Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 267 views

    G.R. No. 177752 February 24, 2009

    Uploaded by

    bumble
    Roberto Abay was accused of sexually abusing his partner's daughter, AAA, from when she was 7 years old until she was 13. AAA testified that Abay would threaten her and force her to undress and have sex with him when her mother wasn't around. The court found Abay guilty of rape based on the testimony of AAA and her mother corroborating the sexual abuse, and the physical evidence from AAA's examination. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, holding that while the information alleged both sexual abuse and rape, the evidence only supported rape, so Abay was convicted of rape under the Revised Penal Code and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No. 177752 February 24, 2009

    Uploaded by

    bumble
    267 views2 pages
    Roberto Abay was accused of sexually abusing his partner's daughter, AAA, from when she was 7 years old until she was 13. AAA testified that Abay would threaten her and force her to undress and have sex with him when her mother wasn't around. The court found Abay guilty of rape based on the testimony of AAA and her mother corroborating the sexual abuse, and the physical evidence from AAA's examination. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, holding that while the information alleged both sexual abuse and rape, the evidence only supported rape, so Abay was convicted of rape under the Revised Penal Code and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

    Original Description:

    v

    Original Title

    22

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Roberto Abay was accused of sexually abusing his partner's daughter, AAA, from when she was 7 years old until she was 13. AAA testified that Abay would threaten her and force her to undress and have sex with him when her mother wasn't around. The court found Abay guilty of rape based on the testimony of AAA and her mother corroborating the sexual abuse, and the physical evidence from AAA's examination. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, holding that while the information alleged both sexual abuse and rape, the evidence only supported rape, so Abay was convicted of rape under the Revised Penal Code and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    267 views2 pages

    G.R. No. 177752 February 24, 2009

    Uploaded by

    bumble
    Roberto Abay was accused of sexually abusing his partner's daughter, AAA, from when she was 7 years old until she was 13. AAA testified that Abay would threaten her and force her to undress and have sex with him when her mother wasn't around. The court found Abay guilty of rape based on the testimony of AAA and her mother corroborating the sexual abuse, and the physical evidence from AAA's examination. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, holding that while the information alleged both sexual abuse and rape, the evidence only supported rape, so Abay was convicted of rape under the Revised Penal Code and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    177752 February 24, 2009

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellant,


    vs.
    ROBERTO ABAY
    Facts:
    Sometime in December 1999, in the City of Manila, Philippines, appellant commit sexual abuse and
    lascivious conduct against [AAA], a minor, 13 years of age. Appellant pleaded not guilty during
    arraignment. During trial, AAA testified that appellant, her mother’s live-in partner, had been sexually
    abusing her since she was seven years old. Whenever her mother was working or was asleep in the
    evening, appellant would threaten her with a bladed instrument and force her to undress and engage in
    sexual intercourse with him.

    BBB (mother) corroborated AAA’s testimony. She testified that she knew about appellant’s
    dastardly acts. However, because he would beat her up and accuse AAA of lying whenever she
    confronted him, she kept her silence. Thus, when she caught appellant in the act of molesting her
    daughter on December 25, 1999, she immediately proceeded to the police station and reported the
    incident.

    According to Dr. Guerrero-Manalo, AAA confided to her that appellant had been sexually
    abusing her for six years. This was confirmed by AAA’s physical examination indicating prior and recent
    penetration injuries.

    The RTC concluded that appellant had indeed sexually abused AAA. A young girl would not have
    exposed herself to humiliation and public scandal unless she was impelled by a strong desire to seek
    justice. In a decision dated November 25, 2003, the RTC found appellant guilty of committing the crime
    of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5, Article III of RA 7610 against
    AAA.

    The Court of Appeals affirmed but modified the penalty and award of damages. In view of the
    enactment of RA 83537 and RA 9346,8 the CA found appellant guilty only of simple rape and reduced
    the penalty imposed to reclusion perpetua. The SC affirmed the decision of the CA with modifications.

    ISSUE:
    Whether the crime is simple rape or a violation of section 5(b) of RA 7610
    HELD :
    SIMPLE RAPE

    Under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 in relation to RA 8353, if the victim of sexual abuse
    is below 12 years of age, the offender should not be prosecuted for sexual abuse but for statutory
    rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code and penalized with reclusion
    perpetua. On the other hand, if the victim is 12 years or older, the offender should be charged
    with either sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or rape under Article 266-A (except
    paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised Penal Code. However, the offender cannot be accused of both
    crimes for the same act because his right against double jeopardy will be prejudiced. A person
    cannot be subjected twice to criminal liability for a single criminal act. Likewise, rape cannot be
    complexed with a violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610. Under Section 48 of the Revised Penal
    Code (on complex crimes), a felony under the Revised Penal Code (such as rape) cannot be
    complexed with an offense penalized by a special law.

    In this case, the victim was more than 12 years old when the crime was committed against her.
    The Information against appellant stated that AAA was 13 years old at the time of the incident.
    Therefore, appellant may be prosecuted either for violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or rape
    under Article 266-A (except paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised Penal Code. While the Information
    may have alleged the elements of both crimes, the prosecution’s evidence only established that
    appellant sexually violated the person of AAA through force and intimidation by threatening her
    with a bladed instrument and forcing her to submit to his bestial designs. Thus, rape was
    established.

    Indeed, the records are replete with evidence establishing that appellant forced AAA to engage in
    sexual intercourse with him on December 25, 1999. Appellant is therefore found guilty of rape
    under Article 266-A(1)(a) of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

    You might also like