Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2017 > August 2017 Decisions > G.R. No. 218592, August 02, 2017 - CHRISTOPHER FIANZA A.K.A. "TOPEL," Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.:




G.R. No. 218592, August 02, 2017 - CHRISTOPHER FIANZA A.K.A. "TOPEL," Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 218592, August 02, 2017

CHRISTOPHER FIANZA A.K.A. "TOPEL," Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the Decision2 dated November 24, 2014 and the Resolution3 dated May 29, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 35293, which upheld the Decision4 dated September 6, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court of Tayug, Pangasinan, Branch 52 (RTC) in Criminal Case Nos. T-5144 and T-5145, finding petitioner Christopher Fianza a.k.a. "Topel" (Fianza) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of violation of Section 5 (b),5 Article III of Republic Act No. (RA) 7610,6 otherwise known as the "Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act."

The Facts

Fianza was charged with two (2) counts of violation of Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610 under two (2) Informations7 dated April 6, 2011 filed before the RTC.8 The prosecution's version of the incidents are as follows:

Sometime in July 2010,9 AAA,10 who was then 11 years old, was called by Fianza to his house and thereupon, was asked to wash his clothes. After AAA was finished with the laundry, Fianza asked her to go with him to the kamalig. Thereat, they proceeded to the second floor where Fianza removed his pants and briefs, lied down, and ordered AAA to hold his penis and masturbate him. After ejaculating, Fianza put on his clothes, and gave P20.00 to AAA who, thereafter, went home.11

On November 30, 2010, while AAA was home, Fianza called her to his house, and asked her to clean the same. After she was done sweeping the floor, they proceeded to the second floor of the kamalig. Thereat, Fianza again removed his pants and briefs, lied down, and ordered AAA to fondle his penis. After the deed, he gave P20.00 to AAA who, thereafter, went home.12

After the second incident, AAA related the matter to her cousin, CCC,13 who, in turn, told BBB,14 AAA's mother, who reported the matter to the police.15

For his part, Fianza interposed the defense of denial and alibi. He claimed that he lived with his uncle in Andalasi, Pangasinan (Andalasi), while the rest of his family resided in Sapinit, Pangasinan (Sapinit), and were neighbors with AAA. He averred that in July 2010, he went to Sapinit to gamble all night, and went to his parents' house the following morning to sleep before going home to Andalasi.16 As for the November 30, 2010 incident, he maintained that he was in Andalasi drinking with his friends as he had just sold a carabao. The next day, he went to get the carabao that he sold, and bought more liquor. He proceeded to Sapinit to have another drinking session that lasted until December 4, 2010.17

The RTC Ruling

In a Decision18 dated September 6, 2012, the RTC found Fianza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of violation of Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610, and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal minimum, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum, and ordered him to pay AAA the amount of P30,000.00 as moral damages for each count.

The RTC held that for an accused to be convicted of child abuse through lascivious conduct on a minor below 12 years old, the requisites for acts of lasciviousness under Article 33619 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) must be met in addition to the requisites of sexual abuse under Section 5 of RA 7610,20 which the prosecution was able to establish. It gave full faith and credence to the testimony of AAA who remained steadfast in her claim and who was not shown to have been impelled by any ill-motive to testify falsely against Fianza.21 On the other hand, it declared that Fianza's actions showed that he took advantage of AAA's naivete and innocence to satisfy his lewd designs.22

Aggrieved, Fianza elevated23 his conviction to the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 35293.

The CA Ruling

In a Decision24 dated November 24, 2014, the CA upheld Fianza's conviction for two (2) counts of violation of Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610.

The CA observed that while Fianza was charged with violations of Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610 (sexual abuse), the proper appellation of the crimes should be violations of Article 336 of the RPC (Acts of Lasciviousness), in relation to Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610, and found that the prosecution was able to establish all the requisites for both Acts of Lasciviousness and sexual abuse. It declared that Fianza, a 35-year­ old adult, had moral ascendancy over 11-year-old AAA; hence, his act of coercing AAA to engage in lascivious conduct falls within the meaning of the term sexual abuse.25

However, the CA reduced the award of moral damages to P25,000.00, and further ordered Fianza to pay a fine in the amount of P15,000.00 for each count of sexual abuse, with legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum on the amounts due from the finality of judgment until full payment.26

Dissatisfied, Fianza moved for reconsideration,27 which was, however, denied in a Resolution28 dated May 29, 2015; hence, this petition.

The Issue Before the Court

The essential issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA correctly upheld Fianza's conviction.

The Court's Ruling

At the outset, the Court deems it appropriate to correct the appellation of the crime with which Fianza was charged to Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC considering that the victim, AAA, was only 11 years old at the time of the incidents. In instances where the child subjected to sexual abuse through lascivious conduct is below twelve (12) years of age, the offender should be prosecuted under Article 336 of the RPC, but suffer the higher penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period in accordance with Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610, which pertinently reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SECTION 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

(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the victims [sic] is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be; Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period x x x. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Pursuant to the foregoing provision, before an accused can be convicted of child abuse through lascivious conduct on a minor below 12 years of age, the requisites for Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC must be met in addition to the requisites for sexual abuse thereunder.29

The elements of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC are: (a) the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (b) the lascivious act is done under any of the following circumstances: (i) by using force or intimidation; (ii) when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or (iii) when the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age; and (c) the offended party is another person of either sex.30 On the other hand, sexual abuse, as defined under Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610 has three (3) elements: (a) the accused commits an act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (b) the said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and (c) the child is below eighteen (18) years old.31

The term "lewd" is commonly defined as something indecent or obscene; it is characterized by or intended to excite crude sexual desire. That an accused is entertaining a lewd or unchaste design is necessarily a mental process the existence of which can be inferred by overt acts carrying out such intention, i.e., by conduct that can only be interpreted as lewd or lascivious. The presence or absence of lewd designs is inferred from the nature of the acts themselves and the environmental circumstances. Hence, whether or not a particular conduct is lewd, by its very nature, cannot be pigeonholed into a precise definition.32

Lascivious conduct, on the other hand, is defined under Section 2 (h) of the Rules and Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases (Rules on Child Abuse Cases) as:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
[T]he intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus, or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person;
In the present case, the existence of all the elements of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC, as well as the first and third elements of sexual abuse under Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610, remains undisputed. Records disclose that on two (2) occasions in July 2010 and on November 30, 2010, Fianza induced AAA, an 11-year-old minor, to hold his penis and masturbate him. The only point of dispute is with regard to the existence of the second element of sexual abuse, i.e., whether or not the lascivious conduct was performed on a child subjected to other sexual abuse.

A child is deemed subjected to other sexual abuse when the child indulges in lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult. Case law further clarifies that lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult exists when there is some form of compulsion equivalent to intimidation which subdues the free exercise of the offended party's free will.33 Corollory thereto, Section 2 (g) of the Rules on Child Abuse Cases conveys that sexual abuse involves the element of influence which manifests in a variety of forms. It is defined as:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
[T]he employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of a child to engage in, or assist another person to engage in, sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct or the molestation, prostitution, or incest with children x x x
The term "influence" means the "improper use of power or trust in any way that deprives a person of free will and substitutes another's objective." On the other hand, "coercion" is the "improper use of x x x power to compel another to submit to the wishes of one who wields it."34

With the foregoing parameters considered, the Court finds that Fianza's acts were attended by coercion or influence within the contemplation of Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610.

It is undisputed that AAA was only 11 years old at the time of the incidents, hence, considered a child under the law. Section 3 (a), Article I of RA 7610 defines children in this wise:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
(a) "Children" refers to person below eighteen (18) years of age or those over but are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition[.]
Case law states that a child, such as AAA in this case, is presumed to be incapable of giving rational consent to any lascivious act. In Malto v. People,35 the Court explained:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
A child cannot give consent to a contract under our civil laws. This is on the rationale that she can easily be the victim of fraud as she is not capable of fully understanding or knowing the nature or import of her actions. The State, as parens patriae, is under the obligation to minimize the risk of harm to those who, because of their minority, are as yet unable to take care of themselves fully. Those of tender years deserve its protection.

The harm which results from a child's bad decision in a sexual encounter may be infinitely more damaging to her than a bad business deal. Thus, the law should protect her from the harmful consequences of her attempts at adult sexual behavior. For this reason, a child should not be deemed to have validly consented to adult sexual activity and to surrender herself in the act of ultimate physical intimacy under a law which seeks to afford her special protection against abuse, exploitation and discrimination. (Otherwise, sexual predators like petitioner will be justified, or even unwittingly tempted by the law, to view her as fair game and vulnerable prey.) In other words, a child is presumed by law to be incapable of giving rational consent to any lascivious act or sexual intercourse.36
Records likewise indicate that Fianza was about 35 years old at the time of the commission of the offense,37 or 24 years older than AAA, more or less. The age disparity between them clearly placed Fianza in a stronger position over AAA which enabled him to wield his will on the latter.38

However, Fianza assails his conviction for the prosecution's failure: (a) to specify in the Information in Criminal Case No. T-5144 the date of the commission of the offense;39 and (b) to indicate in the information in both cases that the complained acts were performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse40 in violation of his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him.

In this relation, Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court (Rules), which lays down the guidelines in determining the sufficiency of a complaint or information, provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SEC. 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information. - A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate date of the commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was committed.

x x x x
As to the sufficiency of the allegation on the date of the commission of the offense, Section 11, Rule 110 of the Rules adds:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SEC. 11. Date of commission of the offense. - It is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise date the offense was committed except when it is a material ingredient of the offense. The offense may be alleged to have been committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date of its commission. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Conformably with these provisions, when the date given in the complaint is not of the essence of the offense, it need not be proven as alleged; thus, the complaint will be sustained if the proof shows that the offense was committed at any date within the period of the statute of limitations and before the commencement of the action.41

In this case, Fianza had been fully apprised of the charges against him since the Informations stated the approximate date of the commission of the offense to be "sometime during the month of July 2010." Indeed, the precise date and time of the incidents are not among the elements of sexual abuse under Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610.42

It is likewise well-settled that it is sufficient that the acts or omissions constituting the offense be stated in the information in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute, albeit in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged and for the court to pronounce judgment.43

In the instant case, the Informations not only referred to the specific section of RA 7610 that was violated, but also stated that: (a) AAA was an 11-year-old minor at the time of the offense; and (b) Fianza committed lascivious conduct by forcing AAA to masturbate his penis.44

To reiterate, a child is deemed subjected to other sexual abuse when the child indulges in lascivious conduct under the coercion or intimidation,45 or influence of any adult.46

Force or intimidation in cases involving prosecutions for Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness is defined as "power, violence or constraint exerted upon or against a person."47 In People v. Maceda,48 the Court explained the standards for evaluating the force or intimidation employed in rape, which equally applies to Acts of Lasciviousness49 as well as violation of Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610:50
[I]t is not necessary that the force and intimidation employed in accomplishing it be so great or of such character as could not be resisted. It is only necessary that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind. The intimidation must be judged in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime, and not by any hard and fast rule.51 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The allegation that Fianza committed lascivious conduct by forcing AAA to masturbate his penis was sufficient to apprise him of the nature of the criminal act with which he was charged to enable him to prepare his defense. Contrary to his protestations, the Informations sufficiently alleged the second element of sexual abuse, albeit not employing the exact language of the law, i.e., that the lewd acts being complained of were performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse.

Notably, Fianza failed to refute AAA's claim that she was compelled to do as he instructed because he threatened to humiliate her and her family.52 In Amployo v. People,53 a case involving a similar prosecution for lascivious conduct committed on an eight-year-old minor, the Court held that intimidation need not necessarily be irresistible, especially in the case of young girls, thus:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
[I]ntimidation need not necessarily be irresistible. It is sufficient that some compulsion equivalent to intimidation annuls or subdues the free exercise of the will of the offended party. This is especially true in the case of young, innocent and immature girls who could not be expected to act with equanimity of disposition and with nerves of steel. Young girls cannot be expected to act like adults under the same circumstances or to have the courage and intelligence to disregard the threat.54 (Emphasis supplied)
It is not hard to imagine 11-year-old AAA being intimidated and cowed into silence and submission by her neighbor, a full grown adult male old enough to be her parent,55 with threat of humiliation, should she not give in to his dastardly desires. She is still a child not capable of fully understanding or knowing the import of her actions. Verily, in almost all cases of sexual abuse, the credibility of the victim's testimony is crucial in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime where only the persons involved can testify as to its occurrence. Hence, the Court accords a high degree of respect to the assessment of the trial court which is in the best position to observe the declarations and demeanor of the witnesses, and evaluate their credibility, even more so when the same is affirmed by the CA,56 as in this case.

Accordingly, the Court finds the prosecution to have sufficiently established Fianza's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and absent any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal in its minimum period, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as maximum.57 However, in line with recent jurisprudence, the Court modifies the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages, and hereby orders Fianza to pay the amounts of P15,000.00 as fine, P20,000.00 as civil indemnity, and P15,000.00 as moral damages, for each count, plus legal interest thereon at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this judgment until full payment.58

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated November 24, 2014 and the Resolution dated May 29, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 35293 are hereby SET ASIDE and a new one is entered finding petitioner Christopher Fianza a.k.a. "Topel" (Fianza) GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5 (b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610. Fianza is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal in its minimum period, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months, and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as maximum, and is ordered to pay AAA the amounts of P15,000.00 as fine, P20,000.00 as civil indemnity, and P15,000.00 as moral damages, for each count, plus legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this judgment until full payment.

SO ORDERED.

Sereno, C.J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, and Del Castillo, JJ., concur.
Caguioa, J., See dissenting opinion.

Endnotes:


1Rollo, pp. 12-31.

2 Id. at 35-44. Penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela with Associate Justices Vicente S.E. Veloso and Jane Aurora C. Lantion concurring.

3 Id. at 46-47. Penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela with Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Ramon Paul L. Hernando concurring.

4 Id. at 64-72. Penned by Presiding Judge Emma S. Ines-Parajas.

5 Section 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

(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the victims is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Articlem 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code [RPC], for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period[.]

6 Entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION, PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR ITS VIOLATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES" (approved on June 17, 1992).

7 Not attached to the rollo. See rollo, p. 36.

8 Id. at 64-65.

9 Id. at 77.

10 The identity of the victim or any information which could establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to RA 7610, and Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the "RULE ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN" (November 5, 2004). (See footnote 5 in People v. Balcueva, G.R. No. 214466, July 1, 2015.)

11Rollo, pp. 77-78.

12 Id. at 78.

13 See footnote 10.

14 Id.

15Rollo, p. 66.

16 Id. at 37.

17 Id. at 37-38.

18 Id. at 64-72.

19 Art. 336. Acts of lasciviousness. - Any person who shall commit any act oflasciviousness upon other persons of either sex, under any of the circumstances mentioned in the preceding article, shall be punished by prision correccional.

20Rollo, p. 70, citing Cabila v. People, 563 Phil. 1020, 1027 (2007), further citing Amployo v. People, 496 Phil. 747 (2005).

21 Id. at 68.

22 Id. at 71.

23 See Brief for the Accused-Appellant dated June 3, 2013; id. at 48-63.

24 Id. at 35-44.

25 Id. at 40-42.

26 Id. at 43.

27 See motion for reconsideration dated December 15, 2014; id. at 96-99.

28 Id. at 46-47.

29Amployo v. People, supra note 20, at 755. See also People v. Lomaque, 710 Phil. 338, 357-358 (2013).

30People v. Lomaque, id.

31People v. Baraga, 735 Phil. 466, 473 (2014).

32PO3 Sombilon, Jr. v. People, 617 Phil. 187, 196 (2009), citing Amployo v. People, supra note 20, at 756.

33Caballo v. People, 710 Phil. 792, 803 and 805 (2013).

34 Id. at 243.

35 560 Phil. 119 (2007).

36 Id. at 139-141.

37 He was 37 years old when he testified on February 21, 2012; see Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN), February 21, 2012, p. 38.

38 See Caballo v. People, supra note 33, at 245.

39Rollo, p. 19.

40 Id. at 24.

41Zapanta v. People, 707 Phil. 23, 30 (2013).

42 See People v. Fragante, 657 Phil. 577, 597 (2011).

43Malto v. People, supra note 35, at 132-133.

44Rollo, p. 36.

45Amployo v. People, supra note 20, at 759, citing People v. Larin, 357 Phil. 987, 998 (1998).

46Caballo v. People, supra note 33, at 242-243.

47 See People v. Balquedra, 693 Phil. 125, 134 (2012).

48 405 Phil. 698 (2001).

49 Under Article 336 of the RPC, the acts of lasciviousness must be committed under any of the circumstances mentioned in the definition of the crime of rape. See also LUIS B. REYES, THE REVISED PENAL CODE: CRIMINAL LAW, BOOK TWO 919 (2012 edition).

50 See People v. Abello, 601 Phil. 373, 393 (2009).

51People v. Maceda, supra note 48, at 721, citing People v. Moreno, 356 Phil. 231 (1998).

52 See AAA's Sworn Statement dated February 9, 2011 taken during the investigation before the San Nicolas Police Station, San Nicolas, Pangasinan (Records, Vol. I, pp. 4-5), the truth and veracity of which she confirmed before the RTC (see TSN, November 8, 2011, p. 22).

53 Supra note 20, at 759.

54 Id.

55 There is a 24 year age gap between Fianza and AAA, more or less (see footnote 37). Fianza was 37 years old when he testified on February 21, 2012 (see TSN, February 21, 2012, p. 38), while AAA's mother was 38 when she testified on August 16, 2011 (see TSN, August 16, 2011, p. 4).

56 See People v. Subesa, 676 Phil. 403, 414 (2011).

57 The penalty for violation of Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610 is reclusion temporal in its medium period which ranges from fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of the penalty should be taken from reclusion temporal in its minimum period, or anywhere from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, and the maximum should be reclusion temporal in its medium period. In relation thereto, Article 64 of the RPC provides that when the penalty prescribed by law contains three periods (such as reclusion temporal) and in the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty shall be imposed in its medium period. See Quimvel v. People, G.R. No. 214497, April 18, 2017, citing People v. Santos, 753 Phil. 637 (2015).

58 See Imbo v. People, G.R. No. 197712, April 20, 2015, citing People v. Baraga, supra note 31, at 302; Roallos v. People, 723 Phil. 655, 672-673 (2013); Garingarao v. People, 669 Phil. 512, 524-525 (2011); People v. Fragante, supra note 42, at 602.




DISSENTING OPINION

CAGUIOA, J.:


The People's evidence shows that one morning in July 2010, Petitioner called 11-year-old AAA and asked the latter to wash his clothes in the bathroom of his house. After AAA had done so, Petitioner invited her to go with him to the kamalig, and at the second floor of the kamalig, Petitioner removed his pants, lay down, and asked AAA to hold his penis and "salsalen" (masturbate him). AAA did as instructed. After Petitioner ejaculated, he put on his pants and gave AAA P20.00. The same incident occurred on November 30, 2010, when Petitioner asked AAA to clean his house. After AAA cleaned Petitioner's house, the latter again asked AAA to go with him to the kamalig, where he again asked AAA to fondle his penis. After ejaculating, Petitioner again gave AAA P20.00. After the second incident, AAA reported the matter to her cousin CCC, who then told BBB, AAA's mother, of the incident.

Acting on two (2) Informations, each charging Petitioner with one violation of Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 7610, the RTC convicted Petitioner for two (2) counts of violation of Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610, and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal minimum, as minimum, to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum, as well as to pay AAA the amount of P30,000.00 in damages for each count. On appeal, the CA affirmed the conviction, albeit correcting the appellation of the crime to "violations of Article 336 of the RPC (Acts of Lasciviousness), in relation to Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610," reduced the award of moral damages to P25,000.00 and ordered Petitioner to pay a fine in the amount of P15,000.00 for each count of sexual abuse.

With due respect, I maintain my position as elucidated in my Dissenting Opinion in Quimvel v. People,1 that a person may only be convicted of a violation of Article 336 in relation to Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610 upon allegation and proof of the unique circumstances of the child-that is, that the child is "exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse". Conversely, the higher penalty of reclusion temporal, in the range that the ponencia holds to be applicable in this case, is not automatically applicable and may only be justified if it is alleged and proved that the child indulges in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, for money, profit, or any other consideration.

Applying the foregoing standards, it is my position that insofar as the first Information (pertaining to the July 2010 incident against AAA) is concerned, Petitioner cannot be convicted for violation of Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610 and consequently suffer a penalty of reclusion temporal as provided for in Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610, precisely because, as illustrated in my Dissenting Opinion in Quimvel,2 a first sexual affront, on its own, cannot be automatically considered a violation of Section 5(b), absent a showing that the child is already a child "exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse" at the time the sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct was committed, or that the circumstances prior to or during the act of complained of already constitutes the first instance of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct so as to convert the child into a child "exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse."

Here, the record is bereft of any allegation or proof that when the July 2010 incident took place, AAA was already a child "exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse"; neither is there any fact from which inference can be made that the relationship between the Petitioner and the victim amounts to coercion or influence. Thus, I submit that the accused, in the first instance, should only be held liable for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC.

Prescinding from the above considerations, Petitioner, for the second instance, was correctly charged and convicted for a violation of Article 336 of the RPC (Acts of Lasciviousness), in relation to Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610, because, this time, the child, at the time the act complained of was committed, already qualifies as one subjected to "other sexual abuse"­ thereby furnishing the essential element for a conviction under Article 336 of the RPC (Acts of Lasciviousness), in relation to Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610.

Considering that the specific class of lascivious conduct in Section 5(b) of R.A. 7610 requires allegation that the acts were performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse, I respectfully submit that insofar as the first incident of July 2010 is concerned, the facts of the case warrant Petitioner's conviction only for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC. Inasmuch as the child was already subjected to "other sexual abuse" at the time the second sexual affront occurred on November 30, 2010, I raise no objection to Petitioner's conviction for violation of Article 336 of the RPC (Acts of Lasciviousness), in relation to Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610, insofar as the second incident is concerned.

Endnotes:


1 G.R. No. 214497, April 18, 2017.

2 Id.



Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





August-2017 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 187160, August 09, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. ERLINDA A. SISON @ "MARGARITA S. AGUILAR," Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 220002, August 02, 2017 - EUGENIO M. GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. CROSSWORLD MARINE SERVICES, INC., GOLDEN SHIPPING COMPANY S.A., AND ELEAZAR DIAZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 185597, August 02, 2017 - JOHN E.R. REYES AND MERWIN JOSEPH REYES, Petitioners, v. ORICO DOCTOLERO, ROMEO AVILA, GRANDEUR SECURITY AND SERVICES CORPORATION, AND MAKATI CINEMA SQUARE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 188307, August 02, 2017 - MULTINATIONAL VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., RAMON MAGBOO, JIMMY DEL MUNDO, CARLOS RAPAY, AND DR. JOSEFINA TIOPIANCO, PETITIONERS, VS. ARNEL M. GACUTAN, RAFAEL TEYLAN, EDMUND T. HERNANDEZ, DANILO ARANETA, MIGUEL DAVID, JOLIE R. PELAYO, BOBBY D. YUTADCO, DANIEL TENORIO, MICHAEL KHO, AND DANILO CAMBEL, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 217777, August 16, 2017 - PRISCILLA Z. ORBE, Petitioner, v. LEONORA O. MIARAL, Respondent.

  • G.R. Nos. 144760-61, August 02, 2017 - EVELYN L. MIRANDA, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE OMBUDSMAN, Respondents.; G.R. Nos. 167311-12 - EVELYN L. MIRANDA, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.; G.R. Nos. 167316-17 - VENANCIO R. NAVA, Petitioner, v. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN 4TH DIVISION AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.; G.R. Nos. 167625-26 - PRIMO C. OBENZA, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 11149 (Formerly CBD Case No. 13-3709), August 15, 2017 - LAURENCE D. PUNLA AND MARILYN SANTOS, Complainants, v. ATTY. ELEONOR MARAVILLA-ONA, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-10-2219, August 01, 2017 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. RETIRED JUDGE PABLO R. CHAVEZ, FORMER PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 87, ROSARIO, BATANGAS, ATTY. TEOFILO A. DIMACULANGAN, JR., CLERK OF COURT VI, MR. ARMANDO ERMELITO M. MARQUEZ, COURT INTERPRETER III, MS. EDITHA E. BAGSIC, COURT INTERPRETER III, AND MR. DAVID CAGUIMBAL, PROCESS SERVER, ALL OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 87, ROSARIO, BATANGAS, Respondents.; A.M. No. 12-7-130-RTC - RE: UNDATED ANONYMOUS LETTER-COMPLAINT AGAINST THE PRESIDING JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT AND COURT STENOGRAPHER OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 87, ROSARIO, BATANGAS.

  • G.R. No. 186050, August 01, 2017 - ARTHUR BALAO, WINSTON BALAO, NONETTE BALAO, JONILYN BALAO-STRUGAR, AND BEVERLY LONGID, Petitioners, v. EDUARDO ERMITA, GILBERTO TEODORO, RONALDO PUNO, NORBERTO GONZALES, GEN. ALEXANDER YANO, GEN. JESUS VERZOSA, BRIG. GEN. REYNALDO MAPAGU, LT. P/DIR. EDGARDO DOROMAL, MAJ. GEN. ISAGANI CACHUELA, COMMANDING OFFICER OF THE AFP-ISU BASED IN BAGUIO CITY, PSS EUGENE MARTIN, AND SEVERAL JOHN DOES, Respondents.; G.R. No. 186059 - SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA,SECRETARY GILBERTOTEODORO,SECRETARY RONALDOPUNO,SECRETARY NORBERTOGONZALES, GEN. ALEXANDER YANO, P/DGEN. JESUS VERZOSA, BRIG. GEN. REYNALDO MAPAGU, MAJ. GEN. ISAGANI CACHUELA, AND POL. SR. SUPT. EUGENE MARTIN, Petitioners, v. ARTHUR BALAO, WINSTON BALAO, NONETTE BALAO, JONILYN BALAO-STRUGAR, AND BEVERLY LONGID, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 11504, August 01, 2017 - ARIEL G. PALACIOS, FOR AND IN BEHALF OF THE AFP RETIREMENT AND SEPARATION BENEFITS SYSTEM (AFP-RSBS), Complainant, v. ATTY. BIENVENIDO BRAULIO M. AMORA, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 221493, August 02, 2017 - STERLING PAPER PRODUCTS ENTERPRISES, INC., Petitioner, v. KMM-KATIPUNAN AND RAYMOND Z. ESPONGA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 222095, August 07, 2017 - IN THE MATTER OF PETITION FOR CANCELLATION OF CERTIFICATES OF LIVE BIRTH OF YUHARES JAN BARCELOTE TINITIGAN AND AVEE KYNNA NOELLE BARCELOTE TINITIGAN - JONNA KARLA BAGUIO BARCELOTE, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RICKY O. TINITIGAN, AND LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR, DAVAO CITY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 216161, August 09, 2017 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE ALUMINUM WHEELS, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 189942, August 09, 2017 - ADTEL, INC. AND/OR REYNALDO T. CASAS, Petitioners, v. MARIJOY A. VALDEZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 228887, August 02, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DOMINADOR UDTOHAN Y JOSE, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 215999, August 16, 2017 - SPS. FELIX A. CHUA AND CARMEN L. CHUA, JAMES B. HERRERA, EDUARDO L. ALMENDRAS, MILA NG ROXAS, EUGENE C. LEE, EDICER H. ALMENDRAS, BENEDICT C. LEE, LOURDES C. NG, LUCENA INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, LUCENA GRAND CENTRAL TERMINAL, INC., REPRESENTED BY FELIX A. CHUA, Petitioners, v. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK, ASSET POOL A (SPV-AMC), REVERE REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, JOSE C. GO AND THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS OF LUCENA CITY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 224302, August 08, 2017 - HON. PHILIP A. AGUINALDO, HON. REYNALDO A. ALHAMBRA, HON. DANILO S. CRUZ, HON. BENJAMIN T. POZON, HON. SALVADOR V. TIMBANG, JR., and the INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES (IBP), Petitioners, v. HIS EXCELLENCY PRESIDENT BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, HON. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, HON. MICHAEL FREDERICK L. MUSNGI, HON. MA. GERALDINE FAITH A. ECONG, HON. DANILO S. SANDOVAL, HON. WILHELMINA B. JORGE-WAGAN, HON. ROSANA FE ROMERO-MAGLAYA, HON. MERIANTHE PACITA M. ZURAEK, HON. ELMO M. ALAMEDA, and HON. VICTORIA C. FERNANDEZ-BERNARDO, Respondents.; JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL, Intervenor.

  • A.C. No. 10562, August 01, 2017 - JEAN MARIE S. BOERS, Complainant, v. ATTY. ROMEO CALUBAQUIB, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 226345, August 02, 2017 - PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURETY CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. APL CO. PTE. LTD., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 211966, August 07, 2017 - JOSE AUDIE ABAGATNAN, JOSEPHINE A. PARCE, JIMMY ABAGATNAN, JOHN ABAGATNAN, JENALYN A. DE LEON, JOEY ABAGATNAN, JOJIE ABAGATNAN, AND JOY ABAGATNAN, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES JONATHAN CLARITO AND ELSA CLARITO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 206468, August 02, 2017 - JUDITH D. DARINES AND JOYCE D. DARINES, Petitioners, v. EDUARDO QUIÑONES AND ROLANDO QUITAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 185559, August 02, 2017 - JOSE G. TAN AND ORENCIO C. LUZURIAGA, Petitioners, v. ROMEO H. VALERIANO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 217993, August 09, 2017 - MANUEL R. BAKUNAWA III, Petitioner, v. NORA REYES BAKUNAWA, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-09-2649 [Formerly A.M. No. 09-5-219-RTC], August 01, 2017 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. EDUARDO T. UMBLAS, LEGAL RESEARCHER, AND ATTY. RIZALINA G. BALTAZAR­AQUINO, CLERK OF COURT IV, BOTH OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 33, BALLESTEROS CAGAYAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 227309, August 16, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOCELYN CARLIT Y GAWAT, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 216491, August 23, 2017 - THE HEIRS OF PETER DONTON, THROUGH THEIR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE, FELIPE G. CAPULONG, Petitioners, v. DUANE STIER AND EMILY MAGGAY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 222711, August 23, 2017 - LEY CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, JANET C. LEY, Petitioner, v. MARVIN MEDEL SEDANO, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE "LOLA TABA LOLO PATO PALENGKE AT PALUTO SA SEASIDE," Respondent.; MARVIN MEDEL SEDANO, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE "LOLA TABA LOLO PATO PALENGKE AT PALUTO SA SEASIDE," Respondent (THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF), VS. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Respondent (THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT).

  • G.R. No. 222561, August 30, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JONATHAN TICA Y EPANTO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 187257, August 08, 2017 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (OSG) AS THE PEOPLE'S TRIBUNE, AND THE NATIONAL POWER BOARD, Petitioners, v. HON. LUISITO G. CORTEZ, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 84, QUEZON CITY, ABNER P. ELERIA, MELITO B. LUPANGCO, NAPOCOR EMPLOYEES CONSOLIDATED UNION (NECU), AND NAPOCOR EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS UNION (NEWU), Respondents.; G.R. No. 187776 - ROLANDO G. ANDAYA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT AND MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. HON. LUISITO G. CORTEZ, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 84, QUEZON CITY, ABNER P. ELERIA, MELITO B. LUPANGCO, NAPOCOR EMPLOYEES CONSOLIDATED UNION AND NAPOCOR EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS UNION, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-10-2223 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-3003-RTJ), August 30, 2017 - MS. FLORITA PALMA AND MS. FILIPINA MERCADO, Complainants, v. JUDGE GEORGE E. OMELIO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BR. 14, DAVAO CITY (THEN OF MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BR.4, DAVAO CITY), JUDGE VIRGILIO G. MURCIA, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BR. 2, AND CLERK OF COURT MA. FLORIDA C. OMELIO, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, BOTH OF THE ISLAND GARDEN CITY OF SAMAL, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 178379, August 22, 2017 - CRISPIN S. FRONDOZO,* DANILO M. PEREZ, JOSE A. ZAFRA, ARTURO B. VITO, CESAR S. CRUZ, NAZARIO C. DELA CRUZ, AND LUISITO R. DILOY, Petitioners, v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 11616 [Formerly CBD Case No. 08-2141], August 23, 2017 - LITO V. BUENVIAJE, Complainant, v. ATTY. MELCHOR G. MAGDAMO, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 6980, August 30, 2017 - CESAR O. STA. ANA, CRISTINA M. STA. ANA AND ESTHER STA. ANA-SILVERIO, Complainants, v. ATTY. ANTONIO JOSE F. CORTES, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 7253, August 29, 2017 - ATTY. PLARIDEL C. NAVA II, Complainant, v. PROSECUTOR OFELIA M. D. ARTUZ,* Respondent.; A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717] (FORMERLY OCA IPI NO. 07-1911-MTJ) - ATTY. PLARIDEL C. NAVA II, Complainant, v. JUDGE OFELIA M. D. ARTUZ, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES OF ILOILO CITY, BRANCH 5, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10253, August 22, 2017 - RAFAEL PADILLA, Complainant, v. ATTY. GLENN SAMSON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 198146, August 08, 2017 - POWER SECTOR ASSETS AND LIABILITIES MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 225442, August 08, 2017 - SAMAHAN NG MGA PROGRESIBONG KABATAAN (SPARK), JOANNE ROSE SACE LIM, JOHN ARVIN NAVARRO BUENAAGUA, RONEL BACCUTAN, MARK LEO DELOS REYES, AND CLARISSA JOYCE VILLEGAS, MINOR, FOR HERSELF AND AS REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER, JULIAN VILLEGAS, JR., Petitioners, v. QUEZON CITY, AS REPRESENTED BY MAYOR HERBERT BAUTISTA, CITY OF MANILA, AS REPRESENTED BY MAYOR JOSEPH ESTRADA, AND NAVOTAS CITY, AS REPRESENTED BY MAYOR JOHN REY TIANGCO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 190004, August 08, 2017 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. EUGENIO DALAUTA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 218911, August 23, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEONARDO SIAPNO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 221732, August 23, 2017 - FERNANDO U. JUAN, Petitioner, v. ROBERTO U. JUAN (SUBSTITUTED BY HIS SON JEFFREY C. JUAN) AND LAUNDROMATIC CORPORATION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 222821, August 09, 2017 - NORTH GREENHILLS ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioner, v. ATTY. NARCISO MORALES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 227878, August 09, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GERALDO SANTILLAN Y VILLANUEVA AND EUGENE BORROMEO Y NATIVIDAD, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 211222, August 07, 2017 - ALLAN S. CU, Petitioner, v. SMALL BUSINESS GUARANTEE AND FINANCE CORPORATION THROUGH MR. HECTOR M. OLMEDILLO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 186329, August 02, 2017 - DR. FRISCO M. MALABANAN, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondent.; G.R. Nos. 186584-86, August 2, 2017 - ABUSAMA MANGUDADATU ALID, Petitioner, v. THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN - 1st DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, HON. SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Respondents.; G.R. No. 198598, August 2, 2017 - ABUSAMA M. ALID, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 223366, August 01, 2017 - NATIONAL TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. OROVILLE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 226679, August 15, 2017 - SALVADOR ESTIPONA, JR. Y ASUELA, Petitioner, v. HON. FRANK E. LOBRIGO, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 3, LEGAZPI CITY, ALBAY, AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 219500, August 09, 2017 - MAMERTO DY, Petitioner, v. MARIA LOURDES ROSELL ALDEA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 217965, August 08, 2017 - CONFEDERATION OF COCONUT FARMERS ORGANIZATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (CCFOP), Petitioner, v. HIS EXCELLENCY PRESIDENT BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, ACTING COMMISSIONER RICHARD ROGER AMURAO OF THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG), CHAIRMAN CESAR L. VILLANUEVA OF THE GOVERNANCE COMMISSION FOR GOCCS (GCG), AND SECRETARY LEILA M. DE LIMA OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-17-1900 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-2585-MTJ], August 09, 2017 - ARNEL MENDOZA, Complainant, v. HON. MARCOS C. DIASEN, JR., ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BR. 62, MAKATI CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 217764, August 07, 2017 - ANTONIETA LUCIDO @ TONYAY, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-16-3424 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 11-3666-P], August 07, 2017 - GLORIA SERDONCILLO, Complainant, v. SHERIFF NESTOR M. LANZADERAS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 37, GENERAL SANTOS CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199710, August 02, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PO3 JULIETO BORJA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 228248, August 09, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROMEO DE GUZMAN Y DE CASTRO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 228894, August 07, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOHN PAUL CERALDE Y RAMOS, Accused-Appellant.

  • A.C. No. 8903, August 30, 2017 - EDIGARDO V. BONDOC, Complainant, v. ATTY. OLIMPIO R. DATU, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 201665, August 30, 2017 - EDISON (BATAAN) COGENERATION CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.; G.R. No. 201668, August 30, 2017 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. EDISON (BATAAN) COGENERATION CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10245, August 16, 2017 - ELIBENA A. CABILES, Complainant, v. ATTY. LEANDRO S. CEDO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 188144, August 30, 2017 - F.F. CRUZ & COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE IRON CONSTRUCTION AND MARINE WORKS, INC., AND/OR ANCHOR METALS CORP., Respondents.; G.R. NO. 188301 - PHILIPPINE IRON CONSTRUCTION AND MARINE WORKS, INC., AND/OR ANCHOR METALS CORP., Petitioners, v. F.F. CRUZ & COMPANY, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 201806, August 14, 2017 - NORTH SEA MARINE SERVICES CORPORATION, MS. ROSALINDA CERDINA AND/OR CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES, Petitioners, v. SANTIAGO S. ENRIQUEZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210209, August 09, 2017 - CATHAY LAND, INC. AND CATHAY METAL CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. AYALA LAND, INC., AVIDA LAND CORPORATION AND LAGUNA TECHNOPARK, INC., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 188027, August 09, 2017 - SWIRE REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. SPECIALTY CONTRACTS GENERAL AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. AND JOSE JAVELLANA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 195457, August 16, 2017 - READ-RITE PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. GINA G. FRANCISCO, MAXIMINO H. REYES, LUCIA E. MACHADO, IRENE G. ABANILLA, EDNA L. GUAVES, ARLENE FRANCISCO, JOSEPHINE V. TRINIDAD, MARILYN E. AMPARO, SOLITA F. SANTOS, ELLEN T. CASTILLO, ROSALIE VALDEABELLA, MARITA E. RIVERA, JULITA M. MAGNO, MARCIA P. DELA TORRE, ELENA ANGCAHAN, ESTER H. REYES, CORAZON ARMADILLA, IRMA A. PEREGRINO, DELFIN D. DUBAN, AMANCIA PRADO, CECILIA D. NABUA, DANNY A. CABUCOY, ELIZABETH R. REVELLAME, ELVIRA R. MAGNO, GIERLYN R. MARASIGAN, JOHN JOSEPH R. MAGNO, LODELYN P. CASTILLO, JUSTINA TORTOSA, LENY M. ZARENO, LOIDA E. ESTOMATA, MA. BASILIA DE LA ROSA, MA. GRACIA DE GUZMAN, MA. NENITA G. CASTILLO, MERCEDARIO A. MARTINEZ, NORA M. PAVELON, PRECILLA D. MAGBITANG, RAQUEL CABUCOY, REGAL M. ALFARO, RIZA UMANDAP, ROSALITA R. MANLUNAS, ROSEMARIE C. LEYVA, ROSSANA M. YUMOL, SENETA SERENO, VILMA R. MANALO, YOLANDA Y. MANGAOANG, GLORIA BARSOLASCO AND NENA M. REYES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 211004, August 23, 2017 - QUEEN ERRIKA L. SADDI, Petitioner, v. MARICRIS RENOMERON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 223592, August 07, 2017 - EQUITABLE INSURANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. TRANSMODAL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 221857, August 16, 2017 - JESUS O. TYPOCO, JR., Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.; G.R. No. 222020 - NOEL D. REYES, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 223731, August 30, 2017 - ROBELITO MALINIS TALAROC, Petitioner, v. ARPAPHIL SHIPPING CORPORATION, EPIDAURUS S.A., AND/OR NATIVIDAD PAPPAS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 224204, August 30, 2017 - PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES RAMON AND ANNABELLE SABADO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 224225, August 14, 2017 - NORMA I. BARING, Petitioner, v. ELENA LOAN AND CREDIT COMPANY, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 211845, August 09, 2017 - PEN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND LAS BRISAS RESORT CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. MARTINEZ LEYBA, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 215454, August 09, 2017 - HEIRS OF SPOUSES CORAZON P. DE GUZMAN AND FORTUNATO DE GUZMAN, REPRESENTED BY JENIE JANE DE GUZMAN-CARPIO, Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF MARCELIANO BANDONG, REPRESENTED BY REGINA Z. BANDONG, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 201478, August 23, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PAROK LUMUDAG Y RACMAN @ AKMAD, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 210669, August 01, 2017 - HI-LON MANUFACTURING, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 8574, August 16, 2017 - CARMELO IRINGAN, Complainant, v. ATTY. CLAYTON B. GUMANGAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 196342, August 08, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. NOEL GO CAOILI ALIAS "BOY TAGALOG", Respondent.; G.R. No. 196848, August 8, 2017 - NOEL GO CAOILI, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 230696, August 30, 2017 - WILLIAM R. WENCESLAO, VIVENCIO B. RODRIGO, JR., NOEL N. DAMIASAN, VIRGILIO B. CRISTOBAL, JEMYLITO M. APIAG, JOVENAL P. ATAG, ARNULFO S. DASCO, CARLITO E. INFANTE, ALFREDO T. VISAYA, JAMES M. REAL, RENATO A. GUINGUE, ZACARIAS G. TALABOC, JR., GEORGE N. TAGUIAM, RANDY D. ABRENCILLO, MELECIO B. QUINIMON, CESAR B. JARANILLA, RIZALDE R. BARILE, HERICO A. BUENAVENTE, JERSON A. TATOY, MICHAEL L. CASIANO, FELIX M. DINIAY, PEDRO DELA CRUZ, JR., JHOSEL BOY G. ABAYON, AUGUSTO L. OCENAR, MARIO M. FUNELAS, AND AVELINO T. QUIÑONES, Petitioners, v. MAKATI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, DANTE ABANDO AND COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 227734, August 09, 2017 - ROMEO ALBA, Petitioner, v. CONRADO G. ESPINOSA, ET AL., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 208471, August 02, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ERNESTO SAGANA Y DE GUZMAN, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 207396, August 09, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DELIA SAUNAR, Accused-Appellant.

  • OCA IPI No. 10-3423-P, August 22, 2017 - JUDGE RAMON V. EFONDO, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF GOA, CAMARINES SUR, Complainant, v. EDEN D. FAVORITO, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, GOA, CAMARINES SUR, Respondent.; A.M. No. P-11-2889 [FORMERLY OCA IPI No. 10-10-117-MTC FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE MTC OF GOA, CAMARINES SUR] - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. EDEN D. FAVORITO, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, GOA, CAMARINES SUR, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 197297, August 02, 2017 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES DANILO GO AND AMORLINA GO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 185420, August 29, 2017 - LANAO DEL NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., AS REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER ENGR. RESNOL C. TORRES, Petitioner, v. PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF LANAO DEL NORTE, AS REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNOR HON. MOHAMAD KHALID Q. DIMAPORO AND ITS PROVINCIAL TREASURER, MILDRED J. HINGCO, PROVINCIAL ASSESSOR, NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION (NEA), AS REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR HON. EDITA S. BUENO, POWER SECTOR ASSETS AND LIABILITIES MANAGEMENT (PSALM), AS REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT AND CEO HON. JOSE C. IBAZETA, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE), AS REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HON. ANGELO T. REYES, THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA), AS REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN HON. REYNALDO A. VILLAR, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 224631, August 23, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RUPERTO RUBILLAR, JR. Y GABERON, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 221991, August 30, 2017 - JOSELITO PERALTA Y ZARENO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 222430, August 30, 2017 - TRANSGLOBAL MARITIME AGENCY, INC., GOODWOOD SHIPMANAGEMENT PTE., LTD. AND/OR MICHAEL ESTANIEL, Petitioners, v. VICENTE D. CHUA, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 180447, August 23, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FERNANDO GERONIMO Y AGUSTINE, ALIAS "NANDING BAKULAW", Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 193625, August 30, 2017 - AICHI FORGING COMPANY OF ASIA, INC., Petitioner, v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS - EN BANC AND COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 191615, August 02, 2017 - VICTORIA P. CABRAL, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF FLORENCIO ADOLFO AND HEIRS OF ELIAS POLICARPIO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 218592, August 02, 2017 - CHRISTOPHER FIANZA A.K.A. "TOPEL," Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 185894, August 30, 2017 - BELO MEDICAL GROUP, INC., Petitioner, v. JOSE L. SANTOS AND VICTORIA G. BELO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 197654, August 30, 2017 - MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION AND ROLANDO J. DEL ROSARIO, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES RICHARD Y. HUANG & CARMEN G. HUANG, AND STEPHEN G. HUANG, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 205483, August 23, 2017 - MARIO MAGAT, SR., MARIO S. MAGAT, JR. MARIO S. MAGAT, III, MA. MARGARITA M. ESTAVILLA, MA. MARJORIE S. MAGAT, ALL SUBSTITUTE PARTIES AND HEIRS OF THE DECEASED PARTY, JULIANA S. MAGAT, Petitioners, v. TANTRADE CORPORATION AND PABLO S. BORJA, JR., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 180745, August 30, 2017 - ALBERTA DE JOYA IGLESIAS, Petitioner, v. THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, GEORGE M. JEREOS, ROBERTO G. GEOTINA, JUAN T. TAN, KRISTINE MORALES, AND ALBERTO LINA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 205638, August 23, 2017 - DEE HWA LIONG FOUNDATION MEDICAL CENTER AND ANTHONY DEE, Petitioners, v. ASIAMED SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 203943, August 30, 2017 - MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION/EDUARDO MANESE AND PRINCESS CRUISE LINES, LTD., Petitioners, v. CYNTHIA DE JESUS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 202364, August 30, 2017 - ARTURO C. CALUBAD, Petitioner, v. RICARCEN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199107, August 30, 2017 - ALFONSO SINGSON CORTAL, JUANITO SINGSON CORTAL, NENITA CODILLA, GENEROSO PEPITO LONGAKIT, PONCIANA BATOON, AND GREGORIA SABROSO, Petitioners, v. INAKI A. LARRAZABAL ENTERPRISES, REPRESENTED BY INAKI P. LARRAZABAL, JR., THE HONORABLE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE NO. VIII, TACLOBAN CITY AND THE HONORABLE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, QUEZON CITY IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB), Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 208314, August 23, 2017 - ANTONIO B. MANANSALA, Petitioner, v. MARLOW NAVIGATION PHILS., INC./MARLOW NAVIGATION CO. LTD./CYPRUS, AND/OR EILEEN MORALES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 214771, August 09, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RUBEN "ROBIN" BONGBONGA Y NALOS, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 196564, August 07, 2017 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS), Petitioner, v. ALBERT M. VELASCO, Respondent.