Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ERNESTO LARIN Y BONDAD

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 198732 2013-06-10	CHRISTIAN CABALLO v. PEOPLE PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Driven by the foregoing considerations, Congress crafted Article III of the same law in order to penalize child prostitution and other forms of sexual abuse. Section 5 thereof provides a definition of who is considered a "child exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse." As illumined in Olivarez,[25] citing People v. Larin[26] and Amployo v. People,[27] the final version of the aforesaid provision was a product of various deliberations to expand its original coverage to cases where the minor may have been coerced or intimidated into sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, not necessarily for money or profit, viz: The second element, i.e., that the act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse, is likewise present. As succinctly explained in People v. Larin:
	GR No. 187154 2010-04-23	PEOPLE v. EDWIN DALIPE Y PEREZ MENDOZA, J.
The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct. The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. The child whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.[27]
	GR NO. 173491 2007-11-23	EDWIN CABILA v. PEOPLE CARPIO MORALES, J.
(3) The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.[15] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 164733 2007-09-21	MICHAEL JOHN Z. MALTO v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
On the other hand, paragraph (b) punishes sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct not only with a child exploited in prostitution but also with a child subjected to other sexual abuse. It covers not only a situation where a child is abused for profit but also one in which a child, through coercion, intimidation or influence, engages in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct.[20]
	GR NO. 157718 2005-04-26	ALVIN AMPLOYO Y EBALADA v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Petitioner's arguments crumble under the weight of overwhelming evidence against him. Well-settled is the rule that factual findings of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding on this Court barring arbitrariness and oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and substance[18] for which there are none in this case. Besides, Kristine Joy's testimony is indeed worthy of full faith and credence as there is no proof that she was motivated to falsely accuse petitioner. Thus, we stress anew that no young and decent girl like Kristine Joy would fabricate a story of sexual abuse, subject herself to medical examination and undergo public trial, with concomitant ridicule and humiliation, if she is not impelled by a sincere desire to put behind bars the person who assaulted her.[19]