People v ZZZ

G.R. 229209
February 12, 2020
J. Leonen

For this court’s resolution is an appeal filed by ZZZ. He questions the Decision of the CA which
affirmed the RTC’s court finding that he was guilty of raping his granddaughter AAA. ZZZ pleaded not
guilty during his arraignment. The incident according to AAA was she had been weeding grass near their
house prior, it was when she went home that her grandfather raped her. Then when the ordeal was
over, AAA left the house, went to the forest, and there slept.
When AAA tried to come home the following day, ZZZ allegedly attacked her with a bolo. She
was allegedly able to parry ZZZ’s attacks allowing her to run and seek help from Lotec, the brgy capt.
AAA also testified that ZZZ raped her before the incident actually complained, she was not cross-
examined by the defense.
Brgy. Capt. Lotectestified that he received a report from the brgy. Record keeper that a child
was seeking help because she was being chased and raped by ZZZ. When the girl told him that ZZZ raped
her, Brgy. Caapt. Lotec brought her to the police station where a police officer and a local social worker
attended to her. Upon cross-examination Brgy. Capt. Lotec described AAA during their conversation as
“Pale and Trembling”.
For the defense, only ZZZ was presented as witness. He denied the accusation that he raped his
granddaughter, claiming that his advanced age has long made him incapable of having an erection.

Issue:
Whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused-
appellant ZZZ for the crime of rape.

Held:
While accused-appellant attempts to cast doubt on the credibility of the prosecution’s witness,
the settled rule is that the trial court’s determination of witness credibility will not be disturbed on
appeal unless significant matters have been overlooked. Such determination is treated with respect, as
the trial court has the opportunity to observe the witnesses’ demeanor during trial. Its findings assume
even greater weight when they are affirmed by the CA.
Here, AAA’s account of having been attacked by appellant was sufficiently corroborated by Brgy
capt lotec’s testimony that he saw AAA “pale and trembling”. Such description is based on his personal
knowledge, havin actually observed and spoken to AAA regarding her ordeal. This, taken with the
prosecution’s other corroborating evidence and AAA’s straightforward identification of appellant as the
perpetrator makes AAA’s testimony credible—independent of her perceived propensity for truthfulness
based on gender stereotypes.
Finally, appellant attempts to cast doubt on his conviction by arguing that his advanced age
made erection and thus sex impossible. The argument is unmeritorious.
The Court finds that AAA positively identified the accused as the assailant. The elements of
simple rape were duly established by AAA’s testimony, admissions by appellant, and the prosecution’s
corroborating evidence.
 GEORGE BONGALON, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 169533
March 20, 2013

Not every instance of the laying of hands on a child constitutes the crime of child abuse under
Section 10 (a) of Republic Act No. 7610.1 Only when the laying of hands is shown beyond reasonable
doubt to be intended by the accused to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the
child as a human being should it be punished as child abuse. Otherwise, it is punished under the Revised
Penal Code.
That on or about the 11th day of May 2000, in the City of Legazpi Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully
and feloniously commit on the person of JAYSON DELA CRUZ, a twelve year-old,
Grade VI pupil of MABA Institute, Legazpi City, acts of physical abuse and/or maltreatment by
striking said JAYSON DELA CRUZ with his palm hitting the latter at his back and by slapping said minor
hitting his left cheek and uttering derogatory remarks to the latter’s family to wit: "Mga hayop kamo,
para dayo kamo digdi, Iharap mo dito ama mo" (You all animals, you are all strangers here. Bring your
father here), which acts of the accused are prejudicial to the child’s development and which demean the
intrinsic worth and dignity of the said child as a human being.
The Prosecution showed that on May 11, 2002, Jayson Dela Cruz (Jayson) and Roldan, his older
brother, both minors, joined the evening procession for the Santo Niño at Oro Site in Legazpi City; that
when the procession passed in front of the petitioner’s house, the latter’s daughter Mary Ann Rose, also
a minor, threw stones at Jayson and called him "sissy"; that the petitioner confronted Jayson and Roldan
and called them names like "strangers" and "animals"; that the petitioner struck Jayson at the back with
his hand, and slapped Jayson on the face;4 that the petitioner then went to the brothers’ house and
challenged Rolando dela Cruz, their father, to a fight, but Rolando did not come out of the house to take
on the petitioner; that Rolando later brought Jayson to the Legazpi City Police Station and reported the
incident
On his part, the petitioner denied having physically abused or maltreated Jayson. He explained
that he only talked with Jayson and Roldan after Mary Ann Rose and Cherrylyn, his minor daughters, had
told him about Jayson and Roldan’s throwing stones at them and about Jayson’s burning Cherrylyn’s
hair. He denied shouting invectives at and challenging Rolando to a fight, insisting that he only told
Rolando to restrain his sons from harming his daughters.7
To corroborate the petitioner’s testimony, Mary Ann Rose testified that her father did not hit or
slap but only confronted Jayson, asking why Jayson had called her daughters "Kimi" and why he had
burned Cherrlyn’s hair. Mary Ann Rose denied throwing stones at Jayson and calling him a "sissy." She
insisted that it was instead Jayson who had pelted her with stones during the procession. She described
the petitioner as a loving and protective father

Issue:
The petitioner asserts that he was not guilty of the crime charged; and that even assuming that
he was guilty, his liability should be mitigated because he had merely acted to protect her two minor
daughters.

Held:
Although we affirm the factual findings of fact by the RTC and the CA to the effect that the
petitioner struck Jayson at the back with his hand and slapped Jayson on the face, we disagree with their
holding that his acts constituted child abuse within the purview of the above-quoted provisions. The
records did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that his laying of hands on Jayson had been intended
to debase the "intrinsic worth and dignity" of Jayson as a human being, or that he had thereby intended
to humiliate or embarrass Jayson. The records showed the laying of hands on Jayson to have been done
at the spur of the moment and in anger, indicative of his being then overwhelmed by his fatherly
concern for the personal safety of his own minor daughters who had just suffered harm at the hands of
Jayson and Roldan. With the loss of his self-control, he lacked that specific intent to debase, degrade or
demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being that was so essential in the crime of
child abuse.
 It is not trite to remind that under the well-recognized doctrine of pro reo every doubt is
resolved in favor of the petitioner as the accused. Thus, the Court should consider all possible
circumstances in his favor.
What crime, then, did the petitioner commit?
Considering that Jayson’s physical injury required five to seven days of medical attention,19 the
petitioner was liable for slight physical injuries under Article 266 (1) of the Revised Penal Code, to wit:

Article 266. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment. — The crime of slight physical injuries
shall be punished:
1. By arresto menor when the offender has inflicted physical injuries which shall incapacitate
the offended party for labor from one to nine days, or shall require medical attendance
during the same period….xxx

The penalty for slight physical injuries is arresto menor, which ranges from one day to 30 days of
imprisonment.20 In imposing the correct penalty, however, we have to consider the mitigating
circumstance of passion or obfuscation under Article 13 (6) of the Revised Penal Code, because the
petitioner lost his reason and self-control, thereby diminishing the exercise of his will power. Passion or
obfuscation may lawfully arise from causes existing only in the honest belief of the accused. It is relevant
to mention, too, that in passion or obfuscation, the offender suffers a diminution of intelligence and
intent. With his having acted under the belief that Jayson and Roldan had thrown stones at his two
minor daughters, and that Jayson had burned Cherrlyn’s hair, the petitioner was entitled to the
mitigating circumstance of passion. Arresto menor is prescribed in its minimum period (i.e., one day to
10 days) in the absence of any aggravating circumstance that offset the mitigating circumstance of
passion. Accordingly, with the Indeterminate Sentence Law being inapplicable due to the penalty
imposed not exceeding one year, the petitioner shall suffer a straight penalty of 10 days of arresto
menor.
The award of moral damages to Jayson is appropriate. Such damages are granted in criminal
cases resulting in physical injuries. The amount of ₱5,000.00 fixed by the lower courts as moral damages
is consistent with the current jurisprudence