1

The People of the Philippines vs. Flor Pueyo alias “Tito Flong”
G.R. No. 192327 | February 26, 2020

FACTS:

On November 4, 1997, Pueyo was doing welding works when he got angry at children
who climbed a bulldozer parked nearby. He instructed the children to go down but AAA, a six-
year-old child, did not comply. Pueyo then approached AAA and poked a welding rod into the
latter’s genital area.

Flor Pueyo was charged with the crime of violation of Section 10(a) of RA 7610, otherwise
known as the “Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act”
on November 24, 1998. Even the CA affirmed this decision of the RTC, while imposing
modifications on Pueyo’s sentence and pecuniary liabilities.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the CA’s affirmation of the RTC’s decision is “erroneous and without basis”.

RULING:

No. Pueyo’s appeal has no merit.

The Supreme Court ruled that Pueyo’s case constitutes child abuse as contemplated in
Section 10(a) of RA 7610, which require the following elements: (1) AAA’s minority; (2) the acts
constituting physical abuse committed by Pueyo against AAA; and, (3) the fact that the said acts
are clearly punishable under RA 7610, specifically under Section 3(b).

Further, Pueyo is not only liable for the crime of child abuse. His acts have also shown to
fall within the punitive purview of rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A(2) of the RPC, in
relation to Section 5(b) of RA 7610.

Legal Research mfbgarcia