![]() |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
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.
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."
"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.
The case, penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez, was promulgated on July 22, 2024.
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.
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.
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.
However, the lower courts found him guilty of violating Republic Act No. 7610, the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act.
This prompted XXX to file a petition before the Supreme Court.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
免责声明:info@kdj.com
所提供的信息并非交易建议。根据本文提供的信息进行的任何投资,kdj.com不承担任何责任。加密货币具有高波动性,强烈建议您深入研究后,谨慎投资!
如您认为本网站上使用的内容侵犯了您的版权,请立即联系我们(info@kdj.com),我们将及时删除。
-
-
-
- 最近的价格动作显示了恢复的迹象
- 2025-04-04 03:20:12
- 在交易的最后100分钟内,Doge表现出了一个显着的恢复方式,从当地底部0.156美元攀升,稳定在0.158美元左右。
-
- 标准特许(avax)
- 2025-04-04 03:20:12
- 如果最大的银行集团之一下注局外人而不是市场王怎么办?在振奋确定性的报告中,标准租用
-
- WisdomTree将其机构令牌平台扩展到13个资金
- 2025-04-04 03:15:12
- 资产管理公司WisdomTree(WT)正在通过扩大其机构投资平台,更深入地进入资产令牌化
-
-
-
-