REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF APPEALS Cebu City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, -versusCA-G.R. CR No. 01911

ANTONIETA LUCEDO @ TONYAY, Accused-Appellant. x---------------------------------------------x

BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant Antonieta Lucedo alias Tonyay (appellant) was charged before the Regional Trial Court, (RTC) Branch 18, Hilongos, Leyte with the crime of Child Abuse under Section 10 (a), Article VI, R.A. 7610, in an Information which reads:
That on or about the month of December, 2007 in Brgy. Atabay, Hilongos, Leyte, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there, maliciously, wilfully, unlawfully and intentionally, beat with the use of a belt, pinched and strangulated the victim Jessica Maraa-Villaflores, who was then eight (8) years old, thereby inflicting physical injuries that affected the normal development of the said child victim. Contrary to Law. (RTC Decision, 11 June 2011, page 1).

BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE CA-G.R. CEB CR No. 01911 People vs. Antonieta Lucedo @ Tonyay x----------------------------------------------------------x

Upon arraignment and with the assistance of counsel, appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime charged (Ibid. page 1). On 27 June 2011, after trial on the merits, the RTC rendered its Decision, the dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, accused ANTONIETA LUCEDO alyas( sic) Tonyay is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt in violation of Section 10 (a) of Republic Act 7610 and hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Prision Mayor in its minimum period (SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY to EIGHT (8) YEARS imprisonment), and to pay the offended party Jessica Maraa Fifty Thousand Pesos (p50,000.00) as moral damages. SO ORDERED. (Ibid. page 6).

Appellant appealed her conviction based on the following errors allegedly committed by the court a quo, viz: I THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH HER GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. II GRANTING ARGUENDO THAT THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE PROSECUTION WERE TRUE, THE SAME ONLY CONSTITUTES SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE AND NOT A VIOLATION OF REP. ACT.( SIC) NO. 7610.

BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE CA-G.R. CEB CR No. 01911 People vs. Antonieta Lucedo @ Tonyay x----------------------------------------------------------x

III. GRANTING ARGUENDO THAT THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION WARRANTS THE CONVICTION OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT, THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN IMPOSING THE CORRECT PENALTY. (p.1, Appellants Brief, 20 December 2012)

COUNTER-STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Sometime in August 2007, in Brgy. Atabay, Hilongos, Leyte, the victim Jessica Maraa was placed by her parents in the custody of their neighbour Antonieta Lucedo, alias Tonyay, the appellant. The arrangement came from an agreement between Jessicas parents and the appellant who wanted some company in her house since she was living alone (TSN, 6 October 2009, pp 57). Jessica and Lucedo lived in the latters house which is situated 3-5 meters away from the house of the Maraas (TSN, 5 January 2010, pp. 8-9). Jessica was 8 years old at that time (TSN, 27 November 2008, page 2). During Jessicas stay with Lucedo, the child suffered from repeated physical abuse in the hands of the accused which include strangulation, pinching, and touching of her sex organs by the appellant (Ibid, pp. 5-9). One of the neighbours, Maria Hinampas noticed the pinch marks and scratches on Jessica. The child then related the events of abuse and injuries suffered in the hands of the appellant. Jessicas parents learned of her plight so the father went to Lucedos residence and with the assistance from the Barangay Tanod, took back custody of Jennifer (TSN, 6 October 2009; TSN, 5 January 2010). A subsequent physical examination conducted by DR. CONRADO ABIERA III of Hilongos District Hospital confirmed Jessicas story (TSN, 28 July 2009) and revealed the following findings in a Medical Certificate issued and signed by Dr. Abiera: Multiple abrasions on different parts of the body secondary to pricking nail

BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE CA-G.R. CEB CR No. 01911 People vs. Antonieta Lucedo @ Tonyay x----------------------------------------------------------x

marks/scratches. There is redness on the peripheral circumference of the hymen. No hymenal laceration noted. There is weakness of (L) knee joint upon walking. (Exhibit A, as quoted in RTC Decision, 27 June 2011, p. 2).

ARGUMENTS
I The prosecution proved all the elements of child beyond reasonable doubt.

II The trial court did not err in finding appellant guilty of violating Section 10 (a), Article VI of Republic Act No. 7610.

DISCUSSION
The prosecution proved all the elements of child beyond reasonable doubt.

The law under which the appellant was found guilty of violating is Section 10 (a) of Republic Act No. 7610 provides, viz:
SEC. 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and Other

BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE CA-G.R. CEB CR No. 01911 People vs. Antonieta Lucedo @ Tonyay x----------------------------------------------------------x

Conditions Prejudicial Development.

to

the

Child's

(a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or to be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child's development including those covered by Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, but not covered by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period. A review of the records reveal that all the essential elements of the crime of child abuse were proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt: (1) The victim was a minor; (2) The acts committed by appellant against the minor constituted physical abuse; and (3) the said acts are clearly punishable under RA 7810 in relation to PD. 603. (Sanchez vs. People, 588 SCRA 747 [2009])

One, Jessicas minority at the time of the commission of the offense was proven through her birth certificate, the due authenticity of which was admitted by the appellant (TSN, 5 January 2010, pp. 13-14). Two, Jessica testified to the physical abuses and cruelties she suffered in the hands appellant thus:
Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. or What else aside from beating you with a belt? There was a man from Bato, a big man. Meaning, you were brought by your Mommy Tonyay to Bato to that big man? Yes, sir. And what did that big man do to you in Bato? Sexual intercourse or sexual knowledge carnal knowledge.

BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE CA-G.R. CEB CR No. 01911 People vs. Antonieta Lucedo @ Tonyay x----------------------------------------------------------x

Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q.

And how did that big man engage in sexual intercourse to you since you are still small child? He laid me down. After you were laid down, what did that big man do to you? Her sexually intercoursed me. You mean, did you see the sex organ of that man? I did not see but he laid beside me. Did that man touch your body or any part of your body? No, sir. During that time when that big man laid beside you, where was your Mommy Tonyay at that time? Outside. Now, going back to your house in Atabay with your Mommy Tonyay, did your Mommy Tonyay touch your sexual organ when you were living together?

ATTY. CABARLES: Those are leading questions. Your Honor. FISCAL PADAYAO: She is a child. Your Honor. COURT: Let her answer. A. Q. A. Q. A. Log. How did your Mommy Tonyay log your sexual organ? By hands. How did she insert her hands? By hands.

BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE CA-G.R. CEB CR No. 01911 People vs. Antonieta Lucedo @ Tonyay x----------------------------------------------------------x

Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A.

How did she insert her hands? She inserted. How many times did your Mommy Tonyay insert her fingers to your sexual organ? Once. And how did you feel when your sexual organ was inserted by the fingers of your Mommy Tonyay? I felt pain. Did you cry? Yes, sir. (TSN, 27 Nov. 2008, pp. 5-7).

Such straightforward narration of facts by a minor on how appellant physically abused her deserves full weight and credit The Rule on Examination of Child Witness provides:
SEC. 22. Corroboration. Corroboration shall not be required of a testimony of a child. His testimony, if credible by itself, shall be sufficient to support a finding of fact, conclusion, or judgment subject to the standard of proof required in criminal and non-criminal cases.

Three, Jessicas testimony was corroborated by Dr. Conrado Abierra III. In the Medical Certificate Dr. Conrado Abierra III prepared he described the nature and extent of injuries inflicted on Jessica, to wit:
Multiple abrasions on different parts of the body secondary to pricking nail marks/scratches. There is redness on the peripheral circumference of the hymen. No hymenal laceration noted. There is weakness of (L) knee joint upon walking.

(Exhibit A)

BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE CA-G.R. CEB CR No. 01911 People vs. Antonieta Lucedo @ Tonyay x----------------------------------------------------------x

Dr. Abierra further testified in this wise, viz:

Q. A.

Based on your physical examination what findings did you observe on the child Jessica Maraa? Based on her medical certificate her there her there were abrasions on different parts of the body and there is also a redness on the peripheral circumference of the hymen but there is a noted wound on the hymen the redness also seen at the peripheral of the hymen. No hymenal laceration notes. x x x

Q. A. Q.

By abrasions what do you mean by this injuries in laymans language. doctor? Abrasions in laymans language means scratches (garas). And according to you, Doctor, you said that the cause of these multiple abrasions was due to pricking nail marks or scratches based on your opinion, Doctor, are these injuries inflicted by a third party or apparent cause? As I put it on writing it was caused by nail marks. It can also be caused by a pointed object but the picture of the marks are somewhat flat line so I presumed all are done by nail marks or due to nail marks on the skin. You said that it could be caused by a pointed object for example what object? Like needle pin, maybe pointed bamboo stick. You said that you found redness on the peripheral circumference of the hymen what would have caused this redness on this part of the victim or patient?

A.

Q. A. Q.

BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE CA-G.R. CEB CR No. 01911 People vs. Antonieta Lucedo @ Tonyay x----------------------------------------------------------x

A. Q. A. Q.

May be the patient here might have been pinch. Do you mean there was a hard pinching of the hymen of the patient? Maybe. You were also diagnose on the patient that there is a weakness on the left knee joint upon walking, how did you observe this Doctor? I observed that this patient walked with less strength on her left knee may be she was fell to the floor or ground or maybe she was beaten by a hard object.

A.

(TSN, 28 July 2009, pp. 4-11, emphasis supplied)

In Sanchez vs. People (588 SCRA 747 [2009]) the Supreme Court held: [A]s defined in the law, child abuse includes physical abuse of the child, whether the same is habitual or not The acts of appellant fall squarely as child abuse. Appellant however, asserts that the prosecution failed to prove that the acts complained of was prejudicial to the victims development (Appellants Brief, pp. 8-11.) This deserves scant consideration. The Supreme Court in Araneta v People, 556 SCRA 323, [2008]) ruled that there are four distinct offenses punishable under Section 10(a) of Republic Act no 7610, i.e., (a) child abuse, (b) child cruelty. (c) child exploitation and (d) being responsible for conditions prejudicial to the childs development. The information filed against the appellant states; the above-named accused, did then and there, maliciously, wilfully, unlawfully and intentionally, beat with the use of a belt, pinched and strangulated the victim Jessica MaraaVillaflores, who was then eight (8) years old, thereby inflicting

BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE CA-G.R. CEB CR No. 01911 People vs. Antonieta Lucedo @ Tonyay x----------------------------------------------------------x

10

physical injuries that affected the normal development of the said child victim. (RTC Decision, 27 June 2011, page 1). There is sufficient averment in the information of the acts of child abuse and cruelty committed by the appellant against Jessica. Thus, appellants contention that his acquittal is warranted since the prosecution failed to prove that the physical injuries sustained by Jessica affected her normal development as a child is clearly unavailing. In Sanchez v People (supra)., the SC held that the element that the acts must be prejudicial to the childs development pertain only to the fourth act. This does not apply to all the other acts of child abuse under Section 10(a). The SC explained, thus:
The Rules and Regulations of the questioned statute distinctly and separately defined child abuse, cruelty and exploitation just to show that these three acts are different from one another and from the act prejudicial to the childs development. Contrary to petitioner's assertion, an accused can be prosecuted and be convicted under Section 10 (a), Article VI of Republic Act No. 7610 if he commits any of the four acts therein. The prosecution need not prove that the acts of child abuse, child cruelty and child exploitation have resulted in the prejudice of the child because an act prejudicial to the development of the child is different from the former acts.

Furthermore, appellant argues that the charge against the him was motivated by ill-motive. He highlighted the ongoing enmity between the appellant and Maria Hinampas, one of the witnesses for the prosecution and the one who filed the case against him (Appellants Brief, page 11). This assertion had been judiciously taken into account by the trial court. Copy (RTC Decision, 27 June 2011, page 6) with markings.

BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE CA-G.R. CEB CR No. 01911 People vs. Antonieta Lucedo @ Tonyay x----------------------------------------------------------x

11

In the absence of any proof showing that trial court overlooked, misappreciated or misunderstood some facts or circumstances of weight and substance, its evaluation of the witnesses credibility should not be disturbed. The trial court correctly convicted appellant under Section 10 (a) of RA 7610. This finds support in Gonzalo A. Araneta vs. People of the Philippines ( 556 SCRA 323, [2008]) where the Supreme Court held:
Republic Act No. 7610 is a measure geared towards the implementation of a national comprehensive program for the survival of the most vulnerable members of the population, the Filipino children, in keeping with the Constitutional mandate under Article XV, Section 3, paragraph 2, that "The State shall defend the right of the children to assistance, including proper care and nutrition, and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to their development". This piece of legislation supplies the inadequacies of existing laws treating crimes committed against children, namely, the Revised Penal Code and Presidential Decree No. 603 or the Child and Youth Welfare Code.

In Sanchez vs. People (ibid.) the Supreme Court settled the issue on the law to be applied in prosecuting child abuse:
Appellant contends that, after proof, the act should not be considered as child abuse but merely as slight physical injuries defined and punishable under Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code. Appellant conveniently forgets that when the incident happened, VVV was a child entitled to the protection extended by R.A. No. 7610, as mandated by the Constitution. As defined in the law, child abuse includes physical abuse of the child, whether the same is habitual or

BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE CA-G.R. CEB CR No. 01911 People vs. Antonieta Lucedo @ Tonyay x----------------------------------------------------------x

12

not. The act of appellant falls squarely within this definition. We, therefore, cannot accept appellant's contention.

Modification of penalty pursuant to the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanchez vs. People, G.R. No. 179090, June 5, 2009.

Section 10 (a) Article VI of RA 7610 specifically provides that the penalty imposable to any person found guilty of any other acts of abuse or cruelty thereunder shall be prision mayor in its minimum period. The range of the penalty for prision mayor in its minimum period is 6 years and 1 day to 8 years. Relevantly, in the case of Sanchez vs People (supra) , the Supreme Court is instructive in its ruling when it held that since the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period is derived from, and defined in, the Revised Penal Code, the rules for graduating penalties by degrees in determining the proper period as well as Section 1of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLAW) should be applied. Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended, provides:
SEC. 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum of which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense; and if the offense is punished by any other law, the

BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE CA-G.R. CEB CR No. 01911 People vs. Antonieta Lucedo @ Tonyay x----------------------------------------------------------x

13

court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same.

Following the ruling in Sanchez vs. People, the correct penalty should be four (4) years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, save for the modification of the penalty as above suggested, it is respectfully prayed that appellants appeal be denied for utter lack of merit and the court a quos Decision 27 June 2011, finding appellant GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 10(a), Article VI of Republic Act 7610, be AFFRIMED, the same being in accordance with the law and evidence. Other reliefs just and equitable under the circumstances are likewise prayed for. Makati City for Manila, March 27, 2013. FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA
Solicitor General Roll No. 25719, IBP Lifetime No. 000371 MCLE Exemption No. III-0008523

MA. CIELO SE-RONDAIN

Assistant Solicitor General Roll No. 35028, IBP Lifetime No. 08902 MCLE Exemption No. IV-0016660

BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE CA-G.R. CEB CR No. 01911 People vs. Antonieta Lucedo @ Tonyay x----------------------------------------------------------x

14

ANGELITA V. MIRANDA
Senior State Solicitor Roll No. 42949, IBP Lifetime No. 02113 MCLE Compliance No. IV0009143 OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village Makati City Telephone No. 8186301-09

Copy furnished: PUBLIC ATTORNEYS OFFICE Counsel for the Accused-Appellant Regional amd Appealed Unit Cases M. Fernan Memorial Hall of Justice Capitol Compound, Cebu City 6000.

EXPLANATION (Under Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure) Service on accused-appellants counsel is being done by registered mail, personal service not being practicable due to lack of manpower to effect personal service. ANGELITA V. MIRANDA Senior State Solicitor