Previous 13 / 14 Next

[57] People v. Court of First Instance of Quezon, Br. X, G.R. No. L-48817, October 29, 1993, 227 SCRA 457, 461 [Per J. Bellosillo, First Division]. [58] People v. Diaz, 331 Phil. 240, 252 (1996) [Per J. Davide, Jr., Third Division]. [59] Id. [60] See In Re: Transfer of Hearing of A.M No. 07-11-592-RTC, 572 Phil. 1, 5 (2008) [Per J. Reyes, R.T., Third Division]. [61] As per the Office of the Court Administrator. [62] United States v. Abreu, 30 Phil. 402, 410 (1915) [Per Curiam, En Banc]. [63] Id. [64] Id. at 410. [65] Id. at 408. [66] Id. [67] Id. at 415. [68] Id. [69] People v. Court of First Instance of Quezon, Br. X, G.R. No. L-48817, October 29, 1993, 227 SCRA 457, 461 [Per J. Bellosillo, First Division]. [70] Id. at 461. [71] United States v. Abreu, 30 Phil. 402, 415 (1915) [Per Curiam, En Banc]. [72] CONST., art. III, sec. 21. [73] See People v. Judge Relova, 232 Phil. 269, 283 (1987) [Per J. Feliciano, First Division]. [74] People v. Dela Torre, 430 Phil. 420, 430 (2002) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division]. [75] Id. [76] Id. [77] See People v. Cawaling, 355 Phil. 1, 24 (1998) [Per J. Panganiban, First Division]. [78] Id. [79] Id. [80] Id. [81] Id. [82] Id. [83] See People v. Salico, 84 Phil. 722, 726 (1949) [Per J. Feria, En Banc]. [84] Id. [85] Rep. Act No. 7610, sec. 5(b). [86] 560 Phil. 119 (2007) [Per J. Corona, First Division]. [87] Id. at 138-142. [88] People v. Abay, 599 Phil. 390 (2009) [Per J. Corona, First Division]. [89] Id. at 395-396. [90] Other cases citing the Abay doctrine are: People v. Dahilig, 667 Phil. 92 (2011) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division]; and People v. Matias, 687 Phil. 386 (2012) [Per J. Perlas-Bemabe, Third Division]. [91] Nierras v. Dacuycuy, 260 Phil. 6 (1990) [Per J. Paras, En Banc]. [92] Id. at 13, citing People v. Miraflores, 115 SCRA 570 (1982) [Per J. Escolin, Second Division]. [93] People v. Judge Relova, 232 Phil. 269, 283 (1987) [Per J. Feliciano, First Division] [94] Id. at 278. [95] RTC records, p. 3 and 15. [96] Id. [97] Id. [98] Id. [99] See Malto v. People, 560 Phil. 119, 135-136 (2007) [Per J. Corona, First Division]. [100] Amployo v. People, 496 Phil. 747, 758 (2005) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Second Division]. [101] Id. [102] Id. [103] Rollo, p. 5, Court of Appeals Decision. [104] Id at 9. [105] Id. at 9-11. [106] Id. at 11-12. [107] CA rollo, p. 28, Appellant's Brief citing TSN dated December 7, 2007, pp. 16-17. [108] Id. at 26-27. [109] See People v. Bahuyan, 308 Phil. 346, 358 (1994) [Per J. Romero, Third Division]. See also People v. Errojo, 299 Phil. 51, 61 (1994) [Per J. Nocon, Second Division]. [110] CA rollo, pp. 30-31, Appellant's Brief citing TSN dated December 7, 2007, p. 23. [111] Bautista v. Sarmiento, 223 Phil. 181, 185 (1985) [Per J. Cuevas, Second Division], citing WORDS & PHRASES PERMANENT EDITION 33, p.545. [112] Bautista v. Sarmiento, 223 Phil. 181, 185 (1985) [Per J. Cuevas, Second Division].

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

People v. Udang

Jurisprudence

Case number: G.R. No. 210161

Division: PH Supreme Court Third Division

Date of decision: Ene 10, 2018

Year of decision: 2018

GBV Case Type

Child Abuse (R.A. 7610)
Minor

Nature of the case: The accused, who is the victim's neighbor and the father of the latter’s friend has sexually abused the latter by having sexual intercourse with her while she was intoxicated. The accused had influence over the victim considering that he is an adult and the father of the victim's friend, which induced the latter to have drinks and later on have sexual intercourse with him. The victim was 12 and 13 years old when the incidents happened. This Court finds the victim credible not because of the generalization that she was a child of tender years incapable of fabricating a story of defloration but because of her categorical narration of her experience and her straightforward explanation that she was intimidated by her friend to have drinks with her father. Thus, she was compelled to return to the accused's house even after she was raped. Thus, the accused was found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of sexual abuse, under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610

Summary of outcome: The offender is sentenced to suffer he penalty of twelve (12) years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum for each count and ordered to pay the victim the amounts P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count of sexual abuse, all amounts shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of the Decision until full payment.

Observatory: Gender-Based Violence

Ponente: LEONEN, J.:

Long title: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. BIENVINIDO UDANG, SR. Y SEVILLA,[1] ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Geolocation 1

Latitude: 8.476841

Longitude: 124.641291

: Geolocation 1

Primary Documents

UDANG, SR..pdf
English
Download View

Commission on Human Rights

Select target paragraph3

People v. Udang

Primary Documents

Notifications