Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 186 views

    GR 169143

    Uploaded by

    Leomar Despi Ladonga
    This document summarizes a court case involving Simplicio Delantar who was found guilty of violating the Anti-Child Abuse Law for procuring a minor, AAA, into child prostitution. While AAA's birth certificate listed Delantar as her father, the court ruled that the birth certificate did not prove filiation since Delantar's signature was not on it. At best, Delantar was AAA's de facto guardian but not her legal guardian. Therefore, the court determined that the higher penalty for perpetrators who are the child's ascendant or legal guardian did not apply to Delantar as a mere custodian.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    GR 169143

    Uploaded by

    Leomar Despi Ladonga
    186 views1 page
    This document summarizes a court case involving Simplicio Delantar who was found guilty of violating the Anti-Child Abuse Law for procuring a minor, AAA, into child prostitution. While AAA's birth certificate listed Delantar as her father, the court ruled that the birth certificate did not prove filiation since Delantar's signature was not on it. At best, Delantar was AAA's de facto guardian but not her legal guardian. Therefore, the court determined that the higher penalty for perpetrators who are the child's ascendant or legal guardian did not apply to Delantar as a mere custodian.

    Original Description:

    w

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case involving Simplicio Delantar who was found guilty of violating the Anti-Child Abuse Law for procuring a minor, AAA, into child prostitution. While AAA's birth certificate listed Delantar as her father, the court ruled that the birth certificate did not prove filiation since Delantar's signature was not on it. At best, Delantar was AAA's de facto guardian but not her legal guardian. Therefore, the court determined that the higher penalty for perpetrators who are the child's ascendant or legal guardian did not apply to Delantar as a mere custodian.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    186 views1 page

    GR 169143

    Uploaded by

    Leomar Despi Ladonga
    This document summarizes a court case involving Simplicio Delantar who was found guilty of violating the Anti-Child Abuse Law for procuring a minor, AAA, into child prostitution. While AAA's birth certificate listed Delantar as her father, the court ruled that the birth certificate did not prove filiation since Delantar's signature was not on it. At best, Delantar was AAA's de facto guardian but not her legal guardian. Therefore, the court determined that the higher penalty for perpetrators who are the child's ascendant or legal guardian did not apply to Delantar as a mere custodian.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    G.R. No. 169143 February 2, 2007[Formerly G.R. No.

    138328]PEOPLE OF THE PHLIPPINES,


    Appelleevs.
    SIMPLICIO DELANTAR,
    Appellant.
    FACTS:

    On 25 February 1999, the RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of violation of Section 5(a), paragraphs 1, 4 and 5
    of Article III of R.A. No. 7610.
    SEC. 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 testimony of AAA shows that appellant procured her as a child prostitute for at least two clients: thefirst, an Arab national named Mr. Hammond and the
    second, then Congressman Romeo Jalosjos.

    From her testimony, it could easily be gleaned that AAA did not consent to the actsof lasciviousness and the sexual intercourse.

    Appellant claimed that sometime in 1983, AAA was brought to him by a certainSalvacion Buela, AAAs real mother, who could not support her.

    the birth certificate indicates that AAA was born on "11 May 1985" to "Librada A.Telin" (mother) and "Simplicio R. Delantar" (father), nowhere
    on the face of the birth certificate can thesignature of appellant be found

    According to appellant, Librada A. Telin is his sister and they did not get married to each other on the dateindicated in the birth certificate, or impliedly
    at least, not ever.
    ISSUES:
    Whether or not the Certificate of live birth presented by respondent may serve as proof of filiationand justify the imposition of the higher penalty on him
    RULING:
    Appellant SIMPLICIO DELANTAR y REDONDO is found guilty of one count of violation of Section5(a), R.A. No. 7610
    o
    Section 31(c), Article XII of R.A. No. 7610 states:
    x x x x(c) The penalty provided herein shall be imposed in its maximum period when the perpetrator isan
    ascendant, parent, guardian, stepparent or collateral relative within the seconddegree of consanguinity or affinity,
    or a manager or owner of an establishment which hasno license to operate or its license has expired or has been revoked. (Emphasis supplied.)

    While under the Family Code, filiation can be established by, among others, the record of birth appearingin the civil register,
    80
    yet the rule is where the birth certificate presented was not signed by the father against whom filiation is asserted, such
    may not be accepted as evidence of the alleged filiation.

    We thus hold that the birth certificate of AAA is prima facie evidence only of the fact of her birth and not of her relation to appellant. After all, it is undisputed that
    appellant is not AAAs biological father.

    At best, appellant is AAAs de facto guardian. Now, would this circumstance justify the imposition of thehigher penalty on him?
    We think not. We apply, by analogy, the ruling of this Court in People v. Garcia,
    85
    where we held that the restrictive concept of guardian, legal or judicial, is required by Sec. 11 of R.A. No.7659. Said
    provision, by way of amending Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, ordains that where the victim of the crime
    of rape is under eighteen years of age and the offender is, inter alia, a guardian of thevictim, the death penalty shall be imposed.

    The law requires a legal or judicial guardian since it is the consanguineous relation or the solemnity of judicial appointment which impresses upon the guardian the
    lofty purpose of his office and normally deters
    him from violating its objectives. Such considerations do not obtain in appellants case or, for that matter,any person similarly
    circumstanced as a mere custodian of a ward or anothers property. The fiduciarypowers granted to a real guardian warrant the exacting sanctions should he betray
    the trust

    You might also like