Case Digest (G.R. No. 228260)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Elmer Moya, G.R. No. 228260, June 10, 2019, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.The prosecution charged Elmer Moya (appellant) with four separate criminal informations alleging sexual offenses against his sister, AAA (the victim), who was 13 years old at the time of the incidents in July–August 2008. The reports recount repeated intrusions into the victim’s room in which the appellant covered her mouth, undressed her, and on one occasion inserted his penis into her vagina and on another occasion inserted a finger into her vagina. A medico-legal examination performed on October 21, 2008 documented healed hymenal lacerations consistent with sexual trauma.
Four Informations were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 6263–6266, charging rape (through carnal knowledge) and/or related sexual offenses. At arraignment appellant pleaded not guilty and, at trial, interposed denial and an alibi supported by testimony from an aunt and a co-fisherman who said he was away fishing on some dates. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 10, Balayan, Batangas, after trial, found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Rape under Article 266-A(1) in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by R.A. No. 8353, and in relation to Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua on each count and awarding civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with modifications. In Criminal Case No. 6263 the CA affirmed conviction for qualified rape and adjusted damages; in Criminal Case No. 6265 the CA designated the offense as Qualified Rape by Sexual Assault (imposing an indeterminate term with prision mayor as minimum); and in Criminal Case Nos. 6264 and 6266 the CA found appellant guilty under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 (lascivious conduct / sexual abuse) and imposed indeterminate terms within the range of arresto mayor to prision correccional, with reduced damages and fines.
Appellant elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by way of an appeal seeking reversal and set-aside of...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the appellant proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified Rape in Criminal Case No. 6263 and of sexual assault / lascivious conduct in Criminal Case No. 6265?
- Did the prosecution prove carnal knowledge (rape) in Criminal Case Nos. 6264 and 6266, or did the acts instead constitute lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610?
- Were the penalties and damages imposed by the Court of Appeals correct, or should they be modified (including application of R.A. No. 9246, Indeter...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)