Other acts of child abuse, cruelty and exploitation under Republic Act (RA) No. 7610

One may be surprised that Republic Act (RA) No. 7610, also known as “Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act,” was approved into law as early as June 17, 1992.

Under this law, the State creates sanctions to deter violations against children such as trafficking, child prostitution and other forms of sexual abuse, and discrimination against children from indigenous communities. RA 7610 allows children to enjoy their rights protected from any abuse or prejudice which may threaten their development.

Section 10 of this law provides -

“(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 shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period. (Six years and one day)

The penalty for the crimes of murder, homicide, other intentional mutilation, and serious physical injuries, respectively, shall be reclusion perpetua when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age. (Thirty years)”

Two notable cases are:

Jumaquio vs. Villarosa (GR No. 165924, [2009])

The case originates from an incident that happened on August 2, 2003, when petitioner Resty Jumaquio allegedly threatened and assaulted two young men, then ages 13 and 17.  

On account of that altercation, two separate Informations were filed with the RTC of San Jose City, for two distinct offenses of child abuse—Criminal Case No.  SJC-78-04 for child abuse committed through the use of threatening words, and Criminal Case No. SJC-79-04 for child abuse through the infliction of physical injuries. Both were upheld by the Supreme Court.  

In the first information, petitioner is charged with child abuse by uttering debasing, demeaning and degrading words to the minor.  

In the second, he is charged with child abuse by inflicting physical injuries that debase, demean and degrade the dignity of the children as human beings.

Sanchez vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 179090, [2009])

Appellant contended that, after proof, the act should not be considered as child abuse but merely as slight physical injuries defined and punishable under Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code.

But according to the Supreme Court, appellant conveniently forgot that when the incident happened, VVV was a child entitled to the protection extended by R.A. No. 7610, as mandated by the Constitution.

As gleaned from the foregoing, the provision punishes not only those enumerated under Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, but also four distinct acts, i.e., (a) child abuse,  (b) child cruelty, (c) child exploitation and (d) being responsible for conditions prejudicial to the child’s development.

An accused can be prosecuted and be convicted under Section 10 (a), Article VI of Republic Act No. 7610 if he commits any of the four acts therein.  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 former acts.

It must be noted that in both cases, it was clearly established that the accused inflicted abuses against the victims, including the manner by which said abuses were inflicted or committed.

The rights of the child and the schools' duties and obligations under the law

It would be safe to presume that we are all equally and reasonably concerned with the welfare and safety of our minor children as the classes open for this school year. Next to the quality of education, unsafe school premises and activities, abusive teachers and school bullies, may just be some concerns on top of our minds as our children bid us goodbye and lug their heavy trolley bags to the school gate. Fortunate are we if these concerns would later turn out to be mere phantoms, and come moving up day, we breathe a sigh of relief.

Three laws may very well assuage us of our niggling concerns. You may take a look at the following:

1. Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act (RA 7610);

2. The Child and Youth Welfare Code (PD 603); and

3. The Family Code (EO 209)

RA 7610 defines "children" as persons below eighteen (18) years of age or those over but are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition.

It also categorizes "child abuse" as 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.

Cruelty against or humiliation of the child as defined under PD 603 is punishable by prision mayor in its minimum period.

The Family Code (EO 209) tackles substitute and special parental authority of the school, its administrators and teachers over the children and their corresponding civil liabilities.

The Family Code provides that, “The school, its administrators and teachers, or the individual, entity or institution engaged in child care shall have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor child while under their supervision, instruction or custody.” Such authority and responsibility “shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the premises of the school, entity or institution.”

Accordingly, those given the authority and responsibility shall be principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or omissions of the unemancipated minor. The parents, judicial guardians or the persons exercising substitute parental authority over said minor shall be subsidiarily liable.

However, such liabilities would cease and shall not apply if it is proved that the school, its administrators and teachers exercise the proper diligence required under the particular circumstances.

In a recent case, the Supreme Court describes proper diligence, to wit: "...neglect in preventing a foreseeable injury and damage equates to neglect in exercising the utmost degree of diligence required of schools, its administrators and teachers, and, ultimately, was the proximate cause of the damage and injury to Jayson. As we have held in St. Mary’s, “for petitioner [St. Mary’s Academy] to be liable, there must be a finding that the act or omission considered as negligent was the proximate cause of the injury caused because the negligence must have a causal connection to the accident.” (St. Joseph's College vs. Miranda [2010])

Godspeed!