9/8/22, 11:30 PM G.R. No.
248729
Today is Thursday, September 08, 2022
Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources AUSL Exclusive
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 248729, September 03, 2020 ]
JOEL C. JAVAREZ, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:
The Case
Petitioner assails the Court of Appeals' Decision1 dated September 14, 2018 in CA-G.R. CR No. 36816 affirming his
conviction for violation of Section 10(a)2 in relation to Section 31(e)3 of Republic Act No. 76104 (RA 7610).
The Charge and the Plea
Petitioner Joel Javarez was charged with violation of Section 10 (a) in relation to Section 31(e) of RA 7610 under
two (2) separate Informations, thus:
Criminal Case No. 24935
That on or about the 7th day of February 2008, at around 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon, at Brgy. Iraray, Municipality
of Sofronio Espanola, Province of Palawan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, a public officer, being then a school teacher of Iraray Elementary School, in Sofronio
Espanola, Palawan, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully, and criminally commit physical abuse and cruelty upon
the person of AAA,5* a ten (10) year old minor, to wit: the accused Joel Javarez suddenly and without provocation
shoved AAA believing that he was the one who initiated and caused the dispute, which act debased and demeaned
the dignity of the child as a human being, thereby, affecting the normal, physical, psychological and social growth of
the said minor, to the damage and prejudice of the said AAA.6
Criminal Case No. 24936
That on or about the 71'1 day of February 2008, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Palawan, Philippines,
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, a public officer, being then a school
teacher of Iraray Elementary School, in Sofronio Espanola, Palawan, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully, and
criminally commit physical abuse and cruelty upon the person of BBB,7* a 9-year old minor, to wit: the accused Joel
Javarez suddenly and without provocation hit BBB [in] the face with a broomstick after BBB asked a classmate for a
piece of pop rice, which act debased and demeaned [the] dignity of the child as a human being, thereby, affecting
the normal, physical, psychological, and social growth of the said minor to the damage and prejudice of the said
BBB.8
On arraignment, petitioner pleaded "not guilty" to both charges.9 Joint trial ensued.
Evidence for the Prosecution
On February 7, 2008, petitioner, complainants' third grade adviser, was conducting a review class for the National
Admission Test (NAT). Around 9 o'clock in the morning, while the class was ongoing, BBB repeatedly asked one (1)
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2020/sep2020/gr_248729_2020.html 1/7
9/8/22, 11:30 PM G.R. No. 248729
of his classmates to give him rice pop but when the latter refused, they fought. Petitioner stepped in and hit BBB's
face with a broomstick he was holding.10
In the afternoon of the same day, in another class, BBB's cousin AAA went out of the classroom to urinate. When he
came back, he saw two (2) of his classmates fighting over food. As he walked toward them, he saw petitioner
approach the two (2) and push AAA in the chest, causing AAA to fall on his face.11
Right after the incident, both AAA and BBB went to AAA's house. They reported to AAA's mother XXX* the twin
incidents involving them and their teacher, herein petitioner. XXX, in turn, relayed the information to BBB's parents.
Thereafter, XXX, together with AAA and BBB went to the principal's office to report the incident. They were told,
however, that the principal was in Manila.12
XXX and complainants proceeded to file a complaint before the Department of Social Welfare Development.
Complainants were also brought to the Brooke's Point Hospital for physical examination. Per AAA and BBB's
Medico-Legal Certificates, AAA suffered pain and tenderness in the chest/sternal area which may have been
caused by a fist blow or any force applied to the area, which included pushing. On the other hand, BBB sustained
left cheek abrasions which may have been caused by a sharp object like a fingernail or a broomstick; and
hematoma on his left ear, which may have also been caused by contact with a broomstick.13 At the police station,
complainants executed their respective affidavits.14
Evidence for the Defense
Petitioner testified that he had been teaching for the past thirty (30) years. On February 7, 2008, he was reviewing
his class for the NAT when AAA and BBB became restless and kept transferring seats despite his repeated orders
for them to stop. In the afternoon of the same day, while the lecture was ongoing, petitioner saw AAA engage in a
fistfight with other pupils at the back of the classroom. He approached them and tried to separate them with his
arms. AAA left the classroom crying. He averred that AAA and BBB merely fabricated the story against him because
they were influenced by AAA's uncle, the barangay captain who at that time was angry with him.15
The Trial Court's Ruling
By Decision16 dated April 10, 2014, the trial court found petitioner guilty as charged:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the prosecution having successfully proven the guilt of the accused, JOEL
JAVAREZ is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of violation of Section 10 (a) of Republic
Act No. 7610, otherwise known as the "Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation, and
Discrimination Act; and pursuant to Section 31 (e) of said law, as it is undisputed that the accused is a public school
teacher and a public officer/employee, which warrants the imposition of the maximum period of the penalty
imposable, therefore, the accused is hereby sentenced as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 24935 - to four (4) years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days of prision
correctional, as minimum, to eight (8) years of prision mayor, as maximum; and to pay "AAA" the sum of Ten
Thousand (P10,000.00) as civil indemnity; [and] the sum of Ten Thousand Pesos, as damages;
2. In Criminal Case No. 24936 - to four (4) years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days of prision
correctional, as minimum, to eight (8) years of prision mayor, as maximum; and to pay "BBB" the sum of Ten
Thousand (PI0,000.00) [Pesos] as civil indemnity; [and] the sum of Ten Thousand [P10,000.00 Pesos, as
damages.
SO ORDERED.17
The trial court gave more weight to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses than petitioner's bare denial. It held
that complainants' testimonies were direct, straightforward, and bolstered by the medical examination results
showing that AAA suffered pain and tenderness in the chest/sternal area which may have been caused by a fist
blow, or any force applied to the area, which includes pushing.18 On the other hand, BBB sustained left cheek
abrasions which may have been caused by a sharp object like a fingernail or a broomstick as well as hematoma on
his left ear, which may also have been caused by contact with a broomstick.19 Too, complainants had no ill-motive to
falsely testify against petitioner.20
Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals
On appeal, petitioner argued that the trial court ignored the testimony of one (1) of the prosecution witnesses
attesting to the fact that he did not lay his hands on BBB; as well as the testimony of defense witness Benjur Sama
that during a cockfight, a rooster attacked and wounded BBB. AAA's testimony was inconsistent with human nature.
For if it were true that he pushed AAA's in the chest, the latter should have fallen on his back and not with his face
touching the ground. BBB was motivated to fabricate a story against petitioner because BBB was afraid to admit he
was into cockfighting.21
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2020/sep2020/gr_248729_2020.html 2/7
9/8/22, 11:30 PM G.R. No. 248729
The Court of Appeals' Ruling
By Decision22 dated September 14, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed in the main, but modified the amount of
damages.23
It held that Section 10(a), Article VI of RA 7610 punishes not only those acts enumerated under Article 59 of
Presidential Decree No. 603,24 but four (4) other distinct acts as well i.e. child abuse, child cruelty, child exploitation,
and being responsible for conditions prejudicial to the child's development. An accused can be prosecuted and
convicted under Section 10(a), Article VI of RA 7610 if he or she commits any of the four (4) acts mentioned. The
prosecution need not prove that the acts of child abuse, child cruelty, and child exploitation have resulted in the
prejudice of the child because an act prejudicial to the development of the child is different from the three (3)
aforementioned acts.25
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.26
It rejected petitioner's story that it was a rooster which wounded BBB. The Court of Appeals noted that defense
witness Benhur Sama failed to mention the supposed rooster incident in his affidavit. Too, Sama admitted that he
merely overheard the story, hence, had no personal knowledge of the so-called incident.27
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 cockflghting when he got wounded. These are bare allegations, sans any
substantiating evidence.28
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; and exemplary damages of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) pursuant to
Article 2230 of the Civil Code.29
Petitioner moved for reconsideration which the Court of Appeals denied through its Resolution30 dated June 20,
2019.
The Present Petition
Petitioner now seeks affirmative relief from the Court and prays anew for his acquittal.31
In its Comment32 dated June 10, 2020,the Office of the Solicitor General reiterated that the courts below did not err
in rendering a verdict of conviction against petitioner. AAA and BBB's testimonies coupled with the medical report on
the injuries sustained by complainants are sufficient proofs to warrant petitioner's conviction. Too, the petition must
be denied outright for raising purely factual issues which the Court cannot take cognizance of under a Rule 45
petition.
Threshold Issue
Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming petitioner's conviction for violation of RA 7610?
Ruling
The petition is partly meritorious.
Petitioner not liable under Section 10
(a), Article VI, of RA 7610; lack of
intent to debase, degrade or demean
the intrinsic worth and dignity of a
child as a human being
Petitioner was charged, tried, and found guilty of violating Section 10 (a), Article VI, of RA 7610, viz.:
SEC. 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 to 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. (Emphasis ours)
Under Section 3 (b) paragraph 2 ofRA 7610, child abuse may be committed by deeds or words which debase,
degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2020/sep2020/gr_248729_2020.html 3/7
9/8/22, 11:30 PM G.R. No. 248729
33
In Bongalon v. Peopled the Court expounded the definition of "child abuse" and held that only when it is shown
beyond reasonable doubt that the accused laid his or her hands on the child with actual intent to debase, degrade,
or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being should it be punished as child abuse,
otherwise, it should be punished under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), thus:
Although we affirm the factual findings of fact by the RTC and the CA to the effect that the petitioner struck Jayson
at the back with his hand and slapped Jayson on the face, we disagree with their holding that his acts
constituted child abuse within the purview of the above-quoted provisions. The records did not establish beyond
reasonable doubt that his laying of hands on Jayson had been intended to debase the "intrinsic worth and dignity" of
Jayson as a human being, or that he had thereby intended to humiliate or embarrass Jayson. The records showed
the laying of hands on Jayson to have been done at the spur of the moment and in anger, indicative of his being
then overwhelmed by his fatherly concern for the personal safety of his own minor daughters who had just suffered
harm at the hands of Jayson and Roldan. With the loss of his self-control, he lacked that specific intent to debase,
degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being that was so essential in the crime
of child abuse. (Emphasis ours and italics in the original)
Black's Law Dictionary defines debasement as "the act of reducing the value, quality, or purity of
something."34 Degradation, on the other hand, is the "lessening of a person's or thing's character or quality."35 Lastly,
to demean is "to lower in character, status or reputation."36
In Jabalde y Jamandron v. People,37 the Court held petitioner liable only for slight physical injuries since petitioner
laid her hands on the victim as a mere offshoot of her emotional outrage after being informed that her daughter's
head was punctured and thinking that her daughter was already dead. The spontaneity of petitioner's acts against
the victim was just a product of the instinctive reaction of a mother to rescue her own child from harm. Having lost
the strength of her mind, she lacked that specific intent to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity
of a child as a human being that is so essential in the crime of child abuse.
Here, petitioner was not shown to have intended to debase, degrade, or demean BBB's intrinsic worth and dignity
as a human being. For while hitting BBB with a broomstick is reprehensible, petitioner did so only to stop BBB and
another classmate from fighting over pop rice.
As for AAA, records show that in his effort to stop his two (2) other students from fighting over food during his
afternoon class, petitioner got to push AAA, one of the onlookers, as a result of which, AAA fell on the floor with his
face down. Surely, petitioner did not intend to maltreat nor debase AAA's dignity as a human being. He was in all
honesty simply trying to stop his students from fighting. He cannot therefore be held liable under Section 10 (a),
Article VI of RA 7610.
Petitioner is liable only for slight
physical injuries for intentionally
inflicting physical harm on BBB
Article 266 (2) of the RPC provides:
ART. 266. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment — The crime of slight physical injuries shall be punished:
xxx xxx xxx
2. By arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 20 pesos and censure when the offender has caused physical injuries
which do not prevent the offended party from engaging in his habitual work nor require medical assistance.
xxx xxx xxx
In Villareal v. People,38 the Court expounded that for an accused to be held liable for physical injuries, there must be
malicious intent to inflict such injuries, viz.:
In order to be found guilty of the felonious acts under Articles 262 to 266 of the [RPC], the employment of physical
injuries must be coupled with dolus malus. As an act that is mala in se, the existence of malicious intent is
fundamental, since injury arises from the mental state of the wrongdoer — iniuria ex affectu facientis consistat. If
there is no criminal intent, the accused cannot be found guilty of an intentional felony. Thus, in case of physical
injuries under the [RPC], there must be a specific animus iniuriandi or malicious intention to do wrong against the
physical integrity or well-being of a person, so as to incapacitate and deprive the victim of certain bodily functions.
Without proof beyond reasonable doubt of the required animus iniuriandi, the overt act of inflicting physical
injuries per .se merely satisfies the elements of freedom and intelligence in an intentional felony. The commission of
the act does not, in itself, make a man guilty unless his intentions are.
Here, as against BBB's categorical and straightforward testimony that petitioner deliberately hit him with a
broomstick, petitioner's denial deserves scant consideration. Besides, it has been held that testimonies of child-
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2020/sep2020/gr_248729_2020.html 4/7
9/8/22, 11:30 PM G.R. No. 248729
victims are given full faith and credit since youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.39 In fine,
when petitioner laid his hands-on BBB, he intended to cause or inflict physical injuries on him.
Notably, the medical examination shows that BBB sustained left cheek abrasions which may have been caused by a
sharp object like a fingernail or a broomstick as well as hematoma on his left ear, which may also have been caused
by contact with a broomstick.40 When there is no evidence of actual incapacity of the offended party for labor or of
the required medical attendance; or when there is no proof as to the period of the offended party's incapacity for
labor or of the required medical attendance, the offense is only slight physical injuries.41
Although petitioner lacked the intent to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of BBB as a
human being as required under Section 10 (a), Article VI of RA 7610, his act of laying hands on him was attended
by malicious intent to physically harm BBB which is an element of the crime of slight physical injuries.
But we cannot say the same thing for AAA. To recall, petitioner was merely trying to stop two of his students from
fighting over food during the class. AAA, a mere onlooker, was not involved in the fight. There was no evidence
showing petitioner ever intended to harm him in any way. Petitioner had no reason to be. As it was, petitioner was
focused on the two fighting students, not on AAA or anyone else. It was possible though that as an onlooker, AAA
stood too close to the protagonists such that when petitioner stepped in to disengage the protagonists, necessarily
AAA was also pushed back, and as result, fell to the ground. No one came forward to say that petitioner did it
intentionally or that he even had a motive or reason to do it. On the contraiy, the attendant circumstances showed
that as a teacher, petitioner only tried to restore peace in the class by stopping his students from fighting. Verily,
petitioner cannot be held criminally liable for the abrasions AAA sustained on that occasion. These circumstances,
taken together, negate the presence of criminal intent on the part of petitioner. As held in Villareal, mere infliction of
physical injuries, absent malicious intent, does not make a person automatically liable for an intentional
felony. Penalty
The penalty for slight physical injuries is arresto menor, which ranges from one (1) day to thirty (30) days of
imprisonment.
Here, since there is no mitigating nor aggravating circumstance present, penalty shall be arresto menor in its
medium period which is eleven (11) days to twenty (20) days of imprisonment. The Indeterminate Sentence Law
being inapplicable i.e. maximum of the penalty imposed not exceeding one (1) year,42 petitioner shall suffer, a
straight penalty of 20 days of arresto menor.
As for damages, under paragraph (1), Article 2219 of the Civil Code, moral damages may be recovered in a criminal
offense resulting in physical injuries.43 Moral damages compensate for the mental anguish, serious anxiety, and
moral shock suffered by the victim and his family as being a proximate result of the wrongful act. Pursuant to
prevailing jurisprudence, an award of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) moral damages is appropriate for slight
physical injuries. The Court of Appeals' award of P20,000.00 as moral damages should be accordingly modified.
WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals' Decision dated September 14, 2018 and Resolution dated June 20, 2019 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. 24936, 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 (20) days
of arresto menor. He is further ORDERED to pay BBB P5,000.00 moral damages which shall earn interest at
the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Peralta, C.J., Caguioa, J. Reyes, Jr., and Lopez, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1
Penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez and concurred in by Associate Justices Apolinario
D. Bruselas, Jr. and Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin; rollo, pp. 28-38.
2
ARTICLE VI
Other Acts of Abuse
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2020/sep2020/gr_248729_2020.html 5/7
9/8/22, 11:30 PM G.R. No. 248729
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 to 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.
3
ARTICLE XII
Common Penal Provisions
Section 31. Common Penal Provisions. -
xxx xxx xxx
(e) The penalty provided for in this Act shall be imposed in its maximum period if the offender is a
public officer or employee: Provided, however, That if the penalty imposed is reclusion
perpetua or reclusion temporal, then the penalty of perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification
shall also be imposed: Provided, finally, That if the penalty imposed is prision correctional or arresto
mayor, the penalty of suspension shall also be imposed;
xxx xxx xxx
4
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST CHILD
ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
5
The real name of the victim, her personal circumstances and other information which tend to establish or
compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family, or household members, shall not be
disclosed to protect her privacy, and fictitious initial shall, instead, be used, in accordance with People v.
Cabalquinto [533 Phil. 703 (2006)] and Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5,
2017.
*
Real name not found in rollo.
6
Rollo, p. 29.
7
The real name of the victim, her personal circumstances and other information which tend to establish or
compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family, or household members, shall not be
disclosed to protect her privacy, and fictitious initial shall, instead, be used, in accordance with People v.
Cabalquinto [533 Phil. 703 (2006)] and Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5,
2017.
*
Real name not found in rollo.
8
Rollo, p. 29.
9
Id. at 29-30.
10
Id. at 30-31.
11
Id. at 31.
*
Real name not found in rollo.
12
Id.
13
Temporary rollo, p. 5.
14
Rollo, p. 31.
15
Id. at 31-32.
16
Id. at 32.
17
Rollo, p. 32.
18
Temporary rollo, p. 5.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2020/sep2020/gr_248729_2020.html 6/7
9/8/22, 11:30 PM G.R. No. 248729
19
Id.
20
Rollo, p. 33.
21
Id. at 33-34.
22
Penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez and concurred in by Associate Justices Apolinario
D. Bruselas, Jr. and Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin; rollo, pp. 28-38.
23
Rollo, pp. 28-38.
24
The Child and Youth Welfare Code.
25
Rollo, pp. 33-34.
26
Id. at 34-35.
27
Id. at 35.
28
Id. at 35-36.
29
Art. 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the
crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Such damages are separate and distinct
from fines and shall be paid to the offended party.
30
Rollo, p. 40.
31
Id. at 9-25.
32
Temporary rollo, pp. 1-19.
33
707 Phil. 11, 14(2013).
34
Black's Law Dictionary 430 (8th ed. 2004).
35
Black's Law Dictionary 456 (8th ed. 2004).
36
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demean, Date visited: August
18,2020.
37
787 Phil. 255(2016).
38
749 Phil 16,37(2014).
39
People v. Ocdol, 741 Phil. 701, 710-711 (2014).
40
Temporary rollo, p. 5.
41
Escolano v. People, G.R. No. 226991, December 10, 2018.
42
Sec. 2. This Act shall not apply to persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life-
imprisonment; to those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason; to those convicted of
misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage; to those convicted of piracy; to those who are habitual
delinquents; to those who have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence; to those who having been
granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive shall have violated the terms thereof; to those whose
maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year, not to those already sentenced by final judgment
at the time of approval of this Act, except as provided in Section 5 hereof.
43
People v. Villacorta, 672 Phil. 712, 729 (2011).
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2020/sep2020/gr_248729_2020.html 7/7
