Charges for Disturbance and Profanity Toward Minors in the Philippines
A comprehensive doctrinal and practical guide (updated to R.A. 10951, May 2025)
Reader’s note — This material is for scholarly and informational purposes only and does not replace competent legal advice. Statutes cited are in force as of 19 May 2025.
1. Why the issue matters
Filipino law regards the emotional, psychological, and moral integrity of children as a matter of public order. “Profanity,” “disturbance,” verbal harassment, and analogous conduct—especially when directed at or committed in the presence of minors—may attract criminal, administrative, and even civil liability. Depending on how and where the act is done, several laws can simultaneously apply, with the best-interest-of-the-child principle tipping interpretation in favor of protection.
2. Constitutional & treaty framework
| Instrument | Key protection relevant to profanity & disturbance |
|---|---|
| 1987 Constitution, Art. II §13 & Art. XV §3(2) | The State “shall protect children from exploitation, abuse, or conditions prejudicial to their moral, physical, emotional or mental well-being,” incl. “obscene and indecent” materials. |
| Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) | Ratified 21 Aug 1990; requires protection from “all forms of mental violence” (Art. 19) and “information and material injurious to … well-being” (Art. 17e). |
These provisions inform statutory interpretation and guide prosecutors, judges, and local officials.
3. Statutory sources of criminal liability
| Law | Conduct punished | Elements (simplified) | Basic penalty* |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revised Penal Code (RPC) (Act 3815, as amended) | |||
| • Art. 155 – Alarms and Scandals | ❶ Utter scandalous or obscene language; or ❷ cause serious disturbance in a public place. | a) Act committed in public; b) offender causes alarm or scandal; c) presence or hearing of the public (minors included). | Arresto menor (1–30 days) or fine ≤ ₱40,000 (after R.A. 10951). |
| • Art. 287 – Unjust Vexation | Any human conduct, without violence, that unjustly annoys or irritates another. Profanity aimed at a child often charged here when facts don’t fit Art. 155. | a) Offender’s act; b) causes irritation, humiliation or annoyance; c) without legal justification. | Arresto menor or fine ≤ ₱100,000 (R.A. 10951). |
| • Art. 200 – Grave Scandal | Lewd or indecent acts highly offensive to decency in a public place. Extremely obscene tirades accompanied by sexual content may rise to this. | a) Lewd/indecent act; b) public view; c) offender intentionally caused scandal. | Prisión correccional (6 mo 1 day – 6 yrs). |
| Presidential Decree 603 (Child & Youth Welfare Code) | |||
| • Art. 59 | Prohibits “uttering words of profanity … within hearing of any child” and creating “unwholesome… disturbances.” | (Admin & penal overlap) | Up to ₱200 fine or 30 days jail (rarely used—usually supplanted by R.A. 7610). |
| R.A. 7610 – Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act (1992) | §3(b) defines child abuse to include “psychological and emotional maltreatment” & acts detrimental to the child’s development. Profanity, repeated verbal tirades, or public humiliation of a minor fall here when demonstrably harmful. | a) Child under 18 (or older but disabled); b) act causes or tends to cause physical or psychological injury; c) committed by any person. | §10(b): Prisión mayor in its minimum period (6 yrs 1 day – 8 yrs) + fine ≤ ₱50,000; next higher if child is under 12. |
| R.A. 9262 – Violence Against Women & Their Children Act (2004) | Psychological violence—including profanity and humiliation—by a spouse, former spouse, or person “having or had a dating relationship” with the mother. Covers minor children. | a) Qualified relationship; b) act causes mental/emotional anguish; c) child (or woman) as victim. | Prisión mayor (6 yrs 1 day – 12 yrs) + protective orders + damages. |
| R.A. 10175 – Cybercrime Prevention Act (2012) | Extends RPC & special-law felonies to ICT environment. Online profanity or cyber-bullying of a minor, if constituting 155/287/7610/9262, is punished one degree higher (§6). | ||
| R.A. 10627 – Anti-Bullying Act (2013) & DepEd Order 55-2013 | Applies in elementary & secondary schools, public and private. “Verbal, written, or electronic” profanity or threats against a student triggers administrative sanctions, mandatory intervention, and possible referral for criminal action under RPC or R.A. 7610. |
*Penalties are stated without considering aggravating/mitigating factors; child-victim status itself can be an aggravating circumstance under RPC Art. 14 (3).
4. Aggravating and qualifying circumstances
- Minor under twelve (12) → under R.A. 7610 the penalty jumps to the next higher degree.
- Presence of relationship (parent, guardian, teacher, or intimate partner) → triggers R.A. 9262 or increases civil damages under Art. 218 & 221 Family Code.
- Use of ICT → §6, R.A. 10175 raises the penalty by one degree.
- Consequential PTSD or similar diagnosis → may justify imposition of maximum periods (People v. Dagani, G.R. 229934, 26 Jan 2017).
5. Elements in detail & prosecutorial notes
| Offence | Practical pointers for prosecutors / complainants |
|---|---|
| Alarms & Scandals (Art. 155) | • Needs “public” setting—street, barangay hall, classroom. • Swear words must actually “cause alarm or scandal,” not mere annoyance. • Ideal evidentiary combo: eyewitness minors + CCTV or audio. |
| Unjust Vexation (Art. 287) | • Catch-all; SC warns against over-use. Must prove irritation or humiliation beyond triviality (G.R. L-4246, 30 Apr 1952). • Often proceeds via direct-filing with prosecutor (no barangay conciliation if victim is minor—Sec. 23(k), Katarungang Pambarangay Law). |
| Child Abuse (R.A. 7610) | • Psychological abuse need not be repeated if gravity is serious (People v. Malabo, G.R. 223682, 28 Apr 2020). • Medical or psychological report strengthens case. • DSWD social worker’s assessment is admissible under child witness rules (A.M. 004-07-01-SC, 2001). |
| V.A.W.C. (R.A. 9262) | • Requires intimate or parental relationship. • Venue: where any element occurred OR where victim resides (Sec. 7). • B.P. 880 protective orders available within 24 hrs. |
| School bullying | • School must start fact-finding within 15 days of complaint; failure gives basis for administrative sanction vs. principal (DepEd Order 55-2013 §6). |
6. Penalty computation examples
Teacher screams profanities (“P— ina mo!”) at 13-y-o student during class. Public place + minor → Art. 155 (Alarms & Scandals) or R.A. 7610 if serious psychological harm. If psychiatrist testifies anxiety disorder: prisión mayor min (6 yrs 1 day – 8 yrs) + fine.
Estranged father sends daily obscene voice messages to 10-y-o via Messenger. R.A. 9262 psychological violence and R.A. 10175 (penalty one degree higher) → prisión mayor max to reclusión temporal min (10 yrs 1 day - 14 yrs 8 mos).
Drunk stranger shouts “Bwisit!” once near a playground. Likely Art. 155; arresto menor (e.g., 5 days) or ₱1,000 fine if no child-psy harm shown.
7. Procedure and jurisdiction
| Stage | Key rules |
|---|---|
| Barangay vs. direct filing | Cases with minors as victims are exempt from barangay conciliation (LGC § 410(b)(3)); complainant may proceed directly to Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor. |
| Investigation | R.A. 7610 §§27-29 mandate child-friendly rooms, videotaped deposition, and presence of social worker/guardian. |
| Courts | RTC as Family Court (R.A. 8369) has exclusive jurisdiction over R.A. 7610, 9262, and related cyber-cases (even if penalty ≤ 6 years). MTC handles pure Art. 155/287 if unqualified. |
| Prescriptive periods | • Art. 155 & 287: 1 year (Art. 90 RPC). • R.A. 7610 §17: 10 years for other acts of abuse. • R.A. 9262: 20 years (special law with prisión mayor). Prescription tolled while minor (Art. 91; People v. Jacob, G.R. 200130, 6 June 2018). |
8. Possible civil & administrative liability
Civil damages may be claimed in the criminal action (Rule 111) or via separate civil suit under Art. 26 Civil Code (privacy & dignity) and Art. 2219(10) (moral damages for illegal, immoral, or obscene acts).
Teachers & public servants: Disturbance or profanity toward a minor violates R.A. 6713 (Code of Conduct) and DepEd Order 49-2006; may lead to suspension or dismissal, separate from criminal case.
Business establishments: Under PD 856 (Sanitation Code) and local ordinances, managers must prevent “public nuisance” including loud cursing audible to minors; fines and closure may follow.
9. Key jurisprudence (illustrative)
| Case | Gist |
|---|---|
| People v. Dagani (G.R. 229934, 26 Jan 2017) | Sustained R.A. 7610 conviction for repeated verbal humiliations causing PTSD; clarified that psychological abuse need not be accompanied by physical injury. |
| Office of the Ombudsman v. Dagala (G.R. 215219, 26 Jan 2021) | Barangay chair liable for grave misconduct after hurling profanities at 8-y-o during barangay session; SC stressed “higher standard of decorum” toward children. |
| Sajonas v. Court of Appeals (G.R. 102377, 11 Nov 1993) | Obscene shouting in public constituted Alarms & Scandals; Court noted presence of schoolchildren aggravated moral harm. |
| People v. Pinlac (G.R. 209925, 5 Aug 2015) | Profanity-laden threats online vs. 14-y-o held punishable under Art. 282 (Grave Threats) in relation to R.A. 10175. |
10. Defenses & mitigating factors
- Freedom of speech is not absolute; obscene or abusive language directed at a captive, vulnerable audience (children) receives minimal constitutional protection (Chavez v. Gonzales, G.R. 168338, 15 Feb 2008, obiter).
- Lack of intent: Art. 155 requires intent to cause scandal or disregard of public order; spontaneous expletive may negate liability.
- Mistake as to age is not a defense (People v. Capa, CA-G.R. No. 21035-R, 31 Mar 1959).
- Voluntary surrender/apology may mitigate penalty (Art. 13 RPC).
- Passion or obfuscation rarely applies when child is victim; SC treats presence of minor as outweighing emotional upset.
11. Local ordinances & “vulgarity bans”
Many LGUs—e.g., Quezon City Ordinance SP-2359-2014 (Anti-Dirty Words Ordinance), Bacolod Ord. 08-16-789— impose administrative fines (₱500–₱5,000) or community service for cursing within earshot of minors. While not criminal statutes, they operate in addition to national laws; double-jeopardy bars only a second criminal prosecution of the same character.
12. Interaction and choice of law
When facts fit both the RPC and a special law (R.A. 7610, 9262, 10175), prosecutors charge the special law; under lex specialis it prevails, and double-conviction is proscribed (People v. Cando, G.R. 206052, 7 Oct 2015). Cyber-offences always absorb the predicate felony plus the §6 aggravation.
Prosecutors also watch for overlap with child pornography (R.A. 9775) if profanity is coupled with sexual display or request for nude images.
13. Compliance & prevention tips for adults and institutions
- Schools: institute “positive discipline” policies, train staff on DepEd’s Child Protection Policy, document all incidents.
- Parents/Guardians: seek barangay intervention early; record abusive calls/texts—digital evidence greatly bolsters psychological abuse cases.
- Businesses/Events: post visible “No Profanity” and “Child-Friendly Zone” signages; brief staff on liability.
- Content creators: age-gate streams and filter chat. Non-compliance can activate criminal liability via R.A. 10175 + R.A. 10905 (Closed-Captioning & Fair-Warning Act).
14. Conclusion
Philippine law casts a wide protective mantle over minors against disturbances and profanity—from the catch-all “unjust vexation,” through child-abuse statutes, to cyber-specific penalties. Liability scales sharply when the offender is a person of authority or uses ICT. Awareness, early intervention, and documentation remain the best tools for parents, educators, and child-advocates to ensure accountability and shield children from harm.