ra 7610

 RA 7610 defines and penalizes various acts constituting child abuse as defined in the aforementioned provision. It further provides a "catch-all" provision which penalizes other acts of child abuse not specifically addressed by the law, particularly Section 10 ( a), Article VI23 thereof, to wit: 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. xx xx (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Notably, case law qualifies that for one to be held criminally liable for the commission of acts of Child Abuse under Section 10 (a), Article VI of RA 7610, "the prosecution [must] prove a specific intent to debase, degrade, or demean the intrinsic worth of the child; otherwise, the accused cannot be convicted [for the said offense]."24 The foregoing requirement was first established in the case of Bongalon v. People25 (Bongalon ), where it was held that the laying of hands against a child, when done in the spur olthe moment and in anger, cannot be deemed as an act of child abuse under Section 10 (a) of RA 7610, absent the essential element of intent to debase, degrade, or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being on the part of the offender, viz.: Not every instance of the laying of hands on a child constitutes the crime of child abuse under Section 10 (a) of Republic Act No. 7610. Only when the laying of hands is shown beyond reasonable doubt to be intended by the accused to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being should it be punished as child abuse.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

TOLENTINO (1942) REITERACION, RECIDIVIST, HABITUAL DELINQUENCY (distinctions)

  EN BANC G.R. No. L-48740             August 5, 1942 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,  plaintiff-appellee, vs. FAUSTINO TOLENTINO Y DE DIOS and LUISA CORPUZ Y QUITONG,  defendants. FAUSTINO TOLENTINO Y DE DIOS,  appellant. Crispin Oben for appellant. Assistant Solicitor-General Enriquez and Solicitor Kapunan, Jr. for appellee. OZAETA,  J. : In the municipal court of Manila, where this action was commenced, as well as in the Court of First Instance, to which it was appealed, both of the above-named defendants pleaded guilty to the charge of theft of seven shirts valued at P14 belonging to one Cosme Famorca. Both being, recidivists, were sentenced in the Court of First Instance to suffer two months and one day of  arresto mayor  and to pay the corresponding civil indemnity to the offended party. Faustino Tolentino y de Dios was further sentenced to suffer an additional penalty of six years and one day of  prision mayor ...
Read more

res inter alios acta + reclusion perpetua (1992)

  SECOND DIVISION [ G.R. No. 100909, October 21, 1992 ] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SOLITO TENA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N NARVASA, J.: The familiar maxim, “ res   inter   alios   acta  alteri nocere non debet” (“things done between strangers ought not to injure those who are not parties to them”) [1]  embodied in Section 25, [2]  Rule 130 of the Rules of Court furnishes basis for the appellant's acquittal in the case at bar. On June 19, 1988, 82-year-old Alfredo Altamarino, Sr. was found dead inside the bedroom of his house located at corner Gardner and Regidor Streets, Barangay Sadsaran, Mauban, Quezon. His body, described as laid out in an “orderly” manner on his bed, bore eight (8) stab wounds, two of them in the neck and six in the chest. He also had a depressed fracture on the right portion of his head and a lacerated wound on his right eyebrow. 1  Dr. Victorino Q. Arana, then resident physician of the Mauba...
Read more

EN BANC G. R. No. 160188 June 21, 2007 ARISTOTEL VALENZUELA y NATIVIDAD, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and HON. COURT OF APPEALS NACHURA, respondents.

  We thus conclude that under the Revised Penal Code, there is no crime of frustrated theft. As petitioner has latched the success of his appeal on our acceptance of the Diño and Flores rulings, his petition must be denied, for we decline to adopt said rulings in our jurisdiction. That it has taken all these years for us to recognize that there can be no frustrated theft under the Revised Penal Code does not detract from the correctness of this conclusion. It will take considerable amendments to our Revised Penal Code in order that frustrated theft may be recognized. Our deference to Viada yields to the higher reverence for legislative intent.
Read more