Uddin v. People
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The case involves Shariff Uddin y Sali (petitioner) who was charged with two criminal offenses. The first charge, under Criminal Case No. L-10872, was for violation of Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610, commonly known as the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act. The Information alleged that on February 20, 2016, the petitioner grabbed a 13-year-old minor, touched her private parts, and then threw her into a ravine. The second charge, under Criminal Case No. L-10873, was for Attempted Murder under Article 248 in relation to Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code. This charge stemmed from the same incident, alleging that after committing sexual abuse, the petitioner threw the minor into a ravine with the intent to kill and by taking advantage of superior strength, to conceal his crime. 2. Procedural History: Following the filing of the two criminal Informations, the petitioner pleaded not guilty to both charges. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 68, xxxxxxxxxxx, after trial, rendered a Decision on July 4, 2018, convicting the petitioner of both violation of Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 and Attempted Murder. The petitioner appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). In its Decision dated June 14, 2019, the CA affirmed the conviction with modifications to the penalties imposed. The petitioner's subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the CA in a Resolution dated September 24, 2019. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari. 3. The Petition: The petitioner, Shariff Uddin y Sali, filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. He assails the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed his conviction for Lascivious Conduct (under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610) and Attempted Murder. The core of the petitioner's challenge, as presented to the Supreme Court, is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming his conviction for these two offenses. The Supreme Court, in its review, ultimately found the petition to be without merit, affirming the conviction for Lascivious Conduct but modifying the conviction for Attempted Murder to Attempted Homicide, and adjusting the penalties and damages accordingly.
Issue(s)
Whether the CA erred in affirming petitioner's conviction for Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610. Whether the CA erred in affirming petitioner's conviction for Attempted Murder under Article 248, in relation to Article 6 of the RPC.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari, affirming the Court of Appeals' decision with modifications. Petitioner Shariff Uddin y Sali was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 and Attempted Homicide under Article 249, in relation to Article 6 of the RPC. The Court modified the penalties and monetary awards.
Ratio Decidendi
On the conviction for Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610: The Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the proper nomenclature for the offense when the victim is 13 years old is Lascivious Conduct. The Court clarified that the second element of the offense, "performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse," is satisfied by the lascivious act itself, even if committed only once, and does not require a separate act of sexual abuse. Furthermore, the Court found that coercion or intimidation was present, evidenced by petitioner blocking AAA's way, pulling her into a forested area, AAA's pleas to stop and resistance, her fear, and petitioner's instruction not to be noisy. The Court reiterated that the definition of "child abuse" under RA 7610 does not necessitate a separate act of sexual abuse. The Court also noted that the RTC and CA correctly found AAA's testimony credible, consistent, and unwavering. On the conviction for Attempted Murder: The Court modified the conviction to Attempted Homicide. While acknowledging the petitioner's intent to kill AAA, as demonstrated by carrying and throwing her into a deep ravine, the Court reversed the finding of the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength. The Court explained that abuse of superior strength requires the aggressor to purposely use force excessively out of proportion to the victim's means of defense, and the records did not show that petitioner consciously sought or deliberately intended to use his superior strength to facilitate the crime. The Court found no evidence that petitioner used force excessively out of proportion before throwing AAA into the ravine. Consequently, without the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength, the crime committed was Attempted Homicide, not Attempted Murder. The Court also addressed the alleged inconsistencies in AAA's testimony, deeming them minor and inconsequential, and reiterated that the credibility of a young witness is generally given credence.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction for Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610, clarifying that the offense does not require a separate act of sexual abuse beyond the lascivious conduct itself and that coercion or intimidation can be established through fear and pleas to stop. The Court modified the conviction for Attempted Murder to Attempted Homicide, finding that while intent to kill was present, the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was not sufficiently proven as the petitioner did not purposely use force excessively out of proportion to the victim's means of defense.