JOJIT GAGINGARO V.

LEONARDO DE CASTRO
GR NO. 192760
20/07/2011

FACTS:

On October 28, 2003, AAA was brought to Virgen Milagrosa Medical Center by her father
and mother due to fever and abdominal pain. The attending physician was Dr. Morante. The latter
advised that AAA be confined at said hospital for further observation and later on was admitted in
a private room with her parents. The next day, father BBB left for Lingayen, Pangasinan to process
Medicare papers and mother CCC left to attend to their store in Urbiztondo, Pangasinan. After a
long day of leaving AAA in the hospital alone, AAA told father BBB that she would want to leave
the hospital and insisted. Medication instructions from the hospital were given to her to be
continued after her discharge. As they arrived their house, AAA cried to her parents that Garingaro,
the nurse on duty, sexually abused her and immediately reported such to Dr. Morante and proved
that Garingaro was the nurse on duty that day.

A case was filed against Garingaro for acts of lasciviousness in relation to 7610 because AAA
narrated that on the October 29, 2003, Garingaro touched the 16 year old’s breasts, genitalia and
insterted her finger into her vagina causing victim to suffer psychological and emotional
disturbance.

In defense, Garingaro said otherwise. He stated that he was with Edmundo Tamayo when they
went to AAA’s room between 7:00AM to 8:00AM of October 29, 2003. According to Garingaro,
BBB was in the room and argued with him that he was not administering the medicines properly
despite the fact that they knew what they were doing and had a heated argument and denied all the
lascivious acts. Edmundo Tamayo even confirmed that they were always together when they
would visit rooms of the patients.

ISSUE:

WAS AAA ABUSED SEXUALLY BY GARINGARO AND GARINGARO LIABLE?

SHOULD THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BE HEARD?

DECISION:

CARPIO, J.

“Under Section 32, Article XIII of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 7610,
lascivious conduct is defined as follows:

[T]he intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus,
groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the
genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with the
 intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of
any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area
of a person.

In this case, the prosecution established that Garingarao touched AAAs breasts and inserted his
finger into her private part for his sexual gratification. Garingarao used his influence as a nurse by
pretending that his actions were part of the physical examination he was
doing. Garingarao persisted on what he was doing despite AAAs objections. AAA twice
asked Garingarao what he was doing and he answered that he was just examining her.

The Court has ruled that a child is deemed subject to other sexual abuse when the child is the
victim of lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult. In lascivious conduct
under the coercion or influence of any adult, there must be some form of compulsion equivalent
to intimidation which subdues the free exercise of the offended partys free will. In this
case, Garingarao coerced AAA into submitting to his lascivious acts by pretending that he was
examining her.

Garingarao insists that, assuming that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were true, he
should not be convicted of violation of RA 7610 because the incident happened only
once. Garingarao alleges that the single incident would not suffice to hold him liable under RA
7610.

Garingaraos argument has no legal basis.

The Court has already ruled that it is inconsequential that sexual abuse under RA 7610
occurred only once. Section 3(b) of RA 7610 provides that the abuse may be habitual or
not. Hence, the fact that the offense occurred only once is enough to hold Garingarao liable
for acts of lasciviousness under RA 7610.”
SHARICA MARI L. GO-TAN V. SPOUSES PERFECTO AND JUANITA TAN
GR NO. 168852
30/09/2008

FACTS:

Sharica Mari L. Go-Tan married to Steven L. Tan were married with two children, Kyra
Danielle and Kristen Denise. Sharica filed a Petition with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary
Protective Order against the father, Steven Tan and her in-laws Perfecto and Juanita Tan.
According to Sharica, Steven and his parents were conspired to cause verbal, psychological and
economic abuse to her children. The Regional Trial Court issued the TPO on January 25, 2005.
After the TPO was given to her in-laws, they questioned the jurisdiction of the RTC because they
are not in violation of the RA 9262 because they are parents-in-law of the petitioner. Which later
on was insisted by the an answer to the latter that they are covered by RA 9262 because this is a
law that protects victims of violence. Hence, the decision of the RTC was reversed and said that
parents-in-law are not covered by RA 9262 despite the reasonable relationship between the
offender and the victim.

ISSUE:

ARE THE PARENTS-IN-LAW OF SHARICA LIABLE FOR VIOLATING RA 9262

AGAINST THEIR GRANDCHILDREN?

DECISION:
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

“With more reason, therefore, the principle of conspiracy under Article 8 of the RPC may be
applied suppletorily to R.A. No. 9262 because of the express provision of Section 47 that the RPC shall be
supplementary to said law. Thus, general provisions of the RPC, which by their nature, are necessarily
applicable, may be applied suppletorily.

Thus, the principle of conspiracy may be applied to R.A. No. 9262. For once conspiracy or action in concert
to achieve a criminal design is shown, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators, and the precise extent or
modality of participation of each of them becomes secondary, since all the conspirators are principals.[23]

It must be further noted that Section 5 of R.A. No. 9262 expressly recognizes that the acts of violence against
women and their children may be committed by an offender through another, thus:

SEC. 5. Acts of Violence Against Women and Their Children. - The crime of violence against
women and their children is committed through any of the following acts:

xxx

(h) Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct, personally or through another,

that alarms or causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to the woman or her
child. This shall include, but not be limited to, the following acts:
 (1) Stalking or following the woman or her child in public or private places;

(2) Peering in the window or lingering outside the residence of the woman or her child;

(3) Entering or remaining in the dwelling or on the property of the woman or her child against
her/his will;

(4) Destroying the property and personal belongings or inflicting harm to animals or pets of
the woman or her child; and

(5) Engaging in any form of harassment or violence; x x x. (Emphasis supplied)

In addition, the protection order that may be issued for the purpose of preventing further acts of violence
against the woman or her child may include
individuals other than the offending husband, thus:
SEC. 8. Protection Orders. x x x The protection orders that may be issued under this Act
shall include any, some or all of the following reliefs:

(a) Prohibition of the respondent from threatening to commit or committing, personally

or through another, any of the acts mentioned in Section 5 of this Act;

(b) Prohibition of the respondent from harassing, annoying, telephoning, contacting or

otherwise communicating with the petitioner, directly or indirectly; x x x (Emphasis
supplied)

Finally, Section 4 of R.A. No. 9262 calls for a liberal construction of the law, thus:

SEC. 4. Construction. - This Act shall be liberally construed to promote the protection and
safety of victims of violence against women and their children. (Emphasis supplied)
It bears mention that the intent of the statute is the law and that this intent must be effectuated by the
courts. In the present case, the express language of R.A. No. 9262 reflects the intent of the legislature
for liberal construction as will best ensure the attainment of the object of the law according to its true
intent, meaning and spirit - the protection and safety of victims of violence against women and
children.”
MICHAEL JOHN Z. MALTO V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
GR NO. 164733
21/09/2007

FACTS:

AAA, private complainant, 17 years old, who was a college student at the Assumption
College in San Lorenzo Village, Makati City. Petitioner, Michael John Z. Malto, was her professor
in Philosophy II class in the first semester of 1997 to 1998. AAA was having lunch with her friends
when Malto joined them, and told them they should call him Mike and listed down their names
and contact numbers. The discussion of the girls was about Kama Sutra and Malto told them that
he had better x-rated films collection and invited them to view his collection. AAA and friends
joined him and rode his car. They all went to Anito Lodge in Pasay City, checked-in at a Calesa
Room. However, Malto found that there was no video cassette player nor an x-rated show in the
television, instead, insisted that they cuddle up together and pulled the girls to lie with him in bed
after resisting so. To keep the humiliation, they agreed to keep it as a secret, and Malto also
apologized for such actions. However, AAA started receiving romantic messages from Malto.
During the break, their conversations always started innocently, but would always end up in the
topic of sex. AAA became interested in him because of her vulnerability. He was the first person
to court her and eventually had a mutual understanding and became a couple. AAA received her
grade in her Philosophy II where Malto was her professor. She protested her grade of a 3 because
her mid-term grade was 1.2, and as promised, he gave her a 1.5 for not disclosing the messages he
has sent to AAA and their affair.

AAA had agreed on November 19, 1997 to have lunch with Malto outside the premises of the
college. She was not feeling well so she stayed at the backseat of the car. To her surprise, she
ended up in a motel room in Queensland Lodge in Pasay City where he started touching her breasts,
and his hands inside her blouse. She tried to resist, but he only stopped as she showed anger. Same
scenario happened in November 26, 1997, where he advanced more in his actions forcing AAA to
stay in bed with him, where he threatened to end the relationship if he did not get what he wants.
AAA ended her relationship with Malto after learning that he was either intimately involved with
students or sexually harassing them in Assumption College and in other colleges and to her
depression confided with her mother, BBB. The latter then filed an administrative complaint in
Assumption College and also lodged a complaint in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasay City
which led to filing a criminal case. Malto, in his defense, denied such allegations and said that the
last time he saw AAA was when she submitted her final paper on October 18, 1997. According to
him, their relationship started when AAA was already 19 years old after his dismissal in
Assumption College, and that they repeatedly had sexual intercourse in motels or at either his or
her home when no one was around.

ISSUE:
IS MALTO LIABLE FOR VIOLATING ARTICLE III, SECTION 5(a), PARAGRAPH 3
OF RA 7610 FOR TAKING ADVANTAGE OF INFLUENCE TOWARDS AAA?
DECISION:

AAA testified that she was "emotionally devastated" and "lost touch of her inner self" as a
result of what petitioner did to her. Because of the mental anxiety and wounded feelings
caused by petitioner to her, she had several sessions with the dean for student affairs49 and
the guidance counselor of Assumption College as well as with a psychiatrist. This was
corroborated by her mother and the dean of student affairs of Assumption College. Thus, she is
entitled to moral damages of ₱50,000. However, in the absence of an aggravating circumstance,
the grant of exemplary damages is unwarranted.50

Accordingly, the petition is hereby DENIED. Petitioner Michael John Z. Malto is hereby
found guilty of violating Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610, as amended, for which he is
sentenced to 14 years and 8 months of reclusion temporal as minimum to 20 years of reclusion
temporal as maximum. He is further ordered to pay AAA ₱50,000 as civil indemnity and ₱50,000
for moral damages.
FELINA ROSALDES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

GR NO. 173988

08/10/2014

Michael Ryan Gonzales, a seven-year-old child, a grade one pupil at Pughanan Elementary School
located in Lambunao, Iloilo, was in a hurry to enter their classroom on February 13, 1996. He
accidentally bumped the knee of his teacher, Felina Rosaldes, who was asleep on a bamboo sofa.
She woke from sleep and asked the child to apologize to her. However, Michael did not obey her
and instead, he went to his seat. Rosaldes approached him and pinched him on his thigh, then held
him up by his armpits and pushed him to the floor hitting a desk. Michael lost consciousness.
Rosaldes still not done with her maltreatment to the child, picked up unconscious child by his ears
and repeatedly slammed him down on the floor as he cried. Rosaldes proceeded to teach her class.
During the lunch break, Michael with his classmates, Louella Loredo and Jonalyn Gonzales went
home to his mother to tell her what had happened. The latter along with Michael’s aunt reported
the incident to their Barangay Captain Gonzalo Larroza. He advised that they have Michael
examined by a doctor. The child was brought to Dr. Ladrido Hospital and Dr. Castigador examined
him and reported the incident to the Police Station. The medical certificate stated the following:

1. Petechiae and tenderness of both external ears 1x2 cm. and 1x1 cm.;

2. Lumbar pains and tenderness at area of L3-L4;

3. Contusions at left inner thigh 1x1 and 1x1 cm.;

4. Tenderness and painful on walking especially at the area of femoral head.

The petitioner was criminally charged with child abusein the Regional Trial Court in Iloilo City
(RTC), and the case was assigned to Branch 27 of that court. The information alleged as follows:
The Provincial Prosecutor of Iloilo, upon approval and Directive of the Deputy OMBUDSMAN
for the Visayas accuses FELINA ROSALDES of the crime of VIOLATION OF CHILD ABUSE
LAW

(Section 10 (a) of R.A. 7610), committed as follows:

That on or about the 13th day of February 1996, in the Municipality of Lambunao, Province of
Iloilo, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
being a public school teacher in Grade 1 of Pughanan Elementary School, with a Salary Grade
below 26, under the DECS, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously maltreat her
pupil Michael Ryan Gonzales, a seven year old child, by pinching him on different parts of his
body, and thereafter slumping him to the ground, thereby causing Michael Ryan Gonzales to lose
his consciousness and has suffered injuries on different parts of his body.
DECISION:

BERSAMIN, J.

“In the crime charged against the petitioner, therefore, the maltreatment may consist of an act by
deedsor by wordsthat debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a
human being. The act need not be habitual. The CA concluded that the petitioner "went overboard
in disciplining Michael Ryan, a helpless and weak 7-year old boy, when she pinched hard Michael
Ryan on the left thigh and when she held him in the armpits and threw him on the floor[; and as]
the boy fell down, his body hit the desk causing him to lose consciousness [but instead] of feeling
a sense of remorse, the accused-appellant further held the boy up by his ears and pushed him down
on the floor." On her part, the trial judge said that the physical pain experienced by the victim had
been aggravated by an emotional trauma that caused him to stop going to school altogether out of
fear of the petitioner, compelling his parents to transfer him to another school where he had to
adjust again. Such established circumstances proved beyond reasonable doubt that the
petitioner was guilty of child abuse by deeds that degraded and demeaned the intrinsic worth
and dignity of Michael Ryan as a human being.

It was also shown that Michael Ryan’s physical maltreatment by the petitioner was neither
her first or only maltreatment of a child. Prosecution witness Louella Loredo revealed on
cross examination that she had also experienced the petitioner’s cruelty. The petitioner was
also convicted by the RTC in Iloilo City (Branch 39) in Criminal Case No. 348921 for
maltreatment of another childnamed Dariel Legayada.18 Such previous incidents manifested that
the petitioner had "a propensity for violence," as the trial judge stated in her decision of June 26,
2003.”
JESTER MABUNOT v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

GR No. 204659

19/09/2016

FACTS:

On September 14, 2007, in Paracelis National High School, Butigue, Paracelis, Mountain
Province, one Jester Mabunot, came into the classroom with the influence of alcohol, as Shiva
Baguiwan and classmates doing their Technology Livelihood Education in sewing, Mabunot
boxed a few students, and Shiva was boxed by her left rib causing fracture. She was taken to Potia
District Hospital where she stayed for two days. Shiva was a fourteen year-old, and Mabunot was
a nineteen year-old in the same class. Mabunot later on dropped out of said school. According to
witnesses, William threw an object that hit the petitioner’s back, which caused him to box William.
Mabunot then walked out of the room, and Dennis followed him that also led to a fist fight between
them. Shiva tried to pacify them, but she was also shoved causing her unconsciousness.

ISSUE:

IS JESTER MABUNOT LIABLE FOR VIOLATING SECTION 10 OF RA 7610 ON

OTHER ACTS OF ABUSE OR ARTICLE 265 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE ON
LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES?

DECISION:

REYES, J.

“The petitioner avers that Section 10(a), Article VI of R.A. No. 7610 only penalizes acts of child
abuse which are not covered by the RPC. He insists that the acts complained of should fall under
Article 265 of the RPC, which imposes a lighter penalty.

The claim is unpersuasive.

Article 265 of the RPC punishes physical injuries in general. On the other hand, R.A. No. 7610 is
intended to "provide special protection to children from all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty,
exploitation and discrimination and other conditions, prejudicial to their development." Child
abuse refers to the infliction of physical or psychological injury, cruelty to, or neglect, sexual
abuse or exploitation of a child. Physical injury includes but is not limited to lacerations,
fractured bones, turns, internal injuries, severe injury or serious bodily harm suffered by a
child.30chanrobleslaw

It is clear that Shiva was 14 years old when she received the blow, which fractured her rib.
Being a child, she is under the protective mantle of R.A. No. 7610, which punishes
maltreatment of a child, whether the sam habitual or not.31 Moreover, the Implementing
Rules and Regulation R.A. No. 7610 even explicitly refer to fractured bones as falling
within coverage of physical injuries, which may be inflicted on a child, for which an
accused shall be held liable. Further, under R.A. No. 7610, s penalties are prescribed to
deter and prevent violations of its provisions.

In the petitioner's case, the maximum imposable penalty is prision mayor in its minimum period.
The minimum period is fuither subdivided into three, to wit: (a) six (6) years and one (1) day to
six (6) years and eight (8) months, as minimum; (b) six (6) years, eight (8) months and one (1)
day to seven (7) years and four (4) months, as medium; and (c) seven (7) years, four (4) months
and one (1) day to eight (8) years, as maximum.36 As there were no established attendant
mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the CA properly imposed the penalty of six (6) years,
eight (8) months and one (1) day as the maximum of the indeterminate sentence.

As to the minimum of the indeterminate sentence, Section the IS Law provides that it shall be
within the range of the per next lower to that prescribed for the offense. The penalty next
to prision mayor in its minimum period is prision correccional maximum period. The CA
imposed four (4) years, nine (9) months eleven (11) days of prision correccional, which falls
within the maximum range thereof. The CA imposed the minimum indeterminate penalty w the
allowable range, and the Court now finds no compelling reaso modify the same.”