SALERA v. PEOPLE

Van Clifford Torres Salera (Plaintiff-Appellee) vs. People of the Philippines (Accused-Appellant)

G.R. No. 206627

January 18, 2017

Facts:

On November 3, 2003, CCC and AAA were at the barangay hall of Clarin, Bohol waiting for the conciliation proceedings to begin when they chanced upon Torres who had just arrived from fishing. CCC's wife, who was also with them at the barangay hall, persuaded Torres to attend the conciliation proceedings to answer for his liability. Torres vehemently denied damaging CCC's multicab. In the middle of the brewing argument, AAA suddenly interjected that Torres damaged CCC's multicab and accused him of stealing CCC's fish nets. Torres told AAA not to pry in the affairs of adults. He warned AAA that he would whip him if he did not stop. However, AAA refused to keep silent and continued to accuse Torres of damaging his uncle's multicab. Infuriated with AAA's meddling, Torres whipped AAA on the neck using a wet t-shirt. Torres continued to hit AAA causing the latter to fall down from the stairs. CCC came to his nephew's defense and punched Torres. They engaged in a fistfight until they were separated by Barangay Captain Hermilando Miano. Torres hit AAA with a wet t-shirt three (3) times. Based on the physical examination conducted by Dr. Vicente Manalo, Jr., AAA sustain a contusion.

After the prosecution rested its case, the defense presented the following version of the incident: Torres testified that he had just arrived tired from fishing when CCC badgered him to answer for the damage he had allegedly caused to CCC's multicab. AAA abruptly interrupted the heated discussion between the two men. Angered by what AAA had done, Torres told AAA to stop making unfounded accusations or he would be forced to whip him. AAA called Torres' bluff, which further provoked Torres. Torres attempted to hit AAA but was thwarted by the timely intervention of CCC, who suddenly attacked. Torres claimed that CCC filed this case to preempt him from filing a complaint for physical injuries against CCC. He also claimed that he tried to settle the matter with CCC and CCC's wife. However, the parties failed to reach an agreement due to the unreasonable demands of the spouses.

Issue:

(1) Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining his conviction on a judgment premised on a misapprehension of facts; and

(2) Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming his conviction despite the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling:

This Court finds no reason to disturb the factual findings of the trial court. The trial court neither disregarded nor overlooked any material fact or circumstance that would substantially alter the case. The presence or absence of one person during the incident is not substantial enough to overturn the finding that petitioner whipped AAA three (3) times with a wet t-shirt. Assuming, without admitting, that petitioner did whip AAA, petitioner argues that it should not be considered as child abuse because the law requires intent to abuse. Petitioner maintains that he whipped AAA merely to discipline and restrain the child "from further intensifying the situation." He also maintains that his act was justified because AAA harassed and vexed him. Thus, petitioner claims that there could not have been any intent to abuse on his part. Petitioner contends that the injuries sustained by AAA will not affect the latter's physical growth or development and mental capacity. He argues that he could not be convicted of child abuse without proof that the victim's development had been prejudiced.

 He begs the indulgence of this Court and claims that his conviction would only serve as a "precedent to all children to act recklessly, errantly and disobediently" and would then create a society ruled by juvenile delinquency and errant behavior. If at all, petitioner claims that he could only be convicted of slight physical injuries under the Revised Penal Code for the contusion sustained by AAA. Respondent maintains that the act of whipping AAA is an act of child abuse. Respondent argues that the act complained of need not be prejudicial to the development of the child for it to constitute a violation of Republic Act No. 7610. Respondent, citing Sanchez v. People, argues that Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610 defines and punishes four distinct acts. We reject petitioner's contention that his act of whipping AAA is not child abuse but merely slight physical injuries under the Revised Penal Code. The victim, AAA, was a child when the incident occurred. Therefore, AAA is entitled to protection under Republic Act No. 7610, the primary purpose of which has been defined in Araneta v. People thus:

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, 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."