People vs Brioso
GR No. 209344, June 27, 2016
FACTS
Around 5 o'clock in the afternoon of May 31, 2001, the victim, AAA,3 who was
then four (4) years old,4 was playing at the basketball court near their house located at
Barangay Dimanayat, San Luis, Aurora. Accused-appellant then approached and asked
her to go with him to a nearby mango tree where he promised to give her candies.
When AAA agreed, accused-appellant took her hand and led her to the mango tree
which was near his house. Upon reaching the mango tree, accused-appellant
immediately removed AAA's short pants and panty then proceeded to mash her private
organ and inse1ied his finger into her vagina. Thereafter, accused-appellant made her
lie down on the ground and inserted his penis into her vagina. Accused-appellant
warned AAA not to tell anybody about what he did to her, otherwise he will kill her.
Stricken by fear, AAA went home without telling anybody about her ordeal.
Accused was charged with two offenses, the first of which is rape under paragraph 1
(d), Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended, and the second is rape as an act of sexual
assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the same law in relation to RA 7610
ISSUE
Whether or Not, in imposing penalty for the crime of rape by sexual assault RA
7610 shall apply.
RULING
Yes. It is undisputed that at the time of the commission of the sexual abuse, AAA
was four (4) years old. Section 5 (b), Article III if RA 7610 states that, "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 victim 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."
The abovequoted paragraph (b) punishes sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct not only with a child exploited in prostitution, but also with a child subjected to
other sexual abuses. It covers not only a situation where a child is abused for profit, but
also where one - through coercion, intimidation or influence - engages in sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child.
In the present case, AAA was four years old at the time of the commission of the
offense.1âwphi1 Pursuant to the above-quoted provision of law, accused-appellant was
aptly prosecuted under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended, for Rape
Through Sexual Assault. However, instead of applying the penalty prescribed therein,
which is prision mayor, considering that AAA was below twelve (12) years of age at the
time of the commission of the offense, and considering further that accused-appellant's
act of inserting his finger in AAA's private part undeniably amounted to lascivious
conduct, the appropriate imposable penalty should be that provided in Section 5 (b),
Article III of R.A. No. 7610, which is reclusion temporal in its medium period.
People vs Salvador
G.R. No. 217381, July 20, 2016
FACTS
On December 13, 2003, while AAA, born on December 17, 1991, was alone in
their house, Salvador poked an ice pick in AAA's belly and told her not to make any
noise. Salvador then ordered AAA to lie down. AAA resisted but was overpowered by
Salvador. Salvador then removed AAA's underwear, placed himself on top of AAA, and
inserted his penis inside AAA's vagina. After having carnal knowledge of AAA, Salvador
stood up, warned her against informing anyone of what he did, and went outside.9
AAA was pregnant at the time of the incident. Prior to December 13, 2003, Salvador had
raped her several times.
Salvador denied the allegations against him, and claimed that both AAA and BBB are
his wives. He alleged that he is a member of the Tadyawan Tribe of Mangyan Cultural
Minority which has a norm that allows a male to have two spouses as long as he can
provide for them. He further averred that in their tribe, any person who is around 12 to
13 years old are allowed to get married or have common law spouses.13
Salvador further alleged that AAA loved him and voluntarily had sexual intercourse with
him.
Issue
whether Salvador is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
In an effort to avoid criminal liability, Salvador maintains that he and AAA are lovers; that
both AAA and BBB are his wives and that this arrangement is allowed according to the
norms of the Tadyawan Tribe of Mangyan Cultural Minority, of which he is a member.
The Court does not agree.
Other than Salvador's testimony that AAA is also his wife, there is no other evidence
which would support the said claim. It is but a mere unsubstantiated allegation and,
hence, not worthy of credence. Further, as pointed out by the CA, Salvador admitted
that he met AAA and BBB sometime in 1999, immediately took both of them as his
wives and had sexual intercourse with them alternately. In 1999, AAA was barely 8
years old and would not be able to understand love, sex and sexuality at such a tender
age.
In any case, it is highly unlikely that AAA would concoct her accusations against
Salvador and publicly expose her dishonor and shame if it were not really true that she
was raped. Courts give full weight and credence to testimonies of child-victims of rape.
Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth. It is highly improbable that a 13-
year-old girl like AAA would impute a crime as serious as rape to the common-law
spouse of her mother, undergo the humiliation of a public trial and put up with the
shame, humiliation and dishonor of exposing her own degradation were it not to
condemn an injustice and to have the offender apprehended and punished.26 The
weight of such testimony may be countered by physical evidence to the contrary or
indubitable proof that the accused could not have committed the rape, but in the
absence of such countervailing proof, the testimony shall be accorded utmost value
G.R. No. 195224, June 15, 2016
VIRGINIA JABALDE Y JAMANDRON, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
Lin testified that in the year 2000, he was a Grade 1 pupil of Cawitan Elementary
School. At around 9:00 a.m. of December 13, 2000, he was playing "langit lupa" during
recess with Ray Ann, Marco, Nova and another classmate. During the course of their
game, he touched the shoulder of Nova, Jabalde's daughter, causing the latter to fall
down and wounding her head. He then helped Nova to stand while one of his
classmates called Jabalde. Afraid of what happened, he ran towards a dilapidated
building, which was near the place of the incident. Soon thereafter, Jabalde arrived and
slapped him on his neck and choked him. Lin was able to get out of her hold when he
removed her hands from his neck. He immediately ran towards their house some 500
meters away from the school. He told his mother Aileen about the incident. Thereafter,
he was brought to Sta. Catalina Hospital for treatment and a medical certificate was
then issued to him.8chanrobleslaw
Dr. Mu�oz testified that she was the physician who issued the medical certificate to Lin
on December 13, 2000 for the physical examination conducted upon the latter. Dr.
Mu�oz stated that Lin sustained abrasions: two (2) linear abrasions 1 cm in length at
the base of the right mandibular area; one (1) linear abrasion 1 inch in length at the right
lateral neck; two (2) linear abrasions 1 cm in length at the back of the neck; and four (4)
minute circular abrasions at the left lateral neck. According to her, the abrasions could
have been caused by a hard object but mildly inflicted and that these linear abrasions
were signs of fingernail marks. Moreover, the abrasions were greenish in color
signifying that they were still fresh. She did not notice other injuries on the body of Lin
except those on his neck.9chanrobleslaw
Ray Ann, the classmate and playmate of Lin, testified that she knows Jabalde because
she was a teacher at Cawitan Elementary School. At about 9:00 a.m. of December 13,
2000, she was playing "langit lupa" with Lin, Nova, Ryan and Rhea. Nova, who was
standing on top of an unstable stone fell on the ground and thereafter hit her head on
the stone. Then, somebody called Jabalde, Nova's mother. When Jabalde came to see
her daughter, she struck Lin on his neck then squeezed it. Lin cried and was able to free
himself and ran towards their house. Jabalde then shouted, "Better that you are able to
free yourself because if not I should have killed you."10 Ray Ann saw Lin again after
their class dismissal at 11:00 a.m. when she went to their house. Lin did not return to
school again because he was afraid of Jabalde. During cross examination, Ray Ann
testified that Lin did not run into the dilapidated building after the incident and that she
was near them when Jabalde struck Lin.11chanrobleslaw
Whether or not acts complained of are covered by the Revised Penal Code (RPC) or
R.A. No. 7610.
In the recent case of Bongalon v. People,35 the Court expounded the definition of "child
abuse" being referred to in R.A. No. 7610. In that case, therein petitioner was similarly
charged, tried, and convicted by the lower courts with violation of Section 10(a), Article
VI of R.A. No. 7610. The Court held that only when the laying of hands is shown beyond
reasonable doubt to be intended by the accused to debase, degrade or demean the
intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being should it be punished as child
abuse, otherwise, it is punished under the RPC, to wit:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Although we affirm the factual findings of fact by the RTC and the CA to the effect that
the petitioner struck Jayson at the back with his hand and slapped Jayson on the face,
we disagree with their holding that his acts constituted child abuse within the purview of
the above-quoted provisions. The records did not establish beyond reasonable doubt
that his laying of hands on Jayson had been intended to debase the "intrinsic worth and
dignity" of Jayson as a human being, or that he had thereby intended to humiliate or
embarrass Jayson. The records showed the laying of hands on Jayson to have been
done at the spur of the moment and in anger, indicative of his being then overwhelmed
by his fatherly concern for the personal safety of his own minor daughters who had just
suffered harm at the hands of Jayson and Roldan. With the loss of his self-control, he
lacked that specific intent to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity
of a child as a human being that was so essential in the crime of child abuse.36
(Emphasis ours and italics in the original)
Jabalde was accused of slapping and striking Lin, hitting the latter on his nape, and
immediately thereafter, choking the said offended party causing the latter to sustain
injuries.37 However, the records of the case do not show that Jabalde intended to
debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of Lin as a human being.
Black's Law Dictionary defined debasement as "the act of reducing the value, quality, or
purity of something."38 Degradation, on the other hand, is "a lessening of a person's or
thing's character or quality."39 Webster's Third New International Dictionary defined
demean as "to lower in status, condition, reputation, or character."40chanrobleslaw
The laying of the hands on Lin was an offshoot of Jabalde's emotional outrage after
being informed that her daughter's head was punctured, and whom she thought was
already dead. In fact, her vision got blurred and she fainted. When she returned into
consciousness, she sat on her chair in front of the board for about five to ten minutes.41
Moreover, the testimony of the examining physician, Dr. Mu�oz, belied the accusation
that Jabalde, with cruelty and with intent, abused, maltreated and injured Lin, to
wit:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
[T]he abrasions could have been caused by a hard object but mildly inflicted. She also
testified that the linear abrasions were signs of fingernail marks. She did not notice
other injuries on the body of the victim except those on his neck. Moreover, the
abrasions were greenish in color, signifying that they were still fresh.42 (Emphasis ours)
It would be unforeseeable that Jabalde acted with cruelty when prosecution's witness
herself testified that the abrasions suffered by Lin were just "mildly inflicted." If Jabalde
indeed intended to abuse, maltreat and injure Lin, she would have easily hurt the 7-
year-old boy with heavy blows.
As a mother, the death of her child, who has the blood of her blood, and the flesh of her
flesh, is the most excruciating idea that a mother could entertain. The spontaneity of the
acts of Jabalde against Lin is just a product of the instinctive reaction of a mother to
rescue her own child from harm and danger as manifested only by mild abrasions,
scratches, or scrapes suffered by Lin, thus, negating any intention on inflicting physical
injuries. Having lost the strength of her mind, she lacked that specific intent to debase,
degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being that was
so essential in the crime of child abuse. In fine, the essential element of intent was not
established with the prescribed degree of proof required for a successful prosecution
under Section 10(a), Article VI of R.A. No. 7610
G.R. No. 204659, September 19, 2016
JESTER MABUNOT, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
