ERLINDA ESCOLANO 

Y IGNACIO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF The following day, the siblings saw Perlin in front of their house.
THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. Private complainants got three ketchup sachets from their
refrigerator and threw these at her. However, Perlin went inside
G.R. No. 226991, December 10, 2018 | GESMUNDO, J.: their house so it was petitioner who was twice hit instead by the
sachets. Petitioner exclaimed, "Putang ina ninyo, gago kayo, wala
DOCTRINE: In grave threats, the wrong threatened to be
kayong pinag-aralan, wala kayong utak, subukan ninyong bumaba
committed amounts to a crime which may or may not be
dito, pakakawalan ko ang aso ko, pakakagat ko kayo sa aso
accompanied by a condition. In light threats, the wrong threatened
ko."10 Private complainants reported the incident to their mother
does not amount to a crime but is always accompanied by a
DDD when she arrived from the market.
condition. In other light threats, the wrong threatened does not
amount to a crime and there is no condition. When DDD confronted petitioner, the latter uttered "nagpuputa ka,
puta-puta ka. " Petitioner then went inside her house, came out
FACTS & CRIME CHARGED: with a bolo, and threatened DDD, "walang demanda demanda sa
akin, basta bumaba kayo dito lahat, papatayin ko kayong lahat.
In an Information, dated January 13, 2011, petitioner was charged
Tatagain ko kayo, papatayin ko kayo." The incident left private
with violation of Sec. 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610. The accusatory
complainants terrified. They only went downstairs when they had a
portion of the information states:
companion; and they no longer played as they usually did. BBB
That on or about the 30th day of May 2009 in and CCC corroborated AAA's testimony that they threw ketchup
[XXX],5 Philippines, the above-named accused, did then sachets at Perlin because she uttered bad words against CCC.
and there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously commit an
On the other hand, DDD testified that on May 30, 2009, private
act of child abuse/cruelty against [AAA],6 11 years old;
complainants told her about the incident, thus, she confronted
[BBB], 9 years old; [CCC], 8 years old, all minors, by then
petitioner. The latter pointed her finger at her and uttered, "Hoy,
and there making hacking gestures with a bolo and
putang ina mo," got a bolo, and yelled "Kaya ninyo ito?
uttering insults and invectives at them, which act debases,
Pagtatatagain ko kayo."11 Thereafter, DDD noticed a change in the
demeans and degrades the intrinsic worth and dignity of
behavior of private complainants as they no longer played
the said minors as human being[s], to the damage and
downstairs and they even transferred residence because of the
prejudice of the said offended parties.
incident. DDD averred that her children were traumatized, and
PROSECUTION’S VERSION they were in constant fear because of petitioner's threat.

The prosecution presented the following witnesses: AAA, BBB, and DEFENSE’S VERSION
CCC, private complainants; and DDD,8 mother of complainants.
Petitioner, on her part, testified that in the morning of May 30,
Their testimony tended to establish the following:
2009, while she was sitting beside the gate of her house, AAA
AAA testified that he was 11 years old at the time of the incident; threw a sachet of ketchup at her. She scolded AAA saying, "Huwag
that on May 29, 2009, at around eleven o'clock in the morning, he kang mamamato." Instead of desisting, AAA and his brothers BBB
and his two brothers: BBB, 9 years old, and CCC, 8 years old, were and CCC continued to throw ketchup sachets. Thereafter, AAA
flying paper planes from the third floor of their house when the shouted, "Linda, putang ina mo, wala kang kwenta." Petitioner
planes landed in front of the house of Perlin Escolano (Perlin),9 the warned that she would report them to DDD, their mother. DDD
daughter of petitioner. Perlin uttered "putang ina" directed at CCC. suddenly arrived uttering invectives and pointing her finger at
petitioner while uttering, "Linda, putang ina mo! Bobo ka! Wala child as a human being, being the essential element in child
kang pinag aralan!" abuse.28 Since the prosecution failed to establish the said intent,
the petitioner in that case was convicted only of slight physical
RTC: the RTC found petitioner guilty of violating Sec. 10(a) of R.A. injuries.
No. 7610.
In this case, the Court finds that the act of petitioner in shouting
CA: the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC. invectives against private complainants does not constitute child
abuse under the foregoing provisions of R.A. No. 7610. Petitioner
ISSUES: had no intention to debase the intrinsic worth and dignity of the
child. It was rather an act carelessly done out of anger. The
WHETHER THE CA ERRED IN AFFIRMING PETITIONER'S circumstances surrounding the incident proved that petitioner's act
CONVICTION OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 10(A) OF R.A. NO. 7610. of uttering invectives against the minors AAA, BBB, and CCC was
done in the heat of anger.
RULING:
It is clear that petitioner's utterances against private complainants
YES. were made because there was provocation from the latter. AAA,
BBB, and CCC were throwing ketchup sachets at petitioner's
Verily, Sec. 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610, in relation thereto, Sec. 3(b)
daughter Perlin. The latter evaded this by getting inside their
of the same law, highlights that in child abuse, the act by deeds or
house, so that private complainants hit petitioner on the head and
words must debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and
feet, instead. The complainants continued to throw these sachets
dignity of a child as a human being. Debasement is defined as the
which angered petitioner. Evidently, petitioner's statements "bobo,
act of reducing the value, quality, or purity of
walang utak, putang ina" and the threat to "ipahabol" and
something; degradation, on the other hand, is a lessening of a
"ipakagat sa aso" were all said out of frustration or annoyance.
person's or thing's character or quality; while demean means to
Petitioner merely intended that the children stop their unruly
lower in status, condition, reputation or character.25
behavior.
When this element of intent to debase, degrade or demean is
On the other hand, the prosecution failed to present any iota of
present, the accused shall be convicted of violating Sec. 10(a) of
evidence to prove petitioner's intention to debase, degrade or
R.A. No. 7610, which carries a heavier penalty compared to that of
demean the child victims. The record does not show that
slight physical injuries or other light threats under the RPC.
petitioner's act of threatening the private complainants was
In Bongalon v. People,27 the petitioner therein was charged under intended to place the latter in an embarrassing and shameful
Sec. 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610 because he struck and slapped the situation before the public. There was no indication that petitioner
face of a minor, done at the spur of the moment and in the heat of had any specific intent to humiliate AAA, BBB, and CCC; her
anger. The Court ruled that only when the accused intends to threats resulted from the private complainants' vexation.
debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth of the child as a
Verily, as the prosecution failed to specify any intent to debase the
human being should the act be punished with child abuse under
"intrinsic worth and dignity" of complainants as human beings, or
Sec. 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610. Otherwise, the act must be punished
that she had intended to humiliate or embarrass AAA, BBB, and
for physical injuries under the RPC. It was emphasized therein that
CCC; thus, petitioner cannot be held criminally liable under
the records must establish that there must be a specific intent to
Sec. 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610.32
debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of a
 Petitioner committed the crime of other light threats. establish that petitioner persisted in the idea involved in her
threat.
Nevertheless, though the prosecution failed to prove the intent to
debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth of private
complainants, petitioner still uttered insults and invectives at DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
them. Specifically, petitioner's statement "Putang ina ninyo, gago
kayo, wala kayong pinagaralan, wala kayong utak, subukan WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The June
ninyong bumaba dito, pakakawalan ko ang aso ko, pakakagat ko 15, 2016 Decision and August 12, 2016 Resolution of the Court of
kayo sa aso ko," were directed against private complainants. In Appeals in CA-G.R. CR. No. 37239 are AFFIRMED with
this regard, AAA testified that this particular utterance from MODIFICATION, that Erlinda Escolano y Ignacio is GUILTY of
petitioner was scary.36 DDD also corroborated said claim that Other Light Threats under Article 285 of the Revised Penal Code.
private complainants were too traumatized even to go downstairs She is hereby sentenced to suffer the straight penalty of
because of their fear that petitioner might release her dog to chase imprisonment of ten (10) days of arresto menor and to pay the
and bite them.37 costs of suit.

However, it must also be emphasized that, as discussed,

petitioner's utterances were made in the heat of her anger because
private complainants had thrown ketchup sachets at her. Petitioner
merely intended that private complainants stop their rude
behavior.

In grave threats, the wrong threatened to be committed amounts

to a crime which may or may not be accompanied by a condition.
In light threats, the wrong threatened does not amount to a crime
but is always accompanied by a condition. In other light threats,
the wrong threatened does not amount to a crime and there is no
condition.38

Here, the threat made by petitioner of releasing her dogs to chase

private complainants was expressed in the heat of anger.
Petitioner was merely trying to make private complainants stop
throwing ketchup sachets at her. However, instead of doing so,
private complainants still continued to throw ketchup sachets
against petitioner, which infuriated the latter causing her to utter
invectives against private complainants.

Given the surrounding circumstances, the offense committed falls

under Article 285, par. 2 (other light threats) since: (1) threat
does not amount to a crime, and (2) the prosecution did not