This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-01-21 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| In People v. Chingh,[101] the accused was charged with rape "for inserting his fingers and afterwards his penis into the private part of his minor victim[.]"[102] The Court of Appeals found the accused guilty of two counts of rape: statutory rape and rape through sexual assault.[103] This court modified the penalty imposed for rape through sexual assault to the penalty provided in Article III, Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610, discussing as follows: It is undisputed that at the time of the commission of the sexual abuse, VVV was ten (10) years old. This calls for the application of R.A. No. 7610, or "The Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act," which defines sexual abuse of children and prescribes the penalty therefor in Section 5(b), Article III, to wit: | |||||
|
2011-06-06 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It must be clarified, however, that the reasoning expounded by the Court in the recent case of People v. Armando Chingh y Parcia, [50] for imposing upon the accused the higher penalty provided in Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, has no application in the case at bar. In the said case, the Court, acknowledging the fact that to impose the lesser penalty would be unfair to the child victim, meted upon the accused the higher penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period as provided in Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, instead of the lesser penalty of prision mayor prescribed by Article 266-B for rape by sexual assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC. The Court elucidated: In this case, the offended party was ten years old at the time of the commission of the offense. Pursuant to the above-quoted provision of law, Armando was aptly prosecuted under Art. 266-A, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, for Rape Through Sexual Assault. However, instead of applying the penalty prescribed therein, which is prision mayor, considering that VVV was below 12 years of age, and considering further that Armando's act of inserting his finger in VVV's private part undeniably amounted to lascivious conduct, the appropriate imposable penalty should be that provided in Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, which is reclusion temporal in its medium period. | |||||