An act of laying hands on a child constitutes the crime of child abuse under Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610 only if the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused specifically intended to debase, degrade, or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being; otherwise, the act is punishable under the Revised Penal Code for physical injuries.

The incident occurred during an evening procession where the petitioner's minor daughters and the victim, Jayson dela Cruz (a 12-year-old minor), along with his brother, were participants or bystanders. An initial altercation involving alleged stone-throwing and name-calling between the children preceded the petitioner's confrontation with Jayson.

• On May 11, 2000, during an evening procession in Legazpi City, petitioner George Bongalon confronted 12-year-old Jayson Dela Cruz and his older brother, Roldan, after petitioner's daughters reported being stoned and having hair burned by the boys.
• The prosecution's evidence indicated that petitioner called Jayson and Roldan "strangers" and "animals," struck Jayson on the back with his palm, and slapped Jayson on the left cheek.
• Petitioner allegedly uttered derogatory remarks ("Mga hayop kamo, para dayo kamo digdi, Iharap mo dito ama mo").
• Jayson underwent medical treatment, and medical certificates showed contusions on his left scapular area and left zygomatic area, requiring five to seven days of healing time.
• Petitioner denied physical abuse, claiming he only confronted the boys about harming his daughters and told their father to restrain them.
• Petitioner's daughter, Mary Ann Rose, corroborated his testimony, denying she threw stones or called Jayson "sissy," and asserting Jayson pelted her with stones.

• Petitioner denied committing child abuse, asserting he only confronted the minors after they had harmed his daughters.
• Petitioner argued that even if he were guilty, his liability should be mitigated as he acted out of a desire to protect his minor daughters (passion or obfuscation).
• Petitioner challenged the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, pointing out inconsistencies and the unnatural lack of reaction from the complaining brothers during the incident.
• Petitioner contended that the acts committed did not constitute child abuse under R.A. 7610 as there was no specific intent to debase or degrade the child.
• Petitioner initially filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the CA in its appreciation of facts and application of law.

• The Prosecution (representing the People of the Philippines) argued that the petitioner committed acts of physical abuse and maltreatment against the minor Jayson Dela Cruz.
• The Prosecution presented testimonial evidence from Jayson and medical certificates showing physical injuries inflicted upon the minor.
• The Prosecution contended that petitioner's acts of striking, slapping, and uttering derogatory remarks were prejudicial to the child's development and demeaned his intrinsic worth and dignity, falling under Section 10(a) of R.A. 7610.
• The Prosecution's position, upheld by the RTC and CA, was that the evidence proved petitioner's guilt for child abuse beyond reasonable doubt.

• Whether the petitioner's act of striking and slapping the minor Jayson Dela Cruz constituted child abuse under Section 10(a) in relation to Section 3(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 7610.
• Whether the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation should be appreciated in favor of the petitioner.
• Whether the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was the proper remedy to challenge the CA's decision, and if not, whether the Court should review the case despite the procedural lapse.

• The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner's acts did not constitute child abuse under R.A. 7610 because the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the specific intent to debase, degrade, or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child.
• The Court found that the petitioner acted at the spur of the moment in anger, overwhelmed by fatherly concern for his daughters' safety, lacking the specific intent required for child abuse.
• The Court held the petitioner guilty of slight physical injuries under Article 266(1) of the Revised Penal Code, as Jayson's injuries required 5-7 days of medical attention.
• The Court appreciated the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation under Article 13(6) of the Revised Penal Code, finding that the petitioner lost his reason and self-control due to the honest belief that his daughters were harmed by Jayson and his brother.
• Applying the mitigating circumstance without any offsetting aggravating circumstance, the penalty of arresto menor was imposed in its minimum period (1 to 10 days). The Court imposed a straight penalty of 10 days of arresto menor as the Indeterminate Sentence Law was inapplicable.
• The Court affirmed the award of P5,000.00 as moral damages.
• The Court noted the petitioner availed of the wrong remedy (Rule 65 certiorari instead of Rule 45 appeal) and filed it out of time, but decided to review the case on its merits to serve substantial justice, citing the need for liberal construction of procedural rules when liberty is at stake.

• Child Abuse under R.A. 7610: Defined in Section 3(b) and penalized under Section 10(a). The Court clarified that proving the act falls under the definition requires demonstrating a specific intent to debase, degrade, or demean the child's intrinsic worth and dignity; mere physical contact is insufficient. In this case, the lack of proof of such specific intent led to the acquittal for child abuse.
• Slight Physical Injuries (RPC Art. 266): Defined as physical injuries incapacitating the offended party for labor or requiring medical attendance for one to nine days. The Court applied this provision as the victim's injuries required 5-7 days of medical attention and the elements of child abuse were not met.
• Passion or Obfuscation (RPC Art. 13(6)): A mitigating circumstance where the accused acts upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation, diminishing the exercise of willpower. The Court applied this doctrine, finding the petitioner acted under the belief his daughters were harmed, thus mitigating his liability for slight physical injuries.
• Pro Reo Principle: The principle that all doubts should be resolved in favor of the accused. The Court invoked this to consider circumstances favoring the petitioner, particularly regarding the intent behind his actions.
• Certiorari (Rule 65) vs. Appeal (Rule 45): Certiorari corrects errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, while appeal (petition for review on certiorari) corrects errors of judgment. The Court explained that petitioner's remedy against the CA decision was appeal, not certiorari, as the issues raised concerned the CA's appreciation of evidence (errors of judgment).
• Liberal Construction of Procedural Rules (Rule 1, Sec. 6): Rules of Court should be liberally construed to promote justice. The Court applied this doctrine to excuse the petitioner's procedural lapses (wrong remedy, late filing) to review the merits and prevent a potential miscarriage of justice regarding his liberty.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLAW): Section 2 states the law does not apply if the maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year. Since the penalty imposed (10 days arresto menor) did not exceed one year, the Court ruled ISLAW inapplicable and imposed a straight penalty.
• Moral Damages in Criminal Cases (Civil Code Art. 2219(1)): Moral damages may be recovered in criminal offenses resulting in physical injuries. The Court upheld the CA's award based on this provision.

• "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. Otherwise, it is punished under the Revised Penal Code."
• "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."
• "It is not trite to remind that under the well-recognized doctrine of pro reo every doubt is resolved in favor of the petitioner as the accused."
• "The special civil action for certiorari is intended for the correction of errors of jurisdiction only or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction... where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision-not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision-the same is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari."
• "...the Rules of Court has not been intended to be rigidly enforced at all times. Rather, it has been instituted first and foremost to ensure justice to every litigant."

• People v. Court of Appeals, 423 SCRA 605 (2004): Cited to explain the distinction between the remedies of certiorari under Rule 65 (for errors of jurisdiction) and appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 (for errors of judgment), establishing that petitioner used the wrong remedy.
• Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, et al.: Cited within the quote from People v. Court of Appeals to reinforce the purpose of certiorari as correcting jurisdictional errors, not errors of judgment.
• Ferrer v. People, 483 SCRA 31 (2006): Cited to support the principle that an appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review, allowing the appellate court to correct errors even if not assigned.
• Villanueva v. People, 487 SCRA 42 (2006): Cited to support the application of the pro reo principle, resolving doubts in favor of the accused.
• United States v. Salandanan, 1 Phil. 464 (1902): Cited as basis for the definition and application of the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation.
• Reyes, Criminal Law, citing U.S. v. Ferrer, U.S. v. Macalintal, People v. Zapata: Cited to explain that passion or obfuscation can arise from causes existing only in the honest belief of the accused and involves a diminution of intelligence and intent.
• People v. Villacorta, 657 SCRA 270 (2011): Cited to confirm that the award of P5,000.00 as moral damages for physical injuries is consistent with current jurisprudence.

• Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act): Section 10(a) (Penalty for other acts of abuse) and Section 3(b) (Definition of Child Abuse).
• Revised Penal Code (RPC): Article 266(1) (Slight physical injuries), Article 13(6) (Mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation), Article 27 (Classification and duration of penalties - defining arresto menor as 1 to 30 days).
• Rules of Court: Rule 65 (Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus), Rule 45, Section 2 (Petition for review on certiorari - filing period), Rule 1, Section 6 (Liberal construction of rules).
• Presidential Decree No. 603 (Child and Youth Welfare Code): Article 59 (Mentioned in R.A. 7610, Sec. 10(a) regarding criminal liability of parents).
• Indeterminate Sentence Law: Section 2 (Non-applicability when the maximum penalty does not exceed one year).
• Civil Code: Article 2219(1) (Basis for awarding moral damages in criminal cases resulting in physical injuries).