Scribd
Upload
769 views1 page

People vs. Matias

1) The appellant Jover Matias y Dela Fuente and private complainant AAA were neighbors. One evening, appellant pulled AAA towards a house under construction, forced her to lie down, removed her clothes, and inserted his finger and penis into her vagina. He threatened to kill her if she told anyone. 2) The issue is whether appellant's conviction for "rape" under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 8610 was proper. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that since AAA was 14 years old at the time of the offense, appellant could only be charged with sexual abuse under RA 8610 or rape except paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, not statutory

Uploaded by

Kelsey Olivar Mendoza
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
769 views1 page

People vs. Matias

1) The appellant Jover Matias y Dela Fuente and private complainant AAA were neighbors. One evening, appellant pulled AAA towards a house under construction, forced her to lie down, removed her clothes, and inserted his finger and penis into her vagina. He threatened to kill her if she told anyone. 2) The issue is whether appellant's conviction for "rape" under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 8610 was proper. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that since AAA was 14 years old at the time of the offense, appellant could only be charged with sexual abuse under RA 8610 or rape except paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, not statutory

Uploaded by

Kelsey Olivar Mendoza
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

G.R. No.

186469 June 13, 2012


THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintif-appellee,
vs.
JOVER MATIAS !ELA F"ENTE, Accused-appellant
FA#TS$ Appellant Jover Matias y Dela Fuente and private complainant AAA

were neighbours.
In the evening o June !, "##$, AAA, a minor, was on her wa% to the vegetable stall o a
certain &Manuela& to bu% something when, all o a sudden, appellant pulled her towards a
house that was under construction. 'here, he orced her to lie on a bamboo bed, removed
her shorts and underwear, and inserted (rst, his (nger, and then his penis into her vagina.
Appellant threatened to )ill her i she should report the incident to an%one. *hen AAA
arrived home, she narrated to her mother and aunt what appellant did to her. In deense,
appellant claimed that in the evening o the incident, he and his uncle, +omeo Matias, were
doing construction wor) at the house o his aunt. ,e was thereore surprised when two
policemen arrested him at around !-.# in the evening o even date and detained him at the
/aler Police 0tation.
ISS"E$ %&e'&e( o( No' )' *+, -o((e-' 'o -on.)-' +//e00+n' o1 2(+/e2 un3e( Se-. 4
567, A(')-0e III o1 RA 8610.
He03$ 9ES. 1nder 0ection 2 3b4, Article III o +A 5!6# in relation to +A 7.2., i the victim o
se8ual abuse is below 6" %ears o age, the ofender should not be prosecuted or se8ual
abuse but or statutor% rape under Article "!!-A3643d4 o the +evised Penal 9ode. i the
victim is 6" %ears or older, the ofender should be charged with either se8ual abuse under
0ection 23b4 o +A 5!6# or rape under Article "!!-A 3e8cept paragraph 6:d;4 o the +evised
Penal 9ode. In this case, the +'9, convicted appellant or &rape& under 0ec. 2 3b4, Article III o
+A 5!6# upon a (nding that AAA was a minor below 6" %ears old at the time o the
commission o the ofense. ,owever, a punctilious scrutin% o the records shows that AAA
was born on April "., 6<<6, which would ma)e her 6. %ears old at the time o the
commission o the ofense. 'hus, appellant can be prosecuted and convicted either under
0ec. 2 3b4, Article III o +A 5!6# or sexual abuse, or under Article "!!-A o the +P9, e8cept
or rape under paragraph 63d4.

the +'9 concluded that AAA was the &victim o se8ual abuse
labeled =rape=, considering the established act that there was se8ual intercourse between
him and AAA. 'hus, appellant=s conviction was clearl% under 0ec. 2 3b4, Article III o +A 5!6#
or sexual abuse and not or rape under Article "!!-A o the +P9.

You might also like