Yap Francis George S. JD - 1st year Araneta vs People G.R. No. 1 !
"#$
Case Digest and Case Synthesis
Facts% &n April 1#' 1(()' aro*nd 11%##A+' at ,arangay Po-lacion' District ...' Da*in' Negros &riental' Philippines' Gon/alo Araneta y Ala-astro' trespassed 0ith violence into the roo1 o2 AAA holding her and e1-racing her' *sing 2orce and inti1idation' threatening to 3ill her i2 she 0o*ld not give in to his desires. AAA 0as in 2act a 1inor d*ring this ti1e and the act 0as 0itnessed -y her yo*nger sister. 4hen arraigned on 1$ Nove1-er 1(((' Ala-astro pleaded not g*ilty. 5e 0as 2o*nd g*ilty o2 violating Section 1#6a7 o2 Rep*-lic Act No. 81# -y the R9C. Araneta no0 contends that his acts do not 2all *nder the re:*ire1ents o2 RA 81# d*e to lac3 o2 -eing pre;*dicial to the child<s develop1ent so as to de-ase' degrade or de1ean the intrinsic 0orth and dignity o2 a child as a h*1an -eing. 5e is o2 the opinion that to -e convicted' an acc*sed 1*st 2irst -e proven to have done an act pre;*dicial to the child<s develop1ent. 9he &22ice o2 the Solicitor General 6&SG7' on the other hand' -elieves that the :*estioned acts 2all 0ithin the de2inition o2 child a-*se. &n 1$ Fe-r*ary "##$' the Co*rt o2 Appeals conc*rred 0ith the decision o2 the &SG. Petitioner 2iled a 1otion 2or reconsideration on 1! +arch "##$' 0hich 0as denied -y the CA in its 1# A*g*st "##8 Resol*tion. 5ence' the instant petition. .ss*e% .s Araneta g*ilty o2 violation RA 81# section 1#6a7= R*ling% Yes. Paragraph 6a7 o2 Section 1# thereo2 states% 6a7 Any person 0ho shall co11it any other acts of abuse, cruelty or exploitation or be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the childs development incl*ding those covered -y Article $( o2 Presidential Decree No. 8#>' as a1ended' -*t not covered -y the Revised Penal Code' as a1ended' shall s*22er the penalty o2 prision 1ayor in its 1ini1*1 period. 6?1phasis s*pplied.7 the provision p*nishes not only those en*1erated *nder Article $( o2 Presidential Decree No. 8#>' -*t also 2o*r distinct acts' i.e.' 6a7 child a-*se' 6-7 child cr*elty' 6c7 child e@ploitation and 6d7 -eing responsi-le 2or conditions pre;*dicial to the childAs develop1ent. 9he constr*ction sho0s that these are 2o*r distinct acts that can -e charged and convicted seperately' 0itho*t dependence on 0hether or not the child<s develop1ent 0as pre;*diced. 9he 1ere 3eeping or having in a 1anAs co1panion a 1inor' t0elve 61"7 years or *nder or 0ho is ten 61#7 years or 1ore his ;*nior in any p*-lic or private place already constit*tes child a-*se *nder Section 1#6-7 o2 the sa1e Act. Bnder s*ch rationale' an *n0anted e1-race on a 1inor 0o*ld all the 1ore constit*te child a-*se.
F*rther1ore' 0hen Araneta' 0ho 0as old eno*gh to -e the victi1<s grand2ather attac3ed and a-*sed her' he da1aged the tr*st that the yo*ng 0o*ld have on the older generation' 0ho are s*pposed to protect and g*ide the yo*nger generation. 4here2ore' the 1$ Fe-r*ary "##$ Decision o2 the Co*rt o2 Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. "$18)' 0hich a22ir1ed in toto the Decision o2 the D*1ag*ete City Regional 9rial Co*rt' ,ranch !1 in Cri1inal Case No. 1!"!8 2inding Gon/alo A. Araneta g*ilty o2 violating Section 1#6a7' Article C. o2 Rep*-lic Act No. 81# and sentencing hi1 to s*22er the penalty o2 prision 1ayor in its 1ini1*1 period and a0arding to the victi1 1oral da1ages in the a1o*nt o2 P$#'###.## as 1oral da1ages' is a22ir1ed in toto. No costs.
SANC5?D CS. P?&PE? G.R. N&. 1 (#(#' JBN? $' "##( FAC9S% Appellant Eeonilo Sanche/ 0as charged 0ith the cri1e o2 &ther Acts o2 Child A-*se p*nisha-le *nder Rep*-lic Act 6R.A.7 No. 81#! in relation to Presidential Decree 6P.D.7 No. 8#>. &n Septe1-er "' "###' Sanche/ 0as searching 2or CCC<s 2ather at her ho*se. Sanche/ as3ed CCC<s yo*nger -rother the 0herea-o*t o2 their 2ather' -*t the yo*nger -rother did not ans0er. 9heir 1other told snache/ that their 2ather 0as not aro*nd. Sanche/ then told the1 to leave the place and proceded to destroy the ho*se 0ith the *se o2 his sic3le. CCC 0as sent -y her 1other to 2etch a -arangay tanod -*t 0as o2 no avail. 4hen CCC ret*rned' she sa0 her yo*nger -rother -eing -eaten -y Sanche/. CCC then approached Sanche/ and p*shed hi1' in t*rn' Sanche/ str*c3 her 0ith a piece o2 0ood three ti1es in the *pper part o2 her legs. A2ter 0hich' Sanche/ le2t. 9he Father then -ro*ght CCC to the Clarin 5ealth Center 2or 1edical attention and treat1ent. Fro1 the health center' they 0ent to the Clarin Police Station 0here they had the incident -lottered. Bpon arraign1ent' Sanche/ pleaded not g*ilty. 9he Regional 9rial Co*rt 6R9C7 o2 9ag-ilan City' ,ohol' convicted Sanche/ to -e g*ilty' and 0as a22ir1ed -y the Co*rt o2 Appeals 6CA7. 5ence' this petition 2or revie0 on certiorari see3ing the reversal o2 the decision o2 the appellate and lo0er co*rts. .SSB?% Does the hitting in the *pper legs o2 the victi1 constit*te child a-*se *nder RA 81#= RBE.NG% Yes. According to Article $(> o2 P.D. No. 8#> and Section 1#6a7 o2 R.A. No. 81#. Section 1#6a7 o2 R.A. No. 81# provides% S?C9.&N 1#. &ther Acts o2 Neglect' A-*se' Cr*elty or ?@ploitation and &ther Conditions Pre;*dicial to the Child<s Develop1ent. F 6a7 Any person 0ho shall co11it any other acts o2 child a-*se' cr*elty or e@ploitation or -e responsi-le 2or other conditions pre;*dicial to the child<s develop1ent incl*ding those covered -y Article $( o2 Presidential Decree No. 8#>' as a1ended' -*t not covered -y the Revised Penal Code' as a1ended' shall s*22er the penalty o2 prision 1ayor in its 1ini1*1 period. 9he 0ord GorG is a dis;*nctive ter1 signi2ying dissociation and independence o2 one thing 2ro1 other things en*1erated. 9he *se o2 HorI 1eans there are 2o*r seperate p*nisha-le acts na1ely% child a-*se' cr*elty' e@ploitation' and lastly other conditions pre;*dicial tot he child<s develop1ent. 9he 2o*rth penali/ed act cannot -e interpreted' as petitioner s*ggests' as a :*ali2ying condition 2or the three other acts' -eca*se an analysis o2 the entire conte@t o2 the :*estioned provision does not 0arrant s*ch
constr*ction. 4here2ore' 9he petition is denied. 9he Co*rt &2 Appeals Decision dated Fe-r*ary "#' "## .n CAG.R. Cr No. " )1 is a22ir1ed 0ith 1odi2ication that appellant Eeonilo Sanche/ is here-y sentenced to 2o*r 6!7 years' nine 6(7 1onths and eleven 6117 days o2 prision correccional' as 1ini1*1' to si@ 687 years' eight 6)7 1onths and one 617 day o2 prision 1ayor' as 1a@i1*1. Costs against appellant.
,ongalon v. People o2 the Philippines FAC9S% Petitioner George ,ongalon 0as charged 0ith child a-*se' an act in violation o2 Section 1#6a7 o2 Rep*-lic Act No. 81#. 9he Prosec*tion sho0ed that on +ay 11' "##"' Jayson Dela Cr*/ 6Jayson7 and Roldan' his older -rother' -oth 1inors' ;oined the evening procession 2or the Santo NiJo at &ro Site in Eega/pi CityK that 0hen the procession passed in 2ront o2 the petitionerAs ho*se' the latterAs da*ghter +ary Ann Rose' also a 1inor' thre0 stones at Jayson and called hi1 HsissyIK that the petitioner con2ronted Jayson and Roldan and called the1 na1es li3e HstrangersI and Hani1alsIK that the petitioner str*c3 Jayson at the -ac3 0ith his hand' and slapped Jayson on the 2aceK that the petitioner then 0ent to the -rothersA ho*se and challenged Rolando dela Cr*/' their 2ather' to a 2ight' -*t Rolando did not co1e o*t o2 the ho*se to ta3e on the petitionerK that Rolando later -ro*ght Jayson to the Eega/pi City Police Station and reported the incidentK that Jayson also *nder0ent 1edical treat1ent at the ,icol Regional 9raining and 9eaching 5ospitalK that the doctors 0ho e@a1ined Jayson iss*ed t0o 1edical certi2icates attesting that Jayson s*22ered t0o cont*sions. &n his part' the petitioner denied having physically a-*sed or 1altreated Jayson. 5e e@plained that he only tal3ed 0ith Jayson and Roldan a2ter +ary Ann Rose and Cherrylyn' his 1inor da*ghters' had told hi1 a-o*t Jayson and RoldanAs thro0ing stones at the1 and a-o*t JaysonAs -*rning CherrylynAs hair. 5e denied sho*ting invectives at and challenging Rolando to a 2ight' insisting that he only told Rolando to restrain his sons 2ro1 har1ing his da*ghters. +ary Ann Rose testi2ied that her 2ather did not hit or slap -*t only con2ronted Jayson' as3ing 0hy Jayson had called her da*ghters HLi1iI and 0hy he had -*rned CherrlynAs hair. +ary Ann Rose denied thro0ing stones at Jayson and calling hi1 a Hsissy.I She insisted that it 0as instead Jayson 0ho had pelted her 0ith stones d*ring the procession. She descri-ed the petitioner as a loving and protective 2ather. R9C 2o*nd ,ongalon g*ilty -eyond reasona-le do*-t o2 Ciolation o2 Rep*-lic Act No. 81#' and 0as a22ir1ed -y the Co*rt o2 Appeals. 5ence' this instant petition. .SSB?% Does the laying o2 hands on a child constit*te the cri1e o2 child a-*se *nder Section 1# 6a7 o2 Rep*-lic Act No. 81#= RBE.NG% No. 9he records sho0ed the laying o2 hands on Jayson to have -een done at the sp*r o2 the 1o1ent and in anger' indicative o2 his -eing then over0hel1ed -y his 2atherly concern 2or the personal sa2ety o2 his o0n 1inor da*ghters 0ho had ;*st s*22ered har1 at the hands o2 Jayson and Roldan. 4ith the loss o2 his sel2-control' he lac3ed that speci2ic intent to de-ase' degrade or de1ean the intrinsic 0orth and dignity o2 a child as a h*1an -eing that 0as so essential in the cri1e o2 child a-*se. 45?R?F&R?' 0e S?9 AS.D? the decision o2 the Co*rt o2 AppealsK and ?N9?R a ne0 ;*dg1ent% 6a7
2inding petitioner George ,ongalon GBlE9Y -eyond reasona-le do*-t o2 the cri1e o2 SE.G59 P5YS.CAE .NJBR.?S *nder paragraph 1' Article "88' o2 the Revised Penal CodeK 6-7 sentencing hi1 to s*22er the penalty o2 1# days o2 arresto 1enorK and 6c7 ordering hi1 to pay Jayson Dela Cr*/ the a1o*nt o2 P$'###.## as 1oral da1ages' pl*s the costs o2 s*it.
Case Synthesis All o2 the > cases involve iss*es related to RA 81#' Section 1# 6a7 in the Araneta case there 0as e1-racing a child against her 0ill' in the Sanche/ case there 0as hitting the *pper part o2 the legs o2 a 1inor child 0ith a piece o2 0ood' in the ,ongalon case there 0as hitting the child on the -ac3 0ith his hand and slapping the child on the 2ace. All three cases involve acts -eing done -y an ad*lt against a 1inor *nla02*lly. .n each case the contention o2 the acc*sed 0as that their acts did not 2all *nder the de2inition o2 child a-*se *nder RA 81#' section 1# 6a7. .t 0as repeatedly pointed o*t -y the co*rts that the 2o*r distinct acts p*nisha-le *nder RA 81# section 1#6a7 0ere independent o2 each other and co*ld -e convicted 0itho*t having to prove that the act necessarily pre;*diced the develop1ent o2 the child. &nly in the ,ongalon case it 0as sho0n that the act 0as not considered child a-*se -eca*se he acted in a sp*r o2 the 1o1ent' in de2ense o2 his o0n 2a1ily o2 1inor da*ghters 0ho 0ere -eing attac3ed -y the t0o 1inor -oys 0hich he con2ronted. 5is intention 0as not to de-ase' degrade or de1ean the intrinsic 0orth and dignity o2 the child as a h*1an -eing' there2ore it 0as not a 2or1 o2 child a-*se 0hen he layed his hands on the 1inor. As a principle' RA 81# 0as 1ade in order to 1a3e it easier to convict against acts o2 child a-*se in any 2or1' in order to protect the 1ost v*lnera-le in society' the 2ilipino children. .t sho*ld -e easier to convict 0ith ;*st one violation o2 the acts 1entioned in RA 81#' it 0as not the intention that the act sho*ld :*ali2y 2or all the acts 1entioned' 0hich 0o*ld 1a3e it harder to convict 2or child a-*se. .ntention is still 3ey as sho0n -y the case o2 ,ongalon' his intent 0as de2ense o2 his o0n 2a1ily' even tho*gh he acted against a 1inor' he did not intend child a-*se there2ore his acts are not those intended to -e p*nished -y RA 81#.
