Threats, not abuse

This is a case of child abuse punishable under the law, R.A. 7610, Section 10 (a) a in relation to Section 3 (b), consisting of any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades and demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being. What must be proven in order to be liable for child abuse pursuant to this provision? This is answered in this case of Marta.

Marta’s case is the result of quarrels with her neighbor Dina and the latter’s three sons: Art, 11 years old, Ben, 9 years and Carlo, 8 years. One late morning the three boys were flying paper planes from the third floor of their house when the planes landed in front of the house of Marta’s daughter Pacing, who didn’t like it and thus uttered “p*** ina” directed at Carlo.

The following day, Art, Ben and Carlo saw Pacing in front of their house and threw at her three ketchup sachets. The sachets however hit Marta twice, instead of Pacing, who went inside the house. So Marta shouted at the young boys, uttering invectives, insults and warning them not to go down or else her dog would bite them. The boys thus reported the incident to their mother Dina upon her arrival from the market.

When Dina confronted Marta, the latter pointed a finger at her and uttered invectives, then went inside her house and came out with a bolo, threatening Dina by shouting “Walang demanda demanda sa akin, basta bumaba kayo dito lahat, papatayin ko kayong lahat. Tatagain ko kayo, papatayin ko kayo, lalaban na lang ako ng patayan.” The incident terrified the three boys so they no longer played downstairs. According to Dina the boys were traumatized and in constant fear of Marta’s threat, so they transferred residence.

During the incident, two Barangay Public Security Officers (BPSO), Lazo and Engracio, responded. Engracio held Marta as she was brandishing the bolo and shouting invectives while Lazo stood by. After the incident, Engracio brought Marta inside the latter’s house as Lazo confiscated her bolo.

As a result of the incident, Marta was charged with violation of Section 10 (a) of R.A. 7610 for “willfully, unlawfully and feloniously committing an act of child abuse against Art, Ben and Carlo by then and there making hacking gestures and uttering insults and invectives at them which debase, demean and degrade the intrinsic worth and dignity of said minors to their damage and prejudice.”

At the trial, Art and his mother Dina testified, narrating the above incident while BPSO Lazo corroborated their testimony, particularly Marta’s shouting of invectives while brandishing the bolo and being held by BPSO Engracio.

For the defense, two other neighbors, Remy and Rody, testified. Remy said that she saw Marta sweeping her house premises then heard her warn the three boys that she would report them to their mother. She said that it was Dina who approached Marta’s house yelling invectives and insults at Marta, as a BPSO accompanied Dina to her house to pacify her since she started the quarrel. Rody also said that Marta did not brandish a bolo against Dina and her sons.

Rody also testified that he heard Marta arguing only with Dina and not with her sons; that he did not see Marta brandishing a bolo but only reprimanded the boys lightly for throwing stones at Marta’s roof.

Marta also testified that while she was sitting at her gate, Art threw a sachet of ketchup at her, so she scolded him saying: “Huwag kang mamamato.” But instead of desisting, Art and his brothers continued throwing ketchup sachets and shouted: “Marta, wala kang kwenta” followed by their mother Dina pointing a finger at her while shouting invectives and insults.

In its decision the RTC found Marta guilty as charged by giving credence to the clear testimony of the three young boys on Marta’s wielding a bolo and making gestures of hacking while shouting invectives, which negative effects resulted in the boys’ transfer of residence because of constant fear. This ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA).

The Supreme Court (SC), however, ruled that the RTC and the CA were only correct partially. The SC said that the judgment is based on misapprehension of the facts. In child abuse punishable by RA 7610, the deeds or words must debase, degrade and demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child. Debasement is reducing the value, quality or purity of the child, while degradation is lessening the child’s character or quality, while demean means to lower the status, condition, reputation or character of the child.

In this case, Marta’s shouting of invectives at the young boys does not constitute child abuse because she had no intention to debase the intrinsic worth and dignity of the children. Her utterances were made because of their provocation by throwing ketchup sachets at her daughter Pacing. Thus Marta shouted the invectives and insults out of frustration and annoyance and in order to stop the boys’ unruly behavior. The prosecution failed to prove that Marta intended to debase, degrade or demean the child victims. Her threats and insults resulted from their vexation.

Furthermore, the hacking gestures with a bolo and the profanities uttered by Marta were directed at Dina, the mother of the children. Hence Marta cannot be held criminally liable for Child Abuse under RA 7610.

Nevertheless Marta’s statement in the heat of anger against the three boys that traumatized and scared them from even going downstairs for fear that Marta might release her dogs to chase and bite them constitute other light threats under Article 285 par. 2, for which Marta is still liable and should suffer imprisonment for ten days and to pay the costs (Escolano vs. People, G.R. 226991, Dec. 10, 2018).

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]