Case Digest (G.R. No. 269240) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In the case G.R. No. 269240, decided on June 5, 2024, the petitioner, Avail John Domingo y Linatoc, was charged with violating Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610, the law protecting children against abuse. The respondent was the People of the Philippines. The case originated when petitioner was accused of sexually abusing complainant AAA, who was only 12 years old at the time. It was alleged that petitioner manipulated the complainant into believing they were husband and wife in the eyes of God. The courts below, including the trial court and the Court of Appeals, found the complainant and her father, BBB, credible notwithstanding minor inconsistencies in their testimonies regarding dates, location, and other details. Petitioner assailed these findings in a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, claiming the testimonies were unreliable. The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of substantial reasons to review the case, affirming the decision of the Case Digest (G.R. No. 269240) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Procedural Background
- Petitioner Avail John Domingo y Linatoc was charged and found guilty of violating Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination).
- The petitioner questioned the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses, primarily complainant AAA and her father BBB.
- The courts below, including the trial court, the Court of Appeals (CA), and ultimately the Supreme Court, consistently upheld the conviction.
- Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration against this Court's Resolution dated January 29, 2024, which denied his petition for review on certiorari.
- Facts of the Offense
- The complainant was a 12-year-old child at the time the offense was committed.
- Petitioner allegedly convinced the complainant that they were husband and wife in the eyes of God.
- The prosecution established the elements of the offense beyond reasonable doubt.
- Argument of the Petitioner
- He argued the unusual behavior of the complainant and her father.
- He cited inconsistencies in testimonies concerning the date, exact place of the offense, persons present during the crime, and who requested the complainant to live with the petitioner.
- Rulings of the Lower Courts and the Supreme Court
- The trial court, CA, and the Supreme Court found inconsistencies trivial and not affecting petitioner's liability.
- The Supreme Court reiterated the credibility of complainant and her father and upheld the conviction.
Issues:
- Whether the petitioner sufficiently showed any substantial, special, or important reason warranting the exercise of the Court's discretionary power to review the challenged decision and resolution.
- Whether the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the complainant and her father affect the credibility of witnesses and the petitioner’s liability under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)