Case Digest (G.R. No. 270174)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Peter Gerald Scully (G.R. No. 270174, November 26, 2024), Supreme Court Second Division, Lopez, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellee is the People of the Philippines; the accused-appellants are Peter Gerald Scully a.k.a. "Peter Russell"/"Peter Riddel" (Scully) and Carme Ann Alvarez a.k.a. "Honey Sweet"/"Sweet Sweet" (Alvarez).In 2014 Scully and Alvarez were charged with qualified trafficking in persons and five counts of rape by sexual assault based on events alleged to have occurred between September 19–22, 2014. A fire at the Hall of Justice required reconstitution of the records; the Information reproduced charges that the accused recruited, transported, harbored and detained two minor victims (aged 9 and 12) in a rented house for purposes of prostitution, pornography and sexual exploitation, and that they photographed and recorded sexual acts. Upon arraignment both pleaded not guilty.
During pre-trial the accused admitted identity but contested their aliases and the victims’ minority, and the defense raised alibi. Trial on the merits produced testimony from both minor victims, social workers, police officers and medical and psychological examiners; the victims described being lured by Alvarez, taken to Scully’s house, drugged, bound with chains, coerced to perform and record sexual acts, forced to watch pornography, and ultimately escaping on September 23, 2014. Medical and psychological evidence documented genital trauma and lasting trauma symptoms.
The defense did not present evidence. The RTC recited extensive procedural history showing repeated counsel withdrawals, counsel reappearances, multiple motions and requested postponements by defense counsel, and concluded that the defense had been afforded numerous opportunities but repeatedly caused delays; it deemed the defense to have waived its right to present evidence, found both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified trafficking and sentenced them to life imprisonment, fines of PHP 5,000,000 each, and joint-and-several moral and exemplary damag...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Regional Trial Court violate the accused-appellants' constitutional right to due process by disallowing them from presenting defense evidence?
- Were the accused-appellants proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified trafficking in persons under Republic Act No. 9208, as amended by RA 10364 (Sections 3(a), 4(a), 6(a), and...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)