Title
Uddin y Sali vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 249588
Decision Date
Nov 23, 2020
Petitioner convicted of lascivious conduct under RA 7610 and attempted homicide for sexually abusing and throwing a minor into a ravine; penalties and damages modified.
uddin
sali
court of appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-5741)

Factual Background

On February 20, 2016, AAA, then aged thirteen, was travelling to buy food and chicken feed when she was intercepted by the accused. AAA testified that the accused blocked her way, pulled her into a forested area, touched her breasts and inserted his hand into her panty, and restrained her for about thirty-five minutes while he told her not to make noise. The accused then picked her up and threw her into a ravine, causing her to roll and strike her head; vines arrested her further fall and a passerby, Alvin Santos, came to her aid. AAA and Mr. Santos reported the incident to the family and to the police, and petitioner was subsequently arrested.

Charges and Procedural History in the RTC

Two Informations were filed against Shariff Uddin y Sali: Criminal Case No. L-10872 charging violation of Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610 for lascivious conduct against a child, and Criminal Case No. L-10873 charging Attempted Murder under Article 248 in relation to Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code. Petitioner pleaded not guilty at arraignment and trial followed, during which the prosecution presented AAA and Alvin Santos as primary witnesses and introduced a medical examination report. The defense presented petitioner’s denial and an alibi that he had been in the house caring for his child, and the defense rested without producing a second witness.

Evidence at Trial

AAA’s testimony recounted physical touching of her breasts and the insertion of a hand into her panty, her resistance and pleas, the subsequent carrying and throwing into a ravine roughly twenty-five to thirty meters deep, and her rescue by a passerby. Alvin Santos corroborated portions of AAA’s account, testifying that he saw petitioner throw AAA into the ravine and that AAA bore visible bruises and pain. The prosecution’s medical witness, Dr. Joy Cristobal-Gonzalo, examined AAA the same day and observed hymenal lacerations which she opined were older than six months; no medical evidence was presented to prove the claimed multiple abrasions to extremities. The defense denied the allegations and proffered an alibi that petitioner was at home caring for an infant.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

The RTC found the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt and convicted petitioner of violation of Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610 (lascivious conduct) and Attempted Murder under Article 248 in relation to Article 6 of the RPC. The RTC credited AAA’s testimony as consistent and natural, rejected petitioner’s denial as weak and uncorroborated, and concluded that petitioner used abuse of superior strength when he carried and threw the minor into the ravine. The RTC imposed indeterminate and determinate terms and ordered various monetary awards, including moral and exemplary damages and a fine.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s factual findings and convictions but modified certain penalties and awards. The CA agreed that the proper nomenclature for the sexual offense committed against a person aged twelve or above but under eighteen was Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610, citing People v. Caoili. The CA adjusted the indeterminate ranges and increased exemplary damages while adding civil indemnity in the lascivious conduct count. The CA also altered the penalty range for the attempted homicide-related count as charged.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The central issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s convictions for (1) Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610, and (2) Attempted Murder under Article 248 in relation to Article 6 of the RPC, including whether the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength attended the attempted killing.

Supreme Court’s Ruling — Conviction for Lascivious Conduct

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Lascivious Conduct. The Court reasoned that AAA was thirteen years old and thus fell within the statutory definition of “children” under Section 3(a) of R.A. 7610, and that the statutory elements of Section 5(b) were satisfied: the accused committed lascivious acts upon a child. The Court rejected petitioner’s contention that the prosecution failed to prove that AAA was “exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse,” explaining that “other sexual abuse” includes one-off acts effected through coercion or intimidation and that Section 3(b) of R.A. 7610 does not require a separate prior sexual offense. The Court found coercion and intimidation present in the blocking of AAA’s way, the pulling to a secluded area, the pleas and resistance of AAA, and the accused’s admonition not to be noisy, and accorded great weight to the trial court’s credibility findings.

Supreme Court’s Ruling — Attempted Homicide and Abuse of Superior Strength

The Supreme Court held that petitioner’s intent to kill was proved beyond reasonable doubt by his act of carrying AAA and throwing her into a ravine from a height likely to produce death, noting that vines fortuitously prevented consummation. However, the Court reversed the RTC’s and CA’s finding that the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength attended the attempted killing. The Court explained that abuse of superior strength requires a deliberate use of an advantage of force or a conscious intent to employ excessive force; mere inequality of age, size, or strength does not suffice without proof that the assailant consciously sought to exploit that superiority. Because the record did not show purposeful or excessive use of force beyond the act of throwing, the Court concluded that none of the qualifying circumstances in Article 248 was present and reduced the conviction to Attempted Homicide under Article 249, in relation to paragraph 3 of Article 6 of the RPC.

Sentencing and Monetary Awards

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and the grading rules for attempted felonies, the Court modified the penalties. For Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610, the Court imposed an indeterminate penalty of eight years and one day of prision mayor medium as minimum to twenty years of reclusion temporal maximum as maximum. For Attempted Homicide under Article 249 in relation to Article 6(3), the Court imposed an indeterminate penalty of six months of arresto mayor as minimum to four years and two months of prision correccional as maximum. The Court affirmed civil indemnity and moral and exemplary damages of P50,000.00 each for the lascivious conduct count, deleted the RTC’s imposed fine of P15,000.00 for lack of legal basis, and awarded P20,000.00 each as civil indemnity and moral damages for the attempted homicide count, following People v. Jugueta and related jurisprudence. All monetary awards were ordered to earn interest at six percent per annum from finality until fully paid.

Legal Reasoning and Authorities Applied

The Court applied definitions and elements in R.A. 7610, citing People v. Tulagan for the correct nomenclature and penalty framework when the victim is at least tw

...continue reading

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.

About Privacy Terms