FACTS:

The petitioner, Asela Briñas, was charged with the crime of Grave Oral Defamation in relation to R.A. 7610. The accusatory portion of the Amended Information stated that Briñas, with deliberate intent, publicly uttered defamatory words against two 16-year old students, Micolie Mari Maevis S. Rosauro and Keziah Liezle D. Polojan. The incident happened at Challenger Montessori School in Brgy. Zone VI, Municipality of Iba, Zambales. Briñas pleaded not guilty and trial on the merits ensued.

The prosecution presented witnesses, including Micolle Mari Maevis Rosauro, Keziah Liezle Dolojan, and other individuals. According to the testimonies, on January 25, 2010, the private complainants and their classmates sent a text message to a classmate named Charlene. This resulted in an angry confrontation with Charlene's mother. Later in the day, Briñas called the private complainants and their classmates to the faculty room. In front of teachers and other students, Briñas shouted at them and used defamatory words against them. She also threatened to sue Micolle and raised her middle finger in front of the private complainants. The private complainants reported the incident to the police authorities and were subsequently suspended and expelled from school.

The defense presented Briñas as the lone witness. She claimed that she scolded the students out of anger and a desire to discipline them for their behavior. She denied that the private complainants were expelled and stated that they chose not to attend the graduation ceremony.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Briñas guilty of grave oral defamation in relation to R.A. 7610 and sentenced her to an indeterminate penalty. Briñas appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC's decision with modifications.

The main issue before the Court is whether the RTC and CA erred in convicting Briñas of the crime of grave oral defamation in relation to R.A. 7610.

ISSUES:

1. Whether there is a crime of grave oral defamation in relation to Section 10(a) of R.A. 7610.

2. Whether the act of the accused constitutes child abuse under Section 10(a) of R.A. 7610.

3. Whether the act of laying hands against a child, done at the spur of the moment and in anger, can be deemed as an act of child abuse under Section 10(a) of RA 7610.

4. Whether the utterance of harsh words against a child, when carelessly done out of anger, frustration, or annoyance, constitutes child abuse under Section 10(a) of RA 7610.

5. Whether the accused had the specific intent to debase, degrade, or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child.

6. Whether the accused's acts were merely an offshoot of emotional outrage or intended as disciplinary measures.

7. Whether there is a requirement of specific intent to debase, degrade or demean in child abuse cases punished under Section 10(a) in relation to Section 3(b)(2) of R.A. 7610.

8. Whether the prosecution has proven the presence of intent to debase, degrade or demean in the present case.

9. Whether the accused should be acquitted of the crime charged.

10. Whether the Petition for Review on Certiorari should be granted.

RULING:

1. There is no crime of grave oral defamation in relation to Section 10(a) of R.A. 7610.

2. A conviction for child abuse under Section 10(a) in relation to Section 3(b)(2) of R.A. 7610 requires the presence of intent to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth of the child as a human being.

3. The act of laying hands against a child, when done at the spur of the moment and in anger, cannot be deemed as an act of child abuse under Section 10(a) of RA 7610, as the essential element of intent to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being is not present.

4. The mere shouting of invectives at a child, when carelessly done out of anger, frustration, or annoyance, does not constitute child abuse under Section 10(a) of RA 7610, absent evidence that the utterance of such words was specifically intended to debase, degrade, or demean the victim's intrinsic worth and dignity.

5. The accused cannot be held liable for child abuse under Section 10(a) in relation to Section 3(b)(2) because the prosecution failed to prove the presence of intent to debase, degrade, or demean the intrinsic worth of the child. The Court acknowledged that lack of intent to debase may be proven by demonstrating that the accused's acts were solely out of emotional outrage in the spur of the moment or were intended as disciplinary measures. However, the Court stressed that if the alleged disciplinary measures are excessive and go against the purpose of disciplining a child, then the defense of disciplining a child will be rejected and the accused may be held liable for child abuse.

6. The Court held that there is a requirement of specific intent to debase, degrade or demean in child abuse cases punished under Section 10(a) in relation to Section 3(b)(2) of R.A. 7610. The Court cited previous cases where the accused, who acted out of parental concern and in the heat of anger, were acquitted of the charge of child abuse due to the absence of intent to debase, degrade, or demean the minors.

7. The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the presence of intent to debase, degrade or demean in the present case. The evidence showed that the accused's defamatory remarks were made in the heat of anger and frustration, motivated by the actions of the private complainants against her child. The alleged subsequent acts of expulsion, suspension, and withholding of school records were not sufficiently proven, and there was no evidence that the accused participated in or conspired with the commission of said acts. Without the presence of the required intent, the accused cannot be held guilty of child abuse under R.A. 7610.

8. Yes, the accused should be acquitted of the crime charged.

9. Yes, the Petition for Review on Certiorari should be granted.

PRINCIPLES:

• Acts which are already covered by the Revised Penal Code are excluded from the coverage of Section 10(a) of R.A. 7610.

• R.A. 7610 is a special law designed to provide special protection to children from all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, discrimination, and other conditions prejudicial to their development.

• A conviction for child abuse under Section 10(a) in relation to Section 3(b)(2) of R.A. 7610 requires the presence of intent to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth of the child as a human being.

• Specific intent to debase, degrade, or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being is required to establish child abuse under Section 10(a) of RA 7610.

• The laying of hands against a child, when done at the spur of the moment and in anger, may not be considered child abuse if the specific intent to debase, degrade, or demean the child is not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

• The utterance of harsh words against a child may not be considered child abuse if it is done carelessly out of anger, frustration, or annoyance, and there is no specific intent to debase, degrade, or demean the child's intrinsic worth and dignity.

• In child abuse cases, the presence or absence of intent to debase the child may be drawn from the circumstances of the case and the manner in which the accused inflicted the physical or psychological injuries upon the minor.

• A defense that may refute the attendance of intent to debase the child is that the accused's acts were solely out of emotional outrage in the spur of the moment or were intended as disciplinary measures.

• If the alleged disciplinary measures are excessive and not commensurate with the misbehavior of the child, then the defense of disciplining a child will be rejected and the accused may be held liable for child abuse.

• In a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, only errors of law and not of facts are reviewable, unless there are cogent facts and circumstances that have been ignored, overlooked, misconstrued, or misinterpreted.

• Specific intent to debase, degrade or demean is an indispensable element in child abuse cases punished under Section 10(a) in relation to Section 3(b)(2) of R.A. 7610.

• The prosecution bears the burden of establishing beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime charged.

• Acts committed in the heat of anger and out of parental concern, without intent to debase, degrade or demean, may result in acquittal in child abuse cases.

• The accused must be acquitted if the evidence presented during the trial is insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• The Petition for Review on Certiorari may be granted if there are meritorious grounds for reversing the decision of the lower court.