Scribd
Upload
1K views6 pages

CM 4 Sse 18 Law Related Studies

This case involved a petitioner who was charged with two counts of child abuse under the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act for throwing boiling oil on two minors. The issues were whether the petitioner's conviction under the Act required intent to degrade the children, and whether Article 49 of the Revised Penal Code regarding imposition of penalty was properly applied. The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals' decision upholding the conviction and penalty imposed.

Uploaded by

Lyka
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views6 pages

CM 4 Sse 18 Law Related Studies

This case involved a petitioner who was charged with two counts of child abuse under the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act for throwing boiling oil on two minors. The issues were whether the petitioner's conviction under the Act required intent to degrade the children, and whether Article 49 of the Revised Penal Code regarding imposition of penalty was properly applied. The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals' decision upholding the conviction and penalty imposed.

Uploaded by

Lyka
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

SSE 18: LAW RELATED STUDIES

Name: Emily P. Señar


Course: BSED Social Studies 3B

Course Material 4 The Teacher and the Law: Criminal Law and Special Penal Laws
Engage
Is a teacher a full-fledge saint or a sinner? Defend a side.

- A teacher is maybe not a full-fledge saint but still a saint because a teacher devout
his/her time doing her/his job professionally with passion. A teacher connects to
students with much understanding on their strengths and weaknesses. A teacher
possesses virtues and values that makes them consider a saint.
KNOWLEDGE-BUILDING
Assessment Task 1 Concept Mapping

Rape as amended by R.A ARTICLE 353 LIBEL


8353 in RELATION TO ART. Article 315 of RPC:
266-A & 266-B OF THE REVISE SWINDLING (ESTAFA)
PENAL CODE
Elements
-there must be an
Estafa with
Rape by Carnal Knowledge imputation of a crime, or a
unfaithfulness (Article
vice or defect, real or
315, No. 1-A)
imaginary, or any act,
omission, condition, status
Elements or circumstance
Elements
-the offender is a man -the imputation must be
-the offender has an made publicly
-he had carnal
onerous obligation to
knowledge for a -it must be malicious
deliver something or
woman
value -imputation must be
-use force, threat or directed at a natural person
-he alters its
intimidation or a juridical person, or one
substance, quantity or
-woman is deprived of quality who is dead
reasons or -the imputation must tend
-damage or prejudice
unconscious to cause the dishonor,
capable of pecuniary
-grave abuse of estimation is caused to discredit, or contempt of
authority the offended party or the person defamed
third person
-STATUTORY RAPE

A charge is sufficient if the


penalty for estafa may be, words are calculated to
among others, minimum induce the hearers to
Penalty of aresto menor suppose and understand that
(imprisonment from one the person’s they were
Reclusion
to thirty days) to a uttered was guilty of certain
Perpetua
maximum of reclusion offenses, or are sufficient to
temporal (imprisonment impeach the honesty, virtue
from 12 years and one day or reputation, or to hold him
to twenty years). up to public ridicule
CRITICAL THINKING
Assessment TASK 2 Case Analysis

1. Who are the parties to the case? Name the complainant and the respondent.

- It is a party between a teacher and a student. The complainant are students AAA
and BBB, the respondent is teacher Joel Javarez.

2. What are the acts complained of? Answer completely with time, date, place where it
happened, witnesses, etc.

- The teacher did willfully, unlawfully and criminally commit physical abuse and
cruelty upon the person AAA and BBB. It happened on February 7, 2008 around 9
o’clock in the morning, Petitioner stepped in and hit BBB’s face with a broomstick
he was holding. In the afternoon same day petitioner push AAA in the chest causing
AAA to fall on his face. After the incident they go for a physical examination.

3. What was the defense of the respondent?

- Petitioner said that AAA and BBB became restless and kept on transferring seats
despite his repeated order them to stop. He also said that during his lecture in the
afternoon he saw AAA engage in a fistfight with other pupils at the back of the
classroom. He said he approached them and tried to separate the two with his arms.
He averred that the story was fabricated because, they were influence by AAA’s
uncle, the barangay captain who at that time angry with him.

4. How did the Court of Appeals rule over the case?

- By Decision dated September 14, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed in the main,
but modified the amount of damages.
- It found that using a broomstick handle, petitioner hit BBB in the left cheek. As for
AAA, petitioner pushed the former causing him to fall on his face. Complainants’
testimonies were candid and consistent while petitioner could only proffer the
defense of denial. It rejected petitioner’s story that it was a rooster incident in his
affidavit. Too, Sama admitted that the merely overheard the story, hence had no
personal knowledge of the so - called incident. Credence cannot be given to
petitioner’s assertion that BBB was motivated to file the case against him because
BBB did not want to admit he was into cockfighting when he got wounded. These
are bare allegations, sans any substantiating evidence. On damages, aside from civil
indemnity of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00), the Court of Appeals awarded moral
damages in favor of complainants in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos
(P20,000.00) each to assuage their moral and emotional sufferings; exemplary
damages of Twenty Thousand Pesos (p20,000.00) pursuant to Article 2230 of the
Civil Code.

5. What is the issue or issues in the case?

- The issue in the case is the violation on physical abuse committed by a teacher to
the students. And also, did the Court of Appeals err in affirming petitioner’s
conviction of violation of RA 7610.

6. How did the Supreme Court rule over the case? Your answer must relate to the issue
raised.

- The Court of Appeals’ Decision and resolution in CA G.R. CR No. 36816 are modified,
as follows:
1. In criminal case No. 24935, petitioner Joel C. Javarez is ACQUITTED of violation
of Section 10 (a), Article VI, of RA 7610; and
2. In criminal case No. 24935, petitioner Joel C. Javarez is found GUILTY OF SLIGHT
PHYSICAL INJURIES under paragraph 2, Article 266, of the revised Penal Code.
He is sentenced to twenty days of arresto menor. He is further ORDERED to pay
BBB P5,000.00 moral damages which shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of finality of this decision until fully paid. SO ORDERED.
CREATING
Assessment TASK 3 Case Digest

CASE TITLE: G.R. No. 235071 (January 7, 2019)


FACTS:
EVANGELINE PATULOT Y GALIA, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent. n two (2) separate Informations, Patulot was charged with child abuse, defined
and penalized under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610, otherwise known as the Special Protection of
Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, the accusatory portions of which
read:

(Criminal Case No. 149971)


That on or about the 14th day of November 2012, in the City of Taguig, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did, then and
there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously commit acts of child abuse upon one AAA, 5 a
three (3) year old minor, by throwing on him a boiling oil, thereby inflicting upon said
victim-minor physical injuries, which acts are inimical and prejudicial to the child's
normal growth and development.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
(Criminal Case No. 149972)
That on or about the 14th day of November 2012, in the City of Taguig, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did, then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit acts of child abuse upon one BBB, a
two (2) month old baby, by throwing on her a boiling oil, thereby inflicting upon said
victim-minor physical injuries, which acts are inimical and prejudicial to the child's
normal growth and development. CONTRARY TO LAW.

ISSUE/s:
I.

WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE PETITIONER'S


CONVICTION OF VIOLATING SEC. 10(A) R.A. 7610 DESPITE THE FACT THAT SHE HAD NO
INTENT TO DEGRADE AND DEMEAN THE INTRINSIC WORTH AND DIGNITY OF THE
PRIVATE COMPLAINANT'S CHILDREN.
II.
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FAILING TO APPLY ARTICLE 49
OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE WITH REGARD TO THE IMPOSITION OF THE PENALTY. 

RULING:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed
Decision dated July 13, 2017 and Resolution dated September 25, 2017 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 37385 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the ₱3,702.00
actual damages and P10,000.00 moral damages awarded in each Criminal Case No.
149971 and Criminal Case No. 149972 shall be subject to an interest of six percent (6%)
per annum reckoned from the finality of this Decision until full payment. SO ORDERED.

You might also like