PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JUNA SAPONG AND ROLANDO S. CASUSULA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
LAGURA-YAP, J.:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds JUNA SAPONG y Belano and ROLANDO CASUSULA y Sombrio both GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating letter (a), Section 10 of Republic Act No. 7610 for committing other acts of neglect, abuse, cruelty or exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to the development of Juvy Peñosa y Ladica which debased, degraded and demeaned her intrinsic worth and dignity as a child and a human being and are hereby each imposed, appreciating in their favor the beneficial provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty of imprisonment of FOUR (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision correccional as minimum to EIGHT (8) YEARS of prision mayor as maximum, the accessory penalties provided by law and to pay the costs. In addition to the penalty of imprisonment imposed on each accused, a fine of ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000) each is imposed on them pursuant to letter F, Section 31 of RA 7160. The Court orders both accused to pay Juvy Peñosa y Ladica the sum of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000) each by way of civil liability by the mere fact of committing the offense against the complainant.
SO ORDERED.”
Accused-appellants were charged in the Information[2] dated January 4, 2005, which reads as follows:
“That on or about the 25th day of September, 2004, in the City of Tagbilaran, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously charge Juvy Ladica Peñosa, 12 years old, minor of stealing a nylon bracelet from Alturas Supermarket when she did not steal the same, and thereby causing psychological abuse or emotional maltreatment, to her damage and prejudice, in the amount to be proved during the trial of the case.
Acts committed constitute a violation under Art. VI, Section 10 par. (a) in relation to Art. I, Sec. 3 par. B (1) and (2) or R.A. 7610.”
On arraignment, both accused, Juna Sapong and Rolando Casusula, pleaded not guilty to the charge against them.[3]
The prosecution presented three (3) witnesses, namely: the private complainant Juvy Ladica Peñosa, Dolores Ocio Peñosa and Adelaida Paredes-Barafon. The prosecution’s version of the facts, as culled from the records, is as follows:
Private complainant Juvy Peñosa, twelve (12) years old, testified that on September 25, 2004, about four o’clock in the afternoon, she was at Alturas Supermarket with her aunt, Dolores Peñosa. She was given a list of items to buy in the school supplies section, while her aunt went to the pharmacy. The list included a Manila paper, yellow paper, intermediate pad, fasteners and bracelets. Her aunt returned and handed her money to pay for the items. The items were placed in a plastic bag and a receipt[4] was issued to her with the following details:
“S.O.D. Intermediate Pad 15.95 P.PLS P. Fastener 3.00 P.PLS P. Fastener 3.00 Chucherias 9.40 Manila Paper 3’s 4 x 5.85 23. 40 Swallow Yellow Pad 19.00 Swallow Yellow Pad 19.00 Swallow Yellow Pad 19.00 C.F. Folder Long Col 4 x 3.95 23.70 Total 135.45 CASH 500.00 CHANGE 364.55”
Before leaving Alturas Supermarket, they had snacks in the fastfood area and did their groceries at the grocery section. Thereafter, they proceeded to the exit door. Her Aunt Dolores went out ahead of her. As she was about to follow her aunt out, she was stopped by the security guard who held her and told her that she had an unpaid item with her. Accused-appellant Juna Sapong was also there and asked about an unpaid bracelet. Then, accused-appellant Sapong and the security guard brought her to the SSD Office located near the fastfood area,[5] with the guard’s arm on her shoulders.[6]
At the SSD Office, accused-appellant Juna Sapong frisked Juvy and found a cellular phone and a ten peso coin (P10.00).[7] Juvy claims that the nylon bracelet was found inside the plastic bag together with the other school supplies.[8] Meanwhile, accused-appellant Rolando Casusula was also in the SSDO. Juvy was told that she had to pay the sum of Ninety Four Pesos (P94.00) or ten times the amount of the bracelet or she would be taken to the police station.[9] Juvy told them she had to ask money from her aunt Dolores, who was outside the supermarket waiting for her. Rolando asked her to leave her cellular phone and the ten pesos to guarantee that she would come back to the office.[10]
Juvy went outside to look for her aunt Dolores. When she found her aunt, she dragged her aunt back inside the supermarket towards the SSDO, crying all the while. At the SSD office, her aunt asked Rolando Casusula what happened. After informing her aunt of the unpaid item, her aunt paid the amount of ninety-four pesos. Thereafter, the cellular phone and the ten pesos was returned to them and they went home; Juvy was crying the whole time. In their house, her Aunt Dolores checked the items inside the plastic bag against the receipt when they were home.[11]
The next day, Juvy and her Aunt Dolores, went back to Alturas Supermarket accompanied by Deodora Sarabia (Mama Neneng) and Adelaida Paredes-Barafon (Ate Aida). They went to the fastfood section to look for Rolando Casusula; but he was not there. So they went to the school supplies section. There, they verified with Lilibeth Aparicio if the bracelet was paid. Lilibeth confirmed that the bracelet was paid.[12]
Adelaida suggested that they go to the police station. They went and they reported the incident. The police called Rolando Casusula and Jona Sapong for a confrontation. Juvy claims that Jona Sapong asked her for forgiveness; but she refused to give it because it was insincere.[13]
Due to the incident, Juvy’s grades decreased as she can no longer concentrate on her studies. She always felt afraid. She cannot sleep.
Dolores Peñosa, 59 years old, a public school teacher and a resident of Bool District, Tagbilaran City testified that on September 25, 2004, she and her niece Juvy Peñosa went to Alturas Supermarket to buy school supplies, have snacks and do their groceries. After doing their errands, she and her niece proceeded to the exit door. She went out ahead and when she looked back, Juvy did not follow her out. Because she was used to her niece meeting up with friends inside the supermarket, she just waited for Juvy to come out.[14]
About thirty minutes later, Juvy arrived and dragged her back inside the supermarket, towards the fastfood section. She saw a man (accused-appellant Rolando Casusula) who told her that her niece had stolen a nylon bracelet. She asked where the bracelet was found; her niece answered that it was found inside the plastic bag. She wanted to verify with the cashier if the bracelet was paid; but Rolando said that the item was not in the receipt and someone saw Juvy placing the bracelet in the nylon bag. Rolando Casusula told them of the policy of the store that if someone is caught stealing, they would have to pay ten times the value of the stolen item. Since she was embarrassed that people were looking at them already, she paid the amount to Rolando Casusula. Rolando handed a cellular phone back to her. Thereafter, they went home.[15]
In the house, she comforted Juvy who was still crying. She also cross-checked the items they bought against the receipt. She discovered that the bracelet was paid already but the item listed in the receipt was “Chucherias”.[16]
The next day, Dolores, her niece Juvy, her sister Deodora, and her sister’s neighbor Aida Barafon went back to Alturas Supermarket to have the items rechecked against the receipt. Lilibeth Aparicio, who was at the school supply cashier area, rechecked the items and told them that the bracelet was paid. Lilibeth Aparicio encircled the item “chucherias” in the receipt and signed it. After learning that the bracelet was paid, they went to look for Rolando Casusula; but he was not there. They tried to look for the manager and the owner, but they were not there. So they went to the police station to have the incident blottered.[17]
Adelaida Paredes-Barafon, 48 years old, a police officer and a resident of Dampas District, Tagbilaran City testified that on September 26, 2004, Dolores Peñosa and her niece requested her assistance regarding an incident involving Dolores’ niece who was accused of stealing some item in Alturas. She accompanied Juvy, Dolores and her sister to Alturas Supermarket. When they arrived in Alturas, they told the guard that they were there to get clarification. They went to the counter where Juvy paid for the school supplies.[18] They approached the cashier, whose name was Lilibeth Aparicio, and showed to the latter the plastic bag and the receipt. Adelaida said that Lilibeth checked the item and the receipt and told them that the bracelet was already paid. Lilibeth encircled the item listed as “Chucherias” in the receipt and signed the receipt. Then, they went to look for the person who collected the penalty payment (Rolando Casusula) but he was not there. She then suggested that they go to the police station to have the incident recorded.[19]
On the other hand, the accused-appellants presented four (4) witnesses; namely: accused-appellant Rolando Casusula, accused-appellant Jona Sapong, Cirena Aparicio and Lilibeth Aparicio.
Accused-appellant Rolando Casusula, 32 years old, a resident of Sta. Fe, Danao, Bohol, testified that he is the Detachment Commander of JADDS Security Agency and he holds office at the Safety and Security Department (SSD) of Alturas Supermarket. He heads the security guards and watchers provided by his agency to Alturas Supermarket. The watchers are in civilian attire who watch the goods for sale inside the supermarket. If a watcher sees a person to have an unpaid item, the watcher would hold the person at the exit door and invite him/her politely to the SSD Office. In proceeding to the SSD Office, the security guard would accompany the person from a distance to avoid embarrassing the latter and to watch for items that would be thrown by the person.[20] His co-accused-appellant Juna Sapong is one of the watchers.[21]
On September 25, 2004, at about three o’clock in the afternoon, he was at the SSD Office when he saw accused-appellant Juna Sapong, one of the watchers in Alturas, accompanying a girl (Juvy Peñosa) and approaching the office. They were followed by a certain Security Guard Asterio Fullido. Accused-appellant Juna Sapong told him to investigate the girl as the girl got a bracelet without paying. Accused-appellant Sapong frisked the girl and found the bracelet in the girl’s right pocket. The bracelet was handed over to accused-appellant Casusula.[22] Accused-appellant Casusula also checked, verified and matched the items inside the plastic bag against the receipt. He claimed that the item listed as “chucherias” in the receipt refers to food items.[23]
The girl told them that she would just pay for the bracelet. However, accused-appellant Casusula told the girl that she would have to be brought to the police. But the girl started to cry and taking pity on her, he informed the girl that she could just pay for the bracelet at ten times its value. The girl said she could get the money from her aunt. To assure them that the girl will return, the girl left her cellular phone and ten peso with them.[24]
The girl returned with her aunt. The aunt paid the compromised price which is ten times of the value of the stolen item. He had a shoplifting form prepared and the payment was logged in a notebook. After receiving the payment, he returned the cellular phone, ten pesos and the bracelet to the girl. Then the girl and her aunt left, without signing the shoplifting form.[25]
Accused-appellant Juna Sapong, 26 years old and a resident of Manga District, Tagbilaran City, testified that on September 25, 2004, she was assigned as a watcher of Alturas Supermarket, particularly in the school supplies section. At about three o’clock in the afternoon, she saw a young girl wearing cargo pants accompanied by an elderly woman. She noticed the girl getting two (2) paper fasteners and inserting these in her upper right pocket. She followed the girl wherever she went. She noticed the girl picking up a bracelet and insert it in her pocket. The girl and the elderly woman lined up at the counter to pay. She checked if all the items would be paid. She saw the girl taking the two (2) paper fastener from her pocket; but she didn’t see the bracelet. She continued following the girl and her aunt as they went to the grocery section to shop for groceries. After paying for the items, the girl and the elderly woman proceeded to the exit door.[26]
At the exit door, accused-appellant Sapong invited the girl to the SSD Office. The girl was alone because the elder woman went out of the exit door ahead of the girl. She asked the girl if the bracelet was still in the pocket, and the girl answered in the affirmative. She frisked the girl and found the bracelet at the upper right pocket of the cargo pants.[27] The girl said she would just pay for the bracelet but accused-appellant Sapong informed her that she would have to pay ten times the amount of the bracelet. Accused-appellant Sapong turned over the bracelet to accused-appellant Rolando Casusula. The girl told them that she would just go to her aunt for the money. To guarantee that the girl will return, they asked that something be left behind. The girl left her cellular phone and her ten pesos behind. When the girl went to get her aunt, accused-appellant also left the SSD Office.[28]
Cerena Aparicio, 30 years old and a resident of Dagnawan, Sagbayan testified that part of her work was to remit payments by those caught stealing and to prepare the logbook. However, she did not personally witness the incident.
Lilibeth Aparicio, 25 years old, single, resident of Contebaud, Jetafe, Bohol testified that on September 26, 2004 at about seven o’clock in the morning, four angry-looking persons came near her area counter. Since the supervisor was not there, she entertained them. She was told that the girl was accused of taking a bracelet from the store. She checked the receipt against the items inside the plastic bag brought by the persons. She told the persons that the bracelet was not covered by the receipt. The four persons insisted that the “chucherias” and the bracelet was the same as they have the same price. Because the persons looked angry, she told them that if they insist then it must be paid.[29]
On January 30, 2008, the court a quo rendered a Judgment[30] finding Juna Sapong and Rolando Casusula guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 10 (a) of R.A. 7610 for committing other acts of abuse, cruelty or exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to the development of private complainant which debased, degraded and demeaned her intrinsic worth and dignity as a child and human being.
Aggrieved, Juna Sapong and Rolando Casusula appealed the judgment of the Regional Trial Court, assigning the following errors:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN ITS FINDING OF FACTS THAT ACCUSED CASUSULA TOOK THE CELLPHONE UNIT AND TEN (P10.00) FROM JUVY PEÑOSA AND HAVE COMMITTED ACTS OF NEGLECT, ABUSE, CRUELTY OR EXPLOITATIONS AND OTHER CONDITIONS PREJUDICIAL TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF JUVY PEÑOSA Y LADICA WHICH DEBASED, DEGRADED AND DEMEANED HER INTRINSIC WORTH AND DIGNITY AS A CHILD AND HUMBLE BEING.
II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS FINDING OF FACTS IN CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY OF PRIVATE COMPLAINANT IS MORE CREDIBLE.III
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN DENYING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF ACCUSED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PARTICULARLY EXHIBIT 6, 6-A, 7, 7-A, 7-B, 8 AND 8-A FOR THE (SIC) BEING INCOMPETENT AND SELF-SERVING.IV
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN ITS FINDING OF GUILT OF THE TWO ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.V
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE TWO ACCUSED AGAINST FATALLY DEFECTIVE INFORMATION.VI
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE APPROPRIATE PENALTY AGAINST THE TWO ACCUSED.[31]
Republic Act No. 7610 is a measure geared towards the implementation of a national comprehensive program for the survival of the most vulnerable members of the population, the Filipino children. It is in keeping with the Constitutional mandate under Article XV, Section 3, paragraph 2, that “The State shall defend the right of the children to assistance, including proper care and nutrition, and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to their development.” This piece of legislation supplies the inadequacies of existing laws treating crimes committed against children, namely, the Revised Penal Code and Presidential Decree No. 603 or the Child and Youth Welfare Code. As a statute that provides for a mechanism for strong deterrence against the commission of child abuse and exploitation, the law has stiffer penalties for their commission, and a means by which child traffickers could easily be prosecuted and penalized.[32]
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.
x x x x
Child abuse, the crime charged, is defined by Section 3 paragraph b (1) and (2), Article I of Republic Act No. 7610, as follows:
Section 3. Definition of terms. –
x x x x
(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;
x x x x
Although We affirm the factual findings of fact by the RTC to the effect that the accused-appellant Jona Sapong brought the private complainant to the SSD Office alone and frisked her there, with no adult companion present and accused-appellant Rolando Casusula told the private complainant that she would be brought to the police station, We disagree with its holding that the accused-appellants’ acts constituted child abuse within the purview of the above-quoted provisions. The records did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the act of bringing private complainant to the SSD Office, frisking her and telling her that she would be brought to the police station had been intended to debase the “intrinsic worth and dignity” of Juvy Peñosa as a human being, or that accused-appellants had thereby intended to humiliate or embarrass her.
In this case, both accused-appellants assert that they were just following the procedure when someone was caught to have unpaid items with them. As testified by both of them, the policy is to follow the person suspected to have stolen items around the supermarket and stop them only as they are about to leave. They would be asked to go to the SSD Office where they will be questioned. Accused-appellant Juna Sapong thought Juvy Peñosa got some things from the supermarket without paying for it. They just followed company procedure.
In Bongayon vs. People[33], the accused-appellant was found to have slapped a minor at the spur of the moment and in anger, overwhelmed by his fatherly concern. The Supreme Court absolved him of violating Sec. 10 (a) of R.A. No, 7610 and said:
“Not every instance of the laying of hands on a child constitutes the crime of child abuse under Section 10 (a) of Republic Act No. 7610.1 Only when the laying of hands is shown beyond reasonable doubt to be intended by the accused to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being should it be punished as child abuse. Otherwise, it is punished under the Revised Penal Code.
In this case, it is clear that both the accused-appellants had not intended to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of private complainant. The unfortunate event happened because of an honest, although erroneous, belief that the private complainant was stealing from the supermarket. Accused-appellants were negligent and did not take into consideration that Juvy Peñosa was a child. Accused-appellant Sapong knew that Juvy was accompanied by an adult yet she did not include the adult when she invited Juvy to the SSD Office. Accused-appellant Casusula knew that Juvy Peñosa was a minor, yet he continued with his interview and told Juvy that she would be brought to the police station. However, all these do not show beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellants intended to debase, demean and degrade the intrinsic worth and dignity of Juvy Peñosa.
Article 19 of the Civil Code provides that every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. This article in Human Relations sets certain standards which must be observed not only in the exercise of one’s rights, but also in the performance of one’s duties. These standards are the following: to act with justice; to give everyone his due; and to observe honesty and good faith. The law, therefore, recognizes a primordial limitation on all rights; that in their exercise, the norms of human conduct set forth in Article 19 must be observed. A right, though by itself legal because recognized or granted by law as such, may nevertheless become the source of some illegality. When a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible.[34]
Corollary to Article 19 is Article 20 which provides that: “Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another shall indemnify the latter for the same.” It speaks of the general sanctions of all other provisions of law which do not especially provide for its own sanction. When a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform to the standards set forth in the said provision and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be responsible.[35]
To recapitulate, accused-appellants’ acts which violated the abovementioned provisions of law consist of bringing the minor private complainant to the SSD Office despite knowledge that she had an adult companion, frisking the minor without any other adult present, interviewing her and telling her she would be brought to the police station and failing to investigate the incident thoroughly before accusing the child of stealing. On the basis of the foregoing, accused-appellants must still be held civilly liable to the private complainant.
It is not trite to be reminded that under the well-recognized doctrine of pro reo every doubt is resolved in favor of the petitioner as the accused. The Court should consider all possible circumstances in his favor.36 Hence, apropos of the criminal aspect, the accused-appellants must be acquitted of violating Sec. 10 (a) of R.A. No. 7610. To reiterate, as both accused-appellants admit that they frisked Juvy while she was alone and that she was interviewed with no adult companion present, accused-appellants are held civilly liable for their negligence.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is GRANTED. We SET ASIDE the Judgment of the Regional Trial Court; and enter a new judgment: (a) acquitting both accused-appellants for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sec. 10 (a) of R.A. No. 7610 and (b) ordering them to pay Juvy Penosa the sum of TEN THOUSAND PESOS each by way of civil liability.
SO ORDERED.
Hernando[**], (Chairperson) and Quijano-Padilla[*], JJ., concur
[**] Vice J. Ingles per Office Order No. 05-14-ELDF dated Feb. 26, 2014
[*] Acting Junior Member per Office Order No. 472-12-ABR dated December 12, 2013.
[1] Record, pp. 191-209 (Penned by Judge Teofilo D. Baluma).
[2] Record, pp. 1-2.
[3] Record, p. 55 (Order dated March 7, 2005).
[4] Record, p. 113 (Exhibit “D”).
[5] TSN, Juvy Peñosa, July 25, 2005, pp. 7-8.
[6] TSN, Juvy Peñosa, August 31, 2005, p. 3 .
[7] TSN, Juvy Peñosa, July 25, 2005, p. 9.
[8] TSN, Juvy Peñosa, July 25, 2005, p. 11.
[9] TSN, Juvy Peñosa, July 25, 2005, pp. 7-8.
[10] TSN, Juvy Peñosa, July 25, 2005, p. 10.
[11] TSN, Juvy Peñosa, July 25, 2005, p. 11-12.
[12] TSN, Juvy Peñosa, August 12, 2005, p. 4-6.
[13] TSN, Juvy Peñosa, August 12, 2005, p. 8-9.
[14] TSN, Dolores Peñosa, September 2, 2005, p. 3-5.
[15] TSN, Dolores Peñosa, September 2, 2005, p. 6-10.
[16] TSN, Dolores Peñosa, September 2, 2005, p. 11-12.
[17] TSN, Dolores Peñosa, September 2, 2005, p. 12-15.
[18] TSN, Adelaida Paredes-Barafon, December 19, 2005, p. 3-4.
[19] TSN, Adelaida Paredes-Barafon, December 19, 2005, p. 6-8.
[20] TSN, Rolando Casusula, July 28, 2006, pp. 3-6.
[21] TSN, Rolando Casusula, August 28, 2006, p. 4.
[22] TSN, Rolando Casusula, September 5, 2006, pp. 3-4.
[23] TSN, Rolando Casusula, October 2, 2006, p. 9.
[24] TSN, Rolando Casusula, September 5, 2006, pp. 4-6.
[25] TSN, Rolando Casusula, October 2, 2006, p. 6.
[26] TSN, Jona Sapong, January 5, 2007, pp. 6-10.
[27] TSN, Jona Sapong, January 5, 2007, pp. 10-12.
[28] TSN, Jona Sapong, Jfebruary 8, 2007, pp. 5-6.
[29] TSN, Lilibeth Aparicio, August 13, 2007, pp. 3-6.
[30] Record, pp. 191-209.
[31] Rollo, pp. 43-44.
[32] Araneta vs. People, G.R. No. 174205, June 27, 2008, 556 SCRA 323.
[33] G.R. No. 169533, March 20, 2013.
[34] Ardiente vs. Pastorfide, G.R. No. 161921, July 17, 2013.
[35] Ardiente vs. Pastorfide, G.R. No. 161921, July 17, 2013.
[36] Villanueva v. People, G.R. No. 160351, April 10, 2006.