ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. Nos. 132875-76.January 22, 2002]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JALOSJOS
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 22 2002.
G.R. Nos. 132875-76 (People of the Philippines vs. Romeo G. Jalosjos.)
Accused-appellant seeds to reconsider the November 16, 2001 Decision of the Court convicting him beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of Statutory Rape and six (6) counts of Acts of Lasciviousness.
Accused-appellant raises points and arguments that merely reiterate the thrust of his appeal. The question relating to Ma. Rosilyn Delantar's credibility, her age, as well as the issue of whether accused-appellant's acts in Criminal Case Nos. Nos. 96-1985 and 96-1986 amounted to rape or to a lesser offense of acts of lasciviousness, have already been thoroughly passed upon and extensively discussed in the assailed decision. The Court sees no reason to disturb its finding of accused-appellant's guilt.
Still grasping at straws, accused-appellant contends that, assuming he was guilty, the mitigating circumstances analogous to those mentioned in paragraphs 4, 6, and 9 of Article 13 [1] cralaw of the Revised Penal Code should have been considered by the Court to mitigate his criminal liability. With resounding absurdity, accused-appellant pictures himself as a captured, helpless and submissive prey enslaved by an overpowering passion instigated and provoked by an 11 year-old experienced sex worker. He desperately depicts himself as a victim prevailed upon by physical and psychological dysfunction that diminishes the exercise of will power.
Accused-appellant's contention is untenable. Settled is the rule that the victim's unchaste character is neither a defense nor a mitigating circumstance in rape. Likewise, whatever consent or "provocation" an eleven-year old girl gave to a sexual congress is no consent or "provocation" at all. The very essence of the crime of statutory rape is the carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve years old. Being of such tender age, she is presumed not to have a will of her own. The law does not consider any kind of consent given by her as voluntary. [2] cralaw The same goes for children exploited in prostitution defined in Republic Act No. 7610. The Child Abuse Law was enacted precisely to protect children, who as set forth therein, mean male or female below 18 years of age. Their consent or "provocation" in the sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct occasioned by their prostitution is not mitigating. Thus, accused-appellant's contention that consent or provocation can mitigate his criminal liability is misplaced.
Moreover, the spirit of lawlessness that impelled accused-appellant to commit the felonious acts at bar does not merit a mitigating circumstance analogous to "having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion."In the old but relevant case People v. Sanico, [3] cralaw the Court held that the accused who raped a woman is not entitled to the mitigating circumstance of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion just because he "finds himself in a secluded place with a young ravishing woman, almost naked" [and therefore] "liable to succumb to the uncontrollable passion of his bestial instinct." The Court then held that: "The correct and sound interpretation given by the courts and the commentators limits the application of said circumstance to causes which originate from lawful feelings, not those which arise from vicious, unworthy, and immoral passions."
Accused-appellant's reliance on the alleged mitigating circumstance analogous to "illness as would diminish the exercise of the will power" suffers from an utter lack of basis which does not merit any consideration by this Court.
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the instant motion for reconsideration is DENIED with FINALITY.
Very truly yours,
LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Article 13. Mitigating Circumstances. - The following are mitigating circumstances:
xxx������ xxx������ xxx
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately proceeded the act.
xxx������ xxx������ xxx
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation.
xxx������ xxx������ xxx
9. Such illness of the offended party as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender without however depriving him of consciousness of his acts.
10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous to those above mentioned.
[2] cralaw People v. Garcia, 281 SCRA 463, 482 [1997]; citing People v. Morales, 94 SCRA 191 [1979].
[3] cralaw 46 O.G. 98, May 27, 1948.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
