Case Digest (G.R. No. 197712)
Facts:
The case is Nonito Imbo y Gamores v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 197712, April 20, 2015, Supreme Court First Division, Perez, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is Nonito Imbo y Gamores (defendant below) and respondent is the People of the Philippines (plaintiff below); the crime charged was Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in relation to Section 5, Article III of Republic Act No. 7610.The Information alleged that between October 14, 2003 and January 25, 2004 in Quezon City, petitioner, with force and intimidation, committed acts of lasciviousness upon his eleven‑year‑old daughter, AAA, by forcing her to remove her shorts, mashing her breasts and kissing her private parts. At arraignment petitioner pleaded not guilty. At pre‑trial the parties stipulated that AAA was a minor (11 years old) at the time and that petitioner was her father.
At trial AAA testified that while the household slept she was awakened by her father licking her vagina and mashing her breasts; she shouted repeatedly for her mother, CCC, but petitioner fled. AAA told her mother the following day. Petitioner denied the charge, claiming CCC fabricated the story out of a domestic dispute and raising an alibi that he worked from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The Regional Trial Court (Branch 94, Quezon City), presided by Roslyn M. Rabara‑Tria, found AAA’s testimony credible, convicted petitioner of Acts of Lasciviousness and sentenced him to an indeterminate term of 14 years, 8 months to 17 years, 4 months reclusion temporal, and awarded P50,000 civil indemnity, P50,000 moral damages and P25,000 exemplary damages.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. CR No. 32804). The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated February 17, 2011 (penned by Associate Justice Ruben C. Ayson), affirmed the trial court’s conviction. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Review on...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in accepting the testimony of the private complainant, AAA, as credible and sufficient to sustain petitioner’s conviction.
- Whether the Court erred in imposing the penalty provided in Section 5, Article III of R.A. No. 7610 when the Information did not explicitly state that...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)