Cruel acts, though not alleged to debase, degrade child, may still be considered abuse

Dear PAO,

Can a person who pointed and poked a gun at a 12-year-old child be held liable for child abuse under Republic Act 7610 when the complaint does not seem to indicate that there was an intention to debase or degrade said child? This happened to the son of my best friend. They already filed a complaint and alleged the cruel and unpleasant experience of the child when the incident happened, but apparently, someone told their family that the accused may not be held liable because they did not indicate there was an intention to debase or degrade said child. They want to obtain justice and have the accused incarcerated.

Pilar

Dear Pilar,

There are several ways to commit child abuse. While words and actions that tend to debase or degrade a child are a manner of child abuse, abuse of children is not only confined therein. Psychological abuse, cruelty, and emotional maltreatment of children, among others, are also forms of child abuse. To be specific, it is enumerated and defined under Section 3 of Republic Act (RA) 7610, otherwise known as the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act:

“Section 3. Definition of Terms. –

“x x x

“(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.” (Emphasis supplied)

In the situation that you have shared with us, the accused may still be held criminally liable for child abuse under RA 7610, notwithstanding the fact that the complaint does not specifically allege that such acts of the accused of pointing and poking a gun at the minor victim debased or degraded said child, provided that it has been specifically alleged in the complaint that such cruel acts caused psychological maltreatment on the victim, pursuant to Section 3(b)(1) of RA 7610, and that they can substantiate the same with evidence beyond reasonable doubt. In one case, the Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez, explained:

“It bears emphasis that the object involved in this case is a gun. Unlike other objects that may be used to hurt a child, a gun serves no other purpose than to cause injury or death. In the hands of a person with ill-motive, the objective to injure or kill could be achieved; in the hands of a person with good intention, the objective to repel an unlawful aggression may be accomplished. In these cases, one has to cause injury in order to achieve either objective.

“Certainly, when there is nothing to defend against, any preparatory act of using a gun, as by pointing it towards a minor, would only cause fear in the mind of that person. With the only remaining act of pulling the trigger of a gun, it is the near possibility of the resulting death or injury that will remain etched in the mind of the minor. There is no denying that psychological harm immediately results therefrom, which falls as psychological abuse, as Section 3(b) of R.A. No. 7610 classifies maltreatment as child abuse based on the act committed, whether it be habitual or not. x x x

“It is not farfetched to assume that children, recognized as the most vulnerable members of society, can offer no resistance against an armed officer and, in all likelihood, would be scarred by trauma long after the incident. A gun, when used to threaten an individual, moreso a minor, would undoubtedly create a lasting fear that could persist throughout the minor’s life; worse, such an incident could further erode and even endanger the minor’s psychological state and normal development. Ineluctably, the use of such firearm in such manner as in this case inherently carries with it a malicious intent to which San Juan must be held answerable for. As such, San Juan must be held liable for violation of Section 10(a) in relation to Section 3(b)(1) of R.A. No. 7610.” (Marvin L. San Juan v. People of the Philippines, GR 236628. Jan. 17, 2023)

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated on.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]