Previous 8 / 15 Next

Decision -8- G.R. No. 228223 Further, a writ of certiorari may be issued only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. 12 Here, it is obvious that the arguments raised by Pendoy delved into the wisdom or legal soundness of the June 24, 2016 Decision of the CA which disposed on the merits his appeal in CA-G.R. CEB CR. No. 02486, and not on the jurisdiction of the appellate court to render said decision. Thus, the same is beyond the province of a petition for certiorari. The appropriate remedy available to Pendoy then was to appeal before this Court the assailed decision and resolution of the CA via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and not to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Viewed in this light, the instant petition should be dismissed outright. Even if the Court is willing to overlook this procedural defect, the present petition would just the same fail. The crux of petitioner's plea for exoneration mirrors on the alleged absence of any of the circumstances enumerated in paragraph 1 of Article 266A of the RPC, particularly that there was no force, threat or intimidation in the commission of the alleged felonious sexual act. Pendoy's contentions fail to muster legal and rational merit. In rape cases, the conviction of the accused rests heavily on the credibility of the victim. Hence, the strict mandate that all courts must examine thoroughly the testimony of the offended party. While the accused in a rape case may be convicted solely on the testimony of the complaining witness, courts are, nonetheless, duty-bound to establish that their reliance on the victim's testimony is justified. I If the testimony of the complainant meets the test of credibility, the accused ~ay be convicted on the basis thereof. 13 We meticulously examined the records of this case in view of the disparity in the findings of the RTC and the CA. Try as we might, however, this Court failed to identify any error committed by the CA in declaring that Pendoy had carnal knowledge of AAA against her will. Despite his vigorous protestations, the Court sees no cogent reason to disturb the conclusion of the CA that the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Pendoy raped AAA on that fateful night of January 24, 2006. The CA's reliance on AAA's testimony is apt, considering that it was clear and categorical, and buttressed by the testimony of the medico-legal officer. Notwithstanding her youth and innocence, AAA was able to convey the details of her traumatic experience in the hands of Pendoy in a simple yet 12 Tagle v. Equitable PC! Bank, et al., 575 Phil. 384, 396 (2008). D People v. Publico, 664 Phil. 168, 180 (20 I I). dl

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Pendoy v. CA

Jurisprudence

Case number: G.R. No. 228223

Division: PH Supreme Court Third Division

Date of decision: Hun 10, 2019

Year of decision: 2019

GBV Case Type

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

Nature of the case: The victim, a sixteen (16)-year-old minor who is the househelp of the accused was sexually molested by the accused by means of inserting his finger to the genitalia of the victim and, thereafter, place himself on top of her and insert his genitalia to the victim's, thereby succeeding in having carnal knowledge with the said victim without her consent and against her will in Baclayon, Bohol. The accused on the other hand, posited that the prosecution evidence failed to overcome his constitutional presumption of innocence. He maintains that the prosecution failed to establish that force, threat or intimidation was exerted upon the victim in the alleged commission of the sexual congress with the latter. The Court is convinced that the accused had employed force to subjugate victim’s will. It bears stressing that force need not be irresistible or of such character that it could not be repelled; all that is necessary is that the force used by the accused is sufficient to consummate his evil purpose, or that it was successfully used. It appears that victim later submitted to the accused’s lust out of fear of him because she earlier learned from a neighbor that he had killed someone in the past. She just cried silently. Indeed, the prosecution had amply proved the absence of victim’s consent to the sexual congress. Hence, the accused is convicted for the crimes of Rape and Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610.

Summary of outcome: He is sentenced to suffer the following, viz:

For Rape: he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and ordered to pay the victim the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages and P75,000.00 by way of exemplary damages; and

For Lascivious Conduct: he is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum and ordered to pay the victim the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages. All damages awarded shall be subject to interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of the Decision until its full satisfaction

Observatory: Gender-Based Violence

Ponente: PERALTA, J.:

Long title: ROEL PENDOY Y POSADAS, PETITIONER, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS (18TH DIVISION) - CEBU CITY; THE HON. DIONISIO CALIBO, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 50, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF LOAY, BOHOL; AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.DECISION

Geolocation 1

Latitude: 9.622385

Longitude: 123.913491

: Geolocation 1

Primary Documents

PENDOY.pdf
English
Download View

Commission on Human Rights

Select target paragraph3

Pendoy v. CA

Primary Documents

Notifications