G.R. No. 235799 - JASPER MONROY Y MORA, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the RTC sentenced petitioner to suffer an indeterminate penalty of fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal , as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal , as maximum, and to pay the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages. [22] In convicting petitioner, the RTC found that the prosecution was able to prove the elements of violation of Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610, to wit: ( a ) the accused committed the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; ( b ) the said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and ( c ) the child, whether male or female, is below eighteen (18) years of age. [23] In this case, it was established that petitioner had carnal knowledge of AAA, as shown by her candid and straightforward testimony and corroborated by the results of the physical examination conducted on her person. Likewise, it was established that AAA was barely fourteen (14) years old at the time of the incident, therefore deemed to be a "child" under the provisions of RA 7610. Finally, it was shown that AAA was intimidated by her previous encounters with petitioner, which included the instance when the latter poked a knife at BBB in AAA's presence. Clearly, as a child, AAA was an easy prey for petitioner to satisfy his sexual desires. [24] Petitioner's motion for reconsideration [25] was denied in an Order [26] dated January 7, 2016; thus, he appealed his conviction to the CA. The CA Ruling In a Decision [27] dated August 16, 2017, the CA affirmed the RTC's Decision with modifications as to the penalty imposed and the damages awarded. Thus, the CA imposed upon petitioner the indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor , as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal , as maximum. Further, the award of civil indemnity was reduced to P15,000.00 and moral damages to P15,000.00. Additionally, petitioner was directed to pay the amounts of P15,000.00 as exemplary damages and P15,000.00 as fine. [28] In so ruling, the CA found that while it is true that petitioner had carnal knowledge of AAA, the sexual act was not forced; instead, it was consensual for the following reasons: first , AAA admitted to having written a letter [29] for petitioner stating, among others, that she loved him, that she was trying to prevent him from going home to the province, and that she will tell everyone that petitioner raped her in retaliation for him leaving her; second , the contents of the said letter corroborated the defense and version of the events offered by petitioner; third , petitioner did not threaten, intimidate, or force AAA to have sexual intercourse with him; and finally , AAA did not offer any form of resistance to petitioner's sexual advances. Nonetheless, the CA convicted petitioner for violation of Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610, under which unl