Case Digest (G.R. No. 245516)
Facts:
Michael John Dela Cruz y Sodela v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 245516, June 14, 2021, Supreme Court Third Division, Lopez, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Michael John Dela Cruz y Sodela (petitioner) was charged on September 23, 2016 in five separate Informations with violations of Sections 5(b) and 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610 (the Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act). The five Informations (Criminal Case Nos. 1883–1887‑V‑16) accused petitioner, a teacher, of various acts between January and August 2016: kissing and fondling the breasts of AAA (a 13‑year‑old student), repeated kissing and fondling, compelling students to kiss each other, encouraging sexual acts among students, and touching a student’s thigh.
Upon arraignment petitioner pleaded not guilty. At trial the prosecution presented testimony from the principal complaining minors AAA, BBB, CCC and another then‑minor witness, and the school guidance counselor. AAA testified she was petitioner’s former student and that starting January 26, 2016 petitioner kissed her on the lips, fondled her breasts, suggested sex and repeated advances through April 2016; she said she acquiesced for fear of failing. BBB and CCC (both 13 at the time) described online courting, unwanted touching, and instances in August 2016 where petitioner allegedly ordered or encouraged them or their classmates to perform kissing or sexual acts; a guidance counselor and school officials corroborated complaints and referral to the City Social Welfare office.
Petitioner denied the accusations, claiming terms of endearment and benign interactions, and presented a witness who testified that BBB had recanted during a meeting. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 270, convicted petitioner on December 11, 2017: guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts under Section 5(b) (sexual abuse/lascivious conduct with a minor) and three counts under Section 10(a) (child abuse), imposing indeterminate and determinate prison terms and awarding damages.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which in an October 30, 2018 Decision affir...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the CA and the RTC err in finding petitioner guilty despite the prosecution’s alleged failure to prove that the private complainants were coerced or intimidated by petitioner?
- Did the CA and the RTC err in sustaining petitioner’s conviction despite alleged inconsistencies and incredibility in the private complainants’ testimonies which, petitioner claims, failed to establish the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)