1) A teacher whipped one of her students, Wilma, with a bamboo stick for tripping another student and denying it. This caused bruises on Wilma's legs and thigh.
2) The teacher, Marcela Bagajo, claims she was just disciplining the student and did not intend to cause injury. However, she was convicted of slight physical injuries.
3) The court finds that while corporal punishment is not allowed, the teacher likely did not have criminal intent to harm the student based on the minor nature of the injuries. Therefore, the court acquits the teacher while noting she may still face administrative accountability.
1) A teacher whipped one of her students, Wilma, with a bamboo stick for tripping another student and denying it. This caused bruises on Wilma's legs and thigh.
2) The teacher, Marcela Bagajo, claims she was just disciplining the student and did not intend to cause injury. However, she was convicted of slight physical injuries.
3) The court finds that while corporal punishment is not allowed, the teacher likely did not have criminal intent to harm the student based on the minor nature of the injuries. Therefore, the court acquits the teacher while noting she may still face administrative accountability.
1) A teacher whipped one of her students, Wilma, with a bamboo stick for tripping another student and denying it. This caused bruises on Wilma's legs and thigh.
2) The teacher, Marcela Bagajo, claims she was just disciplining the student and did not intend to cause injury. However, she was convicted of slight physical injuries.
3) The court finds that while corporal punishment is not allowed, the teacher likely did not have criminal intent to harm the student based on the minor nature of the injuries. Therefore, the court acquits the teacher while noting she may still face administrative accountability.
PEOPLE (full text) Bagajo, a teacher, left her classroom to go to the principal's office. While the teacher was thus out of the room, complainant Wilma Alcantara, one of her pupils, left her desk and went to chat with Lilibeth Purlas, a classmate, while leaning over the desk of Ponciano Navarro, another classmate. At that juncture, a fourth classmate, Benedicta Guirigay passed near Wilma, who suddenly raised her leg causing the former to stumble on it and fall down, her head hitting the edge of the desk, her stomach a sharp pointed umbrella and her knee a nail of the desk. She fainted. At that precise moment, petitioner was entering the room. She asked Wilma what happened but the latter denied having anything to do with what had just taken place. Petitioner thereupon became angry and, with a piece of "bamboo stick" which she was using as a pointer whipped Wilma behind her legs and her thigh, thereby causing the following injuries, according to the medical certificate presented in evidence: 1. Linear bruises at the middle half of the dorsal surface of both legs. it is about four inches in length and 1/4 centimeter in width. There are three on the right leg and two on the left leg. 2. Two linear bruises of the same width and length as above at the lower third of the dorsal surface of the right thigh. The above lessions, if without complication, may heal in four to six days. (Pages 26-27, Record.) Upon the foregoing facts, petitioner claims in her appeal that respondent Judge erred in convicting her of the crime of slight physical injuries. She maintains that as the teacher, she was just trying to discipline her pupil Wilma for tripping her classmate and for denying that she did so. She contends she was not actuated by any criminal intent. And she is joined in this pose by the Solicitor General, who recommends her acquittal, coupled with the observation that although "petitioner is not criminally liable for her conduct, she may still be held accountable for her conduct administratively. In the school premises and during school activities and affairs, the teacher exercises substitute parental authority over the students. (Article 349, Civil Code.) More specifically, according to Article 352, "The relations between teacher and pupil, professor and student, are fixed by government regulations and those of each school or institution. In no case shall corporal punishment be countenanced. The teacher or professor shall cultivate the best potentialities of the heart and mind of the pupil or student." And pursuant to this provision, Section 150 of the Bureau of Public Schools Service Manual enjoins: The use of corporal punishment by teachers (slapping, jerking, or pushing pupils about), imposing manual work or degrading tasks as penalty, meting out cruel and unusual punishments of any nature, reducing scholarship rating for bad conduct, holding up a pupil to unnecessary ridicule, the use of epithets and expressions tending to destroy the pupil's self-respect, and the permanent confiscation of personal effects of pupils are forbidden.
In other words, under the foregoing Civil Code and
administrative injunctions, no teacher may impose corporal punishment upon any student in any case. But We are not concerned in this appeal with the possible administrative liability of petitioner. Neither are we called upon here to pass on her civil liability other than what could be ex-delicto, arising from her conviction, if that should be the outcome hereof. The sole question for Our resolution in this appeal relates exclusively to her criminal responsibility for the alleged crime of slight physical injuries as defined in Article 266, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code, pursuant to which she was prosecuted and convicted in the courts below. In this respect, it is Our considered opinion, and so We Hold that as a matter of law, petitioner did not incur any criminal liability for her act of whipping her pupil, Wilma, with the bamboo-stick-pointer, in the circumstances proven in the record. Independently of any civil or administrative responsibility for such act she might be found to have incurred by the proper authorities, We are persuaded that she did not do what she had done with criminal intent. That she meant to punish Wilma and somehow make her feel such punishment may be true, but We are convinced that the means she actually used was moderate and that she was not motivated by ill-will, hatred or any malevolent intent. The nature of the injuries actually suffered by Wilma, a few linear bruises (at most 4 inches long and cm. wide) and the fact that petitioner whipped her only behind the legs and thigh, show, to Our mind, that indeed she intended merely to discipline her. And it cannot be said, that Wilma did not deserve to be discipline. In other words, it was farthest from the thought of petitioner to commit any criminal offense. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. Nothing said above is intended to mean that this Court sanctions generally the use of corporal punishment by teachers on their pupils. All that We hold here is that in the peculiar circumstances of the instant case before Us, there is no indication beyond reasonable doubt, in the evidence before the trial court, that petitioner was actuated by a criminal design to inflict the injuries suffered by complainant as a result of her being whipped by petitioner. What appears is that petitioner acted as she did in the belief as a teacher exercising authority over her pupil in loco parentis, she was within her rights to punish her moderately for purposes of discipline. Whether or not she exceeded the degree of moderation permitted by the laws and rules governing the performance of her functions is not for Us, at this moment and in this case, to determine. Absent any applicable precedent indicative of the concept of the disciplinary measures that may be employed by teachers under Section 150 of the Bureau of Public Schools Service Manual quoted above, We feel it is wiser to leave such determination first to the administrative authorities. After several deliberations, the Court has remained divided, such that the necessary eight (8) votes necessary for conviction has not been obtained. Accordingly, the petitioner -accused is entitled to acquittal.
ADAMSON UNIVERSITY FACULTY AND EMPLOYEES UNION, Represented by Its President, and ORESTES DELOS REYES vs. ADAMSON UNIVERSITY (G.R. No. 227070. March 9, 2020)