Case Summary (G.R. No. 269240)
Case Background
The Motion for Reconsideration challenges the Resolution dated January 29, 2024, which denied a petition for review of the Decision dated March 22, 2023, and the Resolution dated September 7, 2023, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 46378. The Supreme Court's resolution emphasized that the petitioner failed to present sufficient grounds to warrant judicial review, reiterating that the prior courts had thoroughly considered the credibility of the witnesses, particularly that of AAA and her father.
Credibility of Witnesses
The petitioner contended that the testimonies of AAA and BBB were inconsistent regarding the specifics of the alleged offense, including the date, location, and the individuals involved. However, the Supreme Court noted that issues surrounding the credibility of witnesses had already been conclusively addressed by the trial court, the appellate court, and this Court. The inconsistencies identified by the petitioner were deemed trivial and not sufficient to negate the established facts of the case or the petitioner’s liability for sexual abuse.
Decision on Guilt and Sentencing
In its ruling, the Court affirmed the conviction of Avail John Domingo y Linatoc for violating Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610, noting that the prosecution met the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The petitioner is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of eight years and eight months of prision mayor as the minimum to eighteen years of reclusion temporal as the maximum. Additionally, he is liable for financial penalties, including PHP 50,000.00 each for civil indemnity, moral damages
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 269240)
Procedural History
- The case arose from a petition for review on certiorari against the Decision dated March 22, 2023 and Resolution dated September 7, 2023 of the Court of Appeals, Manila in CA-G.R. CR No. 46378.
- The Supreme Court Resolution dated January 29, 2024 denied the petition for failure to show substantial, special or important reasons warranting the exercise of the Court's discretionary review power.
- The Supreme Court found no reversible error in the Court of Appeals decision to justify the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
- Petitioner Avail John Domingo y Linatoc filed a Motion for Reconsideration against the January 29, 2024 Resolution which was likewise denied due to lack of merit.
Facts of the Case
- Petitioner Avail John Domingo y Linatoc was accused of sexual abuse in violation of Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610.
- The complainant, referred to as AAA to preserve anonymity, was a minor aged 12 years at the time of the alleged offense.
- The complainant's father, referred to as BBB, also testified in the case.
- Petitioner allegedly convinced the complainant that they were husband and wife in the eyes of God.
- Assertions of inconsistencies were raised by petitioner regarding the dates, places, persons present during the alleged offense, and who requested the complainant to live with petitioner.
Issues Presented
- Whether the Court should exercise its discretionary appellate jurisdiction to review the Court of Appeals' decision.
- The credibility of the prosecution's witnesses, namely the complainant and her father.
- Whether petitioner committed violation of Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 on sexual a