ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 139673.
ROUSE vs. PEOPLE
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated
G.R. No. 139673(Leon Rouse vs. People of the Philippines.)
Challenged in this petition for review on certiorari is the Decision of the Court of Appeals [1] cralaw dated August 18, 1999 in CA-G.R. CR No. 21714, "People of the Philippines vs. Leon Rouse," affirming the Decision [2] cralaw of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 11, Laoag City, in Criminal Case No. 7611 convicting petitioner Leon Rouse of the offense of child abuse defined and penalized by Section 5 (b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610 (The Child Abuse Law). [3] cralaw
The issue posed by petitioner is whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused of the offense charged on the basis of the evidence presented by the prosecution.
For its part, the State, through the Solicitor General, maintains that the prosecution has established that petitioner's guilt was proved by circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
Article III, Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 provides:
"SEC. 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:
x x x��� x x x����� x x x
"(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse: x x x."
In People vs. Larin, [4] cralaw this Court held that the elements of the offense penalized under this provision are:
(1)������������� the accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct;
(2)������������� the said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and
(3)������������� the child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.
Under the same law, children are "persons below 18 years of age or those unable to protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of their age or mental disability or condition."
Petitioner urges us to determine whether or not the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of the offense charged. By doing so, we are constrained to evaluate the parties' evidence by considering their admissibility, credibility and weight.
It is apt to point out that only errors of law, and not questions of fact, are reviewable by this Court in a petition for review on certiorari. [5] cralaw Not being a trier of facts, it is not the function of this Court to examine and determine the weight of the evidence, testimonial and documentary, supporting the assailed decision. [6] cralaw While there are recognized exceptions to this rule, [7] cralaw petitioner failed to present cogent grounds to apply such exceptions in this case.
WHEREFORE, there being no legal issue raised by petitioner Leon Rouse, the instant petition is DENIED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.)JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Penned by then Presiding Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez (now a member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Salvador J. Valdez, Jr. and Renato C. Dacudao.
[2] cralaw Penned by Judge Perla B. Querubin.
[3] cralaw AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION, PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR ITS VIOLATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
[4] cralaw 297 SCRA 309, 318 (1998), reiterated in People vs. Optana, 351 SCRA 485, 514-515 (2001) and People vs. Jalosjos, G.R. Nos. 132875-76, November 16, 2001.
[5] cralaw De Rama vs. Court of Appeals, 353 SCRA 94, 106 (2001); Telefunken Semiconductors Employees Union-FFW vs. Court of Appeals, 349 SCRA 565, 579 (2000).
[6] cralaw Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 349 SCRA 451, 458 (2001); Omandam vs. Court of Appeals, 349 SCRA 483, 487-488 (2001); W-Red Construction and Development Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 338 SCRA 341, 345 (2000); Blanco vs. Quasha, 318 SCRA 373 (1999); Dela Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, 265 299 (1996).
[7] cralaw Martinez vs. Court of Appeals, 358 SCRA 38, 49-50 (2001); Fuentes vs. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 703, 708-709, citing Gaw vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 220 SCRA 405, 413 (1993); Morales vs. Court of Appeals, 197 SCRA 391 (1991); Navarra vs. Court of Appeals, 204 SCRA 850 (1991); Bautista vs. Mangaldan Rural Bank, Inc., 230 SCRA 16 (1994).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
