G.R. No. 246017 . November 25, 2020
MARIA CONSUELO MALCAMPO-REPOLLO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Maria Consuelo Malcampo-Repollo, a grade school teacher, was charged with child abuse under Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610 . The Information alleged that on February 20, 2014, in Makati City, she willfully committed child abuse upon her ten-year-old student, AAA, by hitting, pinching, and slapping him, causing extreme fear and prejudicing his normal development. The prosecution presented AAA, who testified that the petitioner pinched and hit his back and later slapped his face, causing him terror and embarrassment. His mother corroborated the report, and a medical certificate noted a bruise, though the medico-legal officer was not presented. The defense denied the allegations, presenting a classmate who claimed she was the one who pinched AAA, and a certification of the petitioner’s good moral character.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Malcampo-Repollo, crediting AAA’s testimony. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove the specific intent to demean or degrade the child, which she claimed is an essential element of child abuse under the law.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution must prove the specific intent to demean, degrade, or debase the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as an essential element for conviction under Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610 .

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the specific intent to demean or degrade is not an essential element for all forms of child abuse under Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610 . The Court clarified that this specific intent is only required when it is explicitly alleged in the Information or when mandated by a specific provision of the law. In this case, the Information did not allege such specific intent; it merely alleged the acts of hitting, pinching, and slapping the minor. Therefore, the prosecution only needed to prove the commission of these acts by the accused, who stood in loco parentis as a teacher, against her minor student. The credible testimony of the child victim, AAA, sufficiently established the physical maltreatment. The law aims to protect children from all forms of abuse, and a teacher’s physical punishment constitutes child abuse, as it exploits the child’s vulnerability and the teacher’s moral ascendancy. The absence of the medico-legal officer’s testimony did not negate the crime, as the victim’s testimony, if credible, is sufficient. The petition was denied.