People v. Domingo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the conviction of petitioner Avail John Domingo y Linatoc for violation of Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610, the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act. The offense involved the sexual abuse of a minor, complainant AAA, who was 12 years old at the time and was convinced by the petitioner that they were married in the eyes of God. The prosecution successfully established all elements of the crime. Procedural History: The petitioner was convicted by the trial court. This conviction was subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeals in a Decision dated March 22, 2023, and a Resolution dated September 7, 2023. The petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, which was denied in a Resolution dated January 29, 2024. The present document is a Resolution on a Motion for Reconsideration of that denial. The Petition: The petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Supreme Court's Resolution denying his petition for review on certiorari. He argued anew regarding the credibility of the complainant and her father, citing alleged inconsistencies in their testimonies concerning the date and location of the offense, and the persons present or involved in the arrangements for the complainant to live with the petitioner. The Supreme Court, in its Resolution, denied the motion, finding that the inconsistencies were trivial and did not alter the petitioner's liability. The Court also found no new or substantial issues warranting reconsideration, and affirmed the conviction with modification, imposing an additional fine and affirming the monetary awards for damages.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court should reconsider its Resolution dated January 29, 2024, denying the petition for review on certiorari. Whether the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the complainant and her father regarding trivial matters warrant a reversal of the conviction for violation of Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit. The Court affirmed with modification the Decision dated March 22, 2023, and Resolution dated September 7, 2023, of the Court of Appeals. Petitioner Avail John Domingo y Linatoc was found guilty of violation of Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610, sentenced to an indeterminate penalty, and ordered to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and a fine.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of reconsideration of the Resolution dated January 29, 2024: The Court reiterated that the petition for review on certiorari failed to show any substantial, special, or important reason to warrant the exercise of its discretionary power to review the challenged decision and resolution. Furthermore, the petition did not sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed judgment to justify the exercise of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction. The petitioner's arguments were found to be a rehash of issues already settled by the trial court, the appellate court, and the Supreme Court itself. On the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the complainant and her father: The Court maintained that the supposed inconsistencies referred to trivial matters which do not alter the petitioner's liability for sexual abuse. The Court noted that the prosecution successfully established beyond any shadow of doubt each element of the violation of Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610. The Court emphasized that the behavior of the complainant and her father, and their testimonies, had been thoroughly assessed and found credible by the lower courts and by the Supreme Court itself. The Court found no new or substantial issue warranting reconsideration of its previous denial of the petition. The verdict of conviction, therefore, stands.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court denied the Motion for Reconsideration, affirming the conviction for violation of Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610, holding that inconsistencies in testimonies on trivial matters do not alter liability, and that the prosecution established each element of the offense beyond doubt. The Court also imposed a fine in addition to damages.