Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 676 views

    People vs. Matias

    Uploaded by

    Kelsey Olivar Mendoza
    1) The appellant Jover Matias y Dela Fuente and private complainant AAA were neighbors. One evening, appellant pulled AAA towards a house under construction, forced her to lie down, removed her clothes, and inserted his finger and penis into her vagina. He threatened to kill her if she told anyone. 2) The issue is whether appellant's conviction for "rape" under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 8610 was proper. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that since AAA was 14 years old at the time of the offense, appellant could only be charged with sexual abuse under RA 8610 or rape except paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, not statutory

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People vs. Matias

    Uploaded by

    Kelsey Olivar Mendoza
    676 views1 page
    1) The appellant Jover Matias y Dela Fuente and private complainant AAA were neighbors. One evening, appellant pulled AAA towards a house under construction, forced her to lie down, removed her clothes, and inserted his finger and penis into her vagina. He threatened to kill her if she told anyone. 2) The issue is whether appellant's conviction for "rape" under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 8610 was proper. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that since AAA was 14 years old at the time of the offense, appellant could only be charged with sexual abuse under RA 8610 or rape except paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, not statutory

    Original Description:

    People vs. Matias, Criminal Law Case. Case of Rape under the RPC.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The appellant Jover Matias y Dela Fuente and private complainant AAA were neighbors. One evening, appellant pulled AAA towards a house under construction, forced her to lie down, removed her clothes, and inserted his finger and penis into her vagina. He threatened to kill her if she told anyone. 2) The issue is whether appellant's conviction for "rape" under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 8610 was proper. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that since AAA was 14 years old at the time of the offense, appellant could only be charged with sexual abuse under RA 8610 or rape except paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, not statutory

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    676 views1 page

    People vs. Matias

    Uploaded by

    Kelsey Olivar Mendoza
    1) The appellant Jover Matias y Dela Fuente and private complainant AAA were neighbors. One evening, appellant pulled AAA towards a house under construction, forced her to lie down, removed her clothes, and inserted his finger and penis into her vagina. He threatened to kill her if she told anyone. 2) The issue is whether appellant's conviction for "rape" under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 8610 was proper. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that since AAA was 14 years old at the time of the offense, appellant could only be charged with sexual abuse under RA 8610 or rape except paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, not statutory

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    186469 June 13, 2012


    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintif-appellee,
    vs.
    JOVER MATIAS !ELA F"ENTE, Accused-appellant
    FA#TS$ Appellant Jover Matias y Dela Fuente and private complainant AAA

    were neighbours.
    In the evening o June !, "##$, AAA, a minor, was on her wa% to the vegetable stall o a
    certain &Manuela& to bu% something when, all o a sudden, appellant pulled her towards a
    house that was under construction. 'here, he orced her to lie on a bamboo bed, removed
    her shorts and underwear, and inserted (rst, his (nger, and then his penis into her vagina.
    Appellant threatened to )ill her i she should report the incident to an%one. *hen AAA
    arrived home, she narrated to her mother and aunt what appellant did to her. In deense,
    appellant claimed that in the evening o the incident, he and his uncle, +omeo Matias, were
    doing construction wor) at the house o his aunt. ,e was thereore surprised when two
    policemen arrested him at around !-.# in the evening o even date and detained him at the
    /aler Police 0tation.
    ISS"E$ %&e'&e( o( No' )' *+, -o((e-' 'o -on.)-' +//e00+n' o1 2(+/e2 un3e( Se-. 4
    567, A(')-0e III o1 RA 8610.
    He03$ 9ES. 1nder 0ection 2 3b4, Article III o +A 5!6# in relation to +A 7.2., i the victim o
    se8ual abuse is below 6" %ears o age, the ofender should not be prosecuted or se8ual
    abuse but or statutor% rape under Article "!!-A3643d4 o the +evised Penal 9ode. i the
    victim is 6" %ears or older, the ofender should be charged with either se8ual abuse under
    0ection 23b4 o +A 5!6# or rape under Article "!!-A 3e8cept paragraph 6:d;4 o the +evised
    Penal 9ode. In this case, the +'9, convicted appellant or &rape& under 0ec. 2 3b4, Article III o
    +A 5!6# upon a (nding that AAA was a minor below 6" %ears old at the time o the
    commission o the ofense. ,owever, a punctilious scrutin% o the records shows that AAA
    was born on April "., 6<<6, which would ma)e her 6. %ears old at the time o the
    commission o the ofense. 'hus, appellant can be prosecuted and convicted either under
    0ec. 2 3b4, Article III o +A 5!6# or sexual abuse, or under Article "!!-A o the +P9, e8cept
    or rape under paragraph 63d4.

    the +'9 concluded that AAA was the &victim o se8ual abuse
    labeled =rape=, considering the established act that there was se8ual intercourse between
    him and AAA. 'hus, appellant=s conviction was clearl% under 0ec. 2 3b4, Article III o +A 5!6#
    or sexual abuse and not or rape under Article "!!-A o the +P9.

    You might also like