LANDMARK

CASES
ART. 233
 FACTS: Landmark cases under art233 as
first case is Felina Rosaldes v. People of the Philippines

 The petitioner Felina Rosaldes, a public schoolteacher, was charged and found guilty of child abuse punished under RA 7610.

 The victim was her own Grade 1 pupil whom she physically maltreated for having accidentally bumped her knee on a bamboo sofa as he entered the classroom
while the petitioner was asleep. And as duly certified by a physician, Her maltreatment left the student with physical injuries,
  
 It appears from the records that seven-year-old Michael Ryan Gonzales, then a Grade 1 pupil, was hurriedly entering his classroom when he accidentally
bumped the knew of his teacher, herein petitioner, who was then asleep on a bamboo sofa. – do not read
 
 Petitioner asked Michael to apologize, the latter, however, proceeded instead to his seat. Petitioner then pinched Michael on his thigh, held him up by his
armpits and pushed him to the floor causing him to hit a desk and, consequently, losing his consciousness. Petitioner proceeded to pick Michael by his ears
and repeatedly slammed him down on the floor.

After the incident, petitioner proceeded to teach her class. During lunch break, Michael, accompanied by two of his classmates, went home crying and told his mother about the incident.
So, His mother and his Aunt reported the incident to their Barangay Captain, who advised them to have Michael Ryan examined by a doctor. They, likewise, reported the incident to the
Police Station
The medical certificate issued by Dr. Teresita Castigador reads, in part:
1. Petechiae - puh·tee·kee·uh and tenderness of both external ears 1x2 cm. and 1x1 cm.;
2. Lumbar pains and tenderness at area of L3-L4;
3. Contusions at left inner thigh 1x1 and 1x1 cm.;
4. Tenderness and painful on walking especially at the area of femoral head.

 Petitioner contends that she did not deliberately inflict the physical injuries suffered by Michael to maltreat or malign him in a manner that would debase,
demean or degrade his dignity and avers that her maltreatment is only an act of discipline that she as a schoolteacher could reasonably do towards the
development of the child.
 The petitioner was criminally charged with child abuse in the Regional Trial Court in Iloilo City (RTC) and appealed in the CA.

01/13/2022 2
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of the crime of child abuse
punishable under RA 7610.
RULING
:
.

In the given case,

YES, petitioner Rosales is guilty of a violation of RA 7610. Although the petitioner, as a schoolteacher, 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)

Section 10 (a) of Republic Act No. 7610, states that Not every instance of the laying of hands on a child constitutes the crime of child abuse. Only when the laying of hands is shown
beyond reasonable doubt to be intended by the accused to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being should it be punished as child
abuse. Otherwise, it is punished under the Revised Penal Code

Proof of the severe results of the petitioner’s physical maltreatment of Michael Ryan was also provided, given that the victim was only examined at about 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon of
the same day of the incident which was barely three hours from the time the boy had sustained his injuries.

Section 3b of Republic Act No. 7610 defines child abuse: discuss the instances of child abuse

(b) “Child abuse” refers to 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;

4
 RULING:
(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.

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 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.

It was also shown that Michael Ryan’s physical maltreatment by the petitioner was neither her first or only maltreatment of a child. Prosecution witness
Louella Loredo revealed on cross examination that she had also experienced the petitioner’s cruelty.  The petitioner was also convicted by the RTC in Iloilo
City (Branch 39) in Criminal Case No. 348921 for maltreatment of another childnamed Dariel Legayada .  

Such previous incidents manifested that the petitioner had "a propensity for violence

• Add Petitioner’s claim that charging her with child abuse was insufficient in form and substance, in that the essential elements of the crime charged were
not properly alleged therein. The petitioner’s submission deserves scant consideration.

Add……….CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. subject to the MODIFICATIONS that: (a) the petitioner shall suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4)
years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional, as minimum, to seven (7) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of pr is ion mayor, as
the maximum; (b) the petitioner shall pay to Michael Ryan Gonzales ₱20,000.00 as moral damages, ₱20,000.00 as exemplary damages, and ₱20,000.00
as temperate damages, plus interest at the rate of 6% per annum on each item of the civil liability reckoned from the finality of this decision until full
payment; and (c) the petitioner shall pay the costs of suit.

01/13/2022 5
FACTS:
 MARCELA M. BAGAJO (petitioner) was convicted by the Municipal Trial Court for the crime of slight
physical injuries committed against her pupil Wilma Alcantara.

There was an accident happen in the petitioner’s classroom which causes one
pupil to be hurt and fainted, allegedly cause by the complainant Wilma Alcantara.
 
At that precise moment, petitioner was entering the room. The petitioner asked Wilma
about what happen but the later denied having to do with what had just taken place.
. Petitioner thereupon became angry and with a piece of bamboo stick whipped Wilma behind her
legs and her thigh, which causes injuries to the latter. Petitioner thereupon became angry and
with a piece of bamboo stick whipped Wilma behind her legs and her thigh, which causes
injuries to the latter.
 FACTS:
 The medical certificate indicated that there were:
1.Linear bruises at the middle half of the dorsal surface of both legs. It is about four
inches in length and 1/4 centimeter in width. There are three on the right leg and two
on the left leg.

2. Two linear bruises of the same width and length as above at the lower third of the
dorsal surface of the right thigh.
"The above lessions, if without complication, may heal in four to six days
 
READ petitioner claims in her appeal that respondent Judge erred in convicting her of the crime of slight
physical injuries. She maintains that as the teacher, she was just trying to discipline her pupil Wilma for
tripping her classmate and for denying that she did so. She contends she was not actuated by any criminal
intent. And she is joined in this pose by the Solicitor General, who recommends her acquittal, coupled with
the observation that although "petitioner is not criminally liable for her conduct, she may still be held
accountable for her conduct administratively.

01/13/2022 7
 ISSUE:

Whether or not the evidence rendered constitute

criminally liability against the petitioner.

01/13/2022 8
 RULING read
THE SUPREME COURT HELD that as a matter of law, petitioner did not incur any criminal liability for her act of
whipping her pupil, Wilma, with the bamboo-stick-pointer, in the circumstances proven in the record. Independently
of any civil or administrative responsibility for such act she might be found to have incurred by the proper
authorities, THE COURT IS persuaded that she did not do what she had done with criminal intent. That she meant to
punish Wilma and somehow make her feel such punishment may be true, but IT IS convinced that the means she
actually used was moderate and that she was not motivated by ill-will, hatred or any malevolent intent. The nature
of the injuries actually suffered by Wilma, and the fact that petitioner whipped her only behind the legs and thigh,
show, that indeed she intended merely to discipline her. And it cannot be said, that Wilma did not deserve to be
discipline.
+ The standard common law test of criminal liability is expressed in the Latin phrase  Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea.
+ the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty. culpable ,,, someone is legally
responsible (liable) for a criminal act

The court held that there is no indication beyond reasonable doubt, in the evidence before the trial
court, that petitioner was actuated by a criminal design to inflict the injuries suffered by complainant as
a result of her being whipped by petitioner. What appears is that petitioner acted as she did in the belief as a
teacher exercising authority over her pupil in loco parentis,
she was within her rights to punish her moderately for purposes of discipline.
Petitioner is therefore acquitted. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
WHEREFORE, petitioner is hereby acquitted, with costs de officio, without prejudice to her being dealt with
administratively or in a civil case for damages not resulting ex delicto.
endddddddddd

01/13/2022 9
 RULING:
 NO, the court ruled that the petitioner did not incur any criminal liability for her act of
whipping her pupil, in the circumstances proven in the record. Independently of any civil or
administrative responsibility for such act she might be found to have incurred by the proper
authorities, the Court is persuaded that the petitioner did not do what she had done with
criminal intent. That she meant to punish Wilma and somehow make her feel such
punishment may be true, but the Court is convinced that the means she actually used was
moderate and that she was not motivated by ill-will, hatred or any malevolent intent.

 The nature of the injuries actually suffered by Wilma, a few linear bruises and the fact that
petitioner whipped her only behind the legs and thigh, show, that indeed she intended
merely to discipline her. And it cannot be said, that Wilma did not deserve to be discipline. In
other words, it was farthest from the thought of petitioner to commit any criminal offense.

01/13/2022 10
 RULING:
 Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea.

So, in this case, the Court believes that there is no indication beyond reasonable
doubt, that petitioner was actuated by a criminal design to inflict the injuries
suffered by complainant as a result of her being whipped by petitioner. What
appears is that petitioner acted as she did in the belief as a teacher exercising
authority over her pupil in loco parentis.

01/13/2022 11