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.
No comments:
Post a Comment