that after
accused-appellant has started sexually molesting her until she was raped, she was so frightened of him. In fact she
could not tell her mother of her ordeal, mindful of the serious threats on her life and of the chaos it would cause their
family.

We likewise find appellant's claim that the medical findings do not support the charge of rape untenable. Aside from
AAA's positive, straightforward, and credible testimony, the prosecution presented the medical certificate issued by
Dr. Bernadette Madrid and the latter's testimony which corroborate AAA's claim that appellant raped her.

The Court is not impressed with appellant's claim that AAA's failure to immediately report the incidents to the proper
authorities affected her credibility. Delay could be attributed to the victim's tender age and the appellant's threats. A
rape victim's actions are oftentimes influenced by fear, rather than reason. In incestuous rape, this fear is magnified
because the victim usually lives under the same roof as the perpetrator or is at any rate subject to his dominance
because of their blood relationship.

Appellant was charged with violation of Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in relation to Section
5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610. These provisions state:

Art. 336. Acts of lasciviousness. -- Any person who shall commit any act of lasciviousness upon other persons of
either sex, under any of the circumstances mentioned in the preceding article, shall be punished
by prision correccional.

Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. - Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or
any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.

The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:

xxxx

(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse of lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or
subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators
shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the
Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious
conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period; x x x

The elements of sexual abuse under Section 5, Article III of Republic Act No. 7610 are as follows:
1. The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct.

4 | RA 7610 Case Digests

 2. The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse.
3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.

As correctly found by the Court of Appeals, all the elements of sexual abuse under Section 5, Article III of RA 7610
are present here.

First, appellant's repeated touching, fondling, and sucking of AAA's breasts and inserting his finger into AAA's vagina
with lewd designs undoubtedly constitute lascivious conduct under Section 2(h) of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of Republic Act No. 7610, to wit:

(h) "Lascivious conduct" means the intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus,
groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any
person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify
the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or public area of a
person.

Second, appellant, as a father having moral ascendancy over his daughter, coerced AAA to engage in lascivious
conduct, which is within the purview of sexual abuse. In People v. Larin, we held:

A child is deemed exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse, when the child indulges in sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct (a) for money, profit, or any other consideration; or (b) under the coercion or
influence of any adult, syndicate or group.

Third, AAA is below 18 years old at the time of the commission of the offense, based on her testimony which was
corroborated by her Birth Certificate presented during the trial. Section 3(a), Article I of Republic Act No. 7610
provides:

SECTION 3. Definition of Terms. -

(a) "Children" refers [to] persons below eighteen (18) years of age or those over but are unable to fully take care of
themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or
mental disability or condition;

Since all three elements of the crime were present, the conviction of appellant for acts of lasciviousness was proper.

In Criminal Case Nos. 98-652 and 98-658, we agree with the Office of the Solicitor General, representing the People,
that the prosecution failed to prove appellant's guilt for acts of lasciviousness beyond reasonable doubt. While AAA
testified that appellant habitually molested her, there was no specific evidence supporting the charge that appellant
committed acts of lasciviousness in May 1993 and September 1997, or on or about those dates. Hence, we find
appellant not guilty for two counts of acts of lasciviousness (Criminal Case Nos. 98-652 and 98-658) on the ground of
reasonable doubt.

As regards the other criminal cases for acts of lasciviousness, where appellant's guilt was proved beyond reasonable
doubt, we affirm appellant's conviction. In these cases, the alternative circumstance of relationship under Article 15 of

5 | RA 7610 Case Digests

the Revised Penal Code should be considered against appellant. In People v. Fetalino, the Court held that, "in crimes
against chastity, like acts of lasciviousness, relationship is considered aggravating." In that case, the Court
considered relationship as an aggravating circumstance since the informations mentioned, and the accused
admitted, that the complainant is his daughter.

In the instant case, the information expressly state that AAA is appellant's daughter, and appellant openly admitted
this fact. Accordingly, we modify the penalty imposed in Criminal Case Nos. 98-657 and 98-659. Section 5, Article III
of Republic Act No. 7610 prescribes the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion
perpetua. Since there is an aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstance, the penalty shall be applied in
its maximum period - reclusion perpetua. Besides, Section 31 of Republic Act No. 7610 expressly provides that "The
penalty provided herein shall be imposed in its maximum period when the perpetrator is [a] x x x parent, x x x.
In People v. Montinola and People v. Sumingwa, where the accused is the biological father of the minor victim, the
Court appreciated the presence of the aggravating circumstance of relationship and accordingly imposed the penalty
of reclusion perpetua. Thus, appellant herein is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in Criminal
Case Nos. 98-657 and 98-659.

In Criminal Case Nos. 98-651, 98-653, 98-654, 98-655, and 98-656, where AAA was still below 12 years old at the
time of the commission of the acts of lasciviousness, the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium
period in accordance with Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610. This provision specifically states "[t]hat
the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its
medium period."Considering the presence of the aggravating circumstance of relationship, as explained, the penalty
shall be imposed in its maximum period. In People v. Velasquez, which involved a two year old child sexually abused
by her grandfather, the Court imposed the indeterminate sentence of 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal as
minimum to 17 years of reclusion temporal as maximum. Accordingly, appellant herein is sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal as minimum to 17 years of reclusion temporal as
maximum.

Also, we modify the amount of moral damages and fine awarded by the Court of Appeals. We reduce the amount of
moral damages from P50,000 to P15,000 and the amount of fine from P30,000 to P15,000 for each of the seven (7)
counts of acts of lasciviousness. In addition, we award civil indemnity in the amount of P20,000, and exemplary
damages in the sum of P15,000, in view of the presence of the aggravating circumstance of relationship, for each of
the seven (7) counts of acts of lasciviousness.

B. People of the Philippines v. Bernabe Pangilinan | G.R. No.183090 | November 14, 2011 | J. Perez

FACTS: AAA, a thirteen year old girl lived with her aunt BBB and her husband since she was two years old until July
27, 2001. At around 10 p.m. of July 27, 2001, while her aunt was working in Angeles, Pampanga, and she was
watching television in their house, appellant arrived and ordered her to cook chicken adobo which she did. Appellant
approached her and pointed a samurai at her. Appellant then kissed her neck and mashed her breast. It was not the
first time that appellant did that to her. AAA testified that prior to the said incident; she was already abused by the
appellant several times. She said that the reason why she did not tell her aunt about the molestation is because the
appellant threatened to kill her and her aunt. She also said that her aunt and appellant treated her like their own child.

6 | RA 7610 Case Digests

BBB denied all the allegations against him and on his defense he said that it was CCC, AAA’s cousin who molested
her and that AAA is only forced by her wife’s relatives to file charges against him because they were against him and
their relationship. His testimony was corroborated by two other witnesses. The Trial Court found the accused guilty
for rape and sexual abuse. The Court of Appeals affirmed the said decision but with modifications as to the award for
damages.

ISSUE: Whether the accused should be penalized for rape under RA 7610 or under Article 266-A of the Revised
Penal Code.

RULING: In this case, appellant was charged under two separate information for rape under Article 266-A of the
Revised Penal Code and sexual abuse under Section 5 (b) of RA No. 7610, respectively. However, we find the
Information in Criminal Case No. 11769 for sexual abuse to be void for being violative of appellant’s constitutional
right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

The allegations in the above-quoted Information would show the insufficiency of the averments of the acts alleged to
have been committed by appellant. It does not contain the essential facts constituting the offense, but a statement
of a conclusion of law. Thus, appellant cannot be convicted of sexual abuse under such Information. The right to
be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against an accused cannot be waived for reasons of public
policy. Hence, it is imperative that the complaint or information filed against the accused be complete to meet its
objectives. As such, an indictment must fully state the elements of the specific offense alleged to have been
committed.

Art. 266-A Rape; When and How Committed – Rape is Committed –

1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:

a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;

b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented,
even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.

We find that AAA remained steadfast in her assertion that appellant raped her through force and intimidation with the
use of a samurai. And even after the incident, appellant threatened AAA that he would kill her and her
aunt, i.e., appellant's wife, should AAA report the incident.

A finding that the accused is guilty of rape may be based solely on the victim's testimony if such testimony meets the
test of credibility. We held that no woman, much less a child of such tender age, would willingly submit herself to the
rigors, the humiliation and the stigma attendant upon the prosecution of rape, if she were not motivated by an earnest
desire to put the culprit behind bars.

7 | RA 7610 Case Digests

Appellant argues that he could not be convicted of rape since based on the medical examination report, AAA's
genitalia had no hymenal laceration which corroborated AAA's testimony that appellant merely kissed her and
touched her breast on July 27, 2001.

Proof of hymenal laceration is not an element of rape.[53] An intact hymen does not negate a finding that the victim
was raped. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without laceration of the hymen, is
enough to constitute rape, and even the briefest of contact is deemed rape.[54]

While it appears from AAA's testimony that she was not raped precisely on July 27, 2001 as what appellant did was
kiss her lips and mash her breast on that day, however, her entire testimony in the witness stand positively shows
that appellant with the use of force and intimidation had carnal knowledge of her at some other time. She testified
that appellant violated her since she was seven years old. The first time was when they were still staying in Angeles
City where appellant touched her private parts; the second time was when they were already in Gerona, Tarlac,
where appellant pointed a samurai at her and raped her; and the third time happened on July 27, 2001 when
appellant kissed her lips and mashed her breast. Indeed, appellant may be convicted for rape in the light of AAA's
testimony. For in rape cases, the date of the commission is not an essential element of the offense; what is material
is its occurrence.

Notably, the information alleges that the crime of rape was committed “on or about July 27, 2001,” thus the
prosecution may prove that rape was committed on or about July 27, 2001, i.e., few months or years before, and not
exactly on July 27, 2001.

In his Supplemental Brief, appellant claims that he should have been prosecuted for rape under RA No. 7610 since
AAA was already more than 12 years old when the alleged rape was committed which carries the penalty
of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua.

We do not agree. In People v. Dahilig, wherein the question posed was whether the crime committed was rape
(Violation of Article 266-A, par. 1, in relation to Article 266-B, 1st paragraph of the Revised Penal Code, as amended
by RA No. 8353), or is it Child Abuse, defined and penalized by Section 5, (b), RA No. 7610, we said:

As elucidated by the RTC and the CA in their respective decisions, all the elements of both
crimes are present in this case. The case of People v. Abay, however, is enlightening and
instructional on this issue. It was stated in that case that if the victim is 12 years or older, the
offender should be charged with either sexual abuse under Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610 or rape
under Article 266-A (except paragraph 1 [d] of the Revised Penal Code. However, the offender
cannot be accused of both crimes for the same act because his right against double jeopardy will
be prejudiced. A person cannot be subjected twice to criminal liability for a single criminal act.
Specifically, Abay reads:

Under Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610 in relation to RA 8353,if the victim of sexual
abuse is below 12 years of age, the offender should not be prosecuted for sexual
abuse but for statutory rape under Article 266-A (1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code and
penalized with reclusion perpetua. On the other hand, if the victim is 12 years or
older, the offender should be charged with either sexual abuse under Section 5 (b) of

8 | RA 7610 Case Digests

 RA 7610 or rape under Article 266-A (except paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised Penal
Code. However, the offender cannot be accused of both crimes for the same act
because his right against double jeopardy will be prejudiced. A person cannot be
subjected twice to criminal liability for a single criminal act. Likewise, rape cannot be
complexed with a violation of Section 5 (b) of RA 7610. Under Section 48 of the
Revised Penal Code (on complex crimes), a felony under the Revised Penal Code
(such as rape) cannot be complexed with an offense penalized by a special law.

In this case, the victim was more than 12 years old when the crime was committed
against her. The Information against appellant stated that AAA was 13 years old
at the time of the incident. Therefore, appellant may be prosecuted either for
violation of Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 or rape under Article 266-A (except
paragraph 1 [d]) of the Revised Penal Code. While the Information may have
alleged the elements of both crimes, the prosecution's evidence only established
that appellant sexually violated the person of AAA through force and intimidation
by threatening her with a bladed instrument and forcing her to submit to his bestial
designs. Thus, rape was established.

Accordingly, the accused can indeed be charged with either Rape or Child Abuse and be convicted therefor.
Considering, however, that the information correctly charged the accused with rape in violation of Article
266-A par. 1 in relation to Article 266-B, 1st par. of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353,
and that he was convicted therefor, the CA should have merely affirmed the conviction.

As in the present case, appellant can indeed be charged with either Rape or Child Abuse and be convicted therefor.
The prosecution's evidence established that appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA through force and intimidation
by threatening her with a samurai. Thus, rape was established. Considering that in the resolution of the Assistant
Provincial Prosecutor, he resolved the filing of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code for which
appellant was convicted by both the RTC and the CA, therefore, we merely affirm the conviction.

9 | RA 7610 Case Digests

 C. SPO1 Acuzar v. Jorolan and Hon. Apresa, People’s Law Enforcement Board (PLEB) | G.R. No.
177878 | April 7, 2010 | J. Villarama Jr.

FACTS: Aproniano Jorolan filed an Administrative Case against petitioner before the PLEB charging the latter of
Grave Misconduct for allegedly having an illicit relationship with respondent’s minor daughter. Jorolan also instituted
a criminal case against the petitioner before the Municipal Trial Court of New Corella for Violation of Section 5 (b),
Article III of Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as the Child Abuse Act.

Petitioner filed a Counter – Affidavit before the PLEB and he denied all the accusations against him. He also attached
the complainant’s daughter’s affidavit wherein she denied having relationship with the petitioner. Upon receipt of the
decision of PLEB whish found him guilty of grave misconduct (Child Abuse), he filed a Petition for Certiorari with
Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order with the RTC of Tagum City which annulled the
decision of PLEB. The respondent elevated the case to the CA which reversed and set aside the ruling of the RTC.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that petitioner’s resort to certiorari was not warranted as the remedy of
appeal from the decision of the PLEB was available to him.

RULING: petitioner opted to file a petition for certiorari before the trial court on the pretext that the PLEB had no
jurisdiction to hear the administrative case until petitioner is convicted before the regular court. According to
petitioner, although the case filed before the PLEB was captioned as “Grave Misconduct,” the offense charged was
actually for “Violation of Law,” which requires prior conviction before a hearing on the administrative case can
proceed. Thus, petitioner insists that the PLEB should have awaited the resolution of the criminal case before
conducting a hearing on the administrative charge against him.

The contention however is untenable. A careful perusal of respondent’s affidavit-complaint against petitioner would
show that petitioner was charged with grave misconduct for engaging in an illicit affair with respondent’s minor
daughter, he being a married man, and not for violation of law, as petitioner would like to convince this Court.
Misconduct generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct, motivated by premeditated, obstinate or
intentional purpose. It usually refers to transgression of some established and definite rule of action, where no
discretion is left except what necessity may demand; it does not necessarily imply corruption or criminal intention but
implies wrongful intention and not to mere error of judgment. On the other hand, “violation of law” presupposes final
conviction in court of any crime or offense penalized under the Revised Penal Code or any special law or ordinance.
The settled rule is that criminal and administrative cases are separate and distinct from each other. In criminal cases,
proof beyond reasonable doubt is needed whereas in administrative proceedings, only substantial evidence is
required. Verily, administrative cases may proceed independently of criminal proceedings. The PLEB, being the
administrative disciplinary body tasked to hear complaints against erring members of the PNP, has jurisdiction over
the case.

In the instant case, petitioner was notified of the complaint against him and in fact, he had submitted his counter-
affidavit and the affidavits of his witnesses. He attended the hearings together with his counsel and even asked for
several postponements. Petitioner therefore cannot claim that he had been denied of due process. Due process in
an administrative context does not require trial-type proceedings similar to those in courts of justice. Where
opportunity to be heard either through oral arguments or through pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of due
process. The requirements are satisfied where the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain

10 | RA 7610 Case Digests

their side of the controversy. In other words, it is not legally objectionable for being violative of due process for an
administrative agency to resolve a case based solely on position papers, affidavits or documentary evidence
submitted by the parties as affidavits of witnesses may take the place of direct testimony. Here, we note that
petitioner had more than enough opportunity to present his side and adduce evidence in support of his defense; thus,
he cannot claim that his right to due process has been violated. Wherefore, the petition is denied.

11 | RA 7610 Case Digests

 D. Jojit Garingarao v. People of the Philippines | G.R. No. 192760 | July 20, 2011 | J. Carpio

FACTS: AAA, 16 years of age, was brought to the Virgen Milagrosa Medical Center by her father BBB and mother
CCC due to fever and abdominal pain. AAA was admitted at the hospital for further observation. The next day, her
father and mother left the hospital to process AAA’s Medicare papers and to attend to their store, respectively,
leaving AAA alone in her room. When her father returned to the hospital, AAA told him that she wanted to go home.
The doctor allowed them due to AAA’s insistence but instructed her that she should continue her medications. At
home, AAA told her parents that Garingarao sexually abused her. They went back to the hospital and reported the
incident to Dr. Morante. They inquired from the nurses’ station and learned that Garingarao was the nurse on duty on
that day.

An Information was filed against Garingarao for acts of lasciviousness in relation to RA 7610. During the trial, AAA
testified that, Garingarao, entered her room to check her medications and if she was still experiencing pains.
Garingarao lifted AAA’s bra and touched her left breast and insisted that he was only examining her. Garingarao also
slid his finger inside AAA’s private part and only stopped when he saw that AAA really had her monthly period.

In his defense, the accused testified that he went inside AAA’s room to administer her medicines and check her vital
signs. Garingarao alleged that the filing of the case was motivated by the argument he had with AAA’s father about
the administering of medicines. He was supported by the testimony of the nursing aide, Tamayo. Garingarao further
alleged that, assuming the charges were correct, there was only one incident when he allegedly touched AAA and as
such, he should have been convicted only of acts of lasciviousness and not of violation of RA 7610. The RTC
found Garingarao guilty as charged and gave credence to the testimony of AAA over Garingarao’s denial, which was
affirmed by the CA.

ISSUE: Whether or not the single incident of act of lasciviousness would suffice to hold the accused liable under RA
7610

RULING: Yes. The Court has ruled that in case of acts of lasciviousness, the lone testimony of the offended party, if
credible, is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. It is a settled rule that denial is a weak defense as against
the positive identification by the victim. Both denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and constitute self-serving
negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration by a credible
witness.

Section 5, Article III of RA 7610 provides:

Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. - Children, whether male or female, who for money,
profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge
in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other
sexual abuse.

The elements of sexual abuse under Section 5, Article III of RA 7610 are the following:
1. The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct;
2. The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and
3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.

12 | RA 7610 Case Digests

Under Section 32, Article XIII of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 7610, lascivious conduct is defined
as follows:
[T]he intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh,
or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the
same or opposite sex, with the intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual
desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person.

In this case, the prosecution established that Garingarao touched AAA’s breasts and inserted his finger into her
private part for his sexual gratification. Garingarao used his influence as a nurse by pretending that his actions were
part of the physical examination he was doing. Garingarao persisted on what he was doing despite AAA’s objections.
AAA twice asked Garingarao what he was doing and he answered that he was just examining her.

The Court has ruled that a child is deemed subject to other sexual abuse when the child is the victim of lascivious
conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult. In lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any
adult, there must be some form of compulsion equivalent to intimidation which subdues the free exercise of the
offended party’s free will. In this case, Garingarao coerced AAA into submitting to his lascivious acts by pretending
that he was examining her.

Garingarao insists that, assuming that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were true, he should not be
convicted of violation of RA 7610 because the incident happened only once. Garingarao alleges that the single
incident would not suffice to hold him liable under RA 7610. This argument has no legal basis. The Court has already
ruled that it is inconsequential that sexual abuse under RA 7610 occurred only once. Section 3(b) of RA 7610
provides that the abuse may be habitual or not. Hence, the fact that the offense occurred only once is enough to
hold Garingarao liable for acts of lasciviousness under RA 7610. The Court finds Jojit Garingarao guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of acts of lasciviousness in relation to Republic Act No. 7610.

13 | RA 7610 Case Digests

 E. People of the Philippines v. Ireno Bonaagua y Berce | G.R. No. 188897 | June 06, 2011 | J. Peralta

FACTS: AAA and her mother left their house in Candelaria to spend the Christmas with accused-appellant who is
also AAA’s father, and stayed in the house of a certain Lola Jean in Las Piñas. One afternoon, AAA was inside a
room lying in bed while her younger brothers were playing outside the house and her mother was not home.
Accused-appellant entered the room, undressed her and thereafter, touched and caressed her breasts. He licked her
vagina then inserted his finger into it. In the evening of the same day, the accused-appellant raped AAA again in the
same manner and under the same circumstances. Afterwhich, AAA was raped by accused-appellant for several
times. AAA again did not report these incidents for fear that her mother would be killed by the accused.

AAA complained of severe abdominal pain which prompted her mother to take her to the hospital. In Quezon
Memorial Hospital Lucena, she was physically examined by Dr. De Leon. The results revealed that there was a
healed superficial laceration at the 9 o'clock position on the hymen of AAA. She told her mother about all the
incidents of rape committed by accused-appellant. AAA's mother took her to the Police Headquarters to file a
complaint for rape against accused-appellant. She was also taken at the NBI where she executed a sworn
statement. Accused-appellant denied committing the charges of rape charged against him. He claimed to be working
in Las Piñas while AAA, her mother and siblings where in Sariaya, Quezon at the time the alleged rapes occurred.
And every time they would visit him in Las Piñas, they would leave on the same day they arrived after he gives them
money. The RTC after finding the evidence for the prosecution overwhelming against the accused's defense of denial
and alibi, convicted Ireno with four (4) counts of rape, affirmed by the CA.

ISSUE: Whether the accused’s act of touching the victim’s private part and licking it constitutes the crime of Rape
through Sexual Assault or Acts of Lasciviousness under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610.

RULING: It is well entrenched in this jurisdiction that when the offended parties are young and immature girls, as in
this case, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, considering not only their relative
vulnerability, but also the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed if the matter about which they
testified were not true. A young girl would not usually concoct a tale of defloration; publicly admit having been
ravished and her honor tainted; allow the examination of her private parts; and undergo all the trouble and
inconvenience, not to mention the trauma and scandal of a public trial, had she not in fact been raped and been truly
moved to protect and preserve her honor, and motivated by the desire to obtain justice for the wicked acts committed
against her. Moreover, the Court has repeatedly held that the lone testimony of the victim in a rape case, if credible,
is enough to sustain a conviction. Contrary to Ireno's contention, the medical findings of Dr. Melissa De Leon did not
refute AAA's testimony of defilement, but instead bolstered her claim. As to the three of four incidents (Criminal Case
Nos. 03-0254, 03-0256, and 03-0257) of rape, Ireno was convicted with Qualified Rape through Sexual Assault.
Ireno, is the father of the minor victim. Hence, the offenses were committed with the aggravating/qualifying
circumstances of minority and relationship, which in turn, warrants the imposition of the higher penalty of reclusion
temporal prescribed by Article 266-B of the RPC.

However, in one incident (Criminal Case No. 03-0255), accused-appellant cannot be held guilty as charged for the
crime of rape. It must be emphasized, that like in the crime of rape whereby the slightest penetration of the male
organ or even its slightest contact with the outer lip or the labia majora of the vagina already consummates the crime,
in like manner, if the tongue, in an act of cunnilingus, touches the outer lip of the vagina, the act should also be
considered as already consummating the crime of rape through sexual assault, not the crime of acts of

14 | RA 7610 Case Digests

lasciviousness. For this part, the victim testified that Ireno only touched her private part and licked it, but did not insert
his finger in her vagina. This testimony of the victim, however, is open to various interpretation, since it cannot be
identified what specific part of the vagina was defiled by Ireno. Thus, in conformity with the principle that the guilt of
an accused must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, the statement cannot be the basis for convicting Ireno with the
crime of rape through sexual assault.

Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, defines and penalizes acts of lasciviousness committed against a child as
follows:
Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. -- Children, whether male or female, who for money,
profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge
in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other
sexual abuse.

Paragraph (b) punishes sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct not only with a child exploited in prostitution, but
also with a child subjected to other sexual abuses. It covers not only a situation where a child is abused for profit, but
also where one through coercion, intimidation or influence engages in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a
child. However, pursuant to the foregoing provision, before an accused can be convicted of child abuse through
lascivious conduct committed against a minor below 12 years of age, the requisites for acts of lasciviousness under
Article 336 of the RPC must be met in addition to the requisites for sexual abuse under Section 5 of R.A. No. 7610.

Corollarilly, Section 2 (h) of the rules and regulations of R.A. No. 7610 defines "Lascivious conduct" as:
[T]he intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or
buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or
opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any
person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person.

Undeniably, all the afore-stated elements are present in Criminal Case No. 03-0255. Ireno committed lascivious acts
against AAA by touching her breasts and licking her vagina and the lascivious or lewd acts were committed against
AAA, who was 8 years old at the time as established by her birth certificate. Thus, Ireno is guilty of the crime of Acts
of Lasciviousness under Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610.

15 | RA 7610 Case Digests

 F. People of the Philippines v. Eduardo Dahilig y Agaran | G.R. No. 187083 | June 13, 2011 | J. Mendoza

FACTS: AAA, a helper, was sleeping when the accused made sexual advances on her. She shouted for help from
her co-helper but to no avail because the latter was sound asleep. Eventually, the accused succeeded to undress
her. Then, he forced his penis into her vagina which caused her pain and returned to his quarters when he was done.
The accused left their employer's house; AAA then informed her employer about the incident. Their employer
immediately assisted her in filing a case against accused which caused the arrest of the accused. The accused
offered to marry AAA but the latter refused. In the medical examination, it was disclosed that there was a healing
laceration in her hymen although no spermatozoa was found.

The accused denied the allegations and contended that the sexual congress that transpired between them was
consensual as she was then his girlfriend. The RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime
of Rape as what he laid before the court for its consideration was a mere self-serving claim of their relationship. The
CA affirmed the RTC’s decision but clarified that the crime charged should have been "Child Abuse" as defined and
penalized in Sec. 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610, based on the fact that the complainant was a minor, being 16 years of age
at the time of the commission of the offense.

ISSUE: Whether the crime committed was Rape (Violation of Article 266-A par. 1 in relation to Article 266-B, 1st par.
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353), or is it Child Abuse, defined and penalized by Sec. 5,
(b), R.A. No. 7610

RULING: As elucidated by the RTC and the CA in their respective decisions, all the elements of both crimes are
present in this case. Under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610in relation to RA 8353, if the victim of sexual abuse is
below 12 years of age, the offender should not be prosecuted for sexual abuse but for statutory rape under Article
266-A (1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code and penalized with reclusion perpetua. On the other hand, if the victim is 12
years or older, the offender should be charged with either sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or rape under
Article 266-A (except paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised Penal Code. However, the offender cannot be accused of both
crimes for the same act because his right against double jeopardy will be prejudiced. A person cannot be subjected
twice to criminal liability for a single criminal act. Likewise, rape cannot be complexed with a violation of Section 5(b)
of RA 7610. Under Section 48 of the Revised Penal Code (on complex crimes), a felony under the Revised Penal
Code (such as rape) cannot be complexed with an offense penalized by a special law.

In this case, the victim was more than 12 years old when the crime was committed against her. The Information
against appellant stated that AAA was 13 years old at the time of the incident. Therefore, appellant may be
prosecuted either for violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610orrapeunderArticle 266-A (except paragraph 1[d]) of the
Revised Penal Code. While the Information may have alleged the elements of both crimes, the prosecution's
evidence only established that appellant sexually violated the person of AAA through force and intimidation by
threatening her with a bladed instrument and forcing her to submit to his bestial designs. Thus, rape was established.

Accordingly, the accused can indeed be charged with either Rape or Child Abuse and be convicted therefor.
Considering, however, that the information correctly charged the accused with rape in violation of Article 266-A par. 1
in relation to Article 266-B, 1st par. of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, and that he was
convicted therefor, the CA should have merely affirmed the conviction.

16 | RA 7610 Case Digests

 G. People of the Philippines v. Jonie Dominguez | G.R. No. 191065 | June 13, 2011 | J. Sereno

FACTS: Jonie Dominguez, being the brother of the mother of the victim’s father, raped AAA twice when she was only
nine years old and BBB seven times when she was only twelve years old. Both of the victims kept silence about the
instances of rape, until it their mother accidentally overheard Dominguez boasting in a drinking session that his
grandchildren’s vaginas were already wide. The mother confronted her children and found what had happened. The
children were brought to a doctor for examination. The doctor found AAA’s hymen intact but did not discount the fact
that the child could have been molested. BBB was found to have old hymenal lacerations.
During trial, AAA and BBB testified against Dominguez by narrating the lascivious acts he had done to them. According
to their testimonies, the accused had employed trickery so that either AAA or BBB would be left alone with him and
thereafter raped, with threats of harm to her person or her family. The only alibi of the accused is that he was in the
mountains on the dates that he was alleged to have committed the crimes

ISSUE: Whether or not the testimonies of AAA and BBB are credible

RULING: It is thus clear that any child, regardless of age, can be a competent witness if he can perceive, and
perceiving, can make known his perception to others and of relating truthfully facts respecting which he is
examined. In the 1913 decision in United States vs. Buncad, this Court stated:

Professor Wigmore, after referring to the common-law precedents upon this point, says: "But
this much may be taken as settled, that no rule defines any particular age as conclusive of incapacity;
in each instance the capacity of the particular child is to be investigated." (Wigmore on Evidence,
vol. I, p. 638)

While on the same subject, Underhill declares:

257. Children on the witness stand. - Under the common law, competency of a child under
the age of fourteen years to testify must be shown to the satisfaction of the court. He is presumptively
incompetent, but if he is shown to be competent it is immaterial how young he may be when he
testifies. He is competent if he possesses mental capacity and memory sufficient to enable him to
give a reasonable and intelligible account of the transaction he has seen, if he understands and has
a just appreciation of the difference between right and wrong, and comprehends the character,
meaning and obligation of an oath. If the witness fulfills these requirements, it is immaterial as bearing
upon his competency that he is unable to define the oath or to define testimony. In the wise discretion
of the court, a child four, five, six and for such ages as seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen
or fifteen years of age may be shown competent to testify. It may not be said that there is any
particular age at which as a matter of law all children are competent or incompetent. x xx

The requirements then of a child’s competency as a witness are the: (a) capacity of
observation, (b) capacity of recollection, and (c) capacity of communication. And in ascertaining
whether a child is of sufficient intelligence according to the foregoing requirements, it is settled that
the trial court is called upon to make such determination.

17 | RA 7610 Case Digests

The legal doctrine that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses is left to the judgment of the trial court is well-
established.Its findings of facts, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are deemed conclusive on this Court. In this
case, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found the prosecution witnesses credible.

Both the trial court and the CA found these defenses of denial and alibi incredible. The testimony of the accused was
riddled with obvious inconsistencies. He denied knowing the victims, but eventually identified AAA as his grandniece.
His own testimony contradicted his alibi, since he testified that from 2000 to 2002, he was residing in his brother’s
house. This was where one of the rape incidents happened, and was even near the house of the victims. On this point,
we have stated previously:

To establish alibi, the accused must prove (a) that he was present at another place at the
time of the perpetration of the crime, and (b) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the
scene of the crime.Physical impossibility "refers to the distance between the place where the
accused was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility
of access between the two places."

On its part, the prosecution was able to show the existence of the elements of rape under the amended Revised Penal
Code, effectuated by R.A. No. 8353, or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, which states:

Art. 266-A. Rape: When and how committed

Rape is committed:

1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though
none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall
commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or
any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.

Before and after the violations, the intimidation took the form of threats that the victims’ family would be killed by the
accused. The accused also employed trickery and took advantage of his authority over his grandnieces. Under these
circumstances, the accused was able to have carnal knowledge of BBB and commit a series of sexual assaults against
both her and AAA. The two incidents of rape against AAA happened before she reached 12 years of age, she being 9
and 10 then. For those incidents, proof of threats, force or intimidation, is not necessary.

18 | RA 7610 Case Digests

 H. Salvador Flordeliz y Abenojar v. People of the Philippines | G.R. No. 186441 | March 3, 2010 | J. Nachura

FACTS: Sometime in March 1995, ABC, the wife of petitioner and the mother of private complainants AAA and BBB,
left for Malaysia as an overseas worker. AAA and BBB were left under the care and custody of petitioner.In April 1995,
while sleeping with BBB and AAA, who was then eleven (11) years old, petitioner touched AAA’s vagina, then played
with it. AAA cried and told petitioner that it was painful. The latter stopped, but warned AAA not to tell anyone about
it. Petitioner allegedly committed the same acts against AAA repeatedly. Not long after, petitioner was convicted of
homicide and imprisoned in Muntinlupa City. In 2001, petitioner was released on parole.

Petitioner allegedly started molesting BBB in May 2002. The petitioner inserts his 2 fingers into BBB’s vagina whenever
BBB visits petitioner, New Year’s Day, day before AAA’s birthday, and All Saints Day. Notwithstanding the repeated
incidents of sexual abuse committed against her, BBB did not reveal her experiences to anybody because of fear for
her life and that of her mother.

AAA and BBB had the chance to reveal the abuse when their mother ABC arrived for a vacation. AAA immediately told
ABC what petitioner did to her. When confronted by ABC, BBB likewise admitted the repeated abuses committed by
petitioner. ABC reported the incidents to the NBI. After conducting medical examinations on AAA and BBB, the
attending physician remarked that there was a "disclosure of sexual abuse and she noted the presence of hymenal
notch in posterior portion of hymenal rim that may be due to previous blunt force or penetrating trauma suggestive of
abuse."With these findings, petitioner was charged with the crimes of Acts of Lasciviousness, committed against AAA,
and nine (9) counts of Qualified Rape through Sexual Assault, committed against BBB, before the RTC.

ISSUE: Whether petitioner be charged of Acts of Lasciviousness in relation to R.A. 7610 without stating in the
information

RULING: Section 32, Article XIII of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 7610 defines lascivious
conduct as follows:

The intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks,
or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex,
with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality,
masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person.

Based on the foregoing definition, petitioners act of touching AAA’s vagina and playing with it obviously amounted to
lascivious conduct. Considering that the act was committed on a child less than twelve years old and through
intimidation, it is beyond cavil that petitioner is guilty under the aforesaid laws.

The Court is aware that the Information specifically charged petitioner with Acts of Lasciviousness under the RPC,
without stating therein that it was in relation to R.A. No. 7610. However, the failure to designate the offense by statute
or to mention the specific provision penalizing the act, or an erroneous specification of the law violated, does not vitiate
the information if the facts alleged therein clearly recite the facts constituting the crime charged. The character of the
crime is not determined by the caption or preamble of the information or by the specification of the provision of law
alleged to have been violated, but by the recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances in the complaint or information.

19 | RA 7610 Case Digests

In the instant case, the body of the Information contains an averment of the acts alleged to have been committed by
petitioner and unmistakably describes acts punishable under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610.
It is also undisputed that petitioner is the father of AAA. The RTC did not appreciate the alternative circumstance of
relationship, because it was not alleged in the Information. We do not agree.

The resolution of the investigating prosecutor, which formed the basis of the Information, a copy of which is attached
thereto, stated that petitioner is the victim’s biological father. There was, therefore, substantial compliance with the
mandate that an accused be informed of the nature of the charge against him.

I. People of the Philippines v. Leonardo Degay | G.R. No. 182526 | August 25, 2010 | J. Perez

FACTS: At the time the crime of rape was complained by private respondent (AAA) she was nine (9) years old and a
grade III pupil. The accused is their neighbor with only five houses separating them. During the second week of
March, 2004, AAA was on her way to school when she met the accused. The accused kissed AAA on the forehead
several times, and he brought her inside his house. He laid her on the sofa, mounted her, and inserted his hard
penis into her vagina. AAA felt pain in her vagina. After satisfying himself, the accused gave AAA P5.00 and warned
her not to tell her mother about what happened. The said act was again repeated on March 25, 2004.

CCC, AAA’s mother learned about what happened to her daughter. CCC confronted AAA and she confirmed to CCC
that she was raped by the accused. AAA and BBB, a four-year old girl who is another complainant were examined at
the Bontoc General Hospital. BBB confessed that she is also raped by the accused when one day the accused
brought her to the bedroom on the second floor of the house. He laid her down on the bed and the accused went on
top of her. She felt pain in her vagina.

The defense presented seven witnesses including the accused himself. The accused denied that he knew the victims
and that he came to know them when he was detained at Bauko Municipal Jail. The RTC found the accused guilty of
three counts of statutory rape and it was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE: Whether the accused is guilty of lascivious conduct and not statutory rape.

RULING: The accused argues that his acts of showing his penis to BBB and the touching of AAA’s vagina, mashing
of her breasts and letting his penis touch her vagina constitute lascivious conduct and not statutory rape, citing
Section 2(h) of the Rules and Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases, Republic Act
No. 7610, which defines lascivious conduct as “the intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the
genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or
mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade or
arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals on
pubic area of a person.” He cites that the lascivious conduct is supported by the medico-legal findings on AAA and
BBB, when it was found that there was no hymenal laceration on their organs. The accused further faults the RTC
for not giving credence to his plausible alibi that he was in another place on 8 May 2004 and it was impossible for him
to have brought BBB to his house and raped her.

20 | RA 7610 Case Digests

On the other hand, the prosecution, through the Office of the Solicitor General, in its brief argues that it had proven
beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed statutory rape and not just acts of lasciviousness. It cited the
categorical and straightforward testimonies of AAA and BBB as corroborated by the medical findings showing both
victims suffered erythema or redness in the areas of their labias minora and majora. It pointed out that this Court had
held in People v. De la Cuesta, that absence of hymenal lacerations on the private organs of the victims does not
negate rape. It stressed that the RTC correctly convicted the accused of three counts of statutory rape since the
accused had sexual intercourse with the victims who are both under 12 years of age. It finally argued that the
accused cannot exculpate himself from liability by alleging that from the last week of February, 2004 to the first week
of April, 2004, he was in Caboan, Capangdanan because Caboan is only three kilometers away from Sabangan and
could be traversed in an hour or less. It was therefore not physically impossible for the accused to be at the crime
scenes.

After review, we uphold the rulings of the appellate court and the RTC.

J. Bongalon vs. People of the Philippines IG.R. NO. 169533I March 20, 2013

FACTS:

Petitioner was charged with child abuse, an act in violation of Section 10(a) of RA 7610, for allegedly committing acts
of physical abuse and/or maltreatment by striking Jayson Dela Cruz (12 year old) 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, which
acts of the accused are prejudicial to the child’s development and which demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the
said child as a human being.
Petitioner denied having physically abused or maltreated Jayson. He explained that he only talked with Jayson and
Roldan after his minor daughters, Mary Ann Rose and Cherrylyn, had told him about Jayson and Roldan’s throwing
stones at them and about Jayson’s burning Cherrylyn’s hair. He denied shouting invectives at and challenging
Rolando to a fight, insisting that he only told Rolando to restrain his sons from harming his daughters. RTC and CA
found and declared petitioner guilty of child abuse.

ISSUE:

Whether petitioner was guilty of the crime charged.

RULING:
NO.
The law under which the petitioner was charged, tried and found guilty of violating is Section 10 (a), Article VI of
Republic Act No. 7610, which relevantly states:
Section 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and other Conditions Prejudicial to the Child’s
Development. –
(a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or be responsible for other
conditions prejudicial to the child’s development including those covered by Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603,
as amended, but not covered by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its
minimum period.

21 | RA 7610 Case Digests

xxxx
Child abuse, the crime charged, is defined by Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610, as follows:
Section 3. Definition of terms. –
xxxx
(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.
xxxx
Although we affirm the factual findings of fact by the RTC and the CA to the effect that the petitioner struck Jayson at
the back with his hand and slapped Jayson on the face, we disagree with their holding that his acts constituted child
abuse within the purview of the above-quoted provisions. 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.
What crime, then, did the petitioner commit? Considering that Jayson’s physical injury required 5-7 days of medical
attention, the petitioner was liable for slight physical injuries under Article 266 (1) of the Revised Penal Code.
WHEREFORE, we SET ASIDE the decision of the CA; and ENTER a new judgment finding P GUlLTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES under paragraph 1, Article 266, of the Revised Penal
Code.

22 | RA 7610 Case Digests

23 | RA 7610 Case Digests