G.R. No. 222974. March 20, 2019.
JEFFREY CALAOAGAN, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Two separate Informations were filed against petitioner Jeffrey Calaoagan for violating Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act). The charges stemmed from an incident on October 31, 2004, where he allegedly hit minor AAA (15 years old) with a stone on the shoulder and punched minor BBB (17 years old) on the face and head. The prosecution presented the victims and a medico-legal officer whose findings corroborated the injuries sustained. Calaoagan presented a different version, claiming self-defense and defense of a relative, alleging that the victims’ group initiated aggression by hurling stones and that BBB attempted to attack his sister with a knife, prompting him to swing a bamboo stick.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Calaoagan of two counts of child abuse under R.A. No. 7610. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction regarding AAA but modified the conviction regarding BBB. The CA held that for BBB, the crime committed was only slight physical injuries under the Revised Penal Code, not a violation of R.A. No. 7610.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether petitioner Jeffrey Calaoagan is guilty of violating Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610 for the acts committed against AAA and BBB.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision with modifications. For the act against AAA, the Court upheld the conviction under R.A. No. 7610. The law defines “child abuse” as any act by deed or word which debases, degrades, or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being. The act of hitting a 15-year-old with a stone constitutes physical maltreatment and child abuse, as it endangered the child’s life and safety. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence, including credible testimonies and medical findings, sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
For the act against BBB, the Court agreed with the CA that the crime committed was slight physical injuries under the Revised Penal Code, not a violation of R.A. No. 7610. The legal logic hinges on the element of minority. While the Information alleged BBB was 17, the prosecution failed to present his birth certificate or similar competent evidence to conclusively prove his minority at the time of the incident. In cases under R.A. No. 7610, the minority of the victim is a qualifying condition that must be proven with equal certainty as the criminal act itself. Without conclusive proof of BBB’s age, the crime is properly classified under the ordinary penal law. Consequently, the penalty was adjusted accordingly, and damages were awarded consistent with the revised classification of the offense.