Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 150 views

    People Vs Bonaagua

    Uploaded by

    MikkaEllaAncla
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals convicting Ireno Bonaagua of three counts of statutory rape and one count of lascivious acts against his minor daughter. Bonaagua argued that an affidavit of desistance from his daughter and her mother should extinguish his criminal liability. However, the court held that under Article 23 of the Revised Penal Code, a pardon from the offended party does not extinguish criminal liability in rape cases, which are considered crimes against persons rather than private crimes. Therefore, the affidavit did not justify dismissing the criminal cases against Bonaagua. He was sentenced to imprisonment and ordered to pay civil damages for his crimes.

    Copyright:

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

    People Vs Bonaagua

    Uploaded by

    MikkaEllaAncla
    150 views1 page
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals convicting Ireno Bonaagua of three counts of statutory rape and one count of lascivious acts against his minor daughter. Bonaagua argued that an affidavit of desistance from his daughter and her mother should extinguish his criminal liability. However, the court held that under Article 23 of the Revised Penal Code, a pardon from the offended party does not extinguish criminal liability in rape cases, which are considered crimes against persons rather than private crimes. Therefore, the affidavit did not justify dismissing the criminal cases against Bonaagua. He was sentenced to imprisonment and ordered to pay civil damages for his crimes.

    Original Title

    People vs Bonaagua.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals convicting Ireno Bonaagua of three counts of statutory rape and one count of lascivious acts against his minor daughter. Bonaagua argued that an affidavit of desistance from his daughter and her mother should extinguish his criminal liability. However, the court held that under Article 23 of the Revised Penal Code, a pardon from the offended party does not extinguish criminal liability in rape cases, which are considered crimes against persons rather than private crimes. Therefore, the affidavit did not justify dismissing the criminal cases against Bonaagua. He was sentenced to imprisonment and ordered to pay civil damages for his crimes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    150 views1 page

    People Vs Bonaagua

    Uploaded by

    MikkaEllaAncla
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals convicting Ireno Bonaagua of three counts of statutory rape and one count of lascivious acts against his minor daughter. Bonaagua argued that an affidavit of desistance from his daughter and her mother should extinguish his criminal liability. However, the court held that under Article 23 of the Revised Penal Code, a pardon from the offended party does not extinguish criminal liability in rape cases, which are considered crimes against persons rather than private crimes. Therefore, the affidavit did not justify dismissing the criminal cases against Bonaagua. He was sentenced to imprisonment and ordered to pay civil damages for his crimes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Article 23 (Effect of Pardon by Offended Party) c/F Art. 344 of the RPC c/f Art.

    36 of the RPC

    People vs Bonaagua

    FACTS:

    Ireno Bonaagua (Ireno) seeks the reversal of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals convicting him with three
    (3) counts of Statutory Rape under Paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended,
    in relation to Republic Act No. 7610 (R.A. No. 7610) and Acts of Lasciviousness under Section 5 (b) of R.A. No.
    7610.

    In four (4) separate Informations, Ireno was charged by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Las Piñas City with
    four (4) counts of Rape under Paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended, in relation to R.A. No. 7610,
    for inserting his tongue and his finger into the genital of his minor daughter, AAA.

    Accused appellant contends that the Affidavit of Desistance stating that AAA and her mother are no longer
    interested in pursuing the case filed against him should extinguish his criminal liability.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the Affidavit of Desistance stating that AAA and her mother are no longer interested
    in filing a case extinguishes the accused’s criminal liability?

    HELD: NO. The affidavit of desistance will not extinguish the accused’s criminal liability.

    Under Art. 23 of the Revised Penal Code, on the Effect of pardon by the offended party. — A pardon of the
    offended party does not extinguish criminal action except as provided in Article 344 of this Code; but civil
    liability with regard to the interest of the injured party is extinguished by his express waiver.

    In the case at bar, Ireno cannot likewise rely on the Affidavit of Desistance stating that AAA and her mother
    are no longer interested in pursuing the case filed against him. Rape is no longer a crime against chastity for
    it is now classified as a crime against persons. Consequently, rape is no longer considered a private crime
    or that which cannot be prosecuted, except upon a complaint filed by the aggrieved party. Hence, pardon
    by the offended party of the offender in the crime of rape will not extinguish the offender’s criminal
    liability. Moreover, an Affidavit of Desistance—even when construed as a pardon in the erstwhile “private
    crime” of rape—is not a ground for the dismissal of the criminal cases, since the actions have already been
    instituted. To justify the dismissal of the complaints, the pardon should have been made prior to the
    institution of the criminal actions.

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated March 31, 2009 in CA-G.R. CR-
    H.C. No. 03133, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS:

    1. In Criminal Case Nos. 03-0254, 03-0256, and 03-0257, IRENO BONAAGUA y BERCE is hereby sentenced to
    suffer the indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and
    four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum, for each count. He is likewise ordered to pay AAA the
    amounts of P30,000.00 as civil indemnity, P30,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary
    damages for each count of Qualified Rape Through Sexual Assault or a total of P90,000.00 for each count.

    2. In Criminal Case No. 03-0255, IRENO BONAAGUA y BERCE is meted to suffer the indeterminate penalty of
    thirteen (13) years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to sixteen (16)
    years, five (5) months and ten (10) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum. In addition to moral damages
    and fine, he is likewise ordered to pay P20,000.00 as civil indemnity and P15,000.00 as exemplary damages.

    You might also like