Dear PAO,

My 15-year-old son and his friends were playing basketball when their ball hit a car. The car owner, who is a police officer, got mad and threatened my son and his friends. He pulled out his gun and pointed it toward them. In fear, they ran away and went home. Can we hold the police officer liable for his action?

Toni

Dear Toni,

In the case of Marvin L. San Juan v. People of the Philippines, GR 236628, Jan. 17, 2023, penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the Supreme Court ruled that pointing a firearm towards a minor is intrinsically cruel, to wit:

“In this case, pointing a firearm towards a minor is intrinsically cruel. Due to the nature of a firearm, R.A. No. 10591 regulates the ownership, possession, carrying manufacture, dealing in and importation of firearms, ammunition, or parts thereof. R.A. No. 10591 was enacted to maintain peace and order and protect the people against violence. It also recognizes the right of qualified citizens to self-defense through, when it is the reasonable means to repel the unlawful aggression under the circumstances, the use of firearms. For the members of the Philippine National Police, Armed Forces of the Philippines and law enforcement agents, mere displaying of a firearm, when not used for a legitimate purpose, is even prohibited. Such is understandable for in the normal course of things, a gun, when displayed, moreso, when pointed towards another, regardless of age, instantly generates fear. xxx

“Certainly, when there is nothing to defend against, any preparatory act of using a gun, as by pointing it towards a minor, would only cause fear in the mind of that person. With the only remaining act of pulling the trigger of a gun, it is the near possibility of the resulting death or injury that will remain etched in the mind of the minor. There is no denying that psychological harm immediately results therefrom, which falls as psychological abuse, as Section 3(b) of R.A. No. 7610 classifies maltreatment as child abuse based on the act committed, whether it be habitual or not.

“Militating against San Juan is his training as a police officer, whose duty is to uphold the law and to protect the well-being of the citizens of the community. Woefully, San Juan did the exact opposite. The use of his service firearm against a hapless 15-year-old minor, when he could have used other means to prevent AAA and his friends from playing basketball during such time, is manifestly excessive and unnecessary to achieve his purpose.

“It is not farfetched to assume that children, recognized as the most vulnerable members of society, can offer no resistance against an armed officer and in all likelihood, would be scarred by trauma long after the incident. A gun, when used to threaten an individual, moreso a minor, would undoubtedly create a lasting fear that could persist throughout the minor’s life; worse, such an incident could further erode and even endanger the minor’s psychological state and normal development. Ineluctably, the use of such firearm in such manner as in this case inherently carries with it a malicious intent to which San Juan must be held answerable for. As such, San Juan must be held liable for violation of Section 10(a) in relation to Section 3(b)(1) of R.A. No. 7610.”

As stated in the above-quoted decision, it bears emphasis that pointing a firearm toward a minor is intrinsically cruel. A gun, when used to threaten a minor, would undoubtedly create a lasting fear that could persist throughout his/her life; worse, such an incident could further erode and even endanger the minor’s psychological state and normal development. Accordingly, the car owner/police officer may be held liable for the violation of Republic Act 7610, otherwise known as the “Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act,” for pointing a gun at your minor son and his friends.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated on.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]