Showing posts with label Rape Case. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rape Case. Show all posts

People of the Philippines vs. XXX, G.R. No. 248815, March 23, 2022

 

People of the Philippines vs. XXX, G.R. No. 248815, March 23, 2022

 

Facts:

1.     AAA, who was then only 14 years old, went with her friend, BBB, to meet with the latter's "textmates." Upon arriving at the hotel, BBB introduced AAA to accused-appellant and an unidentified man. Afterwards, the two men booked two separate rooms and all four of them proceeded to go upstairs.

2.     At first, they all stayed in one room where accused-appellant tried to get to know AAA. After some time, AAA noticed that her companions were holding a folded foil paper. Accused-appellant then asked AAA if she wanted to try it out, which turned out to be "enchang" or shabu. 

3.     AAA initially declined the offer but BBB eventually convinced her to join in and try the substance. Thereafter, BBB asked AAA and accused-appellant to leave the room.

4.     Accused-appellant then brought AAA to another room. He asked AAA for her age and further inquired if she was still a virgin. She answered in the affirmative. Accused-appellant then turned off the lights and approached her. 

5.     AAA tried to escape and ran towards the door but accused-appellant grabbed her clothes and forcefully pulled her back. AAA resisted but her efforts proved futile and accused appellant continued to undress her. After successfully removing all her clothes, accused-appellant laid AAA in bed, kissed her vagina, went on top of her, and inserted his penis into her vagina. That night, accused-appellant ravished her twice.

6.     Three days later, AAA was back at the same hotel with BBB after the latter made her think that they were going somewhere else. There, accused-appellant was already waiting for AAA. BBB then persuaded AAA to go with him, who also promised her that he would give her a mobile phone if she would go to bed with him. Although AAA initially declined the offer, she was nonetheless forced to take drugs and have sex with him.

7.     AAA saw accused-appellant a few more times thereafter because BBB would always find a way to persuade her to go back to the hotel with her. 

8.     On one occasion, accused-appellant told AAA and BBB to bring four other minor females with them so that he could match these girls with four of his male friends. AAA and BBB did as instructed and brought four girls to the hotel. 

9.     Subsequently, accused appellant provided AAA with her own male customer, whom she had to have sex with. For the sexual service AAA rendered, the customer paid accused appellant P2,000.00, from which accused-appellant and BBB got P500.00 each, while AAA received the remaining Pl ,000.00. 

10.  On another date, accused-appellant told AAA and BBB to bring three more girls with them. Similar to the previous incident, accused appellant matched each of them, including AAA, with a male customer. 

 

Issue:

Whether accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Qualified Trafficking in Persons and Rape.

 

 

 

You can support our page by clicking any of the following links: 

 

RPC Book 1 by Reyes

Codal Set

Statutory Construction

Introduction to Law

Criminal Procedure

Law On Property

Human Rights Education

Civil Law Reviewer

Constitutional Law

 

 

Ruling:

 

Qualified Trafficking in Persons

 

The Supreme Court held that all the elements of Qualified Trafficking in Persons are present in the instant case.

 

Section 3 (a) of RA 9208 defines Trafficking in Persons as "the recruitment, transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim's consent or knowledge, within or across national borders by means of threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person for the purpose of exploitation which includes at a minimum, the exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs." It further states that "[t]he recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of child for the purpose of exploitation shall also be considered as 'trafficking in persons' even if it does not involve any of the means set forth in the preceding paragraph."

 

Under Section 6(a), the crime of Trafficking in Persons becomes qualified when the trafficked person is a child, which refers to a person below the age of 18 years old or above 18 years old but is unable to fully take care of or protect himself or herself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition

 

It was sufficiently proved that all the elements of the crime are present. Through the straightforward and credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly AAA's, it was established that: 

1)     accused-appellant recruited or hired AAA by instructing her and BBB to bring other minor females at the hotel and introducing them to different customers on separate occasions;

2)     accused-appellant took advantage of AAA's vulnerability as a minor child and as someone who was in need of money; and 

3)     the purpose of such acts was for AAA and the other minor females to engage in sexual intercourse or to render sexual services to several men in exchange for money. 

 

Additionally, it is an undisputed fact that AAA was only 14 years old during the time when the incident occurred.

 

Rape

 

The Supreme Court held that all the elements of Rape are likewise availing in this case.

 

Argument: accused claimed that the presence of force, threat, or intimidation is lacking since AAA disclosed in her sworn statement that she needed money and willingly went with BBB after finding out that the latter earned money by prostituting herself.

 

In the crime of rape, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the following elements: 

(a)   that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim, and 

(b)   that the said act was accomplished through the use of force, threat, or intimidation.

 

The prosecution sufficiently established that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA on September 8, 2011, through force and intimidation by pulling her and pinning her down, and inserting his penis into her vagina, against her will and without her consent.


You can support our page by clicking any of the following links: 

 

RPC Book 1 by Reyes

Codal Set

Statutory Construction

Introduction to Law

Criminal Procedure

Law On Property

Human Rights Education

Civil Law Reviewer

Constitutional Law

People of the Philippines vs. Alexander Olpindo y Reyes, G.R. No. 252861, February 15, 2022

 

People of the Philippines vs. Alexander Olpindo y Reyes, 

G.R. No. 252861, February 15, 2022

 

Facts:

1.     AAA, then 14 years old, and her sister, BBB, were on their way home, when a tricycle driven by accused stopped in front of them.

2.     Accused and his sister Mary Ann, who was on board the tricycle, asked AAA to send BBB home as they allegedly had something important to tell her. AAA refused but BBB got scared so she ran away and went home to ask for help. Thereafter, accused and Mary Ann forced AAA aboard the tricycle. Accused drove to Barangay X with Mary Ann sitting beside AAA to prevent her from escaping. Mary Ann allegedly got off the tricycle before reaching Barangay X, but AAA was unable to ask for help.

3.     Upon arrival at Barangay X, accused forcibly took AAA to an uninhabited place. He tied her hands with rope, slammed her to the floor, then removed her short pants and underwear. He took off his clothes and thereafter inserted his penis into her vagina and made up and down movements. AAA felt pain and cried.

4.     After satisfying his lust, accused withdrew his penis, untied AAA, and got dressed. 

5.     The RTC found accused guilty of rape.

6.     The CA noted that accused failed to file a notice of appeal and that, in its Order, the RTC, citing People v. Mateo, forwarded the records of the case to the CA for automatic review.

 

Issues:

·      Whether or not the case is subject to automatic review

·      Whether or not the non-filing of notice of appeal can be excused by the Supreme Court

·      Whether or not accused is guilty of the crime of rape

 

You can support our page by clicking any of the following links: 

 

RPC Book 1 by Reyes

Codal Set

Statutory Construction

Introduction to Law

Criminal Procedure

Law On Property

Human Rights Education

Civil Law Reviewer

Constitutional Law

Ruling:

 

FIRST ISSUE

 

The Supreme Court held that the present case is not subject to appeal. This was an e1Toneous application of the Mateo ruling.

 

In criminal cases where the penalty imposed by the RTC is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, an appeal is taken by filing a notice of appeal with the RTC. On the other hand, in criminal cases where the penalty imposed by the R TC is death, the CA shall automatically review the same without need of a notice of appeal.

 

SECOND ISSUE

 

Yes. Accused-appellant's non-filing of a notice of appeal may be excused because the RTC, on its own, elevated the records of the case to the CA based on its erroneous assumption that the verdict of conviction is subject to an automatic intermediate review.

 

To be clear, the RTC order forwarding the records of the case pursuant to the Mateo ruling was issued on December 15, 2016, which was 14 days after the RTC promulgated its ruling on December 1, 2016, or within the 15-day reglementary period under Sec. 6, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court for the accused to file a notice of appeal. As initially discussed, the CA could have just treated the automatic review as if a notice of appeal was timely filed by herein accused-appellant considering "the gravity of the crime committed by accused-appellant and the penalty imposed on him by the RTC." This would better serve the interests of justice as it provides an additional layer of protection against a possible erroneous judgment.

 

THIRD ISSUE

 

Yes. Rape is a crime that is almost always committed in isolation or in secret, usually leaving only the victim to testify about the commission of the crime. As such, the accused may be convicted of rape on the basis of the victim's sole testimony provided such testimony is logical, credible, consistent, and convincing.

 

It is also well-settled that the accused in a rape case may be convicted based solely on the testimony of the victim, provided that such testimony is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. Here, both the RTC and the CA found that AAA's testimony was straightforward and candid.


You can support our page by clicking any of the following links: 

 

RPC Book 1 by Reyes

Codal Set

Statutory Construction

Introduction to Law

Criminal Procedure

Law On Property

Human Rights Education

Civil Law Reviewer

Constitutional Law

Total Pageviews

Search This Blog

Powered by Blogger.

Blogger templates

About