707 Phil.

11

FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 169533, March 20, 2013 ]
GEORGE BONGALON, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENT.

DECISION

BERSAMIN, J.: 

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.[1] 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. Otherwise, it is punished under the Revised Penal Code.

The Case

On June 22, 2005,[2] the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction of the petitioner
for the crime of child abuse under Section 10 (a) of Republic Act No. 7610.

Antecedents

On June 26, 2000, the Prosecutor’s Office of Legazpi City charged the petitioner in the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Legazpi City with childabuse, an act in violation of
Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610, alleging as follows:

That on or about the 11th day of May 2000, in the City of Legazpi  Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit on the person of JAYSON DELA CRUZ, a
twelve year-old, Grade VI pupil of MABA Institute, Legazpi City, acts of
physical abuse and/or maltreatment by striking said JAYSON DELA CRUZ with his
palm hitting the latter at his back and by slapping said minor hitting his left cheek and
uttering derogatory remarks to the latter’s family to wit: “Mga hayop kamo, para dayo
kamo digdi, Iharap mo dito ama mo” (You all animals, you are all strangers here. Bring
your father here), which acts of the accused are prejudicial to the child’s development
and which demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the said child as a human being.

CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]

The Prosecution showed that on May 11, 2002, Jayson Dela Cruz (Jayson) and Roldan,
his older brother, both minors, joined the evening procession for the Santo Niño at Oro
Site in Legazpi City; that when the procession passed in front of the petitioner’s house,
the latter’s daughter Mary Ann Rose, also a minor, threw stones at Jayson and called him
“sissy”; that the petitioner confronted Jayson and Roldan and called them names like
“strangers” and “animals”; that the petitioner struck Jayson at the back with his hand, and
slapped Jayson on the face;[4] that the petitioner then went to the brothers’ house and
challenged Rolando dela Cruz, their father, to a fight, but Rolando did not come out of
the house to take on the petitioner; that Rolando later brought Jayson to the Legazpi City
Police Station and reported the incident; that Jayson also underwent medical treatment at
the Bicol Regional Training and Teaching Hospital;[5] that the doctors who examined
Jayson issued two medical certificates attesting that Jayson suffered the following
contusions, to wit: (1) contusion .5 x 2.5 scapular area, left; and (2) +1x1 cm. contusion
left zygomatic area and contusion .5 x 2.33 cm. scapular area, left. [6]

On his part, the petitioner denied having physically abused or maltreated Jayson. He

explained that he only talked with Jayson and Roldan after Mary Ann Rose and
Cherrylyn, his minor daughters, had told him about Jayson and Roldan’s throwing stones
at them and about Jayson’s burning Cherrylyn’s hair. He denied shouting invectives at
and challenging Rolando to a fight, insisting that he only told Rolando to restrain his sons
from harming his daughters.[7]

To corroborate the petitioner’s testimony, Mary Ann Rose testified that her father did not
hit or slap but only confronted Jayson, asking why Jayson had called her daughters
“Kimi” and why he had burned Cherrlyn’s hair. Mary Ann Rose denied throwing stones
at Jayson and calling him a “sissy.” She insisted that it was instead Jayson who had
pelted her with stones during the procession. She described the petitioner as a loving and
protective father.[8]

Ruling of the RTC

After trial, the RTC found and declared the petitioner guilty of child abuse as charged, to
wit:[9]

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered

finding the accused GEORGE BONGALON @ “GI” GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt
of Violation of Republic Act No. 7610, and is hereby ordered to undergo imprisonment
of six (6) years and one (1) day to eight (8) years of prision mayor in its minimum period.

SO ORDERED.

Ruling of the CA

On appeal, the petitioner assailed the credibility of the Prosecution witnesses by citing
their inconsistencies. He contended that the RTC overlooked or disregarded material facts
and circumstances in the records that would have led to a favorable judgment for him. He
attacked the lack of credibility of the witnesses presented against him, citing the failure of
the complaining brothers to react to the incident, which was unnatural and contrary to
human experience.

The CA affirmed the conviction, but modified the penalty,[10] viz:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision dated October 20, 2003 of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 9 of Legazpi City is
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that accused-appellant George Bongalon
is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of (4) years, two (2) months and one (1)
day of prision correccional, as minimum term, to six (6) years, eight (8) months and 1
day of prision mayor as the maximum term.

Further, accused-appellant is ordered to pay the victim, Jayson de  la Cruz the additional
amount of P5,000 as moral damages.
SO ORDERED.

Issues

The petitioner has come to the Court via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court.[11]

The petitioner asserts that he was not guilty of the crime charged; and that even assuming
that he was guilty, his liability should be mitigated because he had merely acted to protect
her two minor daughters.

Ruling of the Court

At the outset, we should observe that the petitioner has adopted the wrong remedy in
assailing the CA’s affirmance of his conviction. His proper recourse from the affirmance
of his conviction was an appeal taken in due course. Hence, he should have filed a
petition for review on certiorari. Instead, he wrongly brought a petition
for certiorari. We explained why in People v. Court of Appeals:[12]

The special civil action for certiorari is intended for the correction of errors of
jurisdiction only or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Its principal office is only to keep the inferior court within the parameters of its
jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing such a grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction. As observed in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of
Appeals, et al. “the special civil action for certiorari is a remedy designed for the
correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. The raison d’etre for the
rule is when a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error committed while so engaged does
not deprived it of the jurisdiction being exercised when the error is committed. If it did,
every error committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous
judgment would be a void judgment. In such a scenario, the administration of justice
would not survive. Hence, where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or
legal soundness of the decision–not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision–
the same is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari. The proper
recourse of the aggrieved party from a decision of the Court of Appeals is a petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court.

It is of no consequence that the petitioner alleges grave abuse of discretion on the part of

the CA in his petition. The allegation of grave abuse of discretion no more warrants the
granting of due course to the petition as one for certiorari if appeal was available as a
proper and adequate remedy. At any rate, a reading of his presentation of the issues in his
petition indicates that he thereby imputes to the CA errors of judgment, not errors of
jurisdiction. He mentions instances attendant during the commission of the crime that he
claims were really constitutive of justifying and mitigating circumstances; and specifies
reasons why he believes Republic Act No. 7610 favors his innocence rather than his guilt
for the crime charged.[13] The errors he thereby underscores in the petition concerned only
the CA’s appreciation and assessment of the evidence on record, which really are errors
of judgment, not of jurisdiction.

Even if we were to treat the petition as one brought under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, it would still be defective due to its being filed beyond the period provided by law.
Section 2 of Rule 45 requires the filing of the petition within 15 days from the notice of
judgment to be appealed. However, the petitioner received a copy of the CA’s decision
on July 15, 2005,[14] but filed the petition only on September 12, 2005,[15] or well beyond
the period prescribed by the Rules of Court.

The procedural transgressions of the petitioner notwithstanding, we opt to forego quickly

dismissing the petition, and instead set ourselves upon the task of resolving the issues
posed by the petition on their merits. We cannot fairly and justly ignore his plea about the
sentence imposed on him not being commensurate to the wrong he committed. His plea is
worthy of another long and hard look. If, on the other hand, we were to outrightly dismiss
his plea because of the procedural lapses he has committed, the Court may be seen as an
unfeeling tribunal of last resort willing to sacrifice justice in order to give premium to the
rigidity of its rules of procedure. But the Rules of Court has not been intended to be
rigidly enforced at all times. Rather, it has been instituted first and foremost to ensure
justice to every litigant. Indeed, its announced objective has been to secure a “just,
speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.”[16] This objective
will be beyond realization here unless the Rules of Court be given liberal construction
and application as the noble ends of justice demand. Thereby, we give primacy to
substance over form, which, to a temple of justice and equity like the Court, now
becomes the ideal ingredient in the dispensation of justice in the case now awaiting our
consideration.

The petitioner’s right to liberty is in jeopardy. He may be entirely deprived of such

birthright without due process of law unless we shunt aside the rigidity of the rules of
procedure and review his case. Hence, we treat this recourse as an appeal timely brought
to the Court. Consonant with the basic rule in criminal procedure that an appeal opens the
whole case for review, we should deem it our duty to correct errors in the appealed
judgment, whether assigned or not.[17]

The law under which the petitioner was charged, tried and found guilty of violating is
Section 10 (a), Article VI of Republic Act No. 7610, which relevantly states:

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
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.

xxxx

Child abuse, the crime charged, is defined by Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610, as
follows:

Section 3. Definition of terms. –

xxxx

(b)“Child Abuse” refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the child which

includes any of the following:

(1)  Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional

maltreatment;
(2)  Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic
worth and dignity of a child as a human being;

(3)  Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for survival, such as food and shelter; or

(4)  Failure to immediately give medical treatment to an injured child resulting in serious

impairment of his growth and development or in his permanent incapacity or death.

xxxx

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.

It is not trite to remind that under the well-recognized doctrine of pro reo every doubt is
resolved in favor of the petitioner as the accused. Thus, the Court should consider all
possible circumstances in his favor.[18]

What crime, then, did the petitioner commit?

Considering that Jayson’s physical injury required five to seven days of medical
attention,[19]  the petitioner was liable for slight physical injuries under Article 266 (1) of
the Revised Penal Code, to wit:

Article 266. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment. — The crime of slight physical
injuries shall be punished:

1. By arresto menor when the offender has inflicted physical injuries which shall
incapacitate the offended party for labor from one to nine days, or shall require medical
attendance during the same period.

xxxx

The penalty for slight physical injuries is arresto menor, which ranges from one day to 30
days of imprisonment.[20]  In imposing the correct penalty, however, we have to consider
the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation under Article 13 (6) of the Revised
Penal Code,[21]because the petitioner lost his reason and self-control, thereby diminishing
the exercise of his will power.[22] Passion or obfuscation may lawfully arise from causes
existing only in the honest belief of the accused.[23] It is relevant to mention, too, that in
passion or obfuscation, the offender suffers a diminution of intelligence and intent. With
his having acted under the belief that Jayson and Roldan had thrown stones at his two
minor daughters, and that Jayson had burned Cherrlyn’s hair, the petitioner was entitled
to the mitigating circumstance of passion. Arresto menor is prescribed in its minimum
period (i.e., one day to 10 days) in the absence of any aggravating circumstance that
offset the mitigating circumstance of passion. Accordingly, with the Indeterminate
Sentence Law being inapplicable due to the penalty imposed not exceeding one year,[24] 
the petitioner shall suffer a straight penalty of 10 days of arresto menor.

The award of moral damages to Jayson is appropriate. Such damages are granted in
criminal cases resulting in physical injuries.[25] The amount of ?5,000.00 fixed by the
lower courts as moral damages is consistent with the current jurisprudence. [26]

WHEREFORE, we SET ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals; and ENTER a

new judgment: (a) finding petitioner George Bongalon GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES under paragraph 1, Article 266,
of the Revised Penal Code; (b) sentencing him to suffer the penalty of 10 days of arresto
menor; and (c) ordering him to pay Jayson Dela Cruz the amount of P5,000.00 as moral
damages, plus the costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.

Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-De Castro, Villarama, Jr., and Reyes, JJ. concur,

[1]
 Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination
Act (Approved on June 17, 1992).
[2]
 Rollo, pp. 18-31; penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico (retired), with
Associate Justice Danilo B. Pine (retired) and Associate Justice Arcangelita Romilla-
Lontok (retired) concurring.
[3]
 Records, pp. 1-2.
[4]
 TSN, June 4, 2001, pp. 9-11.
[5]
 TSN, February 6, 2001, pp. 6-21.
[6]
 TSN, October 19, 2001, pp. 3-12.
[7]
 TSN, March 10, 2003, pp. 6-9.
[8]
 TSN, June 28, 2002, pp. 7-16.
[9]
 Records, pp. 301-304.
[10]
 Supra note 2.
[11]
 Rollo, pp. 3-17.
[12]
 G.R. No. 142051, February 24, 2004, 423 SCRA 605, 612-613.
[13]
 Rollo, pp. 10-14.
[14]
 Id. at 8.
[15]
  Id. at 15.
[16]
  Section 6, Rule 1, Rules of Court, which provides:

Section 6. Construction. These Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their
objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and
proceeding. (2a)
[17]
 Ferrer v. People, G.R. No. 143487, February 22, 2006, 483 SCRA 31, 54.
[18]
 Villanueva v. People, G.R. No. 160351, April 10, 2006, 487 SCRA 42, 58.
[19]
 Records, p. 154.
[20]
  Article 27, Revised Penal Code.
[21]
  Article 13. Mitigating circumstances. – The following are mitigating circumstances:

xxx

6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced

passion or obfuscation.
xxx
[22]
 United States v. Salandanan, et al., 1 Phil. 464, 465 (1902).
[23]
 Reyes, Criminal Law, The Revised Penal Code, Book One (15th Edition), p. 286,
citing U.S. v. Ferrer, 1 Phil. 56, 62, U.S. v. Macalintal, 2 Phil. 448, 451; and People v.
Zapata, 107 Phil. 103, 109.
[24]
  Section 2, Indeterminate Sentence Law.
[25]
  Article 2219 (1) of the Civil Code.
[26]
 People v. Villacorta, G.R. No. 186412, September 7, 2011, 657 SCRA 270, 288