Case Digest (G.R. No. 180440)
Facts:
Melvin Encinares y Ballon v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 252267, January 11, 2021, the Supreme Court Second Division, Perlas‑Bernabe, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Melvin Encinares y Ballon was charged by information with violating Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination) for allegedly placing the penis of a 16‑year‑old male victim (identified as AAA) in his mouth and manipulating it on or about December 27, 2011.The prosecution alleged that petitioner, then Vice President of the school PTA, became acquainted with AAA through school activities and provided favors to the minor (cellphone load and promises of pensions). On the evening of December 27, 2011 petitioner allegedly invited AAA to his home for drinks, got him intoxicated, permitted him to sleep over, and while AAA was sleeping put the minor’s penis in his mouth and played with it for about ten minutes; AAA testified he resisted but was too drunk.
Petitioner denied the accusation, claiming friendship with AAA, denial of any drinking spree, that others were present in the house with lights on (making the alleged act impossible), and that AAA’s uncle (BBB) induced AAA to make a false complaint for extortion. Defense presented a handwritten affidavit of withdrawal/recantation allegedly signed by AAA (unassisted by a guardian) and character certifications from community officials.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted petitioner on July 27, 2018 of violating Section 10(a) of RA 7610 and sentenced him to indeterminate imprisonment (four years, nine months, eleven days to six years, one day) and costs. The RTC credited AAA’s direct, positive testimony and discredited the unassisted recantation and petitioner’s alibi/denial.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). In a Decision dated November 27, 2019 the CA (Diamante, J., with Perez and Acosta, JJ., concurring) affirmed the RTC, finding the prosecution proved the elements beyond reasonable d...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming petitioner’s conviction for violation of Section 10(a) of RA 7610 as charg...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)