G.R. No. 187732 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. FELIX MORANTE, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the [appellant] guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as follows: (a) In Crim. Case No. 2283-M-00, Violation of Sec. 5 RA 7610, and hereby sentences him to suffer the indeterminate penalty often (10) years of prision mayor as minimum to fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal as maximum. (b) In Crim. Case Nos. 2277-M-00 to 2282-M-OO, on six (6) counts of Rape punished under the Revised Penal Code, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua on each count. The accused is likewise directed to indemnify [AAA] in the amount of P50,000.00 for each count of the offenses (total amount of P350,000.00). [19] (Italicization added.) Appellant filed his notice of appeal on May 22, 2007. [20] The Court of Appeals in its November 6, 2008 Decision found no merit in the appellant's appeal. It noted that while there seemed to be inconsistencies between AAA's testimony in the direct and cross-examinations, she was able to explain these during the redirect examination. [21] It, thus, affirmed the findings of the trial court but modified the penalty imposed and award of damages, to wit: WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, in that, the maximum penalty in Crim. Case No. 2283-M-2000 is increased to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day, the civil indemnity for each count of rape in Crim. Cases Nos. 2277-M-2000 up to 2282-M-2000 is increased to Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (Php75,000.00), and the moral and exemplary damages in the amounts of Fifty Thousand (Php50,000.00) and Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (Php25,000.00), respectively, for each count of rape are awarded. [22] Appellant filed his notice of appeal on November 19, 2008. [23] Appellant's confinement was confirmed on August 28, 2009, [24] Both the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and appellant manifested that they would adopt the pleadings filed in the Court of Appeals in lieu of supplemental briefs. [25] Appellant basically argues that his guilt for the crimes charged was not proven beyond reasonable doubt because of alleged inconsistencies in AAA's testimony and was thus rendered without basis. The appeal must be dismissed for lack of merit. The pertinent provisions of law in this case are found in Section 5(b), Republic Act No. 7610, which provides that: Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse . - Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following: x x x x (b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse: Provided , That when the victim is under twelv