Possible BAR Exam Questions Question 1. Bully, 9 years of age, was throwing stones at Bakla and calling him sissy. Brusko, Bakla's father, confronted Bully and slapped him on the face resulting to the latter falling to the ground and sustaining a bruise on his cheek. The next day, Bully's mother filed a complaint for child abuse against Brusko under Sec. 10 (a) of RA 7610. Decide. Answer: The complaint is untenable because not every instance of the laying of hands on a child constitutes the crime of child abuse under Section 10 (a) of Republic Act No. 7610. Only when the laying of hands is shown beyond reasonable doubt to be intended by the accused to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being should it be punished as child abuse. Although it is affirmed that Brusko slapped Bully on the face causing further injuries to the latter, his act was not intended to debase the intrinsic worth and dignity of Bully as a human being, or that he had thereby intended to humiliate or embarrass Bully, because he did it at the spur of the moment and in anger, indicative of his being then overwhelmed by his fatherly concern for the personal safety of his son who had just suffered harm at the hands of Bully. With the loss of his self-control, he lacked that specific intent to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being that was so essential in the crime of child abuse. Question 2: Bruno and Beauty were married on 1989 and lived in Commonwealth, Quezon City. A year later, Beauty gave birth to Brownie. On 1991, however, Bruno filed a petition to have his marriage to Beauty annulled on the ground of bigamy, alleging that nine years before he married Beauty, she had married Bogart, which marriage was never annulled. Bruno also found out that Bogart was still alive and was residing in Kamias, Quezon City. Beauty did not deny marrying Mario when she was 21 old but she averred that the marriage was a sham and that she never lived with Mario at all. The trial court ruled that Beauty's marriage to Bogart was valid and subsisting when she married Bruno and annulled her marriage to the latter for being bigamous and declared Brownie to be an illegitimate child as a result. The custody of the child was awarded to Beauty while Bruno was granted visitation rights. Beauty felt betrayed and humiliated and held Bruno responsible for the bastardization of Brownie. She moved for the reconsideration of the above decision insofar only as that portion of the decision which granted bruno visitation rights. She argued that there was nothing in the law granting visitation rights in favor of the putative father of an illegitimate child and maintained that Brownie's surname should be changed to her maiden name, following the rule that an illegitimate child shall use the mother’s surname. Bruno opposed the motion and insisted on his visitation rights and the retention of Brownie's surname. Is Bruno's assertions tenable? Answer: NO. The Family Code provides that a child born from a valid marriage is a legitimate child and since Brownie was born during the subsistence of Beauty's marriage to Bogart he is therefore a legitimate child of said couple. As a legitimate child, by law, he has the right to bear the surnames of his father Bogart and mother Beauty, thus, Bruno cannot impose his surname on Brownie who, in the eyes of the law, is not related to him. As to his assertion of his visitation rights, in case of annulment, the Family Code grants visitation rights to a parent who is deprived of custody of his children. Such right flows from the natural right of both parent and child to each other's company. But such parent-child relationship between Bruno and Brownie is non- existent, thus, Bruno cannot legally demand visitation rights. Question 3: Maganda, 17 years old, was sitting on a bench near her house when Maharot, 25 years old, approached her and expressed his feelings for her and asked her to accept his love and even insisted that she must accept him because he had a job. Maganda did not like what she heard so she dashed to her house and went inside. When she was about to close the door, Maharot forced himself inside. Maganda pushed the door to stop him from entering her house but Maharot was still able to enter. There he embraced her, who struggled to extricate herself from his hold. She shouted for help but he continued hugging her and threatened that he'll kill her if she won't accept his love. Madiskarte, Maganda's boyfriend, arrived and pulled Maharot and threw him outside the house. Maganda immediately closed the door and locked herself to her room where she cried. The next day, with the help of the police, a complaint for child abuse under Sec. 10 (a) of RA 7610 was filed against Maharot and trial ensued. In his defense, the latter alleged that he can only be successfully convicted of child abuse under Section 10 (a) if it is proved that the victim’s development had been prejudiced and absent proof of such prejudice, which is an essential element in the crime charged, petitioner cannot be found guilty of child abuse under the subject provision. Decide. Answer: Maharot’s contention is misplaced. In cases involving Sec. 10 (a) of RA 7610, the prosecution need not prove that the acts of child abuse, child cruelty and child exploitation have resulted in the prejudice of the child because an act prejudicial to the development of the child is different from the former acts. The use of "or" in Section 10 (a) of Republic Act No. 7610 before the phrase "be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child's development" supposes that there are four punishable acts therein, to wit: (a) the act of child abuse; (b) child cruelty; (c) child exploitation; and (d) being responsible for conditions prejudicial to the child's development. The fourth penalized act cannot be interpreted, as petitioner suggests, as a qualifying condition for the three other acts, because an analysis of
Possible BAR Exam Questions Question 1. Bully, 9 years of age,
was throwing stones at Bakla and calling him sissy.Brusko, Bakla's
father, confronted Bully and slapped him on the face resulting to
thelatter fallingtothegroundandsustainingabruiseonhischeek. Thenext
day,Bully's mother fled a complaint for child abuse against Brusko
under Sec. ! "a# of$% &'!. (ecide. Answer:The complaint is
untenable because not e)ery instance of the laying ofhands
onachildconstitutes thecrimeof childabuseunder Section!"a#
of$epublic %ct *o. &'!. +nly when the laying of hands is shown
beyond reasonabledoubt to be intended by the accused to debase,
degrade or demean the intrinsicworthanddignityof
thechildasahumanbeingshoulditbepunishedaschildabuse. %lthough it is
a,rmed that Brusko slapped Bully on the face causing
furtherin-uriestothelatter, hisactwasnot intendedto
debasetheintrinsicworthanddignity of Bully as a human being, or
that he had thereby intended to humiliate orembarrass Bully,
becausehedidit at thespur of themoment andinanger,indicati)e of his
being then o)erwhelmed by his fatherly concern for the
personalsafety of his son who had -ust su.ered harm at the hands of
Bully. /ith the loss ofhisself0control, helacked
thatspecifcintenttodebase, degradeordemeantheintrinsic worth and
dignity of a child as a human being that was so essential in
thecrime of child abuse. Question 2:Bruno and Beauty were married
on 919 and li)ed in 2ommonwealth,3ue4on 2ity. % year later, Beauty
ga)e birth to Brownie. +n 99, howe)er, Brunofled a petition to ha)e
his marriage to Beauty annulled on the ground of bigamy,alleging
that nine years before he married Beauty, she had married Bogart,
whichmarriage was ne)er annulled. Bruno also found out that Bogart
was still ali)e andwas residing in 5amias, 3ue4on 2ity. Beauty did
not deny marrying 6ario when shewas 7 old but she a)erred that the
marriage was a sham and that she ne)er li)edwith 6ario at all. The
trial court ruled that Beauty's marriage to Bogart was )alid and
subsisting whenshe married Bruno and annulled her marriage to the
latter for being bigamous anddeclared Brownie to be an illegitimate
child as a result. The custody of the child wasawarded to Beauty
while Bruno was granted )isitation rights. Beauty felt betrayedand
humiliated and held Bruno responsible for the bastardi4ation of
Brownie. Shemo)ed for the reconsideration of the abo)e decision
insofar only as that portion
ofthedecisionwhichgrantedbruno)isitationrights. Shearguedthat
therewasnothinginthelawgranting)isitationrightsinfa)oroftheputati)efatherof
anillegitimate child and maintained that Brownie's surname should
be changed to
hermaidenname,followingtherulethatanillegitimatechildshall
usethemother8ssurname. Bruno opposed the motion and insisted on his
)isitation rights and the retention ofBrownie's surname. 9s Bruno's
assertions tenable: Answer: *+. The ;amily 2ode pro)ides that a
child born from a )alid marriage is
alegitimatechildandsinceBrowniewasbornduringthesubsistenceof
Beauty'smarriage to Bogart he is therefore a legitimate child of
said couple. %s a legitimatechild, by law, he has the right to bear
the surnames of his father Bogart and motherBeauty, thus, Bruno
cannot impose his surname on Brownie who, in the eyes of thelaw,
isnot relatedtohim. %stohisassertionof his)isitationrights,
incaseofannulment, the ;amily 2ode grants )isitation rights to a
parent who is depri)ed ofcustody of his children. Such right
supposes that there arefour punishable acts therein, to wit? "a#
the act of child abuse@ "b# child cruelty@ "c#child exploitation@
and "d# being responsible for conditions pre-udicial to the
child'sde)elopment. The fourth penali4ed act cannot be interpreted,
as petitionersuggests, as a Aualifying condition for the three
other acts, because an analysis ofthe entire context of the
Auestioned pro)ision does not warrant such construction.Question 4?
Skinny, = years old, signed up to model a clothing brand. She
workedfrom 9am to Bpm on weekdays and pm to 'pm on Saturdays for
two weeks. Shewas issued a child working permit under $% 97C. /hich
of the following statementsis the most accurate: %# /orking permit
for Skinny8s employment is not reAuired because the -ob is
notha4ardous@ B# Der work period exceeds the reAuired working hours
for children aged = yearsold@ 2# To reAuire a =0year old to work
without obtaining the reAuisite working permit isa form of child
labor@ D) Skinny, who was engaged in a work that is not hild labor,
is a workinghild! Question 5? /hat is the principle of best
interest of the child: Answer:Best interest of the child refers to
the totality of the circumstances andconditionswhicharemost
congenial tothesur)i)al, protectionandfeelings ofsecurity of the
child and most encouraging to the child's physical, psychological
andemotional de)elopment. 9t also means the least detrimental
a)ailable alternati)e forsafeguarding the growth and de)elopment of
the child.
