This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2013-11-11 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| On the other hand, RA 7610, otherwise known as the "Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act", defines and penalizes child prostitution and other sexual abuse. "Sexual abuse includes the employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of a child to engage in, or assist another person to engage in, sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct or the molestation, prostitution, or incest with children. Lascivious conduct means the intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person." [65] | |||||
|
2013-02-20 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| As a rule, recantation is viewed with disfavor firstly because the recantation of her testimony by a vital witness of the State like AAA is exceedingly unreliable, and secondly because there is always the possibility that such recantation may later be repudiated.[33] Indeed, to disregard testimony solemnly given in court simply because the witness recants it ignores the possibility that intimidation or monetary considerations may have caused the recantation. Court proceedings, in which testimony upon oath or affirmation is required to be truthful under all circumstances, are trivialized by the recantation. The trial in which the recanted testimony was given is made a mockery, and the investigation is placed at the mercy of an unscrupulous witness. Before allowing the recantation, therefore, the court must not be too willing to accept it, but must test its value in a public trial with sufficient opportunity given to the party adversely affected to cross-examine the recanting witness both upon the substance of the recantation and the motivations for it.[34] The recantation, like any other testimony, is subject to the test of credibility based on the relevant circumstances, including the demeanor of the recanting witness on the stand. In that respect, the finding of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal unless cogent reasons necessitate its re-examination, the reason being that the trial court is in a better position to hear first-hand and observe the deportment, conduct and attitude of the witnesses.[35] | |||||
|
2013-01-30 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| There is no dearth of jurisprudence holding that the appellant's acts in the present case amounted to a violation of 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610. In People v. Sumingwa,[27] the Court found the appellant therein guilty of four (4) counts of acts of lasciviousness under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 for rubbing his penis against the victim's vagina, fondling her breasts, and forcing her to hold his penis. In Navarrete v. People,[28] the Court affirmed the therein accused's conviction for acts of lasciviousness in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 for poking the victim's vagina with a cotton bud. In People v. Candaza,[29] the Court also affirmed the therein accused's conviction for acts of lasciviousness under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 for kissing the lips, mashing the breasts, and licking the vagina of the victim. Similarly, in Amployo v. People,[30] the Court found the appellant guilty of violation of Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 for touching the victim's breasts. | |||||
|
2011-10-05 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| These rules find applicability even in rape cases, where the complainant is usually the lone eyewitness. Thus, in People v. Sumingwa,[29] where the rape victim later disavowed her testimony that she was raped by her father, this Court held: In rape cases particularly, the conviction or acquittal of the accused most often depends almost entirely on the credibility of the complainant's testimony. By the very nature of this crime, it is generally unwitnessed and usually the victim is left to testify for herself. When a rape victim's testimony is straightforward and marked with consistency despite grueling examination, it deserves full faith and confidence and cannot be discarded. If such testimony is clear, consistent and credible to establish the crime beyond reasonable doubt, a conviction may be based on it, notwithstanding its subsequent retraction. Mere retraction by a prosecution witness does not necessarily vitiate her original testimony. | |||||
|
2011-09-12 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| A retraction x x x is exceedingly unreliable for there is always the probability that such recantation may later on be repudiated. It can easily be obtained from witnesses through intimidation or monetary consideration. Like any other testimony, it is subject to the test of credibility based on the relevant circumstances and, especially, on the demeanor of the witness on the stand.[27] | |||||
|
2011-02-09 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In the instant case, the informations expressly state that AAA is appellant's daughter, and appellant openly admitted this fact.[38] Accordingly, we modify the penalty imposed in Criminal Case Nos. 98-657 and 98-659. Section 5, Article III of Republic Act No. 7610 prescribes the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua.[39] Since there is an aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstance, the penalty shall be applied in its maximum period - reclusion perpetua.[40] Besides, Section 31 of Republic Act No. 7610 expressly provides that "The penalty provided herein shall be imposed in its maximum period when the perpetrator is [a] x x x parent, x x x. In People v. Montinola[41] and People v. Sumingwa,[42] where the accused is the biological father of the minor victim,[43] the Court appreciated the presence of the aggravating circumstance of relationship and accordingly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Thus, appellant herein is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in Criminal Case Nos. 98-657 and 98-659. | |||||
|
2010-08-09 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Notable as well, as the trial and appellate courts aptly pointed out, is the presentation of Dr. Ignacio, the NBI Medico-Legal Officer, and the fact that she made a physical examination of AAA, which supports AAA's testimony. AAA testified that accused-appellant tried to insert his penis into her vagina, and inserted it as well in her anus. This jibes with the findings of Dr. Ignacio from her physical examination of AAA. When a rape victim's account is straightforward and candid, and is corroborated by the medical findings of the examining physician, it is sufficient to support a conviction for rape.[14] | |||||
|
2010-07-06 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| (h) "Lascivious conduct" means the intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person.[48] | |||||
|
2010-03-03 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| (3) The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.[47] | |||||