Case law on child abuse and student discipline

BACK in November 2019, a public schoolteacher trended on social media after she was forced to resign on national television when the parents and grandparents of a pupil aired their complaint in a television program.

The program played a leaked video showing the teacher sending a student out of the classroom as a form of disciplinary action. The program’s host asked the teacher to make a choice on the spot, between resigning from her post or face a criminal complaint for child abuse. The poor teacher chose to resign, of course.

This became a trending topic on social media platforms. I became involved in the issue when I was tagged in several posts by netizens to render legal assistance to the public schoolteacher. Eventually, the administrative case filed against the teacher before the Department of Education was dismissed.

When does student discipline equate to child abuse?

On child discipline in schools, while the enactment of Republic Act (RA) 7610 provides more protection to the minor, the unintended effect was that teachers are now constantly subjected to threats of child abuse complaints and prosecution whenever they perform their function of imposing discipline over students in their care.

In 1978, in the case of Bagajo v Marave, the issue submitted to the Supreme Court relates to the criminal responsibility of a teacher, who used her bamboo-stick pointer to whip a pupil, for the alleged crime of slight physical injuries as defined in Article 266, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code. The court held that as a matter of law, the teacher did not incur any criminal liability for her act.

The court was persuaded that she did not do what she did with criminal intent. While the court was convinced that the teacher meant to punish the pupil and somehow make her feel such punishment, the court was also convinced that the means that the teacher actually used was moderate and that she was not motivated by ill-will, hatred or any malevolent intent. What appears is that the teacher acted as she did in the belief that as a teacher exercising authority over her pupil in loco parentis, she was within her rights to punish her pupil moderately for purposes of discipline.

So where do we draw the line of student discipline by teachers who are placed in loco parentis over their wards under the law and child abuse under RA 7610?

In the case of Briñas y Del Fierro v People of the Philippines, a school directress of a private educational institution, in the heat of anger, called two students “pinakamalalandi, pinakamalilibog, pinakamahadera at hindot.” She likewise raised her middle finger in front of the students and said “ito kayo” and “mga p **** g ina kayo.”

Here, the court held that the school directress could not be found guilty of child abuse under Section 10 of RA 7610. The evidence presented shows that her acts were only done in the heat of anger, made after she learned that the students had used her daughter’s name to send a text message to another student, in what she thought was part of a bigger and harmful scheme against the student body. She had also then just learned that the mother of the student who received the misleading text message had confronted the students for quarreling with the former’s daughter.

It appears, thus, that the school directress’ acts were fueled by her anger and frustration at the private complainants’ mischief which caused distress not only to her and her daughter but also to another student and her parent. Thus, in the absence of proof of specific intent to debase, degrade or demean the students’ intrinsic worth and dignity, the school directress cannot be held liable for the crime of child abuse under RA 7610.

In the earlier cases of Jabalde v People, Calaoagan v People and Bongalon v People, the Supreme Court held that a specific intent to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth of a child as a human being is required for conviction under Section 10 (a) of RA 7610 in relation to Section 3 (b) paragraph 2, especially if the acts alleged constituting child abuse were done in the spur of the moment out of emotional outrage. While the above cases requiring specific intent to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth of the child as a human being, pertain to child abuse by physical deeds, i.e., the laying of hands against the child, the same treatment has been extended to the utterance of harsh words against minors.

However, in the case of Patulot y Galia v People, the Supreme Court also clarified that criminal intent is not wanting in a case where the accused poured hot cooking oil on the minors, even granting that it was not her intention to harm them, as she was performing an unlawful act. To the court, her act of pouring hot oil on the two minors constitute child abuse under the law.

In sum, the test of child abuse provided by the Supreme Court has provided a clear delineation of what may constitute child abuse and permissive child discipline in loco parentis. In Briñas, the Supreme Court applied the principle laid down in Bongalon that not every laying of hands over a child is child abuse, and only when it tends to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being can it be considered child abuse. A disciplinary action prompted by anger in the heat of the moment, lacks the criminal intent to abuse the child and therefore should not equate to the crime of child abuse.

However, disciplinary actions of teachers that are found excessive may still be dealt with by the school as a just cause for termination; or a basis for claim for damages for corporal punishment under the New Civil Code; and a ground for administrative actions for violation of the Code of Ethics of Professional Teachers.

***

I am excited to announce that registration for the first meeting of The Legal Mind Executive Sessions happening on Feb. 23, 2024 is still open. The Legal Mind Executive Sessions is an in-person learning platform designed for school leaders and executives to help them navigate through the complexities of the policy environment in education. You may visit https://legalmind.estradaaquino.com/ for registration and other details.