G.R. No. 206627 Torres told AAA not to pry in the affairs of adults.

Torres told AAA not to pry in the affairs of adults. He warned AAA that he WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the instant appeal is
would whip him if he did not stop. 16However, AAA refused to keep silent hereby DENIED. The Decision dated 5 June 2006 promulgated by the
and continued to accuse Torres of damaging his uncle's multicab. Infuriated Regional Trial Court of Bohol, Branch 1 in Tagbilaran City in Crim. Case No.
VAN CLIFFORD TORRES y SALERA, Petitioner
with AAA's meddling, Torres whipped AAA on the neck using a wet t- 12338 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the accusedappellant is
vs.
shirt. 17 Torres continued to hit AAA causing the latter to fall down from the sentenced to five (5) years, four (4) months and twenty-one (21) days
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent
stairs. 18 CCC came to his nephew's defense and punched Torres. They of prision correccional as minimum, to six (6) years, eight (8) months and
engaged in a fistfight until they were separated by Barangay Captain one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum.
DECISION Hermilando Miano. 19 Torres hit AAA with a wet t-shirt three (3) times.20
SO ORDERED.32 (Emphasis in the original)
LEONEN, J.: Based on the physical examination conducted by Dr. Vicente Manalo, Jr.,
AAA sustained a contusion.21
Torres moved for reconsideration, but the Motion was denied in the Court
Through this Petition for Review on Certiorari, 1 petitioner Van Clifford of Appeals Resolution33 dated February 22, 2013.1âwphi1
Torres y Salera (Torres) challenges the Court of Appeals Decision 2 dated After the prosecution rested its case, the defense presented the following
August 11, 2011 and Resolution3 dated February 22, 2013 in CA-G.R. CEB- version of the incident:
Aggrieved, Torres filed before this Court this Petition for Review
CR No. 00481. The assailed judgments affirmed the Regional Trial Court
on Certiorari.34
Decision dated June 5, 2006, which convicted Torres for violation of
Torres testified that he had just arrived tired from fishing when CCC
badgered him to answer for the damage he had allegedly caused to CCC's
On October 7, 2013, respondent People of the Philippines, through the
Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610.4 multicab. AAA abruptly interrupted the heated discussion between the two
Office of the Solicitor General, filed a Comment, 35 to which petitioner filed
men. 22Angered by what AAA had done, Torres told AAA to stop making
a Reply36 on February 7, 2014.
unfounded accusations or he would be forced to whip him. AAA called
In an Information dated June 9, 2004 filed before Branch 1 of the Regional Torres' bluff, which further provoked Torres. Torres attempted to hit AAA
Trial Court of Tagbilaran City, Bohol, Torres was charged with other acts of but was thwarted by the timely intervention of CCC, who suddenly attacked Petitioner raises the following issues for this Court's resolution: (1) whether
child abuse under Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610:5 him.23 the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining his conviction on a judgment
premised on a misapprehension of facts; and (2) whether the Court of
That on or about the 11th day of November, 2003, in the municipality of Appeals erred in affirming his conviction despite the failure of the
Torres claimed that CCC filed this case to preempt him from filing a
Clarin, province of Bohol, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.37
complaint for physical injuries against CCC. 24He also claimed that he tried
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to harm and to settle the matter with CCC and CCC's wife. 25 However, the parties failed
humiliate, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously abuse, to reach an agreement due to the unreasonable demands of the spouses. 26 Petitioner invites this Court to review the factual findings on the ground that
slap and whip AAA, a 14 year old minor (born on June 5, 1989) with a T- the judgment was rendered based on a misapprehension of facts. He argues
shirt hitting his neck and shoulder and causing him to fall down on the stairs
that both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals disregarded
of the barangay hall which acts are humiliating and prejudicial to the On June 5, 2006, the Regional Trial Court convicted Torres, thus:
certain material facts, which, if properly considered, would have justified a
development of the victim and are covered by Article 59 of Pres. Decree 603,
different conclusion.38 In particular, petitioner challenges the credibility of
as amended; to the damage and prejudice of the said victim in the amount
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds VAN CLIFFORD the prosecution's witnesses.39 He highlights the inconsistencies in their
to be proved during trial. 6
TORRES y Salera, the accused[,] GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Other testimonies and their failure to clearly establish the presence of CCC's wife
Acts of Child Abuse under Section 10, paragraph A of Republic Act No. 7610 during the incident.40
Upon arraignment, Torres pleaded not guilty. 7 Trial on the merits ensued.8 and applying in his favor the beneficial provisions of The Indeterminate
Sentence Law, he is hereby imposed the indeterminate sentence of
Petitioner also calls attention to the partiality of the prosecution's witnesses,
imprisonment of SIX (6) YEARS, the maximum period of prision
The prosecution presented the victim AAA, AAA's aunt and uncle, Dr. majority of whom are relatives of the victim. 41 He believes that the
correccional as minimum to EIGHT (8) YEARS of prision mayor as
Vicente Manalo Jr., and Barangay Captain Hermilando Miano as witnesses prosecution's witnesses could not have given a true narrative of the incident
maximum, the accessory penalties provided by law and to pay the costs. Van
to testify on the alleged incident.9 The prosecution established the following because of their obvious bias.42 Hence, their testimonies were undeserving
Clifford Torres y Salera is also imposed a penalty of FINE of FIVE
facts during trial: of any weight and credit.
THOUSAND PESOS (PS,000) pursuant to Section 31, Letter f, RA 7610. The
Court credits Van Clifford Torres y Salera his preventive imprisonment in
CCC, AAA's uncle, previously filed a complaint for malicious mischief the service of his penalty pursuant to Art. 29 [of] the Revised Penal Code as On the other hand, respondent argues that the questions raised by
against Torres, who allegedly caused damage to CCC's multicab. 10 AAA Amended. petitioner were questions of fact, which are generally proscribed in a
witnessed the alleged incident and was brought by CCC to testify during the petition for review under Rule 45.43
barangay conciliation. 11 SO ORDERED.27
We affirm petitioner's conviction. The act of whipping a child three (3) times
On November 3, 2003, CCC and AAA were at the barangay hall of Clarin, in the neck with a wet t-shirt constitutes child abuse.
Torres appealed before the Court of Appeals. 28 He argued that the
Bohol waiting for the conciliation proceedings to begin when they chanced prosecution failed to establish all the elements of child abuse and that his
upon Torres who had just arrived from fishing. 12 CCC's wife, who was also guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.29 He also questioned the It is a fundamental rule that only questions of law may be raised in a petition
with them at the barangay hall, persuaded Torres to attend the conciliation lower court's jurisdiction over the case.30 for review on certiorari under Rule 45.44The factual findings of the trial
proceedings to answer for his liability. 13 Torres vehemently denied
court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally
damaging CCC's multicab. 14 In the middle of the brewing argument, AAA binding and conclusive on this Court.45 This Court is not a trier of facts. 46 It
suddenly interjected that Torres damaged CCC's multicab and accused him In its Decision31 dated August 11, 2011, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
is not duty-bound to analyze, review, and weigh the evidence all over again
of stealing CCC's fish nets. 15 Regional Trial Court Decision, albeit with modification as to the penalty:
in the absence of any showing of any arbitrariness, capriciousness, or
palpable error.47 A departure from the general rule may only be warranted State shall defend the right of the children to assistance, including proper We find petitioner liable for other acts of child abuse under Article VI,
in cases where the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to the care and nutrition, and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610, which provides that "a person who
findings of the trial court or when these are unsupported by the evidence on cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to their shall commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or be
record.48 development."67 (Emphasis omitted, citation omitted) responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child's development .
shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period."70
The assessment of the credibility of witnesses is a function properly within Under Section 3(b) of the Republic Act No. 7610, child abuse is defined,
the office of the trial courts.49 It is a question of fact not reviewable by this thus: In Araneta:
Court.50 The trial court's findings on the matter are entitled to great weight
and given great respect and "may only be disregarded ... if there are facts
Section 3. Definition of Terms. [Article VI, Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610] punishes not only those
and circumstances which were overlooked by the trial court and which
enumerated under Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, but also four
would substantially alter the results of the case[.]"51
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.
This Court finds no reason to disturb the factual findings of the trial court. The Rules and Regulations of the questioned statute distinctly and
The trial court neither disregarded nor overlooked any material fact or (b) "Child abuse" refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the separately defined child abuse, cruelty and exploitation just to show that
circumstance that would substantially alter the case. The presence or child which includes any of the following: these three acts are different from one another and from the act prejudicial
absence of one person during the incident is not substantial enough to to the child's development. . . . [An] accused can be prosecuted and be
overturn the finding that petitioner whipped AAA three (3) times with a wet convicted under Section 10(a), Article VI of Republic Act No. 7610 if he
t-shirt.52 (1) Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and commits any of the four acts therein. The prosecution need not prove that
emotional maltreatment; 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
Assuming, without admitting, that petitioner did whip AAA, petitioner
(2) Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the the child is different from the former acts.
argues that it should not be considered as child abuse because the law
requires intent to abuse.53 Petitioner maintains that he whipped AAA intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being;
merely to discipline and restrain the child "from further intensifying the Moreover, it is a rule in statutory construction that the word "or" is a
situation."54 He also maintains that his act was justified because AAA (3) Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for survival, such as food disjunctive term signifying dissociation and independence of one thing from
harassed and vexed him. 55 Thus, petitioner claims that there could not have and shelter; or other things enumerated. It should, as a rule, be construed in the sense
been any intent to abuse on his part. which it ordinarily implies. Hence, the use of "or" in Section 10(a) of
Republic Act No. 7610 before the phrase "be responsible for other
(4) Failure to immediately give medical treatment to an injured child conditions prejudicial to the child's development" supposes that there are
Petitioner contends that the injuries sustained by AAA will not affect the resulting in serious impairment of his growth and development or in his four punishable acts therein. First, the act of child abuse; second, child
latter's physical growth or development and mental capacity. 56 He argues permanent incapacity or death. (Emphasis supplied) cruelty; third, child exploitation; and fourth, being responsible for
that he could not be convicted of child abuse without proof that the victim's
conditions prejudicial to the child's development. The fourth penalized act
development had been prejudiced. 57 He begs the indulgence of this Court
As can be gleaned from this provision, a person who commits an act that cannot be interpreted ... as a qualifying condition for the three other acts,
and claims that his conviction would only serve as a "precedent to all
debases, degrades, or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child because an analysis of the entire context of the questioned provision does
children to act recklessly, errantly[,] and disobediently"58 and would then
as a human being, whether habitual or not, can be held liable for violation not warrant such construal.71 (Emphasis supplied)
create a society ruled by juvenile delinquency and errant behavior. 59 If at
all, petitioner claims that he could only be convicted of slight physical of Republic Act No. 7610.
injuries under the Revised Penal Code for the contusion sustained by Petitioner's act of whipping AAA on the neck with a wet t-shirt is an act that
AAA. 60 Although it is true that not every instance of laying of hands on the child debases, degrades, and demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child.
constitutes child abuse,68 petitioner's intention to debase, degrade, and It is a form of cruelty. Being smacked several times in a public place is a
demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child can be inferred from the humiliating and traumatizing experience for all persons regardless of age.
Respondent maintains that the act of whipping AAA is an act of child
manner in which he committed the act complained of. Petitioner, as an adult, should have exercised restraint and self-control
abuse.61 Respondent argues that the act complained of need not be
rather than retaliate against a 14-year-old child.
prejudicial to the development of the child for it to constitute a violation of
Republic Act No. 7610.62 Respondent, citing Sanchez v. People,63 argues To note, petitioner used a wet t-shirt to whip the child not just once but three
that Section 10(a)64 of Republic Act No. 7610 defines and punishes four (3) times.69 Common sense and human experience would suggest that WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision
distinct acts.65 hitting a sensitive body part, such as the neck, with a wet t-shirt would cause dated August 11, 2011 and Resolution dated February 22, 2013 in CA_G.R.
an extreme amount of pain, especially so if it was done several times. There CEB-CR No. 00481 affirming the conviction of petitioner Vam Clifford
is also reason to believe that petitioner used excessive force. Otherwise, AAA Torres y Salera for violation of Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610
We reject petitioner's contention that his act of whipping AAA is not child
would not have fallen down the stairs at the third strike. AAA would likewise are AFFIRMED.
abuse but merely slight physical injuries under the Revised Penal Code. The
victim, AAA, was a child when the incident occurred. Therefore, AAA is not have sustained a contusion.
entitled to protection under Republic Act No. 7610, the primary purpose of SO ORDERED.
which has been defined in Araneta v. People: 66 Indeed, if the only intention of petitioner were to discipline AAA and f stop
him from interfering, he could have resorted to other less violent means.
Republic Act No. 7610 is a measure geared towards the implementation of Instead of reprimanding AAA or walking away, petitioner chose to hit the
a national comprehensive program for the survival of the most vulnerable latter.
members of the population, the Filipino children, in keeping with the
Constitutional mandate under Article XV, Section 3, paragraph 2, that "The