MANILA (2ND UPDATE)— The Supreme Court has convicted a cop for child abuse for pointing a gun at a minor who refused to vacate a basketball court, in a decision that clarified the scope of the law protecting children.

Senior Police Officer 2 (now Police Senior Master Sergeant) Marvin San Juan was sentenced to a prison term of between 4 years, 9 months and 11 days to 7 years and 4 months and was ordered to pay P40,000 in damages to the boy, who was only 15 years old at the time of the incident.

San Juan was allegedly drunk in the morning of March 26, 2014 when he cursed at the boy and his two friends who were hanging out in a basketball court.

One of the friends, who was only 11 at that time, testified that the cop pulled out his gun and pointed it at the back of his friend, warning them not to hang out in the area.

In his defense, San Juan denied pointing a gun at the boy, insisting that he used a stone to chase the boys out of the basketball court. He said he felt insulted that the boys laughed at him when he asked them not to play basketball.

He also denied he was drunk.

• CHR chief recommends retraining for entire PNP after Navotas teen's shooting

The regional trial court (RTC) convicted the policeman of violating section 10(a) of Republic Act 7610 or the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act and sentenced him up to 6 years in prison.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the crime to grave threats in relation to the same section of RA 7610 but increased the penalty to up to 7 years and 4 months behind bars.

The Supreme Court, in a 13-2 vote, adopted the RTC’s ruling that San Juan was guilty of child abuse under RA 7610 and not grave threats, although it maintained the penalty imposed by the appellate court.

Speaking through Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez, the majority said what the cop did to the boy was “intrinsically cruel” and can be considered psychological abuse under RA 7610.

“It bears emphasis that the object involved in this case is a gun. Unlike other objects that may be used to hurt a child, a gun serves no other purpose than to cause injury or death. In the hands of a person with ill-motive, the objective to injure or kill could be achieved; in the hands of a person with good intention, the objective to repel an unlawful aggression may be accomplished. In these cases, one has to cause injury in order to achieve either objective,” the majority decision said.

“Certainly, when there is nothing to defend against, any preparatory act of using a gun, as by pointing it towards a minor, would only cause fear in the mind of that person. With the only remaining act of pulling the trigger of a gun, it is the near possibility of the resulting death or injury that will remain etched in the mind of the minor. There is no denying that psychological harm immediately results therefrom, which falls as psychological abuse, as Section 3(b) of R.A. No. 7610 classifies maltreatment as child abuse based on the act committed, whether it be habitual or not,” it explained.

Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, in a dissent joined by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting, said San Juan should be convicted of grave threats, not child abuse.

“I note that San Juan's act of pointing a gun against the minor to threaten and intimidate him was an act which can be perpetrated against anyone, even an adult. My reading of the facts is that San Juan did not choose the minor complainant as his victim because he was a child. If he had been an adult, he would have likely used the same tactics in order to assert himself and to make him take him seriously,” he said.

Caguioa also pointed out that the cop could not be said to have deliberately induced psychological abuse because his motive was clear: to intimidate the minors.

“His actions may have been excessive and immature, but they do not have the same sinister quality as cruelty or abuse,” he said.

• House panel OKs bill imposing stiffer penalties for child abuse, exploitation

SCOPE OF RA 7610

The Supreme Court ruling is significant in that it clarified the scope of RA 7610 — the law could apply even to acts already covered by the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

A phrase in section 10(a) of the law, “but not covered by the Revised Penal Code,” seems to imply that acts already covered by the RPC such as grave threats could no longer be prosecuted in RA 7610.

But the high court clarified that the phrase qualified the immediately preceding phrase “including those covered by Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603” so that the whole provision should be read to mean section 10(a) applies applies to acts covered by the RPC as well as acts under Article 59 of PD 603 that are not covered by the RPC.

PD 603 or The Child And Youth Welfare Code of 1974 was the old law which punished various acts of child abuse committed by parents while the RPC punished counterpart acts committed by non-parents.

But the magistrates noted there were acts under PD 603 which did not have corresponding penalties under RPC. It is here where RA 7610 supposedly filled the gap because it punishes both parents and non-parents.

“[T]he intention of the legislature in introducing Section 10 (a) of R.A. No. 7610 is to increase the penalties for acts committed against children as enumerated under the P.D. No. 603 and the RPC. This signifies the intention of the legislature to bring within the ambit of R.A. No. 7610, the provisions of Article 59 of P.D. No. 603 that are not covered by the RPC, as well as those falling under the RPC,” the decision explained, citing legislative deliberations of the law.

Section 10(a) of RA 7610 punishes 4 acts: (a) child abuse, (b) child cruelty, (c) child exploitation, and (d) being responsible for conditions prejudicial to the child’s development.

• Australian man charged with abusing 91 children: police