Title
Perez vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 201414
Decision Date
Apr 18, 2018
Pedro Perez convicted under RA 7610 for sexually abusing a 12-year-old girl; Supreme Court affirmed guilt, modified penalty, and awarded damages.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 201414)

Facts:

  • Criminal Information and Charges
    • On March 29, 1999, an Information was filed in Quezon City charging Pedro Perez with violation of Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610, in relation to Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code.
    • The Information alleged that on November 7, 1998, Perez, with lewd design, inserted his finger into the vagina of AAA, a 12-year-old girl, and mashed her breasts against her will.
  • Trial Proceedings
    • At pre-trial, parties stipulated that AAA was 12 years old and that Perez lived in Brgy. Batasan Hills, Quezon City at the time.
    • Prosecution witnesses:
      • AAA – recounted the assault, her fear, and inability to resist or cry out.
      • SPO4 Mila Billones – interviewed AAA; prepared her statement.
      • Dr. Winston Tan – medico-legal officer; reported healed laceration on AAA’s hymen and ecchymosis on her breast.
    • Defense witnesses:
      • Perez – denied the assault; claimed AAA misled him into believing she was 16; offered alibi of being with his aunt.
      • Alma Perez (sister) – attested to AAA’s infatuation but no knowledge of assault.
      • CCC – denied seeing Perez enter her house or observing any incident.
  • Lower Court Decisions and Appeals
    • Regional Trial Court (Branch 94, Quezon City) on March 8, 2010: Found Perez guilty beyond reasonable doubt; sentenced him to 8 years 1 day prision mayor (medium) to 14 years 8 months reclusion temporal (minimum); awarded P50,000 moral and P25,000 exemplary damages.
    • Court of Appeals on September 30, 2011: Affirmed the RTC decision in toto; denied reconsideration on April 10, 2012.
  • Petition for Review
    • Perez filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court on May 30, 2012.
    • He argued improbability of the assault given AAA’s attire and the presence of others, and contended that only acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 RPC were proved, not child abuse under RA 7610.

Issues:

  • Whether the evidence sufficiently establishes AAA’s narrative of sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt.
  • Whether all elements of child abuse under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 were proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.