A father was charged with violation of Section 10(a) of Republic Act 7610, the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act (Child Abuse Law), for inflicting excessive corporal punishment on his children aged 10 and 12.
After a trial, the court convicted him. This was upheld by the Court of Appeals. The father brought the matter before the Supreme Court. While he did inflict harm on his children, he argued that his acts were not meant to debase, degrade, or demean his children. Absent these elements, which are prescribed by the said law, he cannot be held liable.
The Supreme Court was not swayed, however. It ruled that: “As observed in these cases, when the infliction of physical injuries against a minor is done at the spur of the moment or intended to discipline or correct the wrongful behavior of the child, it is imperative that the specific intent to debase, degrade, or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human be established.
“In the absence of this specific intent, the offender cannot be held liable for child abuse but only for other crimes punishable under the Revised Penal Code, provided that all the elements of the latter are present. In this regard, to determine the presence or absence of this specific intent, this Court may consider the circumstances of the case and the manner by which the offender committed the act complained of, as when the offender’s use of force against the child was calculated, violent, excessive, or done without any provocation.
“Such intention can also be derived from the disciplinary measures employed by the offender, as when such measures are not commensurate to or reasonable to address or correct the child’s misbehavior. In this case, this Court has carefully considered the attendant circumstances and is convinced that the petitioner committed acts that debased, degraded, or demeaned the intrinsic worth and dignity of the private complainants as human beings.
“Foremost, there is no dispute that AAA and BBB were both minors at the time of the commission of the crimes, as evidenced by their Certificates of Live Birth. Specifically, AAA was 12 years old while BBB was 10 years old. Through their clear, positive, and categorical testimonies, it was sufficiently established that XXX physically assaulted them on two different occasions.
“As to the 22 September 2017 incident, AAA narrated how the petitioner inflicted physical injuries on her just because she failed to eat her lunch before going to the store to deliver the petitioner’s food. Petitioner, with a wooden rod embedded with a nail, hit the right part of her back, right arm, and right thigh while cursing her ‘pu—-ina.’
“AAA claimed that she cried because of the pain inflicted by the nail embedded in the wood. As to the 21 February 2018 incident, both AAA and BBB uniformly narrated that the petitioner physically assaulted them when the former pulled AAA’s hair, kicked her, and hit her in the head.
“Petitioner also hit BBB with a dustpan in different parts of his body. Notably, even the petitioner admitted that he struck his children with a dustpan but claimed that he only did it to discipline them because the money in their coin banks appeared less than his estimated amount. It is worthy to note that the testimonies of AAA and BBB were reinforced by their Medical Certificates showing that AAA had ‘contusion hematoma thigh right, leg left’ and that both of them were seen, examined and treated in the hospital on 23 February 2018 because of ‘multiple physical injury secondary to alleged hitting.’
“The confluence of all these shows that the petitioner went overboard in disciplining his children when he inflicted upon them physical injuries due to trivial matters. Hitting AAA several times with a wooden rod embedded with a nail was certainly not commensurate or reasonably necessary to discipline her, just because she had not eaten her lunch.
“In the same vein, the petitioner used excessive force when he pulled AAA’s hair, kicked, and hit her in the head and struck BBB with a dustpan multiple times just because the money saved in their coin banks was lacking. Although petitioner, as a parent, has the right to instill discipline on his minor children, still the disciplinary measures he employed in this case were excessive, violent, and completely disproportionate to correct the alleged misconduct or misbehavior of his children.
“His abusive acts may be considered as extreme measures of punishment not commensurate with the discipline of his 12-year-old and 10-year-old children. Given these circumstances, it can be reasonably inferred that his act of laying hands on his children was done with the specific intent to debase, degrade, or demean their intrinsic worth and dignity as human beings.
“On this score, the CA did not err in affirming petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for three counts of child abuse under Section l0(a) of Republic Act 7610.”
The facts and quoted portion of the decision are from SC G.R. 268457 (22 July 2024).