This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2011-06-13 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| As elucidated by the RTC and the CA in their respective decisions, all the elements of both crimes are present in this case. The case of People v. Abay, [14] however, is enlightening and instructional on this issue. It was stated in that case that if the victim is 12 years or older, the offender should be charged with either sexual abuseunder Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 or rape under Article 266-A (except paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised Penal Code. However, the offender cannot be accused of both crimesfor the same act because his right against double jeopardy will be prejudiced. [15] A person cannot be subjected twice to criminal liability for a single criminal act. [16] Specifically, Abay reads: Under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610in relation to RA 8353,if the victim of sexual abuseis below 12 years of age, the offender should not be prosecuted for sexual abuse but for statutory rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal Codeand penalized withreclusion perpetua.On the other hand, if the victim is 12 years or older, the offender should be charged with either sexual abuseunder Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or rape under Article 266-A (except paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised Penal Code. However, the offender cannot be accused of both crimesfor the same act because his right against double jeopardy will be prejudiced. A person cannot be subjected twice to criminal liability for a single criminal act.Likewise, rape cannot be complexed with a violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610. Under Section 48 of the Revised Penal Code (on complex crimes),a felony under the Revised Penal Code (such as rape) cannot be complexed with an offense penalized by a special law. | |||||
|
2007-01-31 |
|||||
| Petitioner's argument is untenable. In People v. Larin (and reiterated in several subsequent cases),[38] we emphasized that the law covers not only a situation in which a child is abused for profit but also one in which a child, through coercion or intimidation, engages in any lascivious conduct.[39] The very title of Section 5, Article III (Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse) of RA 7610 shows that it applies not only to a child subjected to prostitution but also to a child subjected to other sexual abuse. A child is deemed subjected to "other sexual abuse" when he or she indulges in lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult.[40] Here, BBB was sexually abused because she was coerced or intimidated by petitioner (who poked her neck with a knife)[41] to indulge in lascivious conduct. | |||||
|
2004-01-20 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Again, we are not persuaded. It must be stressed that it was Janice's aunt Marie Ligot who instructed her to transfer to her grandparents' house so she could help her grandmother in taking care of her sickly husband who could not walk without any assistance. Being only 13 and under her aunt's parental authority, Janice had to obey her aunt. Besides, in many instances, rape can be committed even in places where people congregate: in parks, along the roadside, within the school premises and even inside a house where there are occupants. Indeed, lust is no respecter of place or time.[27] | |||||
|
2002-07-31 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| testifies in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner and remains consistent is a credible witness.[7] Indeed, there is nothing in the testimony of Vicente Dauba that would suggest that he was merely fabricating tales or embellishing his story to implicate the accused. The flaws, if any, refer only to minor or inconsequential details which do not affect his credibility or the veracity of his declarations. We also find no reason to depart from the well-entrenched rule that, in the matter of credibility of witnesses, the factual findings of the trial court should be respected. It is doctrinally settled that the assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies | |||||
|
2002-01-29 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In this case, accused-appellants could not even come up with a credible motive for complainant to charge them with rape. At any rate, ill motive is never an essential element of a crime. It becomes inconsequential in a case where there are affirmative, nay, categorical declarations towards the accused-appellant's accountability for the felony.[38] | |||||
|
2001-11-16 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| (b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraphs 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period; x x x . (Emphasis supplied.) In People v. Optana,[44] the Court, citing the case of People v. Larin,[45] explained the elements of the offense of violation of Section 5 (b) of R.A. 7610, or the Child Abuse Law, as follows: The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct. | |||||
|
2001-10-12 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Accused's attempt to discredit the credibility of the prosecution's story with Editha's delay in divulging the alleged crimes proves futile in light of the many rulings of this Court that delay in reporting a crime is not uncommon for young girls because of the rapist's threat on their lives.[38] In People v. Lusa,[39] the Court held that it was understandable that a fourteen-year old rape victim, about the same age as Editha, would be cowed into silence by the accused's warning that she would be killed if she divulged the incident to anybody.[40] | |||||