Laws & Jurisprudence
Doctrine of In Loco Parentis
9:10 PM
Seven
year old Michael Ryan, then a Grade 1 pupil at Pughanan
Elementary School, was hurriedly entering his classroom when he
accidentally bumped the knee of his teacher, petitioner Felina
Rosaldes, who was then asleep on a bamboo sofa. Roused from sleep,
petitioner asked Michael Ryan to apologize to her. When Michael did
not obey but instead proceeded to his seat, petitioner went to
Michael and pinched him on his thigh. Then, she held him up by his
armpits and pushed him to the floor. As he fell, Michael Ryan’s
body hit a desk. As a result, he lost consciousness. Petitioner
proceeded to pick Michael Ryan up by his ears and repeatedly slammed
him down on the floor. After the incident, petitioner proceeded to
teach her class. During lunch break, Michael Ryan went home crying
and told his mother about the incident.
The
petitioner was criminally charged with child abuse (Section 10 (a) of
R.A. 7610) in the Regional Trial Court in Iloilo City. The petitioner
contends that she did not deliberately inflict the physical injuries
suffered by Michael Ryan to maltreat or malign him in a manner that
would debase, demean or degrade his dignity. She characterizes her
maltreatment as an act of discipline that she as a school teacher
could reasonably do towards the development of the child. She insists
that her act further came under the doctrine of in loco parentis.
The
RTC rendered judgment convicting the petitioner of child abuse. On
appeal, the CA affirmed the conviction. Hence, this petition for
review on certiorari.
ISSUE:
Is
petitioner Felina Rosaldes' act justifiable under the doctrine of in
loco parentis?
RULING:
The
contention of the petitioner is utterly bereft of merit. Section 3 of
Republic Act No. 7610 defines child abuse thus:
x
x x x
(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.
x
x x x
In
the crime charged against the petitioner, therefore, the maltreatment
may consist of an act by deeds or by words that debases, degrades or
demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being.
The act need not be habitual.
Although
the petitioner, as a school teacher, could duly discipline Michael
Ryan as her pupil, her infliction of the physical injuries on him was
unnecessary, violent and excessive. The boy even fainted from the
violence suffered at her hands. She could not justifiably claim that
she acted only for the sake of disciplining him. Her physical
maltreatment of him was precisely prohibited by no less than the
Family Code, which has expressly banned the infliction of corporal
punishment by a school administrator, teacher or individual engaged
in child care exercising special parental authority (i.e., in loco
parentis), viz:
Article
233. The person exercising substitute parental authority shall have
the same authority over the person of the child as the parents. In
no case shall the school administrator, teacher or individual engaged
in child care exercising special parental authority inflict corporal
punishment upon the child.
Hence,
her acts cannot be considered as an act in loco parentis.
G.R.
No. 173988, October 8, 2014
FELINA
ROSALDES, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
BERSAMIN,
J.:
The author takes no responsibility for the validity, correctness and result of this work. The information provided is not a legal advice and it should not be used as a substitute for a competent legal advice from a licensed lawyer. See the disclaimer
0 comments