Stare Decisis

Updates, news, insights, articles and digests on Supreme Court Cases

and things related to law

CRIMINAL LAW, LAW REVIEW, PHILIPPINE SUPREME

COURT DECISIONS (CASE DIGESTS), UNCATEGORIZED

[2019 CASE DIGEST]

Evangeline Patulot vs. People
of the Philippines G.R. No.
235071, January 07, 2019

Date: March 7, 2019 0 Comments

FACTS:
As she was about to enter the house, CCC, after gathering
https://staredecisis101.wordpress.com/2019/03/07/case-dige…s-people-of-the-
philippines-g-r-no-235071-january-07-2019/ 07/03/2019, 7C18 PM
clothes from the clothesline outside her house, was surprised to
Page 1 of 5

see Patulot who was holding a casserole. Without warning,

Patulot poured the contents of the casserole – hot cooking oil –
on her. AAA and BBB, both minors, who were nearby, suddenly
cried because they were likewise hit by the hot cooking oil.
CCC hurriedly brought AAA and BBB to her three neighbors
who volunteered to bring the children to the hospital, for
treatment. She then went to the barangay hall also at South
Signal, Taguig City, to report the incident.

The doctor, who examined and treated CCC and her children,
testified that the injuries suffered by AAA and BBB would heal
for an average period of thirty (30) days. Next, DDD testified
that he incurred P7,440.00 in medical expenses for his wife and
children.

The Regional Trial Court found Patulot guilty of child abuse

under R.A. 7610.

The CA affirms Patulot’s conviction.

Aggrieved, Patulot elevated the case to the Supreme Court,

invoking the following arguments:

She (Patulot) can only be convicted of physical injuries and not

child abuse. Citing the case, Bongalon v. People, she submits that
not every instance of laying hands on a child constitutes the
crime of child abuse under Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610.
Only when the laying of hands is shown to be intended 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 RPC. Thus, in the
absence of such intention on the part of Patulot, her true
intention being to pour hot oil only on CCC with AAA and BBB
being merely accidentally hit, she cannot be convicted of child
abuse.

ISSUE:

Is there a need to prove that the acts where intended to debase,

degrade, or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child
as a human being should it be punished as child abuse?

RULING:

NO.

Patulot contends that on the basis of our pronouncement

in Bongalon, she cannot be convicted of child abuse because it
was not proven that she intended to debase, degrade, or
demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of AAA and BBB as
human beings. Her reliance on said ruling, however, is
misplaced. In Bongalon, the Information specifically charged
George Bongalon, petitioner therein, of committing acts which
“are prejudicial to the child’s development and which demean
the intrinsic worth and dignity of the said child as a human
being.”Thus, we ruled that he can only be held liable for slight
physical injuries instead of child abuse in the absence of proof
https://staredecisis101.wordpress.com/2019/03/07/case-dige…s-people-of-the-
philippines-g-r-no-235071-january-07-2019/ 07/03/2019, 7C18 PM

Page 2 of 5
that he intended to humiliate or “debase the ‘intrinsic worth
and dignity'”of the victim.

A cursory review of the Informations in the instant case,

however, reveals no similar allegation that Patulot’s acts
debased, degraded, or demeaned the intrinsic worth and
dignity of AAA and BBB as human beings. Instead, they
charged Patulot for willfully committing acts of child abuse on
AAA and BBB “by throwing on them boiling oil, thereby
inflicting upon said victim-minor physical injuries, which acts
are inimical and prejudicial to the child’s normal growth and
development.”
There are distinct acts punishable under R.A. No. 7610, to wit:
(a) child abuse, (b) child cruelty, (c) child exploitation and (d)
being responsible for conditions prejudicial to the child’s
development.

R.A. No. 7610 and its Rules and Regulations 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
Patulot’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.

Neither can Patulot argue that in the absence of intention on

her part to harm AAA and BBB, she cannot be convicted of
child abuse because she merely intended on committing
physical injuries against CCC.

“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.”

The petitioner was convicted of violation of Section 10(a),

Article VI of R.A. No. 7610, a special law. However, physical
abuse of a child is inherently wrong, rendering material the
existence of a criminal intent on the part of the offender.

Patulot’s criminal intent is not wanting for as she expressly

admitted, she intended on pouring hot cooking oil on CCC. As
such, even granting that it was not her intention to harm AAA
and BBB, she was performing an unlawful act when she threw
the hot oil from her casserole on CCC. She cannot, therefore,
escape liability from the same in view of the settled doctrine
that a person incurs criminal liability although the wrongful
act done be different from that which he intended.

ANNOTATIONS:
https://staredecisis101.wordpress.com/2019/03/07/case-dige…s-people-of-the-
philippines-g-r-no-235071-january-07-2019/ 07/03/2019, 7C18 PM

Page 3 of 5
In this case, we learned two (2) things:

1. There are four (4) distinct acts punished under 7610,

namely:
2. child abuse, (b) child cruelty, (c) child exploitation and (d)
being responsible for conditions prejudicial to the child’s
development
3. 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.
Therefore, if the accused is charged of Child Abuse, Child
Cruelty, or Child Exploitation, there is no need to prove that
these acts are prejudicial to the development of the child. But if
the Information charged the accused of “acts prejudicial to the
child’s development and which demean the intrinsic worth and
dignity of the said child as a human being” (as in the case of
Bongalon), then, there is a need for the prosecution to prove
that, indeed, the acts are prejudicial to the development of the
child, otherwise, the accused could only be found guilty of the
lower offense of physical injury.

Read Full Text: Evangeline Patulot vs. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 235071, January 07, 2019

Advertisements
Sponsored

1. Family Law Free Consultation ❯

2. Get Legal Advice Right Now ❯

3. Free Lawyer Help ❯

4. Free Legal Forms ❯

5. Free Legal Advices ❯

REPORT THIS AD
Sponsored

1. Family Law Free Consultation ❯

2. Get Legal Advice Right Now ❯

https://staredecisis101.wordpress.com/2019/03/07/case-dige…s-people-of-the-
philippines-g-r-no-235071-january-07-2019/ 07/03/2019, 7C18 PM

Page 4 of 5

3. Free Lawyer Help ❯

4. Free Legal Forms ❯

5. Free Legal Advices ❯

REPORT THIS AD
CHILD ABUSE CRIMINAL LAW SUPREME COURT DECISION
Published by staredecisis

View all posts by staredecisis

© 2019 STARE DECISIS

CREATE A FREE WEBSITE OR BLOG AT WORDPRESS.COM.

To be updated, subscribe to our mailing list.

Email Address

Subscribe
https://staredecisis101.wordpress.com/2019/03/07/case-dige…s-people-of-the-
philippines-g-r-no-235071-january-07-2019/ 07/03/2019, 7C18 PM

Page 5 of 5