Case Digest (G.R. No. 206513)
Facts:
Mustapha Dimakuta y Maruhom v. People, G.R. No. 206513, October 20, 2015, Supreme Court En Banc, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Mustapha Dimakuta y Maruhom (petitioner) was charged by information with Violation of Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610 (the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discriminatory Practices Act) for allegedly committing lascivious acts on AAA, a 16‑year‑old domestic helper. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 199, Las Piñas City, convicted petitioner and imposed an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day reclusion temporal as maximum, plus damages.
On appeal the Court of Appeals (CA) modified the RTC judgment on June 28, 2012, adopting the Office of the Solicitor General’s (OSG) position that the prosecution failed to prove coercion and therefore downgraded the conviction to Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), sentencing petitioner to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) months arresto mayor to four (4) years and two (2) months prision correccional, and awarding indemnity and moral damages.
Petitioner received the CA decision on July 6, 2012 and, rather than file a further appeal, filed on July 23, 2012 before the CA a manifestation with motion asking permission to apply for probation upon remand to the RTC, relying on Colinares v. People. The CA denied the motion by Resolution dated September 3, 2012 (and denied reconsideration on March 13, 2013), reasoning that petitioner had raised the merits of his conviction on appeal (claiming lack of force/coercion) and therefore fell under Lagrosa v. People as one who put his guilt in issue. Petitioner then filed the present petition to the Supreme Court seeking relief from the CA resolutions and permission to apply for probation.
The Supreme Court issued an En Banc decision (Peralta, J., ponente) resolving whether petitioner could still invoke the Probation Law after having perfected an appea...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May a convicted offender who perfected an appeal be allowed to apply for probation after an appellate court reduces the conviction or the penalty to one within the probationable limits?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in modifying the RTC conviction for Violation of Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610 to Acts of Lasciviousness under Article ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)