Case Digest (G.R. No. 258257)
Facts:
Pedro "Pepe" Talisay v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 258257, August 09, 2023, Supreme Court First Division, Gesmundo, C.J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Pedro "Pepe" Talisay was charged in an Information with violation of Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 for alleged sexual abuse of a 15‑year‑old victim, AAA. At arraignment on November 3, 2017 he pleaded not guilty; after pre‑trial, the case proceeded to trial. The prosecution presented AAA, who testified that on September 29, 2016 petitioner dragged her to a pigpen, kissed her, undressed both of them, placed his penis on top of her vagina and made push‑and‑pull movements; she resisted, shouted, and later received money from him. The defense presented petitioner and his family who testified to an alibi and to giving money out of pity; they also pointed to a barangay "kasarabutan" in which the parties agreed petitioner would no longer give money to children.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), in its January 11, 2019 Decision, found AAA credible and convicted petitioner of "acts of lasciviousness in relation to Republic Act 7610," sentencing him to 14 years 8 months to 20 years reclusion temporal and awarding P20,000 civil indemnity, P15,000 moral damages and a P15,000 fine. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). In its August 28, 2020 Decision (denying the appeal with modification) the CA affirmed the conviction but redescribed the offense as "Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610," increased damages to P50,000 each for civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages, and imposed 6% interest from finality; its July 21, 2021 Resolution denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, re‑arguing chiefly that AAA’s testimony was inconsistent and incredible, that force/coercion was not established, and tha...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Under Rule 45, may this Court re‑examine and overturn the CA’s factual findings and credibility determinations in this case?
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt the elements of lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610?
- Given the factual record, should the acts be classified instead as consummated rape or attempted rape rather than lascivious conduct?
- Was AAA’s minority (age 15) sufficiently proven despite n...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)