Case Digest (G.R. No. 221443)
Facts:
The case arose from the convictions of Dominador Ladra for Rape and Unjust Vexation, as affirmed on appeal by the Court of Appeals (CA) and further reviewed by the Supreme Court. The private complainant, AAA, was born on September 3, 1995, and at the time relevant to the first incident she was about five (5) years old. AAA lived with her family in a remote area in Dumarait, Balingasag, Misamis Oriental. Dominador Ladra was alleged to be a relative of BBB, AAA’s mother, who stayed with the family out of pity, ran errands, and attended to the children while BBB was washing clothes and while her husband CCC tended their farm. Between 2000 and 2001, when AAA was around five (5) years old, AAA and her siblings were left at home with accused-appellant. After eating, accused-appellant ordered them to sleep. AAA later woke up feeling accused-appellant, already naked, on top of her; he allegedly forced his penis into her vagina, made push and pull movements that caused her pain, and thre...Case Digest (G.R. No. 221443)
Facts:
Private complainant AAA was born on September 3, 1995 and lived with her family in Dumarait, Balingasag, Misamis Oriental. Accused-appellant Dominador Ladra, a relative of AAA’s mother, stayed with the family out of pity and allegedly assaulted AAA when she was about five years old, including rape by inserting his penis into her vagina after ordering her to sleep, and threatened her to prevent disclosure; the sexual abuse later ceased when he left in 2002.Years later, on the evening of April 16, 2008, when AAA was already twelve, she saw accused-appellant in their kitchen and alleged that he squeezed her vagina and told her they would visit his house, after which she reported the incidents to her relatives, barangay, and the police. On April 19, 2008, Dr. Ma. Josefina Villanueva Taleon found old healed lacerations in AAA’s genitalia. The RTC convicted accused-appellant of rape and Unjust Vexation, but the finding for the second charge was based on the trial court’s view that lasciviousness or lewdness was not proven; the CA affirmed both convictions.
Issues:
- Whether the CA erred in affirming accused-appellant’s conviction for Rape.
- Whether the CA erred in affirming accused-appellant’s conviction for Unjust Vexation instead of Acts of Lasciviousness in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)