XVI. The judge is incorrect.

It is well settled in Philippine jurisprudence that, the several cuts and stabbed wounds on his back does not necessary imply that treachery was applied.

In the case at bar, the judge should have ruled that cruelty attended the killing. The several cuts and stabbed wounds and lifting up by the trees resulted to prolonging his suffering which was unnecessary. Hence, the proper aggravating circumstance attendant in this case is cruelty.

XVII. The trial is correct.

Under RA 7610 or the Child Abuse law, any person is guilty of the crime by employing physical force to a child.

In the given scenario, Kate employed physical force again George who is a child. The act of slapping George constitutes the violation of RA 7610 or the Child Abuse law.

XVIII. His defense is without merit

Under the law, If the person acted without fault or carelessness, mistake of fact may be applied.

In this case, Katlog cannot claim self-defense because the circumstances of which self-defense can be invoked are not present. Moreover, he did not act with due care upon seeing that Zing was pulling out something from his back. By shooting him belatedly without first inquiring was careless and reckless. Hence, his defenses must not prosper.

XIX. Patricio is not criminally liable for the crime of murder.

The basis of the above contention is Article 13 Paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code which states that the offender had no intention to commit a grave so wrong.

In the instant case, Patricio cannot be charged of murder because he did not plan to kill Batong in the process when he fetched him. The act of grappling and firing the gun was only an accident on the part of Patricio as he was acting in the duty of his lawful performance. Hence, Patricio is guilty for the crime of homicide with a mitigating circumstance attendant.

XX.