|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
雖然並非所有形式的體罰都構成虐待兒童,但最高法院表示,過度體罰不應損害兒童的尊嚴。
The Supreme Court has ruled that while some forms of physical discipline may not constitute child abuse, parents should avoid excessive discipline that could harm a child's dignity.
最高法院裁定,雖然某些形式的體罰可能不構成虐待兒童,但父母應避免可能損害兒童尊嚴的過度體罰。
In a 14-page decision, the high court stated that the manner in which children are disciplined by their parents should not "be violent, excessive, or disproportionate to their misbehavior."
在一份長達 14 頁的裁決中,高等法院表示,父母管教兒童的方式不應「暴力、過度或與他們的不當行為不相稱」。
"This Court held that the laying of hands against a child, when done in the spur of the moment and in the heat of anger, cannot be deemed as an act of child abuse, absent the offender's specific intent to debase, degrade, or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being," the court's decision read.
「本法院認為,如果犯罪者沒有具體意圖貶低、貶低或貶低兒童,那麼在一時衝動和盛怒之下對兒童下手,不能被視為虐待兒童的行為。兒童作為人的內在價值和尊嚴,」法院的判決中寫道。
The case, penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez, was promulgated on July 22, 2024.
該案件由副法官約瑟夫·洛佩茲 (Jhosep Lopez) 撰寫,於 2024 年 7 月 22 日頒布。
The case arose from the conviction of a father, identified as XXX, who subjected his 12-year-old daughter and 10-year-old son to violent and excessive discipline between 2017 and 2018.
該案起因於一位名叫 XXX 的父親被定罪,他在 2017 年至 2018 年間對他 12 歲的女兒和 10 歲的兒子進行暴力和過度管教。
The father's actions included kicking his daughter, pulling her hair, striking them with a wooden rod, and hitting them with a dustpan. He also repeatedly cursed at his children.
父親的行為包括踢女兒、拉扯她的頭髮、用木棍打她們、用簸箕打她們。他也多次咒罵自己的孩子。
XXX argued that these actions were intended to discipline his children for misbehavior, such as failing to eat lunch and losing money from their coin banks.
XXX 辯稱,這些行為是為了懲罰他的孩子們的不當行為,例如不吃午餐和丟失硬幣銀行的錢。
However, the lower courts found him guilty of violating Republic Act No. 7610, the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act.
然而,下級法院判定他違反了第 7610 號共和國法,即《特別保護兒童免受虐待、剝削和歧視法》。
This prompted XXX to file a petition before the Supreme Court.
這促使 XXX 向最高法院提交請願書。
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, stating that the father's actions went beyond reasonable discipline and clearly intended to harm the children's dignity.
最高法院維持原判,表示父親的行為超出了合理紀律,明顯意圖損害孩子的尊嚴。
According to the Supreme Court, while parents have the right to discipline their children, such discipline must be reasonable and should not involve violence, excessive force, or punishment that is disproportionate to the child's misbehavior.
根據最高法院的規定,雖然父母有權管教子女,但這種管教必須合理,不應涉及暴力、過度武力或與孩子的不當行為不相稱的懲罰。
The high court clarified that without the specific intent to harm a child's dignity, the offender may still be held liable under other provisions of the Revised Penal Code.
高等法院澄清,如果沒有損害兒童尊嚴的具體意圖,犯罪者仍可能根據修訂後的刑法典的其他條款被追究責任。
"In the absence of this specific intent, the offender cannot be held liable for child abuse but only for other crimes punishable under the RPC, provided that all the elements of the latter are present," the court's decision read.
法院的判決中寫道:“如果沒有這種具體意圖,犯罪者不能對虐待兒童承擔責任,而只能對根據 RPC 可懲罰的其他罪行承擔責任,前提是後者的所有要素都存在。”
The father was sentenced to four to six years in prison and fined P45,000. He was also ordered to pay his children P180,000 in damages.
父親被判處四到六年監禁,併罰款 P45,000。他還被勒令向他的孩子們支付 18 萬比索的損害賠償。
免責聲明:info@kdj.com
The information provided is not trading advice. kdj.com does not assume any responsibility for any investments made based on the information provided in this article. Cryptocurrencies are highly volatile and it is highly recommended that you invest with caution after thorough research!
If you believe that the content used on this website infringes your copyright, please contact us immediately (info@kdj.com) and we will delete it promptly.
-
- Monsta Mash ($MASH) 預售第三階段預計將達到 2 美元
- 2025-01-10 05:10:24
- $MASH 正在席捲加密世界,憑藉其爆炸性成長和無與倫比的用戶參與度,有望超越競爭對手。
-
- 如果您自 2017 年以來每週投資 25 美元比特幣 (BTC),會怎麼樣?
- 2025-01-10 05:10:24
- 隨著比特幣的價格徘徊在 93k 左右,人們不乏關於其價值持續上漲的討論。
-
- 隨著與傳統資產的相關性的出現,比特幣和狗狗幣經歷了價格下跌
- 2025-01-10 05:10:24
- 在加密貨幣市場持續的價格波動中,模式已經開始出現。有跡象表明數字之間存在很強的相關性