Previous 6 / 17 Next

Decision -6- G.R. No. 234841 WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE PETITIONER'S CONVICTION FOR RAPE UNDER ARTICLE 266-A OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE NOTWITHSTANDING THE UNCORROBORATED AND INCREDULOUS TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT. 16 According to Manuel, the charge against him was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. From the testimonies heard during trial, it is clear that AAA was a disobedient child who would always leave the house without permission causing Manuel to reprimand her. It is also clear that AAA was heavily influenced by BBB who openly despised their father. This shows motive on the part of AAA to fabricate the charges against Manuel. In fact, AAA and BBB both previously filed criminal and child abuse charges against him in the past. Manuel further insists on his innocence of the crime charged due to the fact that there were no findings of any hymenal lacerations, injuries, or other signs of sexual abuse during the medical examination of AAA. Hence, this physical evidence should prevail over the testimonies presented by the prosecution. Thus, while denial may be generally looked upon with disfavor, it cannot be the basis for his conviction. After a careful review of the records of this case, the Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the rulings of the R TC and the CA finding Manuel guilty of the acts charged against him. In view of the circumstances of the instant case, however, a modification of the penalty imposed, the damages awarded, and the nomenclature of the offense committed is in order. Thus, instead of rape through sexual assault under Article 266-A, paragraph 2, of the RPC, Manuel should be held liable for Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(6), 17 Article III of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610. In Dimakuta v. People, 18 the Court held that in instances where the lascivious conduct is covered by the definition under R.A. No. 7610, where the penalty is reclusion temporal medium, and the act is likewise covered by sexual assault under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of the RPC, which is 16 Rollo, p. 19. Section S(b ), Article III of R.A. No. 76 l Oprovides: Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. - Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following: xxxx (b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse of lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the [victim] is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 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. .,,,,(/ 18 771 Phil. 641 (2015). {/ f 17

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Ramilo v. People

Jurisprudence

Case number: G.R. No. 234841

Division: PH Supreme Court Third Division

Date of decision: Hun 3, 2019

Year of decision: 2019

GBV Case Type

Acts of lasciviousness
Child Abuse (R.A. 7610)
Minor

Nature of the case: The accused, with lewd design and by means of force, threat and intimidation and/or with grave abuse of parental authority did then and there willfully, unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously commit sexual abuse and lascivious conduct upon her daughter a twelve (12) year old minor in the City of Marikina by lying beside her then embracing her and inserting his fingers inside the victim’s genitalia. The crime is attended with the aggravating circumstance of relationship. The accused argued that the victim was heavily influenced by her older sister who openly despised their father. This shows motive on the part of the victim to fabricate the charges against the accused. The Court is unconvinced. According to the Court, settled is the rule that ill motives become inconsequential if there is an affirmative and credible declaration from the rape victim, which clearly establishes the liability of the accused. Hence, the Court found the accused guilty of Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

Summary of outcome: The offender is sentenced to suffer penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P15,000.00. He is further ordered to pay the victim, civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages, each in the amount of P75,000.00. The fine, civil indemnity and damages so imposed are subject to interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of the Decision until fully paid.

Observatory: Gender-Based Violence

Ponente: PERALTA, J.:

Long title: MANUEL BARALLAS RAMILO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Geolocation 1

Latitude: 14.633163

Longitude: 121.098981

: Geolocation 1

Primary Documents

Manuel Barallas Ramilo.pdf
English
Download View

Commission on Human Rights

Select target paragraph3

Ramilo v. People

Primary Documents

Notifications