G.R. No. 236628 – 933 Phil. 889 – Criminal Law – Special Penal Laws – R.A. No. 7610; Anti-Child Abuse Law – Section 10a – Specific Criminal Intent
In March 2014, police officer Marvin San Juan scolded several children who were loitering at a basketball court. San Juan made a remark which AAA found funny. When he saw AAA laughing, he pointed his gun at him. The incident was witnessed by the playmates of AAA. In his defense, San Juan denied pointing his gun at AAA and that he merely chased him with a stone.
The trial court convicted San Juan of violating Section 10(a), RA 7610. The Court of Appeals affirmed the findings of the trial court but modified the nomenclature of the crime to Grave Threats in relation to RA 7610. The CA noted that pointing a gun at the back of AAA was a highly intimidating act, which would cause fear even to a full-grown adult, and even worse when it was done by a man who is a member of the police force. The CA considered this as maltreatment that debased and caused fear to AAA.
ISSUE: Whether or not the conviction is correct.
HELD: Yes. But the proper nomenclature is violation of Section 10(a), RA 7610 in relation to Section 3(b), RA 7610.
Must the prosecution prove that San Juan acted with the specific criminal intent to debase, degrade, or demean AAA’s intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being?
No. As ruled in Malcampo-Repollo vs People, specific criminal intent to debase, degrade, or demean the child’s intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being is only required in the following:
(1) it is required by a specific provision in Republic Act No. 7610, as for instance, in lascivious conduct; or
(2) when the act is described in the Information as one that debases, degrades, or demeans the child’s intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being.
Sec. 3(b), RA 7610, pertain to four acts which are:
(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.
The act complained of against San Juan fall under Sec. 3(b)(1). This provision does not require proof of specific criminal intent unlike Sec. 3(b)(2). As such, only general criminal intent is needed to be proved. General criminal intent is proved by proof of commission of the act itself. Hence, proof that San Juan pointed his gun at AAA is sufficient to penalize him under Section 10(a). There is no need to prove that his act of pointing a gun at AAA debased, degraded, or demeaned AAA’s intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being.
But the Information alleged psychological “cruelty” and cruelty is defined under the IRR of RA 7610 as “refers to any act by word or deed which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being,” should that not categorize the act complained of under Sec. 3(b)(2)?
No. The definition of the term cruelty by the IRR cannot be applied to Sec. 3(b)(1). For purposes of violations of Sec. 10(a), the SC clarified that if the prosecution wants to prosecute an accused under Sec. 3(b)(2), the term “cruelty” must always be accompanied by an allegation that the act complained of “debased, degrade or demeaned the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child.” Otherwise, “cruelty” will be understood in its ordinary sense.
