Deped Child Protection Policy

BONGALON VS.
PEOPLE
RULING: According to the SC, the records did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the laying
of hands by George 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. Considering that
Jayson’s physical injury required five to seven days of medical attention, the petitioner was liable for
slight physical injuries under Article 266 (1) of the Revised Penal Code.
ROSALDES VS. PEOPLE
ADDITIONAL FACTS: As he fell, Michael Ryan’s body hit a desk. As a result, he lost consciousness.
Petitioner proceeded topick Michael Ryan up by his ears and repeatedly slammed him down on the
floor. Michael Ryan cried.
RULING: Although the petitioner, as a school teacher, could duly discipline Michael Ryan as her
pupil, her infliction of the physical injuries on him was unnecessary, violent and excessive. The boy
even fainted from the violence suffered at her hands. She could not justifiably claim that she acted
only for the sake of disciplining him. Her physical maltreatment of him was precisely prohibited by no
less than the Family Code, which has expressly banned the infliction of corporal punishment by a
school administrator, teacher or individual engaged in child care exercising special parental authority
(i.e., in loco parentis). In the crime charged against the petitioner, therefore, the maltreatment may
consist of an act by deeds or by words that debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and
dignity of a child as a human being. The act need not be habitual. The CA concluded that the
petitioner "went overboard in disciplining Michael Ryan, a helpless and weak 7-year old boy, when
she pinched hard Michael Ryan on the left thigh and when she held him in the armpits and threw him
on the floor[; and as] the boy fell down, his body hit the desk causing him to lose consciousness [but
instead] of feeling a sense of remorse, the accused-appellant further held the boy up by his ears and
pushed him down on the floor."15 On her part, the trial judge said that the physical pain experienced
by the victim had been aggravated by an emotional trauma that caused him to stop going to school
altogether out of fear of the petitioner, compelling his parents to transfer him to another school where
he had to adjust again.16 Such established circumstances proved beyond reasonable doubt that the
petitioner was guilty of child abuse by deeds that degraded and demeaned the intrinsic worth and
dignity of Michael Ryan as a human being.
JAVAREZ VS. PEOPLE
ADDITIONAL FACTS: Around 9 o'clock in the morning, while the class was ongoing, BBB, a 9-year
old minor repeatedly asked one (1) of his classmates to give him rice pop but when the latter refused,
they fought. Petitioner stepped in and hit BBB's face with a broomstick he was holding. In the
afternoon of the same day, in another class, BBB's cousin AAA went out of the classroom to urinate.
When he came back, he saw two (2) of his classmates fighting over food. As he walked toward them,
he saw petitioner approach the two (2) and push AAA in the chest, causing AAA to fall on his face.
RULING: 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. For while hitting BBB with a broomstick is
reprehensible, petitioner did so only to stop BBB and another classmate from fighting over pop rice.
As for AAA, records show that in his effort to stop his two (2) other students from fighting over food
during his afternoon class, petitioner got to push AAA, one of the onlookers, as a result of which, AAA
fell on the floor with his face down.
RA 11648 (RAISING THE AGE OF SEXUAL CONSENT)
"As used in this Act, non-abusive shall mean the absence of undue influence, intimidation, fraudulent
machinations, coercion, threat, physical, sexual, psychological, or mental injury or maltreatment,
either with intention or through neglect, during the conduct of sexual activities with the child victim. On
the other hand, non-exploitative shall mean there is no actual or attempted act or acts of unfairly
taking advantage of the child's position of vulnerability, differential power, or trust during the conduct
of sexual activities."
BACSIN vs. WAHIMAN
RULING: The CSC found, as did the CA, that even without an explicit demand from petitioner his act
of mashing the breast of AAA was sufficient to constitute sexual harassment. Moreover, under
Section 3 (b) (4) of RA 7877, sexual harassment in an education or training environment is committed
“(w)hen the sexual advances result in an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for the student,
trainee or apprentice.” AAA even testified that she felt fear at the time petitioner touched her. In grave
misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of
established rule must be manifest.14 The act of petitioner of fondling one of his students is against a
law, RA 7877, and is doubtless inexcusable. The particular act of petitioner cannot in any way be
construed as a case of simple misconduct.
He is dismissed from service.
BULLYING (RA 10627)
"Bullying" shall refer to any severe or repeated use by one or more students of a written, verbal or
electronic expression, or a physical act or gesture, or any combination thereof, directed at another
student that has the effect of actually causing or placing the latter in reasonable fear of physical or
emotional harm or damage to his property; creating a hostile environment at school for the other
student; infringing on the rights of the other student at school; or materially and substantially
disrupting the education process or the orderly operation of a school

Deped Child Protection Policy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Deped Child Protection Policy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Deped Child Protection Policy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BONGALON VS.

ROSALDES VS. PEOPLE

RA 11648 (RAISING THE AGE OF SEXUAL CONSENT)

BACSIN vs. WAHIMAN

He is dismissed from service.

BULLYING (RA 10627)

You might also like