Dec 10, 2018 Escolano V People
Dec 10, 2018 Escolano V People
Dec 10, 2018 Escolano V People
Facts
This appeal by certiorari seeks to reverse and set aside the June 15, 2016 Decision and August 12, 2016 Resolution
of the CA. The CA affirmed the December 5, 2014 Decision of Branch 94 (RTC, Quezon city), finding Escolano guilty
of violation of Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610, otherwise known as the Special Protection of Children Against Child
Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act.
AAA, 11, BBB, 9, and CCC, 8, were flying paper planes from the third floor of their house when the planes landed in
front of the house of Perlin Escolano, the daughter of petitioner. Perlin uttered "putang ina" directed at CCC. The
following day, AAA threw a sachet of ketchup at Erlinda. She scolded AAA saying, "Huwag kang mamamato." Instead
of desisting, AAA and his brothers BBB and CCC continued to throw ketchup sachets. Thereafter, AAA shouted,
"Linda, putang ina mo, wala kang kwenta." Petitioner warned that she would report them to DDD, their mother.
DDD suddenly arrived uttering invectives and pointing her finger at petitioner while uttering, "Linda, putang ina mo!
Bobo ka! Wala kang pinag¬ aralan!" Erlinda pointed her finger at DDD and uttered, "Hoy, putang ina mo," got a bolo,
and yelled "Kaya ninyo ito? Pagtatatagain ko kayo." Thereafter, DDD noticed a change in the behavior of private
complainants as they no longer played downstairs and they even transferred residence because of the incident. DDD
averred that her children were traumatized, and they were in constant fear because of petitioner's threat.
Issue
Whether or not the CA erred in affirming petitioner's conviction of violation of section 10(a) of R.A. no. 7610,
Ruling
Yes. It is clear that petitioner's utterances against private complainants were made because there was provocation
from the latter. AAA, BBB, and CCC were throwing ketchup sachets at petitioner's daughter Perlin. The latter evaded
this by getting inside their house, so that private complainants hit petitioner on the head and feet, instead. The
complainants continued to throw these sachets which angered petitioner. Evidently, petitioner's statements "bobo,
walang utak, putang ina" and the threat to "ipahabol" and "ipakagat sa aso" were all said out of frustration or
annoyance. Petitioner merely intended that the children stop their unruly behavior. The prosecution failed to
present evidence to prove petitioner's intention to debase, degrade or demean the child victims. The record does
not show that petitioner's act of threatening the private complainants was intended to place the latter in an
embarrassing and shameful situation before the public. There was no indication that petitioner had any specific
intent to humiliate AAA, BBB, and CCC; her threats resulted from the private complainants' vexation.