G.R. No. 241500 . December 07, 2022.
Vianna Bantang y Briones, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Vianna Bantang y Briones was charged with slight physical injuries under Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code for allegedly attacking, assaulting, and employing personal violence upon AAA, a 16-year-old minor, on April 9, 2009, in Mandaluyong City, causing physical injuries requiring medical attendance for less than nine days. During the incident, Vianna’s mother, Teresita, confronted AAA about bad-mouthing her to their landlord. Vianna then punched AAA twice near her left ear and at the back of her neck. AAA sustained a contusion hematoma on her left cheek, as per a medical certificate, and experienced shock and trauma. Vianna admitted to punching AAA but claimed she acted in defense of her mother after AAA cursed and pointed fingers at her. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Vianna for violation of Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act) instead of slight physical injuries, imposing an indeterminate sentence and ordering her to pay damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the decision to impose legal interest on the monetary awards. Vianna filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, arguing the prosecution failed to prove the elements of child abuse, specifically the intent to debase, degrade, or demean the intrinsic worth of the minor, and assailing the credibility of AAA’s testimony and the medical certificate.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in convicting Vianna Bantang y Briones for violation of Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610 despite the alleged failure of the prosecution to prove all its elements and the alleged incredibility of the victim’s testimony.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the conviction. The Court held that the petition raised questions of fact, which are not reviewable under a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari, as its jurisdiction is limited to questions of law. The Court found no compelling reason to deviate from the factual findings of the lower courts, which concluded that Vianna’s act of punching a minor constituted child abuse under Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610 . The intent to debase, degrade, or demean the minor’s intrinsic worth could be inferred from the manner of the commission of the act. The Court also upheld the probative value of the medical certificate as corroborative evidence, noting Vianna’s judicial admission of punching the victim. The mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation was not appreciated, as Vianna used excessive force against a defenseless minor. The penalty and damages imposed by the lower courts were affirmed, with the modification of legal interest on monetary awards.