View full case

VIRGINIA JABALDE Y JAMANDRON v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

The petitioner, Virginia Jabalde, was charged with violating Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610 for allegedly slapping, striking, and choking an eight-year-old boy named Lin. The incident took place in Barangay Cawitan, Santa Catalina, Negros Oriental, and resulted in Lin sustaining injuries. Witnesses presented by the prosecution included Lin, Dr. Rosita Muñoz who examined Lin, Ray Ann Samson who witnessed the incident, and Aileen Bitoon, Lin's mother. Lin testified that he accidentally harmed Jabalde's daughter while playing, and Jabalde retaliated by assaulting him. Dr. Muñoz confirmed Lin's injuries, which consisted of abrasions on his neck. Ray Ann corroborated Lin's account, while Aileen testified to finding her son with scratches on his neck and confirming the incident with Lin's teacher.

Jabalde, who claimed to be Lin's grandmother, testified in her defense. She argued that she only learned of the incident when children informed her that Nova's head was punctured. Thinking that her daughter was dead, she fainted but regained consciousness after some time. She then ran to her daughter's classroom but saw her grandson crying. He ran away when she asked about Nova. Jabalde proceeded to her daughter's room, applied first aid, and then resumed teaching. She argued that there was a family grudge and a motive behind Nova's complaint.

The RTC found Jabalde guilty and sentenced her to an indeterminate penalty. The decision was affirmed with modification by the CA, and Jabalde's motion for reconsideration was denied. She then filed a petition before the Supreme Court. The primary issue before the Court was whether Jabalde's acts should be punished under the Revised Penal Code or Republic Act No. 7610. Jabalde argued for punishment under the Revised Penal Code, while the prosecution argued that her acts fell under Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610. The Court found the petition meritorious and held that the issues raised were not barred by estoppel, as the factual antecedents of the present case were different from the cases cited by the Office of the Solicitor General.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the acts complained of in the case fall within the definition of R.A. No. 7610.

  2. Whether the question raised by Jabalde is a question of law or a question of fact.

  3. Whether the laying of hands on the victim constitutes child abuse under R.A. No. 7610.

  4. Whether the accused acted with the intent to debase, degrade, or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child.

  5. Whether or not the accused had the intent to cause physical injuries or kill the victim.

  6. Whether or not the accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation.

RULING:

  1. The acts complained of do not fall within the definition of R.A. No. 7610. The Court agrees with Jabalde's contention that the acts she was charged with, specifically the act of inflicting injuries, are punishable under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), particularly Article 266(1) on slight physical injuries. Therefore, these acts are outside the realm of R.A. No. 7610.

  2. The question raised by Jabalde is a question of law. The Court affirms that the question of whether the acts fall within the definition of R.A. No. 7610 involves the interpretation and application of the law to the given set of circumstances. It does not require a review or evaluation of the evidence presented.

  3. The laying of hands on the victim does not constitute child abuse under R.A. No. 7610. The acts of the accused were done at the spur of the moment and in anger, without the intent to humiliate or embarrass the child. The laying of hands was a result of the accused's fatherly concern for the safety of his own minor daughters who had just suffered harm.

  4. The accused did not act with the intent to debase, degrade, or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child. The records did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to humiliate or embarrass the child. The accused was overwhelmed by his fatherly concern for his own daughters, causing him to lose control and lack the specific intent required for the crime of child abuse.

  5. Yes, the accused had the intent to cause physical injuries or kill the victim. The testimonies of the victim and another witness established the fact that the accused had indeed intended to cause physical injuries, if not kill, the victim. The laying of hands and the utterance of threatening words by the accused support the finding of intent.

  6. Yes, the accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation. The accused acted under the belief that the victim had killed her daughter, which provoked an uncontrollable burst of passion. The requirements for passion or obfuscation as a mitigating circumstance were met in this case.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A question of law exists when there is doubt or controversy as to what the law is on a certain set of facts, without requiring an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented.

  • A question of fact arises when there is doubt or difference as to the truth or falsehood of alleged facts, and it requires a re-evaluation of the credibility of witnesses or the existence and relevance of surrounding circumstances.

  • To be punished as child abuse under R.A. No. 7610, the laying of hands must be shown beyond reasonable doubt to be intended to debase, degrade, or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being. Otherwise, it is punished under the Revised Penal Code.

  • Debasement is the act of reducing the value, quality, or purity of something. Degradation is a lessening of a person's or thing's character or quality. Demeaning is to lower in status, condition, reputation, or character.

  • The intent to debase, degrade, or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being is an essential element in the crime of child abuse under R.A. No. 7610.

  • If there is no evidence of actual incapacity of the offended party for labor or the required medical attendance, or proof of the period of the offended party's incapacity for labor or the required medical attendance, the offense is only considered slight physical injuries under the Revised Penal Code.

  • In intentional felony cases, the presence of malice or intent is a prerequisite for criminal liability.

  • Malice or intent in intentional felony refers to a malicious intention to do wrong against the physical integrity or well-being of a person.

  • The commission of an act that results in physical injuries does not make a person guilty unless their intentions are proven.

  • The penalty for slight physical injuries is arresto menor, which ranges from one (1) day to thirty (30) days of imprisonment.

  • Passion or obfuscation is a mitigating circumstance when the crime was committed due to an uncontrollable burst of passion provoked by prior unjust or improper acts, or due to a legitimate stimulus so powerful as to overcome reason.

  • Passion or obfuscation as a mitigating circumstance requires that the unlawful act sufficient to produce passion or obfuscation was committed by the intended victim, the crime was committed within a reasonable length of time from the commission of the unlawful act, and the passion or obfuscation arose from lawful sentiments and not from a spirit of lawlessness or revenge.