Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
City of Manila

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Complainant,
I.S. NO: __2019-01-001______

-versus- FOR: CHILD ABUSE

(Sec. 10(a) of RA 7610)

JOHN DOE CRUZ,

Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------
x

RESOLUTION

The respondent JOHN DOE CRUZ was charged of the crime of CHILD ABUSE
in a complaint filed by GABRIELLE RONDAIN, KYLE KAPUNAN and ARA AGUILAR.

In support of their complaint, the herein complainants attached the following

document;

1. Affidavit of Dr. Jena Fernandez

Statement of Facts

Based on the investigation conducted by the City Legal Officers, GABRIELLE

RONDAIN, KYLE KAPUNAN and ARA AGUILAR, the facts of the case are stated
hereunder:

That on the 25th of April, 2019, in the City of Manila,

National Capital Region, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused JOHN DOE
CRUZ, with intent to physically abuse, neglect, and
emotionally maltreat, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously physically harm CARLO CRUZ,
thereby inflicting serious physical injuries, thus performing
all the acts of execution which would have produced the
crime of Child Abuse as a consequence.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

In the affidavit of Dr. Jena Fernandez, Medico-Legal Doctor at the Philippine

General Hospital in Manila, she stated that an evaluation of victim’s body after the
incident yielded the following results:
 1) 3x3 cm infraorbital hematoma, left side;

2) 2 cm laceration on the nasal area, midline;

3) 2 diagonal marks, across the length and level of the scapula about 30x5
cm, slightly tender to touch;

4) Contusion on the right parietal area; and

5) Subluxated left lateral incisor, maxillary, with hematoma and inflammation

in adjacent gum tissue.

As to John Doe Cruz, a preliminary investigation was conducted.

Analyses/Findings and Recommendations

Sec. 10(a) of R.A. 7610 specifically state as follows:

“Sec. 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or

Exploitation and Other Conditions Prejudicial to the Child's
Development. -
(a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of child
abuse, cruelty or exploitation or to be responsible for other
conditions prejudicial to the child's development including
those covered by Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603,
as amended, but not covered by the Revised Penal Code,
as amended, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its
minimum period.” (Italics supplied.)

In Bongalon vs. People of the Philippines1, while 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, 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, then should it be punished as
child abuse.

In Rosaldes vs. People of the Philippines2, unnecessary, violent and excessive

physical injuries could not be justified to be for the sake of disciplining.

In the case of Sanchez vs. People of the Philippines3, it is a rule in statutory

construction that the word "or" is a disjunctive term signifying dissociation and
independence of one thing from other things enumerated. It should, as a rule, be
construed in the sense which it ordinarily implies. Hence, the use of "or" in Section
10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610 before the phrase "be responsible for other conditions
prejudicial to the child’s development" supposes that there are four punishable acts

1 G.R. No. 169533, March 20, 2013

2 G.R. No. 173988, October 8, 2014
3 G.R. No. 179090, June 5, 2009
therein. First, the act of child abuse; second, child cruelty; third, child exploitation;
and fourth, being responsible for conditions prejudicial to the child’s development.
The fourth penalized act cannot be interpreted as a qualifying condition for
the three other acts, because an analysis of the entire context of the questioned
provision does not warrant such construal.

As in this case, the medico-legal findings of Dr. Jena Fernandez clearly state
that the injuries are not from falling the stairs as currently stated by the victim’s
father John Doe Cruz. The facts of the case before us squarely fall under the crime
of Child Abuse. The wounds found in Carlo Cruz’s body were directly caused by
intentional physical abuse.

The following facts and circumstances based on the personal knowledge of the
arresting officer show that there was probable cause to believe that respondent John
Doe Cruz had just committed a crime, viz.:

1. The presence of respondent John Doe Cruz as the companion of the victim,
his son;

2. The fact that the victim Carlo Cruz remains hesitant to answer questions
and would often towards his father’s direction, indicating fear of revealing the
truth; and

3. John Doe Cruz’s constant verbal scolding of his son, the victim Carlo Cruz,
indicating attempt to cover the truth.

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is most respectfully

recommended that an information for the crime of Child Abuse be filed against the
respondent JOHN DOE CRUZ. A bail bond of P24,000.00 is recommended

City of Manila.

NEMO MACASPAC
Assistant City Prosecutor

ANDRÉ JAN CARDEÑO

Assistant City Prosecutor

APPROVED BY:

JAERELLE HERNANDEZ
Chief City Prosecutor