The Supreme Court (SC) has upheld with modification a decision that found a police officer guilty of pointing a gun at a 15-year-old in 2014.
In an en banc decision, the SC affirmed the 2017 ruling of the Court of Appeals that found Marvin San Juan guilty of violating Section 10(a) in relation to Section 3(b)(1) of Republic Act 7610, or the Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation, and
Discrimination Act.
A regional trial court sentenced San Juan to suffer imprisonment of four years, nine months, and 11 days up to seven years and four months in prison.
He was also ordered to pay the child P20,000 for moral damages, P20,000 as exemplary damages, plus interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the civil liability imposed, reckoned from the finality of the decision until full payment.
During the trial, an 11-year-old boy testified that he was with his friends, including the victim and another boy, at a basketball court when San Juan arrived and insulted the victim on March 26, 2014.
The witness said the victim walked away, causing San Juan to pull out his gun and point it at the back of his friend. The victim testified that San Juan threatened him with a stone after he laughed at him.
In his defense, San Juan argued that he was on his way home when he saw the victim and his friends playing at a basketball court. San Juan said he reminded them that they were not allowed to play during the weekdays.
He said that instead of obeying, the children laughed at him. According to him, he felt insulted and chased them with a stone. However, he denied pointing a gun at the victim.
The CA ruled the police officer was guilty of the crime of making grave threats in relation to RA 7610.
However, the SC found San Juan guilty of violating Section 10(a) in relation to Section 3(b)(1) of RA 7610.
Under Section 3(b)(1), child abuse refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the child, which includes… psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse, and emotional maltreatment.
The SC held that pointing a firearm toward a minor was “intrinsically cruel.”
“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,” it stressed.
“It is not farfetched to assume that children, recognized as the most vulnerable members of society, can offer no resistance against an armed officer and, in all likelihood, would be scarred by trauma long after the incident,” the high court lamented.
