PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LETICIA NICOLASORA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
LOPEZ, J.:
That on or about July 7, 2004 in Valenzuela City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable [C]ourt, the above-named accused, without any justifiable cause, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously pinch three times on the cheeks one AAA, 8 years old, thereby inflicting upon the latter physical injuries which injuries required medical attendance for a period of less than nine (9) days and incapacitated said victim from performing his habitual work for the same period of time, thereby subjecting said minor to psychological and physical abuse, cruelty and emotional maltreatment.
Contrary to Law, Valenzuela City, October 2, 2004.
Accused pleaded not guilty,[3] hence, trial ensued.
AAA is a Grade II pupil at the Andres Fernando Elementary School in Valenzuela City. In the morning of July 4, 2007, during a Mathematics class, he was asked by his teacher, the accused herein, to answer the question written on the blackboard regarding “greater than” and “less than”. When he failed to answer, he was approached by the accused and pinched 3 times on his left cheek that became red and painful. He went back to his seat frightened. The class was dismissed at 12:00 o’clock in the afternoon and AAA was fetched by his father. At home, his mother, BBB, noticed the redness on his cheek and asked him what happened to it. He did not answer. He just ate his lunch and slept. When he woke up, he had fever. He was asked again by his mother what happened to his cheek and he told her that he was pinched by the accused.[4]
BBB brought AAA to a hospital for medical examination. She alleged that AAA was traumatized by the incident and by the threats of the accused. He had trouble sleeping at night and experienced recurring fever. The Department of Social Welfare and Development advised them to seek attention from the National Center for Mental Health. Dr. Zarah Cariaga-Espinoza, a doctor of medicine and the Medico-Legal Officer of the Center, examined AAA and found that he was suffering from Post-traumatic Stress Disorder[5] manifested by nervousness, palpitations, tremors and cold hands. He also showed fear, hypervigilance, irritability and sleep disturbances. Dr. Cariaga-Espinoza opined that the pinching caused the disorder. BBB then accompanied AAA to the police station to file a complaint.[6]
Accused denied pinching AAA.[7] During their Mathematics class, she asked AAA to bring his notebook and answer the question on the blackboard. He failed to answer correctly because he had no assignment written on his notebook. Irritated, accused said, “Ako na nga” and grabbed a chalk to write the answer herself. As she did this, she accidentally hit AAA on his lower left cheek with her right hand which has a ring. She immediately said, “sorry, tinamaan ka tuloy.” She did not pinch. CCC,[8] one of AAA’s classmates, corroborated the claim of the accused.
DDD, one of AAA’s classmates, supported accused’s denial. She testified that during their Mathematics class on July 4, 2007, accused called AAA to answer the question on the blackboard about “greater than” and “less than”, which was also their assignment. Accused got mad when AAA failed to answer the question correctly and also because many of them did not have their assignment. Accused then told AAA to write the symbol for “less than” and “greater than”, but he failed to do it. Consequently, accused got the chalk from him and wrote the answer herself on the blackboard. She did not notice that she hit the face of AAA with her ring. DDD said that the accused did not pinch AAA. She testified for the accused because AAA’s accusations are not true.[9]
The trial court found the accused guilty of inflicting physical and psychological abuse, and emotional maltreatment to AAA and sentenced her as follows:
WHEREFORE, the court finds the accused LETECIA NICOLASORA guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal for violation of Sec. 10(a), in relation to Sec. 3(b) of R.A. 7610 and in the absence of mitigating and aggravating circumstance and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, she is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of four (4) years two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum.
The accused is likewise ordered to pay the(sic) AAA the amount of P30,000.00 as moral damages. SO ORDERED.[10]
In this appeal, accused (now appellant) contends that the trial court erred in finding her guilty. The prosecution failed to prove that she pinched the cheek of AAA. The redness caused in AAA’s cheek was due to the accidental brushing of her ring against it. This is supported by the testimony of AAA’s classmates, CCC and DDD. Similarly, the Division of City School of Valenzuela, which conducted an investigation regarding the incident, found no prima facie evidence against her.
The appeal is meritorious.
Appellant was found guilty of violating Section 10(a) in relation to Section 3(b) of RA 7610, which 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.
xxx
Child abuse, the crime charged, is defined by Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610, as follows:
Section 3. Definition of terms. –
xxx
(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;
(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.
As a rule, the trial court’s findings of fact are binding and conclusive. However, there are some recognized exceptions, to wit: (1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based; (7) the finding of absence of facts is contradicted by the presence of evidence on record; (8) certain relevant and undisputed facts have been overlooked that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[11] In this case, We find that the trial court disregarded relevant facts that would negate the guilt of the appellant for the crime charged.
Foremost, the prosecution failed to establish that the appellant intended to debase the “intrinsic worth and dignity” of AAA as a human being, or that she had intended to humiliate or embarrass him. To be sure, aside from the sole testimony of AAA, there is no other evidence showing that the appellant pinched AAA’s cheek, or that she threatened him. We give more credence to the testimony of DDD, to wit:
Q: You were classmates in school year 2004 and you were both in Grade II?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
Q: And [appellant] is your teacher in Math?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
Q: Do you remember if you attended your classes on July 7, 2004?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
Q: And do you remember what happened on that day?
A: Ano po kasi, may pinagawa po kasi si, ma’am Leticia na assignment po sa Math, then nung oras po noon tumawag po sya ng estudyante, isa-isa po, then, dun po sa mga estudyante na ‘yon natawag din po s[i] [AAA]. xxx
Q: And what was the reason why students were being called by [appellant]?
A: Because [appellant] wants to find out if we did our assignment.
Q: Do you still remember what was your assignment on that date?
A: Yes, ma’am; about less than, greater than.
xxx
Q: How about AAA when he was called by [appellant].(sic) Do you still remember if AAA answered the question correctly?
A: No, Ma’am. AAA was not able to answer the question correctly.
Q: So what was the reaction of [appellant] at that time?
A: She got angry because almost all of us do not have an assignment.
Q: So what did [appellant] do?
A: [Appellant] got angry and she told [AAA] to write the symbol of less than and greater than but he was not able to write it, so [appellant] got the chalk from him and write(sic) the symbol on the blackboard.
xxx
Q: Were you near the blackboard?
A: No, ma’am. I was seated at the back seat.
Q: But you could see clearly what was happening in front of the class?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: And when [appellant] wrote the symbol, where was [AAA] standing?
A: At the right side of [appellant], ma’am.
Q: So when [appellant] wrote the symbol, what happened next?
A: When [appellant] wrote the symbol, she did not notice that her hand with ring hit the face of AAA.
xxx
Q: During that time[,] did you see [appellant] pinching the cheek of [AAA]?
A: No, ma’am.
Q: You are testifying in favor of [appellant]. Why is that so?
A: Because what [AAA] was saying is not true, and because I was just telling what I witnessed.
Q: Were you forced to testify by [appellant]?
A: No, ma’am.[12]
The testimony of DDD is consistent with the findings of the Division of City School of Valenzuela City that AAA was not pinched on the cheek by the appellant but was accidentally hit by the ring on her finger. The findings were embodied in the Order[13] dated October 28, 2004, to wit:
This has reference to the complaint filed by Mrs. [BBB] in behalf of her son [AAA] against Leticia Nicolasora, Teacher, A. Fernando Elementary School, Division of Valenzuela City.
Contained in the Division Investigation Report and Recommendation dated 17th August 2004 are the findings of the Investigating Committee hereunder quoted[,] to wit:
xxx
There exist no prima facie evidence against Mrs. Leticia Nicolasora.
An interview with the ten (10) pupils who were randomly picked from the class of Mrs. Nicolasora was done by the committee on August 13, 2004 at 10:00 in the morning revealed that eight-year old AAA (sic) not pinched on the cheek by her teacher but was instead hit accidentally by the ring of her teacher while explaining the lesson since AAA was standing near by the board. The pupils were asked individually and as a group.
The committee therefore concluded that the medical certificate presented by the complainant indicated that the bruise on the cheek of AAA was accidentally obtained from that incident wherein the teacher herself had already apologized from (sic) the father of the pupil.
In view of all these and based from the documents submitted by the complainants and the respondent, it is recommended that the instant case against Mrs. Leticia Nicolasora be dropped for lack of merit.
Evidently, the prosecution failed to satisfactorily prove that the bruise on the cheek of the victim was inflicted by the accused with intent to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being. Accordingly, the accused must be acquitted based on reasonable doubt. Indeed, not all cases of laying of hands on a child can be considered abuse. George Bongalon v. People[14] instructs, to wit:
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. 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.
The acquittal of the accused, however, does not necessarily mean her absolution from civil liability. Although the prosecution’s evidence are insufficient to sustain a judgment of conviction for the crime charged, the accused may be adjudged civilly liable for the same act complained of based on mere preponderance of evidence.[15] The institution of a separate civil action for that purpose is not required.[16]
In this case, the medical certificate preponderantly established that the victim obtained a bruise after his cheek was accidentally hit by the ring of the accused. Admittedly, the accused even asked for an apology from the parents of the victim. It is settled that every person is entitled to the physical integrity of his body and civil damages should be assessed once that integrity has been violated.[17] Here, the physical injury sustained by the victim properly warranted the amount of P5,000.00.
FOR THESE REASONS, Leticia C. Nicolasora is ACQUITTED on the charge of Slight Physical Injury in relation to RA No. 7610. However, she is ordered to pay P5,000.00 as civil liability with 6% per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Tijam, Chairperson and Lopez, JJ., concur.
[1] Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act.
[2] Records, p. 1.
[3] Id., p. 2.
[4] TSN dated October 5, 2005, pp. 2-20.
[5] Index of Exhibits, p. 7.
[6] TSN dated June 19, 2006, pp. 6-13.
[7] TSN dated November 12, 2008, pp. 2-11.
[8] CCC did not testify during trial, but he executed an Affidavit dated August 2, 2004, p. 8.
[9] TSN dated November 9, 2012.
[10] Records, pp. 125-129. Decision dated August 2, 2013.
[11] Leandro Mendoza v. People, G.R. No. 165820, December 8, 2004.
[12] TSN dated November 9, 2012, pp. 5-9.
[13] Index of Exhibits, pp.13-14.
[14] G.R. No. 169533, March 20, 2013.
[15] Article 29, Civil Code.
[16] Romero v. People, G.R. No. 167546, July 17, 2009.
[17] Lumantas, M.D. v. Calapiz, G.R. No. 163753, January 15, 2014.