As Larry was growing up, the Aguirre spouses and their children noticed that his developmental milestones were remarkably delayed. His cognitive and physical growth did not appear normal in that "at age 3 to 4 years, Larry could only crawl on his tummy like a frog . . .;" he did not utter his first word until he was three years of age; did not speak in sentences until his sixth year; and only learned to stand up and walk after he turned five years old. At age six, the Aguirre spouses first enrolled Larry at the Colegio de San Agustin, Dasmari as Village, but the child experienced significant learning difficulties there. In 1989, at age eleven, Larry was taken to specialists for neurological and psychological evaluations. The psychological evaluation done on Larry revealed the latter to be suffering from a mild mental deficiency. Consequent thereto, the Aguirre spouses transferred Larry to St. John Ma. Vianney, an educational institution for special children.

In November of 2001, respondent Dr. Agatep, a urologist/surgeon, was approached concerning the intention to have Larry, then 24 years of age, vasectomized. Prior to performing the procedure on the intended patient, respondent Dr. Agatep required that Larry be evaluated by a psychiatrist in order to confirm and validate whether or not the former could validly give his consent to the medical procedure on account of his mental deficiency.

In view of the required psychiatric clearance, Larry was brought to respondent Dr. Pascual, a psychiatrist, for evaluation. In a psychiatric report dated 21 January 2002, respondent Dr. Pascual made the following recommendation:

[T]he responsibility of decision making may be given to his parent or guardian.

....

Larry grew up with a very supportive adoptive family. He is the youngest in the family of four sisters. Currently, his adoptive parents are already old and have medical problem and thus, they could no longer monitor and take care of him like before. His adoptive mother has Bipolar Mood Disorder and used to physically maltreat him. A year ago, he had an episode of dizziness, vomiting and headaches after he was hit by his adoptive mother. Consult was done in Makati Medical Center and several tests were done, results of which were consistent with his developmental problem. There was no evidence of acute insults. The family subsequently decided that he should stay with one of his sisters to avoid similar incident and the possibility that he would retaliate although he has never hurt anybody. There has been no episode of violent outburst or aggressive behavior. He would often keep to himself when sad, angry or frustrated.

He is currently employed in the company of his sister and given assignment to do some photocopying, usually in the mornings. He enjoys playing billiards and basketball with his nephews and, he spends most of his leisure time watching TV and listening to music. He could perform activities of daily living without assistance except that he still needs supervision in taking a bath. He cannot prepare his own meal and never allowed to go out and run errands alone. He does not have friends and it is only his adoptive family whom he has significant relationships. He claims that he once had a girlfriend when he was in high school who was more like a best friend to him. He never had sexual relations. He has learned to smoke and drink alcohol few years ago through his cousins and the drivers. There is no history of abuse of alcohol or any prohibited substances.

. . . .

Larry's mental deficiency could be associated with possible perinatal insults, which is consistent with the neuroimaging findings. Mental retardation associated with neurological problems usually has poorer prognosis. Larry is very much dependent on his family for his needs, adaptive functioning, direction and in making major life decisions. At his capacity, he may never understand the nature, the foreseeable risks and benefits, and consequences of the procedure (vasectomy) that, his family wants for his protection. Thus, the responsibility of decision making may be given to his parent or guardian.^[14] (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

As to the first issue of whether or not the case should be dismissed, the Court finds merit to grant the motion. After a careful re-evaluation and scrutiny of the records of the case, the Court is inclined to reverse its former Order dated August 26, 2005, finding the existence of probable cause to hold the accused for trial. It was only later after the Court made a determination of probable cause that the supporting documents were attached to the records of the case particularly the Resolution of the Prosecutor's Office dated August 26, 2003 dismissing the Complaint for violation of RA 7610. Further, the Court was not aware that there was already a Decision rendered by the Court of Appeals dismissing the Complaint for falsification and mutilation against the accused because the same evidence was only attached to the records during the filing of the motions of the parties. In the said Decision, bilateral vasectomy performed on Larry does not constitute mutilation, the same issue being raised in the instant case for violation of RA 7610 as bilateral vasectomy has never been a crime and cannot be considered a form of child abuse. It does not find print in the said law. At most, it is a widely accepted and recognized medical procedure.

After going through re-evaluation of the records and evidence of the case, the Court finds merit to re-determine the existence of probable cause.

. . . .

In the case at bar, there was already a pronouncement made by the Court of Appeals, which was learned by this Court only after it made a prior determination of probable cause, that there was neither a case of falsification nor mutilation. This stands to reason that the Court was misled by the circumstances surrounding the case for the determination of probable cause. Had it known that there was already contradictory resolutions issued by the Public Prosecutors and the Decision rendered by the [C]ourt of Appeals touching the core issue of mutilation, this Court would have dismissed the case. However, this Court belatedly learned such facts. Consequently, there is a need to re-determine the existence of probable cause.

. . . .

In the case at bar, the main core for the filing of the instant Information for violation of RA 7610 sprung from the bilateral vasectomy performed on Larry Aguirre. There was already a judicial determination made by the Court of Appeals that no probable cause exists with respect to bilateral vasectomy to be considered as mutilation. Consequently, there would also be no violation of RA 7610. But then, it appears in the instant case that the prosecutors have similarly misappropriated, if not abused, their discretion by filing an Information for violation of RA 7610. There is no reason to hold the accused for trial and further expose them to an open and public accusation of the crime when no probable cause exists.

A prosecuting officer is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of law, the two fold aim of which is that the guilt shall not escape or innocence suffers. . . . But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much as (sic) his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just once (sic) (Suarez vs. Judge Platon 69 Phil 556).

It is therefore imperative upon the fiscal or the judge as the case maybe, (sic) to relieve the accused from the pain of going thru a trial once it is ascertained that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a prima facie case or that no probable cause exists to form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused.

In sum the Court finds that no probable cause exists to hold the accused for trial.^[37] (Emphasis in the original)

Under the law, once an adoption has been decreed, the legal ties between the biological parents and the children severed (sic). By analogy, since the subject child, Larry Aguirre was under an authorized adoption agency, the relationship between the said institution and the said child was severed and parental authority is now vested with the adopting parents. This is now safe to assume that Sister Pilar is divested of personality to file a complaint against the accused for violation of Sections 3 and 10 of RA 7610. If at all, it is only the State who has the right to prosecute for violation of the said law.^[38]

As to the second issue of the legal capacity of herein movant to participate in the proceedings, the Court has likewise ruled in the questioned order to the effect that inasmuch as herein movant merely represents the institution which took care of the victim Larry Aguirre prior to his adoption and facilitated the same until he was eventually legally adopted, she has, technically, no more legal capacity to appear in his behalf[.]^[40]

[The] bilateral vasectomy performed on Larry Aguirre cannot be considered a form of child abuse. In fact, the bilateral vasectomy is not a surgical procedure that totally divests him of the essential organ of reproduction for the simple reason it does not entail the taking away of a part or portion of the male reproductive organ. Vasectomy as an elective surgical sterilization prevents conception from taking place but the male reproductive organs remain intact as the body continues to produce sperm, the intentional act of vasectomy procedure prevents pregnancy which is not the same thing as saying that the reproductive capacity is permanently impaired .... While the bilateral vasectomy does not totally preclude him from siring an offspring and/or raising a family, the operation is reversible and therefore, has not caused permanent damage on his person; neither does it demeans, (sic) debases (sic) and degrades (sic) the intrinsic worth and dignity of Larry Aguirre as a person. Thus, the surgical procedure cannot be considered prejudicial to the child's development.

Neither is the bilateral vasectomy considered an act of cruelty. Black's Law Dictionary defines "cruelty" as the intentional and malicious infliction of physical or mental suffering upon living creatures, particularly human beings, or, as applied to the latter, the wanton, malicious and unnecessary infliction of pain upon the body, or the feelings and emotions. The test is whether the accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the victim's suffering by causing another wrong not necessary for its commission or inhumanly increased the victim's suffering or outraged (sic) ....

It is settled that once an information has been filed in Court, any disposition of the case such as its dismissal or its continuation rests on the sound discretion of the court. The Court remains the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it notwithstanding the power of the prosecutor to retain the direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases. The determination of the case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and competence[.]^[43] (Citations omitted)

Under the law, once an adoption has been decreed, the legal ties between the biological parents and the child severed (sic). By analogy, since the subject child, Larry Aguirre was under an authorized adoption agency, the relationship between the said institution and the said child was severed and parental authority is now vested with the adopting parents. This is now (sic) safe to assume that Sister Pilar is divested of personality to file a complaint against the accused for violation of Sections 3 and 10 of RA 7610. If at all, it is only the State who has the right to prosecute for violation of the said law[.]^[67]

To be sure, in criminal cases, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case against him can only be appealed by the Solicitor General, acting on behalf of the State. The private complainant or the offended party may question such acquittal or dismissal only insofar as the civil - liability of the accused is concerned. . . .

. . . .

The rationale behind this rule is that in a criminal case, the party affected by the dismissal of the criminal action is the State and not the private complainant. The interest of the private complainant or the private offended party is limited only to the civil liability. In the prosecution of the offense, the complainant's role is limited to that of a witness for the prosecution such that when a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, an appeal therefrom on the criminal aspect may be undertaken only by the State through the Solicitor General. The private offended party or complainant may not take such appeal, but may only do so as to the civil aspect of the case.^[77] (Citations omitted)

SECTION 5. Who must prosecute criminal actions. - ...

The crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse. The offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution without including the guilty parties, if both are alive, nor, in any case, if the offended party has consented to the offense or pardoned the offenders.

The offenses of seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her parents, grandparents or guardian, nor, in any case, if the offender has been expressly pardoned by any of them. If the offended party dies or becomes incapacitated before she can file the complaint, and she has no known parents, grandparents or guardian, the State shall initiate the criminal action in her behalf.

The offended party, even if a minor, has the right to initiate the prosecution of the offenses of seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness independently of her parents, grandparents, or guardian, unless she is incompetent or incapable of doing so. Where the offended party, who is a minor, fails to file the complaint, her parents, grandparents, or guardian may file the same. The right to file the action granted to parents, grandparents, or guardian shall be exclusive of all other persons and shall be exercised successively in the order herein provided, except as stated in the preceding paragraph.

No criminal action for defamation which consists in the imputation of any of the offenses mentioned above shall be brought except at the instance of and upon complaint filed by the offended party.

The prosecution for violation of special laws shall be governed by the provisions thereof. (Emphasis supplied)

SECTION 27. Who May File a Complaint. - Complaints on cases of unlawful acts committed against children as enumerated herein may be filed by the following:

(a) Offended party;

(b) Parents or guardians;

(c) Ascendant or collateral relative within the third degree of consanguinity;

(d) Officer, social worker or representative of a licensed child-caring institution;

(e) Officer or social worker of the Department of Social Welfare and Development;

(f) Barangay chairman; or

(g) At least three (3) concerned responsible citizens where the violation occurred.

Under the principles of statutory construction, if a statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. This plain-meaning rule or verba legis derived from the maxim index animi sermo est (speech is the index of intention) rests on the valid presumption that the words employed by the legislature in a statute correctly express its intent or will and preclude the court from construing it differently. The legislature is presumed to know the meaning of the words, to have used words advisedly, and to have expressed its intent by the use of such words as are found in the statute. Verba legis non est recedendum, or from the words of a statute there should be no departure.^[84] (Citations omitted)

TITLE IX
Parental Authority

. . . .

ARTICLE 210. Parental authority and responsibility may not be renounced or transferred except in the cases authorized by law.

. . . .

ARTICLE 222. The courts may appoint a guardian of the child's property, or a guardian ad litem when the best interests of the child so require.

ARTICLE 220. The parents and those exercising parental authority shall have with respect to their unemancipated children or wards the following rights and duties:

(1)	To keep them in their company, to support, educate and instruct them by right precept and good example, and to provide for their upbringing in keeping with their means;
(2)	To give them love and affection, advice and counsel, companionship and understanding;
(3)	To provide them with moral and spiritual guidance, inculcate in them honesty, integrity, self-discipline, self-reliance, industry and thrift, stimulate their interest in civic affairs, and inspire in them compliance with the duties of citizenship;
(4)	To enhance, protect, preserve and maintain their physical and mental health at all times;
(5)	To furnish them with good and wholesome educational materials, supervise their activities, recreation and association with others, protect them from bad company, and prevent them from acquiring habits detrimental to their health, studies and morals;
(6)	To represent them, in all matters affecting their interests;
(7)	To demand from them respect and obedience;
(8)	To impose discipline on them as may be required under a the circumstances; and
(9)	To perform such other duties as are imposed by law upon parents and guardians. (Emphasis supplied)

The right of custody accorded to parents springs from the exercise of parental authority. Parental authority or patria potestas in Roman Law is the juridical institution whereby parents rightfully assume control and protection of their unemancipated children to the extent required by the latter's needs. It is a mass of rights and obligations which the law grants to parents for the purpose of the children s physical preservation and development, as well as the cultivation of their intellect and the education of their heart and senses. As regards parental authority, "there is no power, but a task; no complex of rights, but a sum of duties; no sovereignty but a sacred trust for the welfare of the minor. "^[89] (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

SECTION 3. Definition of Terms. -

(a)	"Children" refers to person below eighteen (18) years of age or those over but are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition[.]

We are aware that the terms, "mental retardation" or "intellectual disability," had been classified under "deprived of reason." The terms, "deprived of reason" and "demented," however, should be differentiated from the term, "mentally retarded" or "intellectually disabled." An intellectually disabled person is not necessarily deprived of reason or demented. This court had even ruled that they may be credible witnesses. However, his or her maturity is not there despite the physical age. He or she is deficient in general mental abilities and has an impaired conceptual, social, and practical functioning relative to his or her age, gender, and peers. Because of such impairment, he or she does not meet the "socio-cultural standards of personal independence and social responsibility."

Thus, a person with a chronological age of 7 years and a normal mental age is as capable of making decisions and giving consent as a person with a chronological age of 35 and a mental age of 7. Both are considered incapable of giving rational consent because both are not yet considered to have reached the level of maturity that gives them the capability to make rational decisions, especially on matters involving sexuality. Decision-making is a function of the mind. Hence, a person's capacity to decide whether to give consent or to express resistance to an adult activity is determined not by his or her chronological age but by his or her mental age. Therefore, in determining whether a person is "twelve (12) years of age" under Article 266-A (1) (d), the interpretation should be in accordance with either the chronological age of the child if he or she is not suffering from intellectual disability, or the mental age if intellectual disability is established.^[92] (Emphasis supplied)

In the case at bar, there was already a pronouncement made by the Court of Appeals, which was learned by this Court only after it made a prior determination of probable cause, that there was neither a case of falsification or mutilation. This stands to reason that the Court was misled by the circumstances surrounding the case or the determination of probable cause. Had it known that there was already contradictory resolutions issued by the Public Prosecutors and the Decision rendered by the Court of Appeals touching the core issue of mutilation, this Court would have dismissed the case. However, this Court belatedly learned of such facts. Consequently, there is a need to re-determine the existence of probable cause.

xxx the main core for the filing of the instant information for violation of RA 7610 sprung from the bilateral vasectomy performed on Larry Aguirre. There was already a judicial determination made by the Court of Appeals that no probable cause exists with respect to the bilateral vasectomy to be considered as mutilation. Consequently, there would be no violation of RA 7610. But then it appears that in the instant case that the prosecutors have similarly misappropriated, if not abused, their discretion in filing an Information for violation of RA 7610. There is no reason to hold the accused for trial and further expose them to an open and public accusation of the crime when no probable cause exists.

Bilateral vasectomy performed on Larry Aguirre cannot be considered a form of child abuse. In fact, the bilateral vasectomy is not a surgical procedure which totally divests him of the essential organ of reproduction for the simple reason that it does not entail the taking away of a part of portion of the male reproductive organ. Vasectomy as an effective surgical sterilization prevents conception from taking place but the male reproductive organs remain intact as the body continues to produce sperm, the intentional act of vasectomy procedure prevents pregnancy which is not the same thing as saying that the reproductive incapacity is permanently impaired. While the bilateral vasectomy does not totally preclude him from siring an offspring and/or raising a family, the operation is reversible and therefore has not caused permanent damage on his person, neither does it demean, debase and degrade the intrinsic worth and dignity of Larry Aguirre as a person. Thus, the surgical procedure cannot be considered prejudicial to the child's development.

To sustain a conviction under Section 10(a) of RA 7610, proof of the accused's intent to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being should be established beyond reasonable doubt.

In this regard, the records show that while general allegations anent the purported degrading and demeaning effects of the vasectomy performed on Larry had been repeatedly made by Versoza during the course of the proceedings, not a single shred of evidence was offered to show that the respondents were impelled by any ill-motive in facilitating the questioned procedure. To my mind, no specific intent to debase, degrade or demean Larry's intrinsic worth as a human being had been convincingly shown, thereby negating respondents' criminal liability under Section 10(a) of RA 7610.

Quite the contrary, assessed in light of their intent as Larry's parents, the act of respondents cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be characterized as debasing, degrading or demeaning. Indeed, my own appreciation of that intent is that it was borne out of care and love for Larry, and by extension, for any offspring Larry may bear x x x.

(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;
(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.

(a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or to be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child's development including those covered by Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, but not covered by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period.

SECTION 3. Definition of Terms. -

....

(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;
(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.

SECTION 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and Other Conditions Prejudicial to the Child's Development.

(a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child's development including those covered by Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, but not covered by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period. (Emphasis supplied)

Trafficking in Persons refers to the recruitment, transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim's consent or knowledge, within or across national borders by means of threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person for the purpose of exploitation which includes at a minimum, the exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs. When the trafficked person is a child, a person below 18 years of age or one who is over 18 but is unable to fully take care of or protect himself/herself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition, the offense becomes qualified. As supported by their birth certificates, Bonete was merely 15 years old and Antonio was 16 when they were hired in 2006. Although Turado was more than 18 years old when she started at Kiray, she was found to be functioning within a mildly retarded level, and therefore, incapable of protecting herself from abuse and exploitation^[25] (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

We are aware that the terms, "mental retardation" or "intellectual disability," had been classified under "deprived of reason." The terms, "deprived of reason" and "demented", however, should be differentiated from the term, "mentally retarded" or "intellectually disabled." An intellectually disabled person is not necessarily deprived of reason or demented. This court had even ruled that they may be credible witnesses. However, his or her maturity is not there despite the physical age. He or she is deficient in general mental abilities and has an impaired conceptual, social, and practical functioning relative to his or her age, gender, and peers. Because of such impairment, he or she does not meet the "socio-cultural standards of personal independence and social responsibility."

Thus, a person with a chronological age of 7 years and a normal mental age is as capable of making decisions and giving consent as a person with a chronological age of 35 and a mental age of 7. Both are considered incapable of giving rational consent because both are not yet considered to have reached the level of maturity that gives them the capability to make rational decisions, especially on matters involving sexuality. Decision-making is a function of the mind. Hence, a person's capacity to decide whether to give consent or to express resistance to an adult activity is determined not by his or her chronological age but by his or her mental age. Therefore, in determining whether a person is "twelve (12) years of age" under Article 266-A(1)(d), the interpretation should be in accordance with either the chronological age of the child if he or she is not suffering from intellectual disability, or the mental age if intellectual disability is established.^[27] (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

Article VI of the statute enumerates the "other acts of abuse." Paragraph (a) of Section 10 thereof states:

Article VI
OTHER ACTS OF ABUSE

SEC. 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and Other Conditions Prejudicial to the Child's Development. -

(a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of abuse, cruelty or exploitation or be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child's development including those covered by Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, but not covered by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period. . . .

As gleaned from the foregoing, the provision punishes not only those enumerated under Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, but also four distinct acts, i.e., (a) child abuse, (b) child cruelty, (c) child exploitation and (d) being responsible for conditions prejudicial to the child's development. The Rules and Regulations of the questioned statute distinctly and separately defined child abuse, cruelty and exploitation just to show that these three acts are different from one another and from the act prejudicial to the child's development. Contrary to petitioner's assertion, an accused can be prosecuted and be convicted under Section 10 (a), Article VI of Republic Act No. 7610 if he commits any of the four acts therein. The prosecution need not prove that the acts of child abuse, child cruelty and child exploitation have resulted in the prejudice of the child because an act prejudicial to the development of the child is different from the former acts.

Moreover, it is a rule in statutory construction that the word "or" is a disjunctive term signifying dissociation and independence of one thing from other things enumerated. It should, as a rule, be construed in the sense which it ordinarily implies. Hence, the use of "or" in Section 10 (a) of Republic Act No. 7610 before the phrase "be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child's development" supposes that there are four punishable acts therein. First, the act of child abuse; second, child cruelty; third, child exploitation; and fourth, being responsible for conditions prejudicial to the child's development. The fourth penalized act cannot be interpreted, as petitioner suggests, as a qualifying condition for the three other acts, because an analysis of the entire context of the questioned provision does not warrant such construal.^[36] (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

Article 1: Purpose

The purpose of the present Convention is to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity. Persons with disabilities include those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.

Article 23: Respect for home and the family

1. States Parties shall take effective and appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against persons with disabilities in all matters relating to marriage, family, parenthood and relationships, on an equal basis with others, so as to ensure that:

a)	The right of all persons with disabilities who are of marriageable age to marry and to found a family on the basis of free and full consent of the intending spouses is recognized;
b)	The rights of persons with disabilities to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and to have access to age-appropriate information, reproductive and family planning education are recognized, and the means necessary to enable them to exercise these rights are provided;
c)	Persons with disabilities, including children, retain their fertility on an equal basis with others.

2. States Parties shall ensure the rights and responsibilities of persons with disabilities, with regard to guardianship, wardship, trusteeship, adoption of children or similar institutions, where these concepts exist in national legislation; in all cases the best interests of the child shall be paramount. States Parties shall render appropriate assistance to persons with disabilities in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities.

3. States Parties shall ensure that children with disabilities have equal rights with respect to family life. With a view to realizing these rights, and to prevent concealment, abandonment, neglect and segregation of children with disabilities, States Parties shall undertake to provide early and comprehensive information, services and support to children with disabilities and their families. (Emphasis supplied)

ARTICLE XIII
Social Justice and Human Rights

SECTION 1. The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good.

SECTION 18. Sexual and Reproductive Health Programs for Persons with Disabilities (PWDs). - The cities and municipalities shall endeavor that barriers to reproductive health services for PWDs are obliterated by the following:

(a) Providing physical access, and resolving transportation and proximity issues to clinics, hospitals and places where public health education is provided, contraceptives are sold or distributed or other places where reproductive health services are provided;

(b) Adapting examination tables and other laboratory procedures to the needs and conditions of PWDs;

(c) Increasing access to information and communication materials on sexual and reproductive health in braille, large print, simple language, sign language and pictures;

(d) Providing continuing education and inclusion of rights of PWDs among health care providers; and

(e) Undertaking activities to raise awareness and address misconceptions among the general public on the stigma and their lack of knowledge on the sexual and reproductive health needs and rights of PWDs. (Emphasis supplied)

SECTION 2. Definition of Terms. - As used in these Rules, unless the context requires otherwise -

b) "Child abuse" refers to the infliction of physical or psychological injury, cruelty to, or neglect, sexual abuse or exploitation of a child;

c) "Cruelty" refers to any act by word or deed which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being. Discipline administered by a parent or legal guardian to a child does not constitute cruelty provided it is reasonable in manner and moderate in degree and does not constitute physical or psychological injury as defined herein;

. . . .

f) "Neglect" means failure to provide, for reasons other than poverty, adequate food, clothing, shelter, basic education or medical care so as to seriously endanger the physical, mental, social and emotional growth and development of the child;

. . . .

i) "Exploitation" means the hiring, employment, persuasion, inducement, or coercion of a child to perform in obscene exhibitions and indecent shows, whether live or in video or film, or to pose or act as a model in obscene publications or pornographic materials, or to sell or distribute said materials[.]

[P]etitioner's intention to debase, degrade, and demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child can be inferred from the manner in which he committed the act complained of.

To note, petitioner used a wet t-shirt to whip the child not just once but three (3) times. Common sense and human experience would suggest that hitting a sensitive body part, such as the neck, with a wet t-shirt would cause an extreme amount of pain, especially so if it was done several times. There is also reason to believe that petitioner used excessive force. Otherwise, AAA would not have fallen down the stairs at the third strike. AAA would likewise not have sustained a contusion.

Indeed, if the only intention of petitioner were to discipline AAA and stop him from interfering, he could have resorted to other less violent means. Instead of reprimanding AAA or walking away, petitioner chose to hit the latter.

We find petitioner liable for other acts of child abuse under Article VI, Section 10 (a) of Republic Act No. 7610, which provides that "a person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child's development. . . shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum a period."^[44] (Citations omitted)

Not every instance of the laying of hands on a child constitutes the crime of child abuse under Section 10 (a) of Republic Act No. 7610. 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.

. . .

The records showed the laying of hands on Jayson to have been done at the spur of the moment and in anger, indicative of his being then overwhelmed by his fatherly concern for the personal safety of his own minor daughters who had just suffered harm at the hands of Jayson and Roldan. With the loss of his self-control, he lacked that specific intent to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being that was so essential in the crime of child abuse.^[51] (Citation omitted)

. . . this noble statute should not be used as a sharp sword, ready to be brandished against an accused even if there is a patent lack of proof to convict him of the crime. The right of an accused to liberty is as important as a minor's right not to be subjected to any form of abuse. Both are enshrined in the Constitution. One need not be sacrificed for the other.^[53]

Civil liberty may be said to mean that measure of freedom which may be enjoyed in a civilized community, consistently with the peaceful enjoyment of like freedom in others. The right to liberty guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to exist and the right to be free from arbitrary personal restraint or servitude. The term cannot be dwarfed into mere freedom from physical restraint of the person of the citizen, but is deemed to embrace the right of man to enjoy the faculties with which he has been endowed by his Creator, subject only to such restraints as are necessary for the common welfare. As enunciated in a long array of authorities including epoch-making decisions of the United States Supreme Court, liberty includes the right of the citizen to be free to use his faculties in lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any avocation, and for that purpose, to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary, and essential to his carrying out these purposes to a successful conclusion. The chief elements of the guaranty are the right to contract, the right to choose one's employment, the right to labor, and the right of locomotion.

In general, it may be said that liberty means the opportunity to do those things which are ordinarily done by free men.^[55] (Emphasis supplied)

[I]n view of the fact that there is an express recognition of privacy, specifically that of communication and correspondence which "shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of Court or when public safety and order" may otherwise require, and implicitly in the search and seizure clause, and the liberty of abode, the alleged repugnancy of such statutory requirement of further periodical submission of a sworn statement of assets and liabilities deserves to be further looked into.

In that respect the question is one of first impression, no previous decision having been rendered by this Court. It is not so in the United States where, in the leading case of Griswold v. Connecticut, Justice Douglas, speaking for five members of the Court, stated: "Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers 'in any house' in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the 'right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.' The Fifth Amendment in its Self- Incrimination clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: 'The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.'" After referring to various American Supreme Court decisions, Justice Douglas continued: "These cases bear witness that the right of privacy which presses for recognition is a legitimate one."

The Griswold case invalidated a Connecticut statute which made the use of contraceptives a criminal offense on the ground of its amounting to an unconstitutional invasion of the right of privacy of married persons; rightfully it stressed "a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees." It has wider implication though. The constitutional right to privacy has come into its own.

So it is likewise in our jurisdiction. The right to privacy as such is accorded recognition independently of its identification with liberty; in itself, it is fully deserving of constitutional protection. The language of Prof. Emerson is particularly apt: "The concept of limited government has always included the idea that governmental powers stop short of certain intrusions into the personal life of the citizen. This is indeed one of the basic distinctions between absolute and limited government. Ultimate and pervasive control of the individual, in all aspects of his life, is the hallmark of the absolute state. In contrast, a system of limited government safeguards a private sector, which belongs to the individual, firmly distinguishing it from the public sector, which the state can control. Protection of this private sector - protection, in other words, of the dignity and integrity of the individual - has become increasingly important as modern society has developed. All the forces of a technological age - industrialization, urbanization, and organization - operate to narrow the area of privacy and facilitate intrusion into it. In modern terms, the capacity to maintain and support this enclave of private life marks the difference between a democratic and a totalitarian society."^[61] (Citations omitted)

Indeed, if we extend our judicial gaze we will find that the right of privacy is recognized and enshrined in several provisions of our Constitution. It is expressly recognized in Section 3(1) of the Bill of Rights:

"Sec. 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law."

Other facets of the right to privacy are protected in various provisions of the Bill of Rights, viz:

"Sec. 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

. . . .

Sec. 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.

. . . .

Sec. 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.

Sec. 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself."

Zones of privacy are likewise recognized and protected in our laws. The Civil Code provides that "[e]very person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons" and punishes as actionable torts several acts by a person of meddling and prying into the privacy of another. It also holds a public officer or employee or any private individual liable for damages for any violation of the rights and liberties of another person, and recognizes the privacy of letters and other private communications. The Revised Penal Code makes a crime the violation of secrets by an officer, the revelation of trade and industrial secrets, and trespass to dwelling. Invasion of privacy is an offense in special laws like the Anti-Wiretapping Law, the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act and the Intellectual Property Code. The Rules of Court on privileged communication likewise recognize the privacy of certain information.^[63] (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

SECTION 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.

SECTION 1. The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development.

. . . .

SECTION 3. The State shall defend:

(1)	The right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood[.]

[Parental authority] is a mass of rights and obligations which the law grants to parents for the purpose of the children's physical preservation and development, as well as the cultivation of their intellect and the education of their heart and senses. As regards parental authority, "there is no power, but a task; no complex of rights, but a sum of duties; no sovereignty but a sacred trust for the welfare of the minor."^[77]

It is important to separate personality from disability, to acknowledge that cognitive limitation is only about how people learn. Rarely is it the most If significant factor in deciding whether someone can parent adequately.

A parent's disability, in itself, does not necessarily determine whether a parent will be a "good enough" parent. While the individual characteristics of the parent are important, the characteristics of the supports available have a lot of influence over whether parents will succeed.^[79]

"The language used to refer to persons with disabilities has played a significant role in the persistence of negative stereotypes. Clearly, terms such as "crippled" or "mentally retarded" are derogative. Other terms such as "wheelchair-bound" or "disabled persons" emphasize the disability before the person.

"The drafters of this Convention were clear that disability should be seen as the result of the interaction between a person and his or her environment. Disability is not something that resides in the individual as the result of some impairment. This convention recognizes that disability is an evolving concept and that legislation may adapt to reflect positive changes within society."

SECTION 3. The State shall defend:
. . . .
(2) The right of children to assistance, including proper care and nutrition, and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to their development.

SECTION 2. Declaration of State Policy and Principles. - It is hereby declared to be the policy of the State to provide special protection to children from all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation and discrimination and other conditions, prejudicial [to] their development; provide sanctions for their commission and carry out a program for prevention and deterrence of and crisis intervention in situations of child abuse, exploitation and discrimination. The State shall intervene on behalf of the child when the parent, guardian, teacher or person having care or custody of the child fails or is unable to protect the child against abuse, exploitation and discrimination or when such acts against the child are committed by the said parent, guardian, teacher or person having care and custody of the same.

Sec. 4. Definition of Terms. - For the purpose of this Act, the following terms shall be defined as follows:

x x x x

(v) Responsible parenthood refers to the will and ability of a parent to respond to the needs and aspirations of the family and children. It is likewise a shared responsibility between parents to determine and achieve the desired number of children, spacing and timing of their children according to their own family life aspirations, taking into account psychological preparedness, health status, sociocultural and economic concerns consistent with their religious convictions. (Emphasis supplied.)

It is precisely in such situations when a minor parent needs the comfort, care, advice, and guidance of her own parents. The State cannot replace her natural mother and father when it comes to providing her needs and comfort. To say that their consent is no longer relevant is clearly anti-family. It does not promote unity in the family. It is an affront to the constitutional mandate to protect and strengthen the family as an inviolable social institution.

More alarmingly, it disregards and disobeys the constitutional mandate that "the natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government." In this regard, Commissioner Bernas wrote:

The 1987 provision has added the adjective "primary" to modify the right of parents. It imports the assertion that the right of parents is superior to that of the State.^[28]   (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted.)

Sec. 4. x x x

xxxx

(k) Mental Health Condition refers to a neurologic or psychiatric condition characterized by the existence of a recognizable, clinically-significant disturbance in an individual's cognition, emotional regulation, or behavior that reflects a genetic or acquired dysfunction in the neurobiological, psychosocial, or developmental processes underlying mental functioning. The determination of neurologic and psychiatric conditions shall be based on scientifically-accepted medical nomenclature and best available scientific and medical evidence[.]^[45]

The right assumed in Cruzan, however, was not simply deduced from abstract concepts of personal autonomy. Given the common-law rule that forced medication was a battery, and the long legal tradition protecting the decision to refuse unwanted medical treatment, our assumption was entirely consistent with this Nation's history and constitutional traditions. The decision to commit suicide with the assistance of another may be just as personal and profound as the decision to refuse unwanted medical treatment, but it has never enjoyed similar legal protection. Indeed, the two acts are widely and reasonably regarded as quite distinct, x x x In Cruzan itself, we recognized that most States outlawed assisted suicide-and even more do today-and we certainly gave no intimation that the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment could be somehow transmuted into a right to assistance in committing suicide. x x x^[126]

[S]aid section creates a term or condition in every contract made by every person, firm, or corporation with any woman who may, during the course of her employment, become pregnant, and a failure to include in said contract the terms fixed by the law, makes the employer criminally liable subject to a fine and imprisonment. Clearly, therefore, the law has deprived, every person, firm, or corporation owning or managing a factory, shop or place of labor of any description within the Philippine Islands, of his right to enter into contracts of employment upon such terms as he and the employee may agree upon. The law creates a term in every such contract, without the consent of the parties. Such persons are, therefore, deprived of their liberty to contract. The [C]onstitution of the Philippine Islands guarantees to every citizen his liberty and one of his liberties is the liberty to contract.^[128] (Emphasis supplied.)

The distribution of contraceptive drugs and devices must not be indiscriminately done. The public health must be protected by all possible means. As pointed out by Justice De Castro, a heavy responsibility and burden are assumed by the government in supplying contraceptive drugs and devices, for it may be held accountable for any injury, illness or loss of life resulting from or incidental to their use.^[144] (Emphasis omitted.)

Reproductive health rights refers to the rights of individuals and couples, to decide freely and responsibly whether or not to have children; the number, spacing and timing of their children; to make other decisions concerning reproduction, free of discrimination, coercion and violence; to have the information and means to do so; and to attain the highest standard of sexual health and reproductive health: Provided, however, That reproductive health rights do not include abortion, and access to abortifacients. (Emphasis supplied.)

Reproductive Health (RH) refers to the state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes. This implies that people are able to have a responsible, safe, consensual and satisfying sex life, that they have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when, and how often to do so. This further implies that women and men attain equal relationships in matters related to sexual relations and reproduction.

Family planning refers to a program which enables couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and to have access to a full range of safe, affordable, effective, non-abortifacient modern natural and artificial methods of planning pregnancy.

Equally apparent, however, is that the Framers of the Constitution did not intend to ban all contraceptives for being unconstitutional. x x x From the discussions above, contraceptives that kill or destroy the fertilized ovum should be deemed an abortive and thus prohibited. Conversely, contraceptives that actually prevent the union of. the male sperm and the female ovum, and those that similarly take action prior to fertilization should be deemed non-abortive, and thus, constitutionally permissible. (Id. at 299-300. Emphasis and citation omitted.)

Art. 1163. Every person obliged to give something is also obliged to take care of it with the proper diligence of a good father of a family, unless the law or the stipulation of the parties requires another standard of care.

Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of Articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.

If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the performance, that which is expected of a good father of a family shall be required. (Emphasis supplied.) See also Troxel v. Granville, supra note 25, which held that fit parents can be presumed to act in the best interests of their child.

(1) That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage annulled was eighteen years of age or over but below twenty-one, and the marriage was solemnized without the consent of the parents, guardian or person having substitute parental authority over the party, in that order, unless after attaining the age of twenty-one, such party freely cohabited with the other and both lived together as husband and wife;

(2) That either party was of unsound mind, unless such party, after coming to reason, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;

Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Sec. 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.

x x x x

Sec. 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

Sec. 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law, who are at least eighteen years of age, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one year and in the place wherein they propose to vote for at least six months immediately preceding the election. No literacy, property, or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.

Sec. 2. The Congress shall provide a system for securing the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot as well as a system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.

The Congress shall also design a procedure for the disabled and the illiterates to vote without the assistance of other persons. Until then, they shall be allowed to vote under existing laws and such rules as the Commission on Elections may promulgate to protect the secrecy of the ballot.

It is simply and exclusively a price-fixing law, confined to adult women (for we are not now considering the provisions relating to minors), who are legally as capable of contracting for themselves as men. It forbids two parties having lawful capacity - under penalties as to the employer - to freely contract with one another in respect of the price for which one shall render service to the other in a purely private employment where both are willing, perhaps anxious, to agree, even though the consequence may be to oblige one to surrender a desirable engagement and the other to dispense with the services of a desirable employee.

x x x x

A statute requiring an employer to pay in money, to pay at prescribed and regular intervals, to pay the value of the services rendered, even to pay with fair relation to the extent of the benefit obtained from the service, would be understandable. But a statute which prescribes payment without regard to any of these things and solely with relation to circumstances apart from the contract of employment, the business affected by it and the work done under it, is so clearly the product of a naked, arbitrary exercise of power that it cannot be allowed to stand under the Constitution of the United States. (Emphasis supplied.) Id. at 554-555, 559.

While this Court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. x x x

It is said the purpose of the legislation was to promote civic development by inhibiting training and education of the immature in foreign tongues and ideals before they could learn English and acquire American ideals, and "that the English language should be and become the mother tongue of all children reared in this State." It is also affirmed that the foreign born population is very large, that certain communities commonly use foreign words, follow foreign leaders, move in a foreign atmosphere, and that the children are thereby hindered from becoming citizens of the most useful type, and the public safety is imperiled.

That the State may do much, go very far, indeed, in order to improve the quality of its citizens, physically, mentally and morally, is clear; but the individual has certain fundamental rights which must be respected. The protection of the Constitution extends to all, to those who speak other languages as well as to those born with English on the tongue. Perhaps it would be highly advantageous if all had ready understanding of our ordinary speech, but this cannot be coerced by methods which conflict with the Constitution - a desirable end cannot be promoted by prohibited means.

x x x x

The desire of the legislature to foster a homogeneous people with American ideals prepared readily to understand current discussions of civic matters is easy to appreciate. Unfortunate experiences during the late war and aversion toward every characteristic of truculent adversaries were certainly enough to quicken that aspiration. But the means adopted, we think, exceed the limitations upon the power of the State and conflict with rights assured to plaintiff in error. The interference is plain enough, and no adequate reason therefor in time of peace and domestic tranquility has been shown.

While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs to a different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation-aptly and fittingly stressed by the petitioners-the advancement of which may even be said to predate all governments and constitutions. As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind. If they are now explicitly mentioned in the fundamental charter, it is because of the well-founded fear of its framers that unless the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are mandated as state policies by the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their continuing importance and imposing upon the state a solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance the second, the day would not be too far when all else would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for those to come-generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life. Id. at 804-805.

At any rate, it bears pointing out that not a single contraceptive has yet been submitted to the FDA pursuant to the RH Law. It behooves the Court to await its determination which drugs or devices are declared by the FDA as safe, it being the agency tasked to ensure that food and medicines available to the public are safe for public consumption. Consequently, the Court finds that, at this point, the attack on the RH Law on this ground is premature. Indeed, the various kinds of contraceptives must first be measured up to the constitutional yardstick as expounded herein, to be determined as the case presents itself. (Emphasis omitted.) Id. at 318.

(i)   Falsification under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC);

(ii)  Mutilation under Article 262 of the RPC; and

(iii) Child Abuse under Sections 3 and 10 of RA 7610.^[8]