Mabunot vs. People

A person who inflicts physical abuse upon a child is liable under Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610 even if the child was not the specific target of the blow, provided criminal intent attended the act; and where a special law adopts the nomenclature of RPC penalties, the Indeterminate Sentence Law applies as it would in felonies.

Petitioner Jester Mabunot and private complainant Shiva Baguiwan were classmates at Butigue National High School in Paracelis, Mountain Province. At the time of the incident on September 14, 2007, Shiva was 14 years and 5 months old, while petitioner was 19. Republic Act No. 7610, the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, provides a framework of protection for children below 18 years of age from all forms of physical and psychological abuse, whether habitual or not, with penalties drawn from the nomenclature of the Revised Penal Code.

Jester Mabunot and Shiva Baguiwan were classmates at Butigue National High School in Paracelis, Mountain Province. On September 14, 2007, at around 11:00 a.m., Shiva and her group were sewing inside the classroom when the petitioner, who was then under the influence of alcohol, arrived. According to the prosecution, the petitioner twisted the arm of Michael Fontanilla, strangled James Aquino, and boxed William Thomas. The rest of the classmates ran away, but the petitioner went after them. He boxed Shiva on her left flank, leaving her with a fractured rib. Shiva passed out and was taken to Potia District Hospital, where she stayed for two days. Before finally leaving, the petitioner also boxed Dennis Kenept. At the time, Shiva was 14 years old, while the petitioner was 19. The petitioner dropped out from BNHS after the incident.

The defense presented a different version of events. Petitioner testified that at around 10:30 a.m., the class was doing its Technology Livelihood Education project when William suddenly threw an object at the petitioner's back. The petitioner reacted by boxing William. When the petitioner stepped out of the room, Dennis followed him and a fist fight ensued between the two. According to the defense, Shiva came to pacify them but was shoved, causing her to fall to the ground. The petitioner contended that since he and Dennis were grappling at that time, there could be no certainty as to who actually injured Shiva.

The prosecution presented eyewitnesses Melanie Lipawen and James Aquino, both students at BNHS, who testified that they personally saw the petitioner box Shiva. Melanie stated she was approximately two meters away, while James was about four to five meters from the incident. Both identified the left rib as the part of Shiva's body that was hit. The defense witnesses, on the other hand, were found less credible: Consolacion Saludo, the teacher, was 20 meters away without her eyeglasses and could not recognize the students involved; Eva Joy Malindao's account was inconsistent with Consolacion's testimony; and Dennis himself admitted uncertainty as to who had shoved Shiva. The medical evidence confirmed that Shiva suffered a fractured rib, which corroborated the eyewitness accounts that the petitioner had delivered a hard fist blow to her left flank.

• Lack of Intent: Petitioner claimed that the injury inflicted on Shiva was not intentional or deliberate, since he was trading punches with Dennis at the time and could not have adopted a deliberate design to injure Shiva. He argued that a single and unintended act of shoving Shiva while engaged in a fist fight can hardly be considered child abuse under R.A. No. 7610.
• Applicability of the RPC over R.A. No. 7610: Petitioner insisted that Article 265 of the Revised Penal Code, and not Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610, should be the applicable provision. He posited that Section 10 of R.A. No. 7610 penalizes acts of child abuse which are not covered by the RPC, and since the act complained of is covered by Article 265, the latter should apply, imposing a lighter penalty.
• Factual Dispute on Causation: Petitioner claimed that he and Dennis were trading punches when they saw Shiva slump to the ground, and Dennis himself was uncertain as to who actually shoved her. Thus, the injury sustained by Shiva merely resulted from an accident.

• Factual Issues Not Reviewable: The Office of the Solicitor General contended that the petitioner raises factual issues, which are beyond the province of a petition for review on certiorari.
• Positive Identification by Eyewitnesses: Respondent argued that prosecution witnesses Melanie and James positively identified the petitioner as the one who boxed Shiva, and that the RTC and CA properly accorded probative weight to their testimonies.

• Criminal Intent: Whether the CA committed reversible error in ruling that the injury inflicted on Shiva was intentional and deliberate.
• Applicable Law: Whether the CA erred in applying the penalty under Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610 instead of Article 265 of the RPC for slight physical injuries.

• Criminal Intent: No. Criminal intent was not wanting, because when the petitioner swung his arms, he was not performing a lawful act and clearly intended to injure another person; under Article 4(1) of the RPC, criminal liability attaches even when the wrongful act done is different from that which he intended.
• Applicable Law: No. R.A. No. 7610 provides special protection to children from all forms of abuse and expressly covers fractured bones as physical injury within its coverage; Section 10(a) applies to acts of child abuse not covered by the RPC, and the maltreatment of a child—whether habitual or not—falls squarely within its definition.

• Criminal Intent: A review of facts and evidence is not the province of certiorari, which is extra ordinem. The RTC and CA uniformly accorded probative value to the testimonies of two eyewitnesses, Melanie and James, who positively identified the petitioner at close range as the one who boxed Shiva. No ill motive was imputed or proved against the eyewitnesses. The defense witnesses failed to amply refute their statements: Consolacion was 20 meters away without eyeglasses, Eva's account was unclear, and Dennis admitted uncertainty as to who shoved Shiva. Dennis' uncertainty pales in comparison to the positive and categorical testimonies of Melanie and James. On the question of intent, the acts complained of are inherently immoral and thus treated as mala in se even though penalized by a special law, making criminal intent material. Even assuming petitioner had no design to harm Shiva specifically, he was not performing a lawful act when he swung his arms—he intended to injure another person. It was Shiva, not Dennis, who ended up with a fractured rib, but under Article 4(1) of the RPC, criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. The petitioner cannot escape liability for his error in personam.

• Applicable Law: Article 265 of the RPC punishes physical injuries in general, while R.A. No. 7610 is intended to provide special protection to children from all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, and discrimination. Child abuse includes physical abuse of a child, whether habitual or not. The Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 7610 explicitly refer to fractured bones as falling within the coverage of physical injuries that may be inflicted on a child. Shiva was 14 years old when she received the blow that fractured her rib, placing her under the protective mantle of R.A. No. 7610, which punishes maltreatment of a child whether habitual or not and prescribes stiffer penalties to deter violations. Section 10(a) applies to acts of child abuse not covered by the RPC, and the physical abuse here—boxing a minor causing a fractured rib and loss of consciousness—falls squarely within the definition of child abuse under the special law.

• Error in Personam (Article 4(1), RPC) — A person committing a felony incurs criminal liability even if the wrongful act done is different from that which he intended. The Court applied this principle to hold the petitioner liable for boxing Shiva even if he claimed he intended to strike Dennis, because he was not performing a lawful act when he swung his arms and clearly intended to injure another person.
• Mala in Se Under Special Laws — When the acts complained of are inherently immoral, they are deemed mala in se even if punished by a special law. Accordingly, criminal intent must be clearly established together with the other elements of the crime. The Court applied this to R.A. No. 7610, holding that physical abuse of a child is inherently wrong, rendering the existence of criminal intent material.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law Applied to Special Laws Adopting RPC Nomenclature — When penalties provided in a special law adopt the nomenclature of penalties under the RPC, the Indeterminate Sentence Law applies as it would in felonies. The maximum term is determined under the rules of the RPC, and the minimum is within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed. The Court applied this to fix the indeterminate sentence at four years, nine months, and eleven days of prision correccional as minimum to six years, eight months, and one day of prision mayor as maximum.
• Child Abuse Under R.A. No. 7610 — Child abuse refers to the maltreatment of a child, whether habitual or not, including psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse, and emotional maltreatment. Physical injury includes but is not limited to lacerations, fractured bones, burns, internal injuries, severe injury, or serious bodily harm suffered by a child. The Court held that boxing a 14-year-old on the left flank causing a fractured rib falls squarely within this definition.

• "When the acts complained of are inherently immoral, they are deemed mala in se, even if they are punished by a special law. Accordingly, criminal intent must be clearly established with the other elements of the crime; otherwise, no crime is committed." — This passage articulates the principle that criminal intent is material even under special laws when the prohibited act is inherently immoral, bridging the gap between RPC felonies and special law offenses.
• "Indeed, criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended." — This restates Article 4(1) of the RPC and explains why the petitioner could not escape liability despite claiming he did not specifically intend to harm Shiva.
• "[T]he penalty for Other Acts of Child Abuse is prision mayor in its minimum period. This penalty is derived from, and defined in, the [RPC]. Although R.A. No. 7610 is a special law, the rules in the [RPC] for graduating penalties by degrees or determining the proper period should be applied." — Quoted from Sanchez vs. People, this passage establishes the doctrine that the Indeterminate Sentence Law applies to special laws that adopt RPC penalty nomenclature.

• Villareal vs. Aliga, 724 Phil. 47 (2014) — Cited for the doctrine that a review of facts and evidence is not the province of certiorari proceedings, which do not include inquiry into the correctness of evidence evaluation or re-examination of conflicting evidence.
• Garcia vs. CA, 519 Phil. 591 (2006) — Cited for the principle that inherently immoral acts are deemed mala in se even if punished by a special law, requiring establishment of criminal intent.
• Sanchez vs. People, et al., 606 Phil. 762 (2009) — Controlling precedent for the proposition that where a special law adopts penalties from the RPC, the Indeterminate Sentence Law applies as it would in felonies, and the rules for graduating penalties by degrees under the RPC should be applied.
• People vs. Simon, G.R. No. 93028, July 29, 1994, 234 SCRA 55 — Cited as precedent for applying the first clause of Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law to offenses penalized under special laws.
• Dulla vs. Court of Appeals — Cited as precedent for applying the first clause of the Indeterminate Sentence Law to a case involving sexual abuse of a child under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610.
• Rosaldes vs. People, G.R. No. 173988, October 8, 2014, 737 SCRA 592 — Cited for the subdivision of the minimum period of prision mayor into three ranges.
• People vs. Cruz, 714 Phil. 390 (2013) — Cited as basis for imposing 6% per annum interest on the award of actual damages.

• Section 10(a), Article VI, Republic Act No. 7610 — Penalizes any person who commits any other acts of child abuse, cruelty, or exploitation or is responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child's development, with the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period. Applied as the basis for the petitioner's conviction, the Court finding that boxing a 14-year-old causing a fractured rib constitutes physical abuse of a child.
• Section 3(b), Republic Act No. 7610 — Defines child abuse as the maltreatment of a child, whether habitual or not, including psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse, and emotional maltreatment. Applied to classify the petitioner's act as child abuse.
• Article 4(1), Revised Penal Code — Provides that criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. Applied to hold the petitioner liable for injuring Shiva even if he claimed he intended to strike Dennis.
• Article 265, Revised Penal Code — Punishes less serious physical injuries with arresto mayor. Distinguished from R.A. No. 7610, the Court holding that the special law, not this provision, governs the physical abuse of a child.
• Section 1, Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103, as amended) — Governs the imposition of indeterminate sentences. Applied to fix the penalty because R.A. No. 7610 adopts the nomenclature of RPC penalties, making the IS Law applicable as in felonies.
• Sections 2(b) and 2(d), Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 7610 — Define child abuse and physical injury, respectively, with the latter expressly including fractured bones. Applied to confirm that the fractured rib suffered by Shiva falls within the coverage of physical injuries under R.A. No. 7610.

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Peralta, Del Castillo, and Perez, JJ., concurred.