Case Digest (G.R. No. 197458)
Facts:
Nicanor Pinlac y Resolme v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 197458, November 11, 2015, the Supreme Court Second Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court. The petition under Rule 45 challenges the Court of Appeals’ March 29, 2011 decision affirming with modification the conviction of petitioner for violation of Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610.
The accused, Nicanor Pinlac (petitioner), was criminally charged with committing lascivious acts against AAA, a 14‑year‑old boy, on the evenings of March 9 and 10, 1997 at Kale Beach Resort in Subic, Olongapo City. The prosecution alleged that petitioner persuaded AAA to ingest alcohol and smoke marijuana as part of fraternity initiation rites, isolated him while he was intoxicated and "high," forcibly disrobed him, and performed oral sex on him until ejaculation on both dates. AAA’s birth certificate and testimony established his date of birth as August 21, 1982; his name and family members were anonymized pursuant to Republic Act No. 9262.
Petitioner denied the accusations, asserting alibi (campaigning as a barangay kagawad candidate) and that the case was instigated by AAA’s mother. The case was tried before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo City, Branch 72 (originally presided by Judge Eliodoro G. Ubiadas and at a later stage by Judge Josefina D. Farrales). In a January 6, 2010 decision, the RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610, concluding that the act of sucking the minor’s penis constituted lascivious conduct and sentencing petitioner to reclusion temporal (indeterminate specified in the judgment) and awarding P30,000 as moral damages.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty in its March 29, 2011 decision: it imposed an indeterminate sentence of eight years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen years, four months and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum; imposed a fine of P15,000; awarded P20,000 as civil indemnity and P15,000 as moral damages to AAA; and upheld the factual f...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May petitioner raise challenges to the Court of Appeals’ factual findings in a petition for review under Rule 45?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in accrediting AAA’s testimony and in affirming petitioner’s conviction under Section 5(b), Article III ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)