Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 558 views

    People Vs Lindo

    Uploaded by

    Ian Auro
    Lindo was convicted of raping AAA, an 11-year-old girl. AAA testified that while sleeping under a stage at a neighbor's house, Lindo took her to a clothes drying area, undressed her and himself, and tried to insert his penis into her vagina and anus, causing her pain. Lindo claimed an alibi that he was working during the time of the incident. The court found AAA to be credible and her testimony clear. The court ruled that rape can occur in public places and AAA's age at the time meant any sexual act constituted statutory rape, upholding Lindo's conviction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People Vs Lindo

    Uploaded by

    Ian Auro
    558 views2 pages
    Lindo was convicted of raping AAA, an 11-year-old girl. AAA testified that while sleeping under a stage at a neighbor's house, Lindo took her to a clothes drying area, undressed her and himself, and tried to insert his penis into her vagina and anus, causing her pain. Lindo claimed an alibi that he was working during the time of the incident. The court found AAA to be credible and her testimony clear. The court ruled that rape can occur in public places and AAA's age at the time meant any sexual act constituted statutory rape, upholding Lindo's conviction.

    Original Description:

    Criminal Law 2 Case Digest

    Original Title

    People vs Lindo

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Lindo was convicted of raping AAA, an 11-year-old girl. AAA testified that while sleeping under a stage at a neighbor's house, Lindo took her to a clothes drying area, undressed her and himself, and tried to insert his penis into her vagina and anus, causing her pain. Lindo claimed an alibi that he was working during the time of the incident. The court found AAA to be credible and her testimony clear. The court ruled that rape can occur in public places and AAA's age at the time meant any sexual act constituted statutory rape, upholding Lindo's conviction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    558 views2 pages

    People Vs Lindo

    Uploaded by

    Ian Auro
    Lindo was convicted of raping AAA, an 11-year-old girl. AAA testified that while sleeping under a stage at a neighbor's house, Lindo took her to a clothes drying area, undressed her and himself, and tried to insert his penis into her vagina and anus, causing her pain. Lindo claimed an alibi that he was working during the time of the incident. The court found AAA to be credible and her testimony clear. The court ruled that rape can occur in public places and AAA's age at the time meant any sexual act constituted statutory rape, upholding Lindo's conviction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    People vs.

    Lindo
    Gr No.189818

    Facts: AAA,[2] the private complainant, was 11 years old at the time, and accused-appellant Lindo was her
    neighbor. AAA attended a pabasa at a neighbor’s place, during which she fell asleep under a platform
    that served as a stage. While AAA was sleeping, Lindo took her away to a place near a creek where
    clothes are placed to dry. It was there that AAA woke up, as Lindo removed her short pants and
    underwear, and also undressed himself. He tried inserting his penis into her vagina, whereupon his penis
    made contact with her sex organ but there was no complete penetration. Not achieving full penile
    penetration, he then made her bend over, and inserted his penis into her anus, causing her to cry out in
    pain. Lindo then sensed the arrival of a friend of AAA, so he discontinued his act, and told AAA to put on
    her clothes and go home. These AAA did, and related the incident to her parents, who reported it to
    the barangay authorities. Lindo was arrested the same day. Lindo raised the defenses of denial and alibi,
    claiming that as a painter his usual work schedule was from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.He claimed that
    on the day of the incident, he reported for work at 8:00 p.m. until 5:00 a.m., and that when he came
    home from work at 6:00 a.m., he was arrested by a barangay official and was brought to the police
    precinct, where he was investigated for rape.

    Issue: Lindo appealed to the CA, assailing the credibility of AAA.

    Ruling: The evil in man has no consciencethe beast in him bears no respect for time and place, driving
    him to commit rape anywhere, even in places where people congregate such as in parks, along the
    roadside, within school premises, and inside a house where there are other occupants.[6] There is no rule
    that rape can only be committed in seclusion.[7] The commission of rape is not hindered by time or place
    as in fact it can be committed even in the most public of places.[8] Clearly, the argument of accused-
    appellant that there could be no rape as the place was in full view of the public does not have a legal leg
    to stand on. The fact that the area was in the public eye would not prevent a potential rapist from
    carrying out his criminal intent.The RTC found the witness to be credible, and it had the best opportunity
    to observe her testimony. She testified in a straightforward and clear manner, detailing how accused-
    appellant had carnal knowledge of her. It has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused-
    appellant Lindo had carnal knowledge of AAA. The insertion of his penis into the vagina of AAA, though
    incomplete, was sufficient. As held in People v. Tablang,[15] the mere introduction of the male organ in
    the labia majora of the victim’s genitalia consummates the crime; the mere touching of the labia by the
    penis was held to be sufficient. The elements of the crime of rape under Art. 266-A of the Revised Penal
    Code are present. Under the said article, it provides that rape is committed by a man who shall have
    carnal knowledge of a woman when the offended party is under twelve years of age. AAA was 11 years
    old at the time accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of her. As such, that constitutes statutory
    rape. The two elements of the crime are: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2)
    that the woman was below 12 years of age.[16] Thus, the CA correctly upheld the conviction of accused-
    appellant by the RTC.

    You might also like