The Supreme Court has affirmed the conviction for violation of the Anti-Child Abuse Law of an accused who uttered remarks that attacked the character, reputation, and dignity of a minor.
In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the Supreme Court’s Second Division denied the petition for review on certiorari filed by Rowena B. Plasan (Plasan). The petition challenged the rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) which had affirmed with modification the judgement of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicting Plasan for violation of the Republic Act No. 7610, or the Anti-Child Abuse Law.
An Information was filed before the RTC against Plasan for inflicting emotional abuse and psychological maltreatment on 16-year-old AAA262122, after the former loudly remarked to her friend, Jaja, while at a barbecue stand: “Ja, look at [AAA262122], is that the body of a virgin? She went to [XXX] with her parents for her to have an abortion.”
AAA262122, who was only two meters away from Plasan and Jaja, heard the remarks, prompting her to go home to her mother. AAA262122 claimed to have felt ashamed and angry, and refused to leave their house following the incident.
The RTC found Plasan guilty of violating the Anti-Child Abuse Law for willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously committing emotional abuse upon AAA262122. The RTC held that such abuse caused the minor pain and emotional disturbance that has led her to refrain from leaving her house because of shame.
The CA affirmed the conviction, prompting Plasan’s present petition before the Court.
In upholding Plasan’s conviction, the Court held that under Section 2(b) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Anti-Child Abuse Law, psychological abuse refers to harm to a child’s psychological or intellectual functioning, which may be exhibited by severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal, or outward aggressive behavior, or a combination of said behaviors, which may be demonstrated by a change in behavior, emotional response, or cognition.
To determine the guilt of Plasan, who was charged for inflicting “emotional abuse…and other form[s] of psychological maltreatment to the prejudice of the psychological and mental development of the [victim],” which falls under Section 3(b)(1) of the Anti-Child Abuse Law, the general criminal intent to commit psychological abuse on the child victim must be considered.
Evidence shows that Plasan’s remarks attacking the character, reputation, and dignity of AAA262122 were expressed in the minor’s presence. The minor was thus exposed to contempt, ridicule, and humiliation, giving rise to psychological abuse under Section 3(b)(1) of the Anti-Child Abuse Law. As a result, AAA262122 felt ashamed and did not want to go out of their house anymore, stressed the Court.
The Court further held that Plasan’s remarks were not simply offhand remarks, neither were they provoked by any emotional outrage. It also found that Plasan was not triggered by any instance immediately prior to the incident that could have justified her conduct and absolved her from liability.
The Court thus affirmed Plasan’s conviction, but modified the penalty to imprisonment for four years, nine months, and 11 days, as minimum, to six years, and nine months, as maximum. Plasan was also ordered to pay AAA262122 PHP 20,000 as moral damages. (Courtesy of the Supreme Court Public Information Office)
FULL TEXT of the Decision in G.R. No. 262122 (Plasan v. People) at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/262122-rowena-b-plasan-vs-people-of-the-philippines/