843 Phil. 745
LEONEN, J.:
Criminal Case No. 116-V-12On arraignment, Fernandez pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged.[7]
That on or about November 11, 2011, in Valenzuela City and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being the stepmother of the herein minor victim, without any justifiable cause, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously maltreated one AAA, 10 years old, DOB: September 12, 2001 (complainant/victim), by pliers [sic] the ears, bang[ing] the head on the wall and punch[ing] the back of the said minor complainant/victim, thereby subjecting said minor to psychological and physical abuse, cruelty and emotional maltreatment and which act debase, degraded and demeaned his intrinsic worth and dignity as human being, thus prejudicial to his normal development.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Criminal Case No. 117-V-12
That on or about November 11, 2011, in Valenzuela City and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being the stepmother of the herein minor victim, without any justifiable cause, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously maltreated one BBB, 11 years old, DOB: June 5, 2000 (complainant/victim), by scalding her with a hot rice, (sic) causing her skin to burn, piercing her stomach with a bamboo stick, hitting her eyes with a slippers [sic], hammering her foot and hitting her at the back of her body with a bamboo, thereby subjecting said minor to psychological and physical abuse, cruelty and emotional maltreatment and which act debased, degraded and demeaned her intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being thus prejudicial to her normal development.
Contrary to Law.[6] (Citations omitted)
WHEREFORE, the prosecution having proven the guilt of accused CHRISTINE M. FERNANDEZ beyond reasonable doubt, accused CHRISTINE FERNANDEZ is hereby sentenced to four (4) years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.Fernandez appealed the Regional Trial Court April 18, 2013 Joint Decision, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[22]
Accused CHRISTINE M. FERNANDEZ is further directed to pay [BBB] and [AAA] civil indemnity in the amount of P30,000, (sic) each.
SO ORDERED.[21]
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS with MODIFICATION the Decision dated 18 August 2005 of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City, Branch 270 in Criminal Cases No. 116-V-12 and 117-V-12. Appellant CHRISTINE FERNANDEZ y MEDINA is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of committing child abuse in violation of Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610 and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment ranging from four (4) years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days of prision [correccional], as minimum to six (6) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum for each count of violation.Fernandez moved for reconsideration, but her motion was denied by the Court of Appeals in its March 11, 2015 Resolution.[25]
SO ORDERED.[24] (Emphasis in the original)
Section 3. Definition of Terms. -Article VI, Section 10(a) of the same law further provides:
....
(b) "Child abuse" refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the child which includes any of the following:(1) Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional maltreatment;(2) Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being;(3) Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for survival, such as food and shelter; or(4) Failure to immediately give medical treatment to an injured child resulting in serious impairment of his growth and development or in his permanent incapacity or death.[34] (Emphasis supplied)
Section 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and Other Conditions Prejudicial to the Child's Development. -Section 2 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases[36] provides the following definition of terms:
(a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child's development including those covered by Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, but not covered by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period.[35]
SECTION 2. Definition of Terms. - ...Here, records show that the minors suffered physical injuries in petitioner's hands. The Regional Trial Court's "evaluation of the facts and evidence is utterly sufficient in substance to support [petitioner's] conviction."[38]
(a) "Child Abuse" refers to the infliction of physical or psychological injury, cruelty to, or neglect, sexual abuse or exploitation of a child; (b) "Cruelty" refers to any act by word or deed which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being. Discipline administered by a parent or legal guardian to a child does not constitute cruelty provided it is reasonable in manner and moderate in degree and does not constitute physical or psychological injury as defined herein; (c) "Physical injury" includes but is not limited to lacerations, fractured bones, burns, internal injuries, severe injury or serious bodily harm suffered by a child.[37]
AAA testified:On the other hand, BBB testified:
Q: Ano pa?
A: Kinurot po ako sa singit at pinalo ng walis tambo nabale pa nga po eh.
....
Q: At sabi mo, yong walis tambo binale niya, paano niya binale sa iyo?
A: Ipinalo niya po sa akin.[39] (Emphasis supplied)
Q: Ang sabi mo, nandoon yung kapatid mo. Ano ang ginagawa niya habang nakikita niya na pinaplais ni Christine ang tenga mo, tinutusok ka ng kawayan sa tiyan at pinapalo ka ng kawayan sa likod habang ikaw ay kumakain?Petitioner argues that both of the witnesses' narrations contain the use of objects such as plais, kawayan, and walis tambo, which are contrary to human experience, and strengthen the suspicion that they were coached.[41]
A: Katabi ko po siya at kumakain din.[40] (Emphasis supplied)
From our own careful examination of the records, we are convinced that there is no reason to disturb the assessment and determination of the private complainants' credibility by the trial court. The straightforward, candid[,] and intrepid revelation in coming forward to avenge the physical abuses upon them is more convincing and plausible compared to the weak and uncorroborated defense of appellant. Despite the minor inconsistencies in their testimonies, their general statements remained consistent throughout the trial as they recounted the sordid details of their tormenting experience in the hands of appellant.[42]The Court of Appeals further ruled:
AAA and BBB remained consistent all throughout the trial as they recounted the sordid details of [the] tormenting experience they suffered. They likewise identified the photographs depicting the injuries they suffered in the hands of the appellant and which was corroborated by their respective Medical Certificates. Where a minor-victim's testimony is corroborated by the physical findings of cruelty, like in this case, there is sufficient basis for concluding that the minor-complainant was telling the truth. Physical evidence is of the highest order and speaks more eloquently than all witnesses put together.[43]Trial courts at first instance determine the credibility of witnesses. Generally, their findings and conclusions on this matter are given great weight.[44] These findings should not be disturbed on appeal, unless facts that were overlooked or misinterpreted would materially affect the disposition of the case.[45] Thus, in People v. De Los Santos:[46]
Basic is the rule that the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge, who had the unmatched opportunity to observe the witnesses and to assess their credibility by the various indicia available but not reflected on the record. Hence, the corollary principle that absent any showing that the trial court overlooked substantial facts and circumstances that would affect the final disposition of the case, appellate courts are bound to give due deference and respect to its evaluation of the credibility of an eyewitness and his testimony as well as its probative value amidst the rest of the other evidence on record.[47]A perusal of the records shows that there is no clear reason to disturb the factual findings of the Regional Trial Court. AAA's and BBB's testimonies were clear, positive, and direct. The Regional Trial Court judge's assessment of the witnesses' credibility is given great weight and respect, especially on appeal, since he or she had the advantage of actually examining both object and testimonial evidence, including the demeanors of the witnesses.[48]
Appellant could only proffer the defense of denial. Notably, the RTC found VVV and MMM to be credible witnesses, whose testimonies deserve full credence. It bears stressing that full weight and respect are usually accorded by the appellate court to the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, since the trial judge had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. Equally noteworthy is the fact that the CA did not disturb the RTC's appreciation of the witnesses' credibility. Thus, we apply the cardinal rule that factual findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses, and its conclusions anchored on such findings, are accorded respect, if not conclusive effect, especially when affirmed by the CA. The exception is when it is established that the trial court ignored, overlooked, misconstrued, or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances which, if considered, will change the outcome of the case. We have reviewed the records of the RTC and the CA and we find no reason to deviate from the findings of both courts and their uniform conclusion that appellant is indeed guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Other Acts of Child Abuse.[50]Moreover, courts expect minor inconsistencies when a child-victim narrates the details of a harrowing experience, especially when the details are too painful to recall. Such inconsistencies only prove that the childĀ victim was unrehearsed, especially when the discrepancies are minor details irrelevant to the elements of the crime, and thus, cannot be considered as grounds for acquittal.[51]
Republic Act No. 7610 is a measure geared towards the implementation of a national comprehensive program for the survival of the most vulnerable members of the population, the Filipino children, in keeping with the Constitutional mandate under Article XV, Section 3, paragraph 2, that "The State shall defend the right of the children to assistance, including proper care and nutrition, and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to their development." This piece of legislation supplies the inadequacies of existing laws treating crimes committed against children, namely, the Revised Penal Code and Presidential Decree No. 603 or the Child and Youth Welfare Code. As a statute that provides for a mechanism for strong deterrence against the commission of child abuse and exploitation, the law has stiffer penalties for their commission, and a means by which child traffickers could easily be prosecuted and penalized. Also, the definition of child abuse is expanded to encompass not only those specific acts of child abuse under existing laws but includes also "other acts of neglect, abuse, cruelty or exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to the child's development[."][54]However, the Court of Appeals noted that the Regional Trial Court imposed the penalty for only one (1) count; thus, it modified the ruling, increasing it to two (2) counts of violation of Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610.