G.R. No. 174205 -

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Gonzalo Araneta y Alabastro guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610 and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period, to pay the offended party Php50,000.00 as moral damages without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. [17] Dissatisfied with the ruling of the RTC, petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. Petitioner claimed that the RTC gravely erred in convicting him of child abuse despite failure of the prosecution to establish the elements necessary to constitute the crime charged. Section 10(a) provide: " Any person who shall commit any other acts of abuse, cruelty or exploitation or be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child's development including those covered by Article Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, but not covered by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period "; and Section 3(b)(2) defines child abuse in this manner: " Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being ." From these provisions, petitioner concludes that an act or word can only be punishable if such be prejudicial to the child's development so as to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being. In other words, petitioner was of the opinion that an accused can only be successfully convicted of child abuse under Section 10(a) if it is proved that the victim's development had been prejudiced. Thus, according to petitioner, 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. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), on the other hand, believes that the questioned acts of petitioner fall within the definition of child abuse. According to the OSG, when paragraph (a) of Section 10 of Republic Act No. 7610 states: " Any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or be responsible for other condition prejudicial to the child's development x x x, " it contemplates two classes of "other acts" of child abuse, i.e. , (1) other acts of child abuse, cruelty, and exploitation; and (2) other conditions prejudicial to the child's development. It argues that unlike the second kind of child abuse, the first class does not require that the act be prejudicial to the child's development. In a decision dated 15 February 2005, the Court of Appeals concurred in the opinion of the OSG. It affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC, viz : WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED and accordingly, the assailed Decision is AFFIRMED in toto . [18] Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration dated 14 March 2005, which was denied by the Court of Appeals in its 10 August 2006 Resolution. Hence, th