PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDMUND R. GONZALEZ, JR., ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
SALAZAR-FERNANDO, J.:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court finds accused EDMUND R. GONZALEZ, JR. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt in all three (3) counts of the crime of Violation of Sections 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610 and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment in
1) Criminal Case No. FC-10-0561, a penalty of fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of Reclusion Temporal minimum as minimum to twenty (20) years of Reclusion Temporal maximum as maximum including the accessory penalty provided under the law.
He is further ordered to indemnify “AAA” the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages. Also to pay a fine of P25,000.00 to be administered by the Department of Social Welfare and Development as cash fund for the purpose provided under the law.
2) Criminal Case No. FC-10-0562, a penalty of fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of Reclusion Temporal minimum as minimum to twenty (20) years of Reclusion Temporal maximum as maximum including the accessory penalty provided under the law.
He is further ordered to indemnify “AAA” the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages. Also to pay a fine of P25,000.00 to be administered by the Department of Social Welfare and Development as cash fund for the purpose provided under the law.
3) In Criminal Case No. FC-10-0563, a penalty of fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of Reclusion Temporal minimum as minimum to twenty (20) years of Reclusion Temporal maximum as maximum including the accessory penalty provided under the law.
He is further ordered to indemnify “AAA” the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages. Also to pay a fine of P25,000.00 to be administered by the Department of Social Welfare and Development as cash fund for the purpose provided under the law.
SO ORDERED.”
The facts are:
Accused-appellant Edmund R. Gonzalez, Jr. (Gonzalez for brevity) was charged with three (3) counts of Violation of Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610 in three (3) separate criminal Informations,[2] the accusatory portions of which read:
a) Criminal Case No. FC-10-0561
“That on or about the 26th day of January, 2009, in the City of Legazpi, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design and actuated by lust, using his influence as an adult, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally engage in sexual intercourse with one “AAA”, a 15 year old minor, which demeans her intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being, to her damage and prejudice.”
b) Criminal Case No. FC-10-0562
“That on or about the 7th day of February, 2009, in the City of Legazpi, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with lewd design and actuated by lust, using his influence as an adult, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally engage in lascivious conduct with one “AAA”, a 15 year old minor, by placing himself on top of her and then touching her breasts, and thereafter by removing her panty and trying to insert his penis into her vagina, which demeans her intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being, to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
c) Criminal Case No. FC-10-0563
“That on or about the 21st day of March, 2009, in the City of Legazpi, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design and actuated by lust, using his influence as an adult, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally engage in sexual intercourse with one “AAA”, a 15 year old minor, which demeans her intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being, to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
When arraigned on June 23, 2010,[3] accused-appellant Gonzalez, pleaded not guilty to the charges. The pre-trial conference was held on September 28, 2010 and a Pre-trial Order[4] was issued on the same date. Thereafter, joint trial on the merits ensued.
The prosecution presented “AAA,”[5] “BBB,”[6] the mother of “AAA,” Dr. Raoul V. Alcantara, Mark Belen, Juan B. Yuson, whose intended testimony was the subject of stipulation by the parties, and Dr. Adelsa Tee, as common witnesses in all the three (3) cases.
Testifying as the private complainant in the three (3) cases, “AAA” declared that: she was fourteen (14) years old in January, 2009, having been born on February 16, 1994; sometime in January 2009, she had a misunderstanding with her mother, so she decided to live with accused-appellant Gonzalez who is the father of her classmates Erika Gonzalez (Erika for brevity) and Erwin Gonzalez (Erwin for brevity), who are twins; since her father died when she was in grade four, she has not experienced fatherly love since then; accused-appellant Gonzalez asked her mother’s permission that she be allowed to stay in his house; on January 26, 2009, after living continuously with accused-appellant Gonzalez for sometime, she had a drinking session with him and his daughter Erika; the three (3) of them started drinking at 7:00 o’clock in the evening, consuming one (1) big bottle of Matador brandy; before midnight, Erika went upstairs to sleep, leaving her and accused-appellant Gonzalez downstairs to finish drinking the remaining liquor; as they continued drinking, accused-appellant Gonzalez stood up and told her that he wanted her to watch a pornographic movie on CD; when he played the movie, she was unmindful of it, but she remembers seeing a scene of a man and a woman having sex; while watching the movie, he asked her if he could hold her hand and she allowed him, thinking that it was all he wanted; later, he asked her if he could touch her breasts; she did not accede to his request at first, but she eventually gave in because he was too persistent; as they sat side by side, and while he was touching and mashing her breasts, he told her “naano ako”, which she did not understand at first, but she later realized that what he meant was he was getting sexually aroused; she started getting uneasy, but she did not show it to him; then, he took her hand, inserted it inside his pants and made her masturbate his penis which was already erect; meanwhile, he continued to mash her breasts one after the other; after about three (3) minutes, he unzipped his pants and put out his penis; she got carried away due to intoxication, as she straddled his lap and continued masturbating him, while he held her breasts; then, he inserted his penis into her vagina through the inner hem of her loose short pants and made a push and pull movement while straddling him; after about three (3) minutes, they changed positions; she was made to stoop with her buttocks facing him; he removed her short pants and panties, inserted his penis into her vagina and made a push and pull movement and after a while, he ejaculated; he cleaned his penis in the comfort room and she washed her vagina after him because she was having her menstruation at that time; he told her not to tell anybody about it and gave her P500.00 that she would use to redeem her cellphone which was pawned; late in the evening of February 6, 2009, she had another drinking spree with Erika and accused-appellant Gonzalez in the house of the latter; they finished drinking at about 2:00 o’clock in the morning of the following day, February 7, 2009, and consumed a one (1) liter of Matador Grande; she slept upstairs in the room of Erika, but she was awakened when she felt something heavy on top of her; when she opened her eyes she saw accused-appellant Gonzalez atop her; when she turned her back on him, she noticed that Erika was no longer in the room; he kissed her neck, embraced her and pulled her pants down to her thighs just above her knees, as she tried to pull them up; he removed his shirt and pants and lowered his underwear up to his knees; while lying side by side with her back facing him, he inserted his penis into her vagina and made a push and pull movement, but only briefly because she moved away; she moved away from him because she did not like what he was doing; it prompted him to tell her she had no manners (Wara kang ugari); after the incident, they both put their clothes on and slept on the same bed; sometime in February 2009 and after the second sexual molestation by accused-appellant Gonzalez, rashes appeared on her vagina and she had a discharge that looked like pus; she also experienced difficulty in urinating; accused-appellant Gonzalez accompanied her to a doctor who prescribed her some medicine without examining her vagina; despite the February 7, 2009 incident, she continued living with accused-appellant Gonzalez because he promised that he would not sexually molest her again; on March 20, 2009, she, Erika and accused-appellant Gonzalez had another drinking spree with Mac and Gener in the store of Willie Rey that lasted until 4:00 o’clock in the morning of March 21, 2009; after the drinking spree they all went home; when they went to bed, accused-appellant Gonzalez lied down beside her on the bed, while Erika slept on the floor; when she woke up at 8:00 o’clock in the morning of March 21, 2009, she felt accused-appellant Gonzalez mashing her breasts; Erika was on the floor and still sleeping because she was too drunk; as she lay on her side with her back against accused-appellant Gonzalez, the latter pulled down her pants and panty; he made her masturbate him, but she removed her hand; he took a baby oil from the shelves above their head, lubricated his penis and inserted it into her vagina; he made a push and pull movement while at her back, as she cried in silence; she tried to awaken Erika by throwing a pillow at her, to no avail; his penis was still erect when it penetrated her vagina, but the erection did not last long because when she pulled her pants and panty up, it was already limp; he pulled up his underwear and turned his back on her; she went downstairs and saw Erwin who asked her why she was crying; she told Erwin that she was sexually abused by his father; Erwin told her to leave the house as he disclosed that his father did the same thing to Erika; heeding Erwin, she left and proceeded to the house of her grandmother; eventually, with the help her friends’ father who is from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), she filed a case against accused-appellant Gonzalez.[7]
“BBB,” the mother of “AAA” testified that: sometime in May 2009, she was invited by some agents of the NBI regarding the sexual molestation of her daughter, “AAA,” by accused-appellant Gonzalez; she came to know accused-appellant Gonzalez in 2007 when she went out looking for her daughter “AAA” who was with his daughter Erika; after talking to her daughter, the latter confirmed that she was sexually molested on three (3) occasions by accused-appellant Gonzalez; and, she accompanied her daughter when she was examined by a doctor who issued a medical certificate.[8]
Dr. Raoul V. Alcantara, a Medico-legal Officer from the NBI testified that: on May 25, 2009, he conducted a medico-legal examination of private complainant “AAA” who was referred to him by S/Insp. Lanuza for medical examination as a victim of sexual abuse; his findings were: “There is no genital injury noted during the physical examination and genital findings reveal clear evidence of basic injuries to the hymen secondary to vaginal penetration.”; the laceration in her hymen could have been caused by a blunt object like a fully erect male penis; and, in connection with his medical examination of “AAA”, he submitted two reports, viz., a preliminary report and an official report duly signed by his superiors in Manila.[9]
Mark E. Bellen, testified that: “AAA” is her former girlfriend and he came to know her through his friend Erika; he knows accused-appellant Gonzalez who is the father of Erika; on March 21, 2009 at about 8:30 o’clock in the evening, he was with “AAA” at Washington Drive in Barangay Cruzada when she revealed to him that she was sexually molested by accused-appellant Gonzalez in the latter’s house; she was crying while narrating to him the sexual molestation that happened more than once; thus, they sought the assistance of Efren Marcha who works with the NBI; he brought “AAA” and Erika to the house of Efren Marcha; he was aware that in February and March 2009, “AAA” lived in the house of accused-appellant Gonzalez because she and Erika are friends; and, he had gone to the house of accused-appellant Gonzalez about five (5) times and even had a drinking session there with him, Erika and “AAA.”[10]
Dr. Adelsa Tee, declared that: “AAA” came to her office complaining of difficulty in urinating and vaginal discharge; after examining “AAA,” she found her to have non-gonococcal infection; while her illness is not gonorrhea, it is also a sexually transmitted disease and may have been caused by urinary tract infection; she asked “AAA” how she acquired said illness and she answered that it was through sexual contact; based on her vaginal discharge, the sexual intercourse could have happened a day or two (2) before the medical examination; and, “AAA” was under treatment from May 26, 2009 until June 16, 2009.[11]
For his part, accused-appellant Gonzalez presented himself and Erwin Lucas Gonzalez, as defense witnesses.
Accused-appellant Gonzalez testified that: he is the father of Erika who is a friend and classmate of “AAA” during the school year 2007-2008; he knows “AAA” because she would always go to their house; “AAA” started living in his house on December 2, 2008 after running away from home; on December 24, 2008, he brought her home and turned her over to her mother, telling the latter that “AAA” was hard-headed; later, however, she came back to his house; she was free to go home and return to his house anytime she wanted; his house has two bedrooms, one of which is for him, while the other is for his children, Erwin and Erika; whenever “AAA” slept in his house, she would use the room of Erwin and Erika; Erwin would give way to her and spend the night downstairs; in the evening of January 26, 2009, he, his two children and “AAA” were in his house where they all spent the night; on February 6, 2009, “AAA” and Erika slept in the bedroom, while Erwin spent the night in the living room downstairs; on February 7, 2009 at about 8:00 o’clock in the morning, when the second alleged incident of sexual molestation happened, he was inside his room, while “AAA” was in another room sleeping; he could not have sexually molested “AAA” because his children, Erika and Erwin, were around; he could not have sexually abused “AAA” on the night of March 21, 2009 because she was with Erika when they slept together in a room; there were times during her stay in his house that “AAA” would come home drunk at about 10:00 o’clock in the evening and knock at his room; she would tell him that she wanted to sleep in his room, but he would tell his children to bring her to their room; there was no instance that she spent the night in his room; during the period January 2009 to March 2009, Erika was no longer attending school, but he knows that “AAA” was enrolled in Camalig; and, sometime in May 2009, “AAA” and Erika left his house.[12]
The intended testimony of defense witness Erwin Lucas Gonzalez was stipulated upon by the parties, as they agreed that: a) whenever “AAA” slept in the house of accused-appellant Gonzalez, she would occupy the room of Erwin and Erika; b) whenever “AAA” slept in said room, Erwin would spend the night in the living room; and, c) whenever “AAA” would sleep in the house of accused-appellant Gonzalez, she would most of the time arrive late in the evening and under the influence of liquor.
On rebuttal, “AAA” declared that: the testimony of accused-appellant Gonzalez that he did not have sexual intercourse with her on January 26, 2009, February 7, 2009 and March 21, 2009 is not true; the sexual intercourse on January 26, 2009 happened when Erika and Erwin were both upstairs; there is also no truth to the testimony of accused-appellant Gonzalez that whenever she slept in his house, she and Erika would occupy the same room and Erwin would sleep in the living room downstairs; it was accused-appellant Gonzalez who provided the liquor they drank, thus his testimony that he did not tolerate drinking in his house is untrue; he did not want her and Erika to drink outside, so he would buy liquor that they would drink together at home; in the evening of March 20, 2009, she and Erika invited him to Cruzada where the three (3) of them had a drinking spree with Jener and Mac-mac until the early morning of the following day; they went home at about 2:00 o’clock in the morning; she slept on a bed in the room of Erika, together with accused-appellant Gonzalez, while Erika slept on the floor; she was still drunk and feeling dizzy at around 7:00 o’clock in the morning when she felt accused-appellant Gonzalez caressing her body; after pulling down her pants and underwear, accused-appellant Gonzalez succeeded in sexually molesting her for the third time; and, it is true that he once accompanied her to her house in Sikatuna, but his only purpose was to see her mother there.[13]
After trial, the lower court rendered the assailed judgment, hence this appeal assigning this lone error:
“1. With all due respect, the REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC, for brevity), Branch 9 of Legazpi City, Province of Albay, seriously erred when it did not consider the accused-appellant’s argument that his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him has been violated and when it finds that the prosecution has established the guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt on all three (3) counts for violation of Sec. 5, Art. III, Republic Act No. 7610, also known as “Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act.”
Accused-appellant Gonzalez raised the following issues:
16.1 WHETHER OR NOT THE RTC COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR WHEN IT DID NOT CONSIDER GONZALES’S (sic) CONTENTION THAT HIS RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION AGAINST HIM HAS BEEN VIOLATED; and
16.2 WHETHER OR NOT THE RTC COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR WHEN IT FINDS (sic) THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS ESTABLISHED THE GUILT OF GONZALES (sic) BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT ON ALL THREE (3) COUNTS FOR VIOLATION OF SEC. 5, ART. III, R.A. NO. 7610.
The appeal has no merit.
Accused-appellant Gonzalez argues that: his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him was violated because the criminal Informations in the three (3) criminal cases merely state that he violated Section 5, Art. III of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610; Section 5, Art. III of R.A. No. 7610 enumerates various ways by which an offense is committed and in these cases the Informations do not mention the specific subsections he violated; granting that the criminal Informations are in accord with substantive law, the evidence presented by the prosecution does not establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt; in this case, there is no evidence that “AAA” was exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; “AAA” testified that during the incident on January 26, 2009, she willingly engaged in sexual intercourse with him; the P500.00 he gave “AAA” after the sexual intercourse was to be used by the latter in redeeming her cellphone and not in exchange for his sexual gratification; and, the evidence adduced by the prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of innocence in his favor.
The Solicitor General counters that: accused-appellant Gonzalez does not assail the facts alleged in the Informations constituting the offense charged, as he merely points out the failure of the prosecution to designate the specific subsection he violated under Section 5, Article III of R.A. 7610; however, such failure does not constitute a violation of his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him because he was furnished with a copy of the City Prosecutor’s Resolution clearly stating that he violated Subsection (b) of Section 5, Article III of R.A. No. 7610; even if he did not treat “AAA” as a prostitute he violated Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 when he had repeated sexual intercourse with “AAA” by abusing the trust she reposed on him and using his influence over him; he also coerced her into submitting to sexual intercourse which happened after every drinking session and when she was in state of inebriation; and, a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse cannot validly give consent to a sexual intercourse with another person.
As regards the first issue, accused-appellant Gonzalez’ contention that the Informations failed to inform him of the nature and cause of the accusations against him is untenable. A perusal of the Informations shows that the same contain concise statements of the acts constituting the offense. The offense charged is clearly designated in each of the three (3) Informations, i.e., Violation of Section 5, Article III of R.A. No. 7610. Also, as correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, accused-appellant Gonzalez was furnished with a copy of the City Prosecutor’s Resolution clearly stating the specific subsection of Section 5, Article III, R.A. No. 7610 he violated.
Nonetheless, granting arguendo, that the Informations were defective because there is no designation of the subsection of Section 5, Article III of R.A. No. 7610 under which accused-appellant Gonzalez was charged, the supposed defect was cured during the pre-trial conference on September 28, 2010 when the prosecution was allowed to make the necessary rectification. It bears to note that accused-appellant Gonzalez did not interpose any objection to the manifestation of the handling prosecutor to insert in the three (3) Informations the subsection of Section 5, Article III, R.A. No. 7610 he allegedly violated, thus:
| PROS. CADAG | |
|
Considering your Honor please that it is not specifically alleged in the information and (sic) these three (3) cases, the specific provision of law of R.A. 7610 and as I read the records, the Information. . .
|
|
| COURT | |
|
Yes. You would like to be precise as to the particular provision of law?
|
|
| PROS. CADAG | |
|
Yes, your Honor.
|
|
| COURT | |
|
Alright. Make the necessary insertion.
|
|
| PROS. CADAG | |
|
Article 3, Section 5b, of Republic Act 7610
|
|
| COURT | |
|
Initial and place the date today
|
|
| PROS. CADAG | |
|
(Making the necessary insertion in the information of the phrase “Article 3, Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610” and affixing his initial and the date.)[14]
|
|
Anent the second issue, the fact that accused-appellant Gonzalez did not treat “AAA” as a prostitute does not negate the commission of the offense under Section 5(b) Article III of R.A. No. 7610.
Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, defines and penalizes sexual intercourse with, and acts of lasciviousness committed against, a child as follows:
Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. — Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.
x x x (b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period.
Paragraph (b) of Section 5, Article III of R.A. No. 7610 punishes sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct not only with a child exploited in prostitution, but also with a child subjected to other sexual abuses. It covers not only a situation where a child is abused for profit, but also where one, through coercion, intimidation or influence, engages in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child.[15]
The elements of sexual abuse under the above provision are as follows: (1) the accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) the said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and (3) the child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.[16]
Accused-appellant Gonzalez was found by the lower court to have sexual intercourse with “AAA” on three occasions, while the latter was intoxicated or under the influence of liquor. The findings of the lower court are supported by clear and convincing evidence that accused-appellant Gonzalez failed to refute. This Court defers to the findings of facts of the lower court which had the first hand opportunity to hear the testimonies of witnesses and observe their demeanor, conduct and attitude during their presentation, thus:
“The testimony “AAA” in open court was spontaneous, straightforward, and categorical, unshaken by the rigorous examination of the very able and competent lawyer of the accused. Thus, her testimony was found by the court credible and worthy of belief especially so when there is no ill-motive nor existence of grudge between the complainant and the accused that was proferred by the defense. In various cases, the High Court ruled that the testimony of young and immature victims deserve full credence. For no young woman of tender age, like the herein private complainant, would concoct a serious crime against her benefactor, like the herein accused, who took her under his shelter and provide (sic) food, pervert herself in the public trial, if she is not motivated exclusively by the desire to obtain justice for the despicable wrong against her. Also, youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth. (People vs. Basmayor, G.R. No. 182791, February 10, 2009)
Curiously, while accused-appellant Gonzalez interposed the defense of denial during the trial of these cases, he did not question in this appeal the finding of the lower court that he had sexual intercourse with “AAA” on January 26, 2009, February 7, 2009 and March 21, 2009. The only errors he assigned pertain to the alleged failure of the lower court to recognize his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him and the fact that “AAA” was not a prostitute and he did not treat her as such. Thus, it has become indubitable that accused-appellant Gonzalez engaged in sexual intercourse with “AAA.”
While “AAA” was not a minor exploited in prostitution, she was a minor subjected by accused-appellant Gonzalez to other sexual abuse. The evidence for the prosecution clearly shows that accused-appellant Gonzalez’ sexual intercourse with “AAA” were all preceded by extended drinking sprees at night that lasted until the wee hours of the morning. He provided the liquor that he, his daughter Erika, and “AAA” partook of, knowing fully well that his drinking buddies were minors and could easily become intoxicated. During the first incident, accused-appellant Gonzalez even showed a pornographic movie in order to sexually arouse not only himself, but also “AAA” who was already intoxicated. He took advantage of the intoxication and sexual arousal of “AAA” who admitted to have succumbed to his advances. Prior to the first incident of sexual molestation, “AAA” had been living with accused-appellant Gonzalez, who provided her with food and accommodation for free. As early as the first week of December 2008, “AAA” was already living with accused-appellant Gonzalez and his family. Having lost his father at a young age, she longed for a fatherly affection and treated accused-appellant Gonzalez as her father. In return, he treated her as his own daughter, provided her with food and shelter and even gave her advice about her problems. Accused-appellant Gonzalez took advantage of his influence and moral ascendancy over “AAA” in consummating the dastardly acts. It was also shown that on the second and third incidents of sexual intercourse on February 7, 2009 and March 21, 2009, accused-appellant Gonzalez coerced “AAA” into submitting to his sexual desires, by pulling down her pants and underwear, while she resisted by pulling them up.
“AAA” testified that she disliked what accused-appellant Gonzalez did to her during the second incident, but she did not leave his house because he promised that he would not do it again. She had no choice, but to continue living with him because she had nowhere to go if she left.
Having been born[17] on February 16, 1994, there is no denying that “AAA” was a minor at the time of the commission of the offenses. She was only fourteen (14) years old when she was sexually molested by accused-appellant Gonzalez on January 26, 2009 and February 7, 2009 and only fifteen (15) years old when he had sexual intercourse with her for the third time on March 21, 2009.
The prosecution had successfully established the presence of all the elements of the offense of Violation of Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610 in these cases. Thus, the lower court did not err in convicting accused-appellant Gonzalez of the offenses charged and in imposing the proper penalties therefor.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Joint Judgment dated December 11, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City, Branch 9 in Criminal Cases Nos. FC-10-0561, FC-10-0562 and FC-10-0563 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
Bruselas, Jr., A.D., and Gaerlan, S.H., JJ., concur.
[1] Criminal Case No. FC-10-0561 Record, pp. 231-254; Criminal Case No. FC-10-0562 Record, pp. 157-180; and Criminal Case No. FC-10-0563 Record, pp. 158-181
[2] Criminal Case No. FC-10-0561 Record, pp. 1-2; Criminal Case No. FC-10-0562 Record, pp. 1-2; and Criminal Case No. FC-10-0563 Record, pp. 1-2
[3] Records, Criminal Case Nos. FC-10-0561, p. 53; FC-10-0562, p. 52; FC-10-0563, p. 52.
[4] Criminal Case No. FC-10-0561 Record, pp. 79; Criminal Case No. FC-10-0562 Record, pp. 67-69; and Criminal Case No. FC-10-0563 Record, pp. 67-69
[5] The name of the victim is withheld to protect her identity and privacy, People vs. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419, 425-426, citing Sec. 40, Rule on Violence Against Women and their Children; Sec. 63 Rule XI, Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2002.
[6] The name of the mother of the victim is withheld to protect the identity of the latter, Id.
[7] TSN, October 29, 2010; November 12, 2010; November 19, 2010; December 3, 2010; and February 18, 2011
[8] TSN, March 11, 2011
[9] TSN, April 8, 2011
[10] TSN, June 3, 2011
[11] TSN, June 17, 2011
[12] TSN, September 30, 2011; October 7, 2011; October 14, 2011; November 11, 2011; November 25, 2011; and, February 24, 2012
[13] TSN, August 3, 2012
[14] TSN, September 28, 2010, p. 7
[15] Flordeliz v. People, G.R. No. 186441, March 3, 2010, 614 SCRA 225, 234.
[16] Amployo v. People, G.R. No. 157718, 26 April 2005, 457 SCRA 282, 295.
[1]7 As evidenced by “AAA”’s Certificate of Live Birth, Exhibit “C”, series, Criminal Case No. FC-10-0561, p. 152