Title
Supreme Court
Roallos y Trillanes vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 198389
Decision Date
Dec 11, 2013
Roallos convicted of sexual abuse under R.A. No. 7610 for lascivious acts against a minor; SC affirmed with modified damages.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 198389)

Facts of the Case

On April 15, 2002, AAA visited her mother BBB’s office at Camp Aguinaldo, Quezon City. Upon her arrival, BBB was absent, and AAA waited in her mother's office, where Roallos was present. After some conversation, Roallos engaged in inappropriate actions towards AAA, including mashing her breasts and attempting to kiss her. Following these events, AAA informed her mother about the incident, which led to a report being lodged with police authorities, resulting in Roallos’ arrest.

Proceedings in Trial Court

Roallos was charged with sexual abuse based on acts of lasciviousness outlined in the Information filed against him. He pleaded not guilty during arraignment, and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) found him guilty after trial. Roallos received a sentence of eight years and one day to seventeen years and four months, along with an award for moral damages and a fine.

Court of Appeals Decision

After Roallos sought reconsideration, the Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the RTC's decision while increasing the amount of moral damages and civil indemnity awarded to AAA. The appeal was subsequently denied as the CA found sufficient grounds to affirm the conviction and the increased awards.

Legal Issues Raised

Roallos challenged the validity of the Information, arguing it was duplicitous as it referenced both acts of lasciviousness and sexual abuse. Furthermore, he claimed he was denied due process due to the lack of a preliminary investigation and that the arrest was illegal since it occurred without a warrant. He also contended that the lengthy delay in the trial constituted a violation of his right to a speedy trial and that the Information was defective as it lacked signatures from the complainants.

Court's Analysis and Ruling

The Supreme Court rejected Roallos' arguments, clarifying that the Information was not duplicitous as it specifically related to sexual abuse under the specified law. The Court also noted that Roallos failed to raise any objections concerning the irregularities of his arrest or the absence of a preliminary investigation until after the trial commenced, thus waiving these claims.

Regarding the alleged violation of his right to a speedy trial, the Court emphasized that no significant prejudicial delay was observed, as any delays were a result of normal judicial processes. Lastly, the absence of signatures from AAA and BBB on the Information did not detract from the validity of the charge, as the prosecution pursued the case vigorously.

Penalty and Damages

The Court affirmed the impo

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.