PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE VS. ANACLETO BULAWAN, SR. DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

People versus Bulawan

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Anacleto Bulawan, Senior, for child abuse under Republic Act Number 7610, the special law protecting children against abuse, exploitation, and discrimination. The charge arose from a single incident at an elementary school, where the accused, in a fit of anger over a playtime injury to his young son, grabbed an eleven-year-old boy by the head and slammed it against the wall. The case matters because it draws the line between conduct that is genuinely child abuse under the special law and ordinary physical injury punishable only under the Revised Penal Code. It teaches that not every laying of hands on a child is child abuse, and that the specific intent to debase, degrade, or demean the child is the dividing element.

Procedural History

An Information was filed against Anacleto Bulawan, Senior, before Branch 8 of the Regional Trial Court in Davao City. At arraignment he entered a plea of not guilty, and pre-trial and trial followed. After the prosecution rested, he filed a demurrer to evidence, which the trial court denied, and the trial continued. The trial court rendered its decision finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 10, paragraph (a) of Republic Act Number 7610, and sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment. Aggrieved, he filed the present appeal. The appeal came to the Supreme Court under the rule governing appeals in criminal cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction.

Facts

At around nine o'clock in the morning on August 29, 1999, inside the premises of Malabog Elementary School in Paquibato District, Davao City, eleven-year-old Peejay Jimenez was playing with classmates and other children. They were throwing a fruit called batong-batong, a game in which a player tries to avoid being hit while attempting to hit the others. Anacleto Bulawan, Junior, the six-year-old son of the accused, was nearby but had not been allowed to join. While aiming at another child, Peejay unintentionally hit the younger boy, who cried.

The accused came from his small eatery, asked what had happened to his son, and learned that Peejay had thrown the fruit. In a fit of anger, he grabbed Peejay's head and banged it against the wall twice, uttering threatening words. Peejay felt his head ache and grew dizzy. His teacher noticed a lump on his head and gave first aid, and his mother later took him home.

The accused gave a different account. He claimed he merely held Peejay's shoulder to investigate, that the boy got scared and tried to run, and that he slipped and struck his head on the wall. The trial court gave credence to the testimony of the children, corroborated by their teacher, and rejected his bare denial. The medical certification placed the probable healing time of the contusion at seven days.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty of child abuse when the prosecution's evidence was allegedly replete with improbabilities and inconsistencies.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in not considering that the accused had no intention of hurting or inflicting injury on the child, much less of debasing his integrity.

Applicable Provisions

Section 10, paragraph (a) of Republic Act Number 7610 provides:

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.

This is the provision under which the accused was charged and convicted below, and the Court must decide whether his act falls within it.

Section 3, paragraph (b) of the same law defines child abuse:

Section 3. (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 deed 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; 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 second paragraph supplies the element of debasement of the child's intrinsic worth and dignity, which the Court treats as pivotal.

Article 266, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

Article 266. Slight Physical Injuries and maltreatment. The crime of slight physical injuries shall be punished: 1. By arresto menor when the offender has inflicted physical injuries which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor from one to nine days, or shall require medical attendance during the same period.

This is the lesser offense the Court ultimately applies, since the injury required medical attendance for seven days.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the findings of fact of the trial court. Findings of the lower court are accorded respect, even finality, absent a circumstance of weight that was overlooked or misappreciated. The assessment of witness credibility is entitled to great weight, and positive identification, categorical and consistent and untainted by ill motive, prevails over denial, which is intrinsically a weak defense. Minor inconsistencies in the children's testimonies did not impair their credibility, because they were consistent on the principal occurrence and on the identification of the assailant. The Court therefore affirmed that the accused slammed the boy's head against the concrete perimeter fence of the school.

On the second issue, however, the Court held that the appeal is partly meritorious. The children were engaged in child's play, and Peejay unintentionally hit the accused's son. Seeing his six-year-old son hurt, the accused approached the group, and upon learning who had hurt his son, in a fit of anger and in a spur-of-the-moment reaction, he slammed the boy's head against the wall. That loss of self-control negated the element of intent necessary to support a finding of child abuse. The Court quoted its recent ruling:

Although we affirm the factual findings of fact by the RTC and the CA to the effect that the petitioner (Bongalon) struck Jayson at the back with his hand and slapped Jayson on the face, we disagree with their holding that his acts constituted child abuse within the purview of the above-quoted provisions. The records did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that his laying of hands on Jason had been intended to debase the "intrinsic worth and dignity" of Jayson as a human being, or that he had thereby intended to humiliate or embarrass Jayson. The records showed the laying of hands on Jayson to have been done at the spur of the moment and in anger, indicative of his being then overwhelmed by his fatherly concern for the personal safety of his own minor daughters who had just suffered harm at the hands of Jayson and Roldan. With the loss of his self-control, he lacked that specific intent to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being that was so essential in the crime of child abuse.

Applying that doctrine, the Court found that the accused acted out of parental concern, his anger obfuscated his reason, and he was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation, which may lawfully arise from causes existing only in his honest belief. Since the contusion required medical attendance for seven days, he was guilty only of slight physical injuries under Article 266, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty for slight physical injuries is arresto menor, and because the Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply where the penalty does not exceed one year, a straight penalty was imposed, in its minimum period of one to ten days, fixed at ten days. Moral damages of five thousand pesos were awarded, with interest at six percent per annum from finality until fully paid.

Doctrine

Not every instance of the laying of hands on a child constitutes the crime of child abuse under Section 10, paragraph (a) of Republic Act Number 7610. 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. The specific intent to debase is essential, and it is negated when the act is done at the spur of the moment and in anger, as where a parent, overwhelmed by concern for his own child who had just been hurt, loses self-control. In such a case, the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation may be appreciated, and the accused may be held liable only for slight physical injuries under Article 266, paragraph 1, where the injury requires medical attendance from one to nine days.

Disposition

The Court set aside the decision finding the accused guilty of violating Section 10, paragraph (a) of Republic Act Number 7610, and entered a new judgment finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of slight physical injuries under Article 266, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, sentencing him to ten days of arresto menor and ordering him to pay the victim five thousand pesos in moral damages with legal interest.

Remember This

Memorize the line: not every laying of hands on a child is child abuse, only that shown beyond reasonable doubt to be intended to debase, degrade, or demean the child's intrinsic worth and dignity. Examiners use this case to test the specific intent element under Section 10 of Republic Act Number 7610 and the fallback to slight physical injuries under the Revised Penal Code.