CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

Tweet

Search

Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated, Labor Relations, Volume II
of a 3-Volume Series 2017 Edition, 5th Revised Edition,

Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

Custom Search

Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

DebtKollect Company, Inc.

DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm

ChanRobles Intellectual Property Division

Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

November-2015 Jurisprudence

G.R. No. 192955, November 09, 2015 - EDILBERTO P. ETOM, JR., Petitioner, v. AROMA LODGING HOUSE
THROUGH EDUARDO G. LEM, PROPRIETOR AND GENERAL MANAGER, Respondent.

G.R. No. 197458, November 11, 2015 - NICANOR PINLAC Y RESOLME, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 197802, November 11, 2015 - ZUNECA PHARMACEUTICAL, AKRAM ARAIN AND/OR VENUS
ARAIN, M.D. DBA ZUNECA PHARMACEUTICAL, Petitioners, v. NATRAPHARM, INC., Respondent.

G.R. No. 179121, November 09, 2015 - MARGARITA M. BENEDICTO-MUÑOZ, Petitioner, v. MARIA
ANGELES CACHO-OLIVARES, EDGARDO P. OLIVARES, PETER C. OLIVARES, CARMELA Q. OLIVARES,
MICHAEL C. OLIVARES, ALEXANDRA B. OLIVARES, AND MELISSA C. OLIVARES, Respondents.; G.R. NO.
179128 - ABACUS SECURITIES CORPORATION AND JOEL CHUA CHIU, Petitioners, v. MARIA ANGELES
CACHO-OLIVARES, PETER C. OLIVARES, CARMELA Q. OLIVARES, MICHAEL Q. OLIVARES, ALEXANDRA B.
OLIVARES, [and] MELISSA C. OLIVARES, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 179129 SAPPHIRE SECURITIES, INC.,
Petitioner, v. MARIA ANGELES CACHO-OLIVARES, EDGARDO P. OLIVARES, PETER C. OLIVARES, CARMELA
Q. OLIVARES, MICHAEL C. OLIVARES, ALEXANDRA B. OLIVARES, MELISSA C. OLIVARES, AND THE HON.
COURT OF APPEALS, NINTH DIVISION, Respondents.

G.R. Nos. 217126-27, November 10, 2015 - CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE
OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS (SIXTH DIVISION) AND JEJOMAR ERWIN S. BINAY, JR.,
Respondents.

A.M. No. P-15-3391, November 16, 2015 - RE: INCIDENT REPORT RELATIVE TO A CRIMINAL CASE FILED
AGAINST ROSEMARIE U. GARDUCE, CLERK III, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT (OCC), REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT (RTC), PARANAQUE CITY

G.R. No. 207041, November 09, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF
THE CITY PROSECUTOR, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ROXAS CITY, Petitioner, v. JESUS A. ARROJADO,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 176908, November 11, 2015 - PURISIMO M. CABAOBAS, EXUPERIO C. MOLINA, GILBERTO V.
OPINION, VICENTE R. LAURON, RAMON M. DE PAZ, JR., ZACARIAS E. CARBO, JULITO G. ABARRACOSO,
DOMINGO B. GLORIA, AND FRANCISCO P. CUMPIO, Petitioners, v. PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS, PHILIPPINES,
INC., Respondents.

G.R. No. 196083, November 11, 2015 - MILAGROS C. REYES, Petitioner, v. FELIX P. ASUNCION,
Respondent.

A.C. No. 10671, November 25, 2015 - JOSEPH C. CHUA, Complainant, v. ATTY. ARTURO M. DE CASTRO,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 199601, November 23, 2015 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK (NOW BDO
UNIBANK, INC., Petitioner, v. JOSEPHINE D. GOMEZ, Respondent.
G.R. No. 173864, November 23, 2015 - BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS, Petitioner, v. AGUSTIN LIBO-ON,
Respondent.

A.C. No. 10737, November 09, 2015 - ROLANDO TOLENTINO, Complainant, v. ATTY. RODIL L. MILLADO
AND ATTY. FRANCISCO B. SIBAYAN, Respondents.

G.R. No. 193158, November 11, 2015 - PHILIPPINE HEALTH INSURANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.
OUR LADY OF LOURDES HOSPITAL, Respondent.

G.R. No. 214502, November 25, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FRANCO
DARMO DE GUZMAN Y YANZON, A.K.A. DARMO YAZON Y CORTEZ, A.K.A. FRANCO DE GUZMAN Y
CORTEZ, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 202611, November 23, 2015 - ABNER MANGUBAT, Petitioner, v. BELEN MORGA-SEVA,
Respondent.

A.C. No. 7353, November 16, 2015 - NELSON P. VALDEZ, Petitioner, v. ATTY. ANTOLIN ALLYSON DABON,
JR., Respondent.

G.R. No. 197925, November 09, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDWIN
DALAWIS Y HIDALGO, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 213330, November 16, 2015 - ALELI C. ALMADOVAR, GENERAL MANAGER ISAWAD, ISABELA
CITY, BASILAN PROVINCE, Petitioner, v. CHAIRPERSON MA. GRACIA M. PULIDO-TAN, COMMISSION ON
AUDIT, Respondent.

G.R. No. 202859, November 11, 2015 - NEW FILIPINO MARITIME AGENCIES, INC., TAIYO NIPPON KISEN
CO., LTD., AND ANGELINA T, RIVERA, Petitioners, v. VINCENT H. D ATAYAN -HEIR OF SIMON VINCENT H.
DATAYAN III, Respondent.
A.M. No. MTJ-10-1760, November 16, 2015 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Petitioner, v.
RETIRED JUDGE FILEMON A. TANDINCO, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES (MTCC), CALBAYOG CITY,
SAMAR AND RONALDO C. DIONEDA, CLERK OF COURT OF THE MTCC, CALBAYOG CITY, SAMAR,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 195654, November 25, 2015 - REYNALDO INUTAN, HELEN CARTE, NOEL AYSON, IVY CABARLE,
NOELJAMILI, MARITES HULAR, ROLITOAZUCENA, RAYMUNDO TUNOG, ROGER BERNAL, AGUSTEV ESTRE,
MARILOU SAGUN, AND ENRIQUE LEDESMA, JR., Petitioners, v. NAPAR CONTRACTING & ALLIED
SERVICES, NORMAN LACSAMANA, JONAS INTERNATIONAL, INC., AND PHILIP YOUNG, Respondent.

G.R. No. 179257, November 23, 2015 - UNITED ALLOY PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. UNITED
COCONUT PLANTERS BANK [UCPB] AND/OR PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION [PDIC],
JAKOB VAN DER SLUIS AND ROBERT T.CHUA, Respondent.

G.R. No. 187464, November 25, 2015 - CABIB ALONTO TANOG, Petitioner, v. HON. RASAD G.
BALINDONG, Acting Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, 12th Judicial Region, MARAWI CITY,
AND GAPO SIDIC, Respondent.

G.R. No. 205760, November 09, 2015 - FRANCISCO T. INOCENCIO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 199087, November 11, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JERRY
PUNZALAN AND PATRICIA PUNZALAN, Accused-Appellants.

G.R. No. 203883, November 10, 2015 - HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OF TALAYAN VILLAGE INC.,
Petitioner, v. J.M. TUASON & CO., INC., TALAYAN HOLDINGS, INC., QUEZON CITY MAYOR AND
EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION (NOW BANCO DE ORO BANKING CORPORATION), Respondents.;
G.R. NO. 203930 - J.M. TUASON & CO., AND TALAYAN HOLDINGS, INC., Petitioner, v. HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION OF TALAYAN VILLAGE, INC. AND QUEZON CITY MAYOR, Respondent.

G.R. No. 217456, November 24, 2015 - MARILOU S. LAUDE AND MESEHILDA S. LAUDE, Petitioners, v.
HON. ROLINE M. GINEZ-JABALDE, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 74, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF THE CITY
OF OLONGAPO; HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; HON. ALBERT F. DEL ROSARIO,
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS; HON. GEN. GREGORIO PIO P. CATAPANG, CHIEF
OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; HON. EMILIE FE DELOS SANTOS, CHIEF CITY
PROSECUTOR OF OLONGAPO CITY; AND L/CPL JOSEPH SCOTT PEMBERTON, Respondent.

G.R. No. 202664, November 20, 2015 - MANUEL LUIS C. GONZALES AND FRANCIS MARTIN D. GONZALES,
Petitioners, v. GJH LAND, INC. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS S.J. LAND, INC.), CHANG HWAN JANG A.K.A.
STEVE JANG, SANG RAK KIM, MARIECHU N. YAP, AND ATTY. ROBERTO P. MALLARI II, Respondent.

G.R. No. 193821, November 23, 2015 - PHIL-AIR CONDITIONING CENTER, Petitioner, v. RCJ LINES AND
ROLANDO ABADILLA, JR., Respondent.

A.C. No. 8507, November 10, 2015 - ELENA BIETE LEONES VDA. DE MILLER, Complainant, v. ATTY.
ROLANDO B. MIRANDA, Respondent.

G.R. No. 211056, November 10, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BIENVENIDO
REMEDIOS y SARAMOSING, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 205915, November 10, 2015 - ASSET POOL A (SPV-AMC), INC., Petitioner, v. CLARK
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent. - JUDGMENT [BASED ON COMPROMISE AGREEMENT]

G.R. No. 203087, November 23, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDGARDO
ZABALA y BALADA AND ROMEO ALBIUS JR. y BAUTISTA, Accused-Appellants.

G.R. No. 201830, November 10, 2015 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, REPRESENTED BY HON. CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES, IN HER CAPACITY AS TANODBAYAN, AND HON. GERARD A. MOSQUERA, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON, Petitioners, v. ROGER F. BORJA, Respondent.; G.R. NO.
201882 - LERMA S. PRUDENTE AND DAMASO T. AMBRAY, Petitioners, v. ROGER F. BORJA, Respondent.

G.R. No. 188372, November 25, 2015 - BEAMS PHILIPPINE EXPORT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.
MARIANITA CASTILLO AND NIDA QUIRANTE, Respondents.
G.R. No. 195194, November 25, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KAMAD
AKMAD Y ULIMPAIN @ "MHADS" AND BAINHOR AKMAD Y ULIMPAIN @ "BHADS,", Accused-Appellants.

G.R. No. 188118, November 23, 2015 - FEDERAL PHOENIX ASSURANCE CO., LTD., Petitioner, v. FORTUNE
SEA CARRIER, INC., Respondent.

G.R. No. 207105, November 10, 2015 - ARSENIO A. AGUSTIN, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
AND SALVADOR S. PILLOS, Respondent.

G.R. No. 210616, November 25, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDDIE SALIBAD
Y DILO, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 174115, November 09, 2015 - PUNONGBAYAN AND ARAULLO (P&A), BENJAMIN R.
PUNONGBAYAN., JOSE G. ARAULLO, GREGORIO S. NAVARRO, ALFREDO V. DAMIAN AND JESSIE C.
CARPIO, Petitioners, v. ROBERTO PONCE LEPON, Respondent.

G.R. No. 189229, November 23, 2015 - REYNALDO NOBLADO, JIMMY ARAGON, ARTURO MALAYO,
MARCIANO VICTORIA, ELINO DALANON, JOSE ESTRIL, DOMINGO MALUPENG, ALFREDIE RAYTA,
ROMULO RECOMES, ADRIAN VERCELES, RUEL MAD RON A, RUBEN MIRAFUENTES, ARNULFO MALAYO,
JAIME REMIAS, JELMER BEROLLA, EDIL CASTILLO, FELICIDAD ROSIMA, MITCHEL VICTORIA, DANIEL
MALUPENG, ZOSIMO RANAS, ROSIETA RAYTA, RAFAEL TUMIMBANG, FLORENCIO VICTORIA, ERNESTO
VICTORIA, CERIA ORTIZ, RAUL ADRA, AND VICENTE CUACHIN, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS,
NAMELY: LILIA LORENO CUACHIN, NILO L. CUACHIN, LEONARDO L. CUACHIN, JUDITH L. CUACHIN, VILMA
CUACHIN LLANZANA, ELVIE CUACHIN MANTES, CRISTINA CUACHIN SARCIA, LILIBETH CUACHIN BELORIA,
AIDA CUACHIN MIRANDILLA, JULIET CUACHIN AWA, Petitioners, v. PRTNCESITA K. ALFONSO,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 208842, November 10, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. REYNALDO
SIMBULAN ARCEO, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 162032, November 25, 2015 - RURAL BANK OF MALASIQUI, INC., Petitioner, v. ROMEO M.
CERALDE AND EDUARDO M. CERALDE, JR., Respondent.
G.R. No. 175378, November 11, 2015 - MULTI-INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS DATA SYSTEM, INC.,
Petitioner, v. RUEL MARTINEZ, Respondent.

A.M. No. P-11-2992 (Formerly A.M. No. 11-8-156-RTC), November 09, 2015 - OFFICE OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. ROGER D. COREA, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 39,
POLOMOLOK, SOUTH COTOBATO, Respondent.

G.R. No. 215471, November 23, 2015 - MARLOW NAVIGATION PHILIPPINES INC., MARLOW NAVIGATION
CO. LTD./ CYPRUS, LIGAYA C. DELA CRUZ AND ANTONIO GALVEZ, JR., Petitioners, v. BRAULIO A. OSIAS,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 210603, November 25, 2015 - EDITHA B. SAGUIN AND LANI D. GRADO, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 209284, November 10, 2015 - RENEE B. TANCHULING, AND THE HEIRS OF VICENTE N. Y.
TANCHULING, NAMELY REBECCA TANCHULING-TAN, RITA TANCHULING-MAPA, ROSEMARIE
TANCHULING-SALINAS, AND VINCENT RAYMOND B. TANCHULING, Petitioners, v. SOTERO C. CANTELA,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 206593, November 10, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAMONITO B.
ASIGNAR, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 213679, November 25, 2015 - JAY H. LICAYAN, Petitioner, v. SEACREST MARITIME
MANAGEMENT, INC., CLIPPER FLEET MANAGEMENT, A/S AND/OR REDENTOR ANAYA, Respondent.

G.R. No. 192629, November 25, 2015 - FILINVEST LAND, INC., Petitioner, v. EDUARDO R. ADIA, LITO M.
ADIGUE, CANDIDO M. AMPARO, MARINO S. AMPARO, RODOLFO S. AMPARO, FLORDELIZA L. ARIAS,
BALBINO M. ATIENZA, PEDRO M. ATIENZA, DALMACIO C. AVANILLA, PASTOR M. AVANILLA, VENACIO P.
BAUTISTA, RODOLFO S. BERGADO, ENRIQUE R. BRABANTE, EMMA D. BUBAN, JUANITO A. CANDARE,
ROMEO O. CANDARE, ANTONIO M. CATAPANG, EDUARDO A. CATAPANG, GRACIANO C. CATAPANG,
HERMINIO V. CATAPANG, JUANA P. CATAPANG, REYNALDO P. CATAPANG, ROMEO A. CATAPANG,
RODOLFO A. CATAPANG, VICTORIANO A. CATAPANG, JUAN D. CENTOS, FERNANDO B. CERNETCHEZ,
EDUARDO C. CREENCIA, ARNEL N. M. CREMA, REYNALDO B. CRISTAL, MOISES CUBCUBIN, DELSO
POBLETO, SALVADOR M. DE LEON, MELQUIADES P. DESCALSO, GREGORIO P. DINO, ROBERTO L.
DOMINO, CELSO R. ESCALLAR, ARMAND P. ESCUADRO, ELISA C. FELICIANO, PASTOR C. FERRER, ERLINDO
M. FORMARAN, LEONARDO D. GARINO, RAFAEL R. GRANADO, ALMARIO IBANEZ, CASIMIRO P. IBANEZ,
CEFERINO P. IBANEZ, MIGUEL V. IBANEZ, MONTANO V. IBANEZ, CESAR N. JECIEL, ALFREDO B. LAURENTE,
EFIGENIA B. LAURENTE, CELSO C. MEDINA, EDUARDO A. PANGANIBAN, ROMEO C. PASCUA, DANILO L.
PAULMINO, LAURO A. PEGA, LEONARDO M. PEREZ, FELIPE V. PETATE, LEONARDO V. PETATE,
ESTANISLAO PORTO, MAXIMO D. PORTO, GREGORIO L. REYES, JOSE L. REYES, LEONARDO M.
SALINGYAGA, DEMETRIO A. SALONGA, MANOLITO G. SORILLA, HERMOGENES L. TORRES, JUANITO M.
TORRES, MARIANO B. TAGLE, MARIO D. TAGLE, AND SANCHO V. VILLA, Respondents.

G.R. No. 185058, November 09, 2015 - JOVITA S. MANALO, Petitioner, v. ATENEO DE NAGA UNIVERSITY,
FR. JOEL TABORA AND MR. EDWIN BERNAL, Respondent.

G.R. No. 217380, November 23, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDUARDO
CUESTA Y ASTORGA A.K.A BOYET CUBILLA Y QUINTANA, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 189509, November 23, 2015 - METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, v. G & P
BUILDERS, INCORPORATED, SPOUSES ELPIDIO AND ROSE VIOLET PARAS, SPOUSES JESUS AND MA.
CONSUELO PARAS AND VICTORIA PARAS, Respondents.

G.R. No. 208844, November 10, 2015 - F & S VELASCO COMPANY, INC., IRWIN J. SEVA, ROSINA B.
VELASCO-SCRIBNER, MERCEDEZ SUNICO, AND JOSE SATURNINO O. VELASCO, Petitioners, v. DR.
ROMMEL L. MADRID, PETER PAUL L. DANAO, MANUEL L. ARIMADO, AND MAUREEN R. LABALAN,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 170458, November 23, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY ASSET
PRIVATIZATION TRUST, NOW PRIVATIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OFFICE (PMO), Petitioner, v. VIRGILIO
M. TATLONGHARI, DOMINGO P. UY, GUILLERMO P. UY, HINOSAN MOTORS CORPORATION, AND
WESTERN GUARANTY CORPORATION, Respondents.
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2015 > November 2015 Decisions > G.R. No. 197458,
November 11, 2015 - NICANOR PINLAC Y RESOLME, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.:

G.R. No. 197458, November 11, 2015 - NICANOR PINLAC Y RESOLME, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 197458, November 11, 2015 - NICANOR PINLAC Y RESOLME, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 197458, November 11, 2015

NICANOR PINLAC Y RESOLME, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

DECISION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

This Petition filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the March 29, 2011 Decision1 of the Court
of Appeals (CA) which affirmed with modification the ruling2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Olongapo City, Branch 72, finding petitioner Nicanor Pinlac (petitioner) guilty of violation of Section 5(b),
Article III of Republic Act (RA) No. 7610 (otherwise known as the Special Protection of Children Against
Child Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act), which provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

SEC. 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.

The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the
following:

xxxx

(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in
prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse: x x xChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

The prosecution established that on the evening of March 9, 1997, "AAA,"3 a 14-year old boy, went with
petitioner to the Kale Beach Resort in Subic, Olongapo City for initiation rites in a fraternity founded by
the latter. After succumbing to petitioner's "persuasion" to drink alcohol and smoke marijuana, "AAA"
lost control of himself ("nawala ako sa sarili"). While in a daze, stupor, or near total unconsciousness,
petitioner isolated "AAA" from his companions and other fraternity recruits, forcibly disrobed "AAA",
and performed oral sex on him by sucking his penis until he ejaculated. The following day or on March
10, 1997, petitioner again performed oral sex on "AAA" after convincing him anew to ingest alcohol and
to smoke marijuana.

Petitioner denied the charges against him. He disclaimed that he was at the Kale Beach Resort in Subic,
Olongapo City on March 9, 1997; that "AAA" underwent initiation to join a fraternity; that he isolated
"AAA" from his companions and other fraternity recruits; that he forcibly disrobed "AAA" and performed
oral sex on him; that he sucked "AAA's" penis until "AAA" ejaculated; and that on March 10, 1997, he
again performed oral sex on "AAA" after convincing the latter anew to ingest alcohol and to smoke
marijuana. He claimed that he was a candidate for barangay kagawad at the time and that he was too
pre-occupied then campaigning for that post, so that he could find no time at all for some other
activities, including the commission of the alleged acts of lasciviousness imputed to him. He insisted that
this case was instigated by "BBB," "AAA's" mother, who was also running for the position of barangay
kagawad.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

The RTC did not lend credence to the version of petitioner. In a Decision dated January 6, 2010, it found
petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of having violated Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610,
thus:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

On the basis of the foregoing evidence presented, the Court finds and so holds that the prosecution has
presented the required evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt [of]
[violation of Section 05 (b) of Article III of Republic Act 7610.

Prosecution evidence would show that on March 9, 1997 accused brought the victim [AAA,] a minor,
together with other persons to Kale Beach Resort located in Subic at around 7:00 o'clock in the evening
as part of their initiation as x x x recruits of the fraternity founded by the accused. At the said place, the
accused let [AAA] take alcohol, marijuana, and drugs as part of their initiation. After taking drugs and
marijuana the victim lost control of himself (nawala sa sarili) because he was "high["] at that time.
Seeing the situation of the victim, the accused asked their companions to leave the place leaving him
(accused) and the victim in the said place. While the victim was [in that] condition, and taking advantage
of such condition of the victim, the accused sucked his penis. The following day, particularly on March
10, 1997, the accused did the same thing to the victim, that is, sucking again the minor victim's penis
while lying on the sand. Before the accused sucked his penis, the accused [first] took off x x x his shirt
and pants. The victim was [then still] drunk and "high" on drugs.

It was very clear that the prosecution was able to present a complete picture detailing how the accused
sexually abused the minor victim by sucking his penis [on] the night of March 9, 1997 and also on the
following day while the victim was under the influence of liquor and dangerous drugs.

On the other hand, accused['s] defense is merely denial. He denied having in [his] company x x x the
victim on said dates. His denial was also corroborated by a witness who happened to be his friend. The
court is not persuaded by the version of the accused insinuating that the filing of the instant case was
concocted and instigated by the mother of the minor victim and that the victim had asked forgiveness
for the same. For one, it is very apparent that the accused was just concocting [a] story to exculpate
himself. Accused stated that there was no occasion on said dates and prior thereto that he was with the
victim because he was always with Leslie Enciro who always accompanied him in his campaign sorties as
a candidate for barangay kagawad. This is, however, hard to believe. The testimony of Leslie Enciro that
there was no time that she was not [in] the company of the accused on said dates due to their campaign
activities even made the defense more unreliable. Denial and alibi are the weakest defense in criminal
cases. (People vs. Bulan 459 SCRA 550). Settled is the rule that denial is essentially the weakest defense
and it can never overcome an affirmative testimony particularly when it comes from the mouth of a
credible witness (People vs. Mendoza 450 SCRA 328).

xxxx

Section 5(b) of Republic Act 7610 provides:

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.

The penalty of in its medium period, to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the
following:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

xxxx

(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in
prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse: x x xChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Undoubtedly, the accused's act of sucking the penis of the minor victim amounts to lascivious conduct.
Hence, there is no doubt that the accused is guilty of the crime charged against
him.4ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Thereafter, the RTC disposed decretally as follows -

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, the Court finds the accused NICANOR PINLAC Y
RESOLME GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of Section 5 (b) of Republic Act 7610 (Special
Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act) and hereby sentences
him to suffer the indeterminate imprisonment of TWELVE YEARS (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of
Reclusion Temporal as the minimum to FIFTEEN (15) YEARS SIX MONTHS and TWENTY DAYS of Reclusion
Temporal as the maximum, and for the accused to pay the sum of THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P30,000.00) as moral damages.

SO ORDERED.5ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Proceedings before the Court of Appeals

On appeal, petitioner challenged "AAA's" credibility by citing alleged inconsistencies in his testimony vis-
a-vis the testimony of his mother, "BBB." He likewise questioned why it took "AAA" 10 months to report
the crime to the authorities. He also asserted that the judge who penned the Decision was not the
judge6 who tried and heard the case, hence, did not allegedly have the opportunity to personally
observe the deportment and demeanor of the prosecution witnesses who gave the testimonies that led
to his conviction.

Dismissing petitioner's arguments, the CA held that the government's case was erected upon actual,
incontrovertible facts which proved beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner did in fact commit the
crime set forth under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 i.e., performing lascivious acts upon a child
exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse, and that the child-victim, in this case "AAA" as
clearly and specifically spelled out in the trial court's discussion, was below 18 years of age.

The CA stressed that -

In the instant case, the act of accused-appellant in disrobing the minor AAA, who was then under the
influence of illegal drugs and liquor after he was made to take them by accused-appellant, and
thereafter, sucking AAA's penis, is clearly a lascivious conduct performed by accused-appellant on AAA.

A child is deemed exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse, when the child indulges
in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct (a) for money, profit, or any other consideration; or (b) under
the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group. The law covers not only a situation in which a
child, through coercion or intimidation, engages in any lascivious conduct. The very title of Section 5,
Article III (Child prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse) of RA 7610 shows that it applies not only to a child
subjected to prostitution but also to a child subjected to other sexual abuse. A child is deemed subjected
to "other sexual abuse" when he or she indulges in lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of
any adult. In the instant case, accused-appellant influenced minor AAA to go to Sta. Cruz, Zambales;
made him to take' drugs and drink liquor; and when he was already high and out of control, accused-
appellant performed lascivious conduct on AAA.
When the said lascivious conduct was performed on 09 and 10 March 1997 by accused-appellant on
AAA, the latter was fourteen years old. As indicated in his Certificate of Live Birth (Exhibit "A"), AAA was
born on 21 August 1982. During the pre-trial, the defense stipulated on AAA's birth certificate (Exhibit
"A"). BBB, the mother of AAA, also testified that AAA was born on 21 August 1982. AAA further testified
that he was born on 21 August 1982.7ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

The CA gave short shrift to petitioner's pale and stale alibi and denial of the sexual abuse charges,
appropriately characterizing these as "weak and self-serving." The CA held such a characterization both
telling and compelling in light of "AAA's" positive and categorical assertions graphically detailing the
lewd and lascivious acts perpetrated by the petitioner.

Regarding "AAA's" alleged delay of 10 months in reporting the incident to the authorities, the CA held
that there is no behavioral norm that victims of sexual abuse follow in respect to the time-frame for
making such report, each case being determined by its peculiar milieu and setting; and that assuming for
argument's sake that there was indeed some delay in this case, such delay should not be construed as
implying that the accusation might not have been true at all especially in light of the fact that the victim
was a minor.8

Anent petitioner's contention that the judge who wrote the Decision was not the judge who presided
over the trial and did not have the opportunity to personally observe the deportment and demeanor of
the witnesses and hence was not in a position to calibrate the credibility of these witnesses, the CA
ruled that -

x x x The fact that the judge who heard the evidence was not himself the one who prepared, signed and
promulgated the decision constitutes no compelling reason to jettison his findings and conclusions, and
does not per se render his decision void. The validity of a decision is not necessarily impaired by the fact
that its ponente only took over from a colleague who had earlier presided at the trial. x x
x9ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

On March 29, 2011, the CA rendered judgment as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 06 January 2010 of the
Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City, Branch 72, in Criminal Case No. 79-1999 finding accused-appellant
Nicanor Pinlac y Resolme guilty beyond reasonable [doubt] for violation of Section 5 (b), Article III of
Republic Act No. 7610, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that, accused-appellant is hereby sentenced
to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as minimum,
to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P15,000.00;
and for him to pay the victim AAA the amounts of P20,000.00 as civil indemnity, and P15,000.00 as
moral damages. Costs against accused-appellant.
cralawlawlibrary

SO ORDERED.10ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Hence, this Petition raising the sole issue of:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Whether x x x the Court of Appeals erred in giving credence to the testimony of

"AAA."11ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Our Ruling

Petitioner claims that the CA erred in its "findings of facts."12 He avers that the factual finding of the CA
that the crime was committed at Kale Beach Resort, Sta. Cruz, Zambales was erroneous; he posits that
Kale Beach Resort is in Olongapo City and not Sta. Cruz which is another local government unit.13
Petitioner next insists that the appellate court erred in its assessment of "AAA's" credibility.14

The Petition lacks merit.

It must be stressed that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review filed under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court. The issue raised by petitioner as well as his arguments pertains to factual findings
which are not within the ambit of a petition for review. Our ruling in Ortega v. People15 is pertinent:
"The petition being a petition for review, the jurisdiction of this Court is confined to reviewing questions
of law."16

In any event, we find no cogent reason to set aside the findings of the trial court which were affirmed by
the CA. After a thorough review of the records of this case, we find that the CA Decision squares with
the evidence and with the law as well as with the jurisprudential doctrines laid down by this Court. Both
the RTC of Olongapo City, Branch 72 and the CA reached the correct conclusion that petitioner was
indeed guilty beyond reasonable doubt of having violated Section 5(b), Article in of RA 7610. We find, as
did the RTC and the CA, that the State had satisfactorily established the following elements constitutive
of the offense charged: "(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 sexual abuse; and (3) the
child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age."17 In this case "AAA" was 14 years and eight
months old when he was subjected to sexual abuse by the herein petitioner on March 9 and 10, 1997.
This Court thus finds no reversible error in the assailed Decision.
Penalties and Awards of Damages

Under Section 5, Article III of RA 7610, the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to
reclusion perpetua shall be imposed on those who commit acts of lasciviousness with a child exploited in
prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. Notwithstanding the fact that RA 7610 is a special law,
the petitioner in this case may enjoy the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.18 In applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty next lower in degree is prision mayor in its medium period to
reclusion temporal in its minimum period. Thus, the CA correctly imposed the indeterminate sentence
of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months
and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum.

The CA likewise correctly ordered petitioner to pay "AAA" the following amounts: P20,000.00 in the
concept of civil indemnity, P15,000.00 as moral damages, and a fine of P15,000.00 pursuant to Section
31(f), Article XII of RA 7610.19 In addition, this Court also orders petitioner to pay "AAA" P15,000.00 by
way of exemplary damages.20

Finally, we note that the RTC, in an Order21 dated January 21, 2010, allowed petitioner to enjoy his
provisional liberty by posting an appeal bond thru Monarch Insurance Company, Inc. in the amount of
P80,000.00 under Bond No. JCR(2) 1004159.22 In conformity with this Decision, the bondsman,
Monarch Insurance Company, Inc. is directed to surrender petitioner to the court of origin. In turn, the
RTC of Olongapo City, Branch 72 is directed to order the transmittal of petitioner to the Bureau of
Corrections.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated March 29, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
GR. CR. No. 33169 finding petitioner Nicanor Pinlac y Resolme guilty beyond reasonable doubt of having
violated Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610, and sentencing him to suffer the indeterminate
penalty of imprisonment ranging from eight (8) years and one (1) day oiprision mayor, as minimum, to
seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to pay
the victim "AAA" the amounts of P20,000.00 as civil indemnity, P15,000.00 as moral damages, and
P15,000.00 by way of fine is AFFIRMED, subject to the MODIFICATIONS that petitioner is also ordered to
pay "AAA" P15,000.00 in the concept of exemplary damages. All damages awarded shall earn interest at
the rate of 6% per annum from finality of this Decision until fully paid.

The bondsman, Monarch Insurance Company, Inc. is DIRECTED to surrender the person of petitioner to
the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City, Branch 72 within 10 days from notice and to make a REPORT
of the fact of surrender to this Court, also within 10 days. The Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City,
Branch 72 is DIRECTED to order or cause the transfer of petitioner to the Bureau of Corrections within
10 days from the time petitioner was turned over, and to make a report to this Court of such transfer,
also within 10 days. Finally, the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to make a report within 10 days of
petitioner's confinement thereat.

cralawlawlibrary

SO ORDERED.

cralawlawlibrary

Carpio, (Chairperson), Reyes,*Perlas-Bernabe,** and Leonen, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

* Per Special Order No. 2274 dated November 10, 2015.

** Per Special Order No. 2271 dated November 9, 2015.

1Rollo, pp. 36-62; permed by Associate Justice Cclia C. Librea-Leagogo and concurred in by Associate
Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Michael P. Elbinias.

2 Id. at 27-34; penned by Judge Richard A. Paradeza.

3 Pursuant to Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence Against Women and Their
Children Act of 2004" and its implementing rules, the real name of the victim, together with that of
her/his immediate family members, is withheld and fictitious initials instead are used to represent
her/him, both to protect her/his privacy. [People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 (2006)]

4Rollo, pp. 32-34.

5 Id. at 34.
6 This case was originally tried by Judge Eliodoro G. Ubiadas, and at a certain stage of the proceedings
by Judge Josefina D. Farrales.

7Rollo, p. 53.

8People v. Llanas, Jr., 636 Phil. 611, 623 (2010).

9Rollo, p. 56.

10 Id. at 59.

11 Id. at 14.

12 Id. at 15.

13 Id. at 16.

14 Id. at 17-18.

15 595 Phil. 1103 (2008).

16 Id. at 1113.

17People v. Fragante, 657 Phil. 566, 584 (2011).

18 See People v. Leonardo, 638 Phil. 161, 198 (2010).

19 Section 31. Common Penal Provisions.

xxxx

(f) A fine to be determined by the court shall be imposed and administered as a cash fund by the
Department of Social Welfare and Development and disbursed for the rehabilitation of each child victim,
or any immediate member of his family if the latter is the perpetrator of the offense.

20People v. Rayon, Sr., G.R. No. 194236, January 30, 2013, 689 SCRA 745, 761.

21 Records, p. 197.

22 Id. at 200.

G.R. No. 197458, November 11, 2015 - NICANOR PINLAC Y RESOLME, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Back to Home | Back to Main

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

1901

1902
1903

1904

1905

1906

1907

1908

1909

1910

1911

1912

1913

1914

1915

1916

1917

1918

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

1925

1926

1927
1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

1950

1951

1952
1953

1954

1955

1956

1957

1958

1959

1960

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977
1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002
2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

cralaw

Go!

Copyright © 1998 - 2017 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

RED