Heat of anger

Under RA 7610, children are protected from all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, discrimination and other conditions prejudicial to their development. Said law also provides sanctions for their commission for the purpose of protecting and promoting the best interest of the children. What is the meaning of child abuse? What must be proven in order to be criminally liable for the commission of these acts? This is explained and answered in our case for today.

The case is about several children in a neighborhood who are fond of playing together near their residences. One morning, when they were playing along the road by throwing sand and gravel, one of the children, Tito, an 11-year-old boy, berated and reprimanded them. Upset by Tito’s reprimand, one of his playmates Nina reported the incident to her mother Fely. Together with Nina, Fely immediately confronted Tito about his behavior, and while pointing a finger at Tito, she furiously shouted: Huwag mong pansinin yan. At putang ina yan, mga walang kwenta yan. Mana mana lang yan.”

Upset by what Fely said, Tito ran home and cried. Later on, he relayed the incident to his mother Nita. Thus Nita decided to file a complaint against Fely allegedly because Tito was traumatized by Fely’s utterance of harsh words and expletives, since after the incident he no longer went out to play with other children and started to suffer nightmares.

Thus Fely was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) with violation of Section 10 (a) Article VI of RA 7610 otherwise known as the Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act. Fely, however, claimed that what she actually uttered were: “anak wag mong patulan yan, walang kwenta makipagaway” addressed to her daughter Nina and not to Tito.

The RTC however found Fely guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and sentenced her to imprisonment of 4 years, 9 months and 11 days minimum to 6 years, 8 months and 1 day, maximum plus damages. The RTC said that the harsh words and expletives caused Tito to suffer from nightmares and compulsive fear. Fely appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), contending that she had no intention to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of Tito as a human being because the words she uttered were mere expressions of common usage and that there was no showing that Tito suffered psychological injury.

But the CA affirmed the RTC decision  and ruled that Fely’s utterances while pointing a finger at Tito were indicative of an intent to degrade or demean the latter’s intrinsic worth and dignity as a child. In any case, the CA also declared that Fely’s intent is immaterial because mere acts or words which debase, degrade or demean a minor were already constitutive of the offense. Was the CA correct?

The Supreme Court said the CA was wrong. According to the SC, child abuse as defined by Section 3 (b) of Article I RA 7610 refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the child, including (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; (3) unreasonable deprivation of his/her basic need for survival such as food or shelter; or (4) failure to immediately give medical treatment to an injured child in serious impairment of his/her growth and development or in his/her permanent incapacity or death. It also includes any other acts of abuse or exploitation prejudicial to the child’s development with a specific intent to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth of the child (Section (10 (a) Article VI.).  So mere shouting of invectives at a child when carelessly done out of anger or frustration or annoyance does not constitute child abuse absent any evidence that the utterance of such words was specifically intended to debase, degrade of demean the victim’s intrinsic worth and dignity.

In this case the act of Fely in shouting invectives and harsh words does not constitute child abuse under the foregoing provision of said law because Fely had no such intention. It was rather an act carelessly done out of anger. The circumstances surrounding the incident proved that Fely’s act against the minors was done in the heat of anger and not to demean, debase or degrade Tito’s intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being. On the contrary, Fely merely voiced the said utterances as offhand remarks out of parental concern for her child. So she cannot be criminally liable under the foregoing provision of RA 7610 and should be acquitted (Talocod vs. People, G.R. 250671, Oct. 7, 2020).

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]