Case Digest (G.R. No. 262941)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. YYY, G.R. No. 262941, February 20, 2024, the Supreme Court En Banc, Lopez, M., J., writing for the Court. The accused-appellant is YYY; the plaintiff-appellee is the People of the Philippines. The case challenges YYY’s conviction for child pornography committed through a computer system.In July 2016 the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) intercepted emails linked to YYY that contained nude photographs of minor girls being sold to online customers. An undercover FBI agent engaged YYY online, obtained access to sexual webcam shows and indecent photographs of minors, and received payment instructions; the FBI traced the source to the Angeles City area in Pampanga and notified the Philippine National Police (PNP).
The PNP Anti-Trafficking in Persons Division investigated. On surveillance, Police Senior Inspectors Mary Gallano and Jigs Madato posed as buyers at YYY’s house in Mabalacat City on August 6, 2016; they observed minor girls, a computer with webcam, and items consistent with the FBI material. On August 11, 2016, Col. Villamar Tuliao applied for a search warrant before Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge Ramon Pamular; the warrant described the place and an extensive list of items tied to child pornography. The warrant issued the same day.
On August 16, 2016, operatives executed the warrant, seized computer equipment, a modem, a cellphone, assorted receipts and other items, and rescued three minors (AAA, BBB, CCC), who were handed to the DSWD. A digital forensic examination later extracted explicit photos and videos of minor AAA and conversations showing offers to sell the material. The PNP filed an Information charging YYY with violations of Sections 4(a), (b), and (c) of Republic Act No. 9775 (Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009), in relation to Section 16 of the same law, and Section 4(c)(2) of Republic Act No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012).
At trial YYY pleaded not guilty and denied the accusations, alleging illegal entry and fabrication of evidence. On July 9, 2020, the RTC convicted YYY of child pornography qualified by use of a computer system, crediting AAA’s testimony and the seized items; it sentenced YYY to reclusion perpetua and a P2,000,000 fine, and ordered damages to AAA. YYY appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 14444, arguing insufficiency of evidence, a defective Information (vague date), and unlawful search and seizure.
On February 28, 2022, the CA (Eighth Division) affirmed the RTC, holding that the exact date need not be alleged with precision, that credibility determinations are for the trial court, and that the search warrant was validly obtained and implemented. YYY then appealed to the Supreme Cou...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does the repeal of Republic Act No. 9775 by Republic Act No. 11930 extinguish criminal liability for acts committed before repeal, or does the reenactment preserve pending prosecutions?
- Were the seized items admissible and the search warrant validly issued and implemented?
- Is the Information fatally defective for alleging only an approximate date ("on or about August 2016 or sometime prior thereto")?
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt the elements of child pornography under Sections 4(a), (b), and (c) of RA 9775 in relation to Section 16 and the qualifying provision in Section 4(c)(2) ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)