Does hurting a child constitute child abuse every time?

By Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes III               

Children are oftentimes referred to as “of tender age” and so there are doctrines in Family law that delicately protect their sensitivities.

Any emotional or psychological abuse on children is always alarming. It is considered as equally- if not more serious- than physical abuse. The emotional trauma will have far-reaching effects on the child in terms of his/ her future dealings with a spouse, co-workers and society in general.

But are all forms of hostility toward children constitutive of child abuse as to impute criminal liability on the offender?

The act being punished under Section 10(a) in relation to Section 3(b)(2) of R.A. 7610 refers to “debasement” or “degradation” of the child’s “intrinsic worth”. “Debasement” is defined as the act of reducing the value, quality, or purity of something; “degradation”, on the other hand, is a lessening of a person’s or thing’s character or quality while “demean” means to lower in status, condition, reputation, or character.” ( Asela Briñas y Del Fierro v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 254005. June 23, 2021).  

                Thus for child abuse to be deemed committed under Section 10(a) in relation to Section 3(b)(2) of R.A. 7610, it requires the presence of a “specific intent” to “debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth of the child as a human being”.

The following cases summarized in Asela Briñas y Del Fierro v. People of the Philippines, illustrate how the lack of intent to “debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth of the child as a human being” can be ascertained, viz:

                 1)In Bongalon v. People, the accused struck and slapped the face of a minor, after finding out that the latter threw stones at the accused’s own minor daughters and burnt the hair of one of them. The Court therein ruled that the laying of hands against a child, when done at the spur of the moment and in anger, cannot be deemed as an act of child abuse under Section 10( a), as the essential element of intent to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being is not present.

2)In Jabalde v. People, the accused fainted after she thought that her daughter was already dead when the latter’s head was punctured. When she regained consciousness, she slapped and choked the minor victim who she believed had harmed her daughter. The Court held that the spontaneity of the accused’s acts and the fact that the victim suffered only minor abrasions show that the laying of hands was an offshoot of the accused’s emotional outrage and a desire to rescue her own child from harm; hence, there was no specific intent to debase the intrinsic worth of the child.

3)This specific intent was likewise found missing in Calaoagan v. People wherein the accused inflicted injuries in the heat of an argument, during an altercation between the accused’s group and that of the minor as they met on the street without any prior confrontation.

4) Similarly, in Talocod v. People, the accused, right after being informed by her own child that the minor victim had berated the former, immediately confronted the victim and furiously shouted: “[h]uwag mong pansinin yan. At putang ina yan. Mga walang kwenta yan, [m]ana-mana lang yan”, the Court acquitted the accused of the charge of child abuse for failure of the prosecution to prove that the utterances were specifically intended to debase the child, they being only offhand remarks brought about by the spur of the moment and out of parental concern for her child.

5)While in Escolano v. People, the Court held that the mere shouting of invectives at a child, when carelessly done out of anger, frustration, or annoyance, does not constitute Child Abuse under Section 10 (a) of RA 7610 absent evidence that the utterance of such words were specifically intended to debase, degrade, or demean the victim’s intrinsic worth and dignity. Noting that she lacked the intent to debase the child, her acts having been done only in the heat of anger and in order to stop the unruly behavior of the children who were throwing ketchup sachets at her, accused was not held guilty of child abuse.

6) But, in Torres v. People, the Court affirmed the presence of this intent when accused, with excessive force, whipped the child’s neck with a wet t-shirt, not just once but three times, causing the child to fall down the stairs and sustain a contusion. The Court said that if the only intention of the accused was to discipline the child and stop him from interfering in the conciliation proceedings, he could have resorted to other less violent means.

7)Also, in Evangeline Patulot Y Galia v. People, G.R. No. 235071, January 07, 2019, the Supreme Court (SC) ruled that for as long as the accused was committing a felony, like throwing hot oil on a child, without any intention of hitting two (2) other children, the accused will be liable for child abuse not only insofar as the child she intended to hit with the hot oil, but also to those other children whom she had accidentally hit in the course thereof. The SC reiterated the rule that an accused is liable for all the direct, natural, logical consequences of his acts which constitute a felony even if the result is different from what she intended (‘aberratio ictus’).

Too, adults who are entrusted with the care and custody of a minor may impose discipline on the said minor. Necessarily, meting out punishment entails some form of stern talking and even some coercive measures.

Are these allowed?

Yes, but only up to a certain degree.

Under the Family Code, the infliction of corporal punishment by a school administrator, teacher or individual engaged in child care exercising special parental authority (i.e., in loco parentis), had been disallowed, viz.:

Article 233. The person exercising substitute parental authority shall have the same authority over the person of the child as the parents. In no case shall the school administrator, teacher or individual engaged in child care exercising special parental authority inflict corporal punishment upon the child.

8)In Rosaldes v. People, the accused was the school teacher of the child victim, a Grade 1 student. The accused was drowsing off on a sofa as the child entered and accidentally bumped her. The accused then pinched the child on the thigh, held him in the armpits and threw him on the floor causing the child to hit a desk and lose consciousness. Instead of feeling any remorse, the accused then held the child by his ears and pushed him again to the floor. The child sustained severe injuries.

9)In Lucido v. People, the accused, who was a neighbor of the minor’s family, was entrusted with the custody of the minor upon the accused’s request as the latter was living alone. While with the accused, the minor suffered physical abuse through repeated strangulation, beating, and pinching by the former, causing the child to limp. The accused interposed the defense that her actuations were merely intended to discipline the minor. The Court rejected the defense, noting that the abusive acts of the accused were extreme measures of punishment not commensurate with the discipline of an eight-year-old child.

In the end, child abuse is easily committed when the perpetrator employs measures which are unnecessary, violent and excessive. This is true whether the accused exercises special parental authority over the minor or not.

The key element that upgrades the commission of a crime against a minor from an ordinary offense under the Revised Penal Code to one of “child abuse” under R.A. 7610 (that carries heavier penalties),  is the “specific intent” to “debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth of the child as a human being”. This intent is absent when the accused merely acts “at the spur of the moment” without consciously architecting methods meant to physically or emotionally hurt the child as would impinge upon his/ her dignity as a human being.

(The author is the senior partner of ET Reyes III & Associates- a law firm based in Iloilo City. He is a litigation attorney, a law professor and a law book author. His website is etriiilaw.com).