View full case

ERLINDA ESCOLANO Y IGNACIO v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

Erlinda Escolano was found guilty of violating Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610, or the Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) relied on the testimonies of the private complainants, who stated that Escolano threatened them with a bolo while uttering insults. The RTC considered the severity of Escolano's act and its detrimental effect on the private complainants, who had to move out of fear. Escolano appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), but the CA affirmed the RTC's decision, emphasizing the impact of Escolano's actions on the private complainants' lives. Dissatisfied, Escolano filed a petition before the Supreme Court, arguing that the testimonies were inconsistent. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) asserted that the witnesses' accounts were reliable, and the bolo used by Escolano should not be ignored.

This case involves the interpretation of the penalty provision under Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, and Republic Act No. 7610, also known as the "Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act." The accused was convicted and sentenced to prision mayor in its minimum period for committing acts of lasciviousness against a minor. The accused argues that the penalty for acts of lasciviousness should be reduced based on Republic Act No. 7610, which provides for a lower penalty for child prostitution. The prosecution asserts that the penalty under Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, still applies to acts of lasciviousness committed against minors, and Republic Act No. 7610 only provides additional penalties for offenses against children. The court must decide which penalty provision should apply in this case.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the act of shouting invectives against minors constitutes child abuse under Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610.

  2. Whether an intent to debase, degrade, or demean the intrinsic worth of the child victim is necessary to constitute child abuse under Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610.

  3. Whether or not the petitioner's act of threatening the private complainants falls under Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610.

  4. Whether or not the alleged hacking gestures and profanities subsequently hurled by the petitioner were intended for the private complainants.

  5. Whether the petitioner committed the crime of Other Light Threats under Article 285(2) of the Revised Penal Code.

  6. Whether the threat made by the petitioner falls under Other Light Threats or Grave Threats.

RULING:

  1. The act of shouting invectives against minors in this case does not constitute child abuse under Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610. An intent to debase, degrade, or demean the intrinsic worth of the child victim is necessary to constitute child abuse. In this case, the Court found that the act was done out of anger and frustration, and there was no evidence to prove an intention to debase or degrade the child victims.

  2. The act of threatening the private complainants cannot be held criminally liable under Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610 as the prosecution failed to prove that the petitioner intended to debase the intrinsic worth and dignity of the complainants or that she intended to humiliate or embarrass them.

  3. The alleged hacking gestures and profanities were not specifically directed towards the private complainants but were made against their mother. The threats stated by the petitioner were aimed towards their mother, not them. Therefore, it cannot be held with moral certainty that the hacking gestures and profanities were intended for the private complainants.

  4. The petitioner committed the crime of Other Light Threats under Article 285(2) of the Revised Penal Code.

  5. The threat made by the petitioner falls under Other Light Threats as the wrong threatened does not amount to a crime and the circumstances did not establish that the petitioner persisted in the idea involved in her threat.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Child abuse under Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610 requires an intent to debase, degrade, or demean the intrinsic worth of the child victim.

  • The act by deeds or words must debase, degrade, or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being to constitute child abuse.

  • The absence of an intention to debase, degrade, or demean the intrinsic worth of a child victim may result in a conviction for lesser offenses, such as slight physical injuries.

  • In order to hold someone criminally liable under Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610, the prosecution must prove that there was an intent to debase the intrinsic worth and dignity of the complainants or an intent to humiliate or embarrass them.

  • The context and target of the threats must be considered in determining the intent behind the hacking gestures and profanities. The specific target of the threats can help ascertain the intended recipient of the gestures and profanities.

  • In Other Light Threats, the wrong threatened does not amount to a crime and there is no condition.

  • In grave threats, the wrong threatened to be committed amounts to a crime which may or may not be accompanied by a condition.

  • Other Light Threats under Article 285(2) of the Revised Penal Code pertains to threats made in the heat of anger that do not amount to a crime and are not persisted in by the offender.