Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 40 views

    Case 154

    Uploaded by

    Julie
    Udong was convicted of raping AAA on two occasions when she was 12-13 years old. However, the Supreme Court explained that the informations actually charged Udong with sexual abuse under the Anti-Child Abuse Law, not rape, as the elements were not met. While a single act can constitute multiple offenses, rape and sexual abuse are separate crimes with distinct elements. Consent is not a defense for sexual abuse of a minor. The court found all the elements for sexual abuse were present and overturned Udong's conviction for rape.

    Copyright:

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

    Case 154

    Uploaded by

    Julie
    40 views1 page
    Udong was convicted of raping AAA on two occasions when she was 12-13 years old. However, the Supreme Court explained that the informations actually charged Udong with sexual abuse under the Anti-Child Abuse Law, not rape, as the elements were not met. While a single act can constitute multiple offenses, rape and sexual abuse are separate crimes with distinct elements. Consent is not a defense for sexual abuse of a minor. The court found all the elements for sexual abuse were present and overturned Udong's conviction for rape.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Udong was convicted of raping AAA on two occasions when she was 12-13 years old. However, the Supreme Court explained that the informations actually charged Udong with sexual abuse under the Anti-Child Abuse Law, not rape, as the elements were not met. While a single act can constitute multiple offenses, rape and sexual abuse are separate crimes with distinct elements. Consent is not a defense for sexual abuse of a minor. The court found all the elements for sexual abuse were present and overturned Udong's conviction for rape.

    Copyright:

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

    Case 154

    Uploaded by

    Julie
    Udong was convicted of raping AAA on two occasions when she was 12-13 years old. However, the Supreme Court explained that the informations actually charged Udong with sexual abuse under the Anti-Child Abuse Law, not rape, as the elements were not met. While a single act can constitute multiple offenses, rape and sexual abuse are separate crimes with distinct elements. Consent is not a defense for sexual abuse of a minor. The court found all the elements for sexual abuse were present and overturned Udong's conviction for rape.

    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

    Title VIII Crimes Against Persons

    A. Destruction of Life
    C. Rape
    People v. Udong G.R. No. 210161 January 10, 2018
    FACTS:
    On two occasions, when AAA was 12 and 13 yo respectively at the time of incident, drank
    alcoholic beverages with Bienvinido Udang’s children. On both occasions, when AAA
    became intoxicated, later realized she was carried into a dark room by Udang and laid into
    bed, undressed and violated her.
    AAA filed two cases of rape against Udang for violation of Article 266-A in relation to Sec. 5
    (b) of R.A. 7610.
    Udang pleaded not guilty on two informations. In his defense, he claimed he did not raped
    AAA. He highlighted that AAA charged him with rape as vengeance for her arrest of sniffing
    rugby. Udang also claimed that AAA welcomed his kisses and touches and consented to to
    have sexual intercourse with him.
    ISSUES:

    Whether Bienvinido Udang, Sr. y Sevilla, was correctly convicted of rape


    punished under the first paragraph of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code.

    RULING:
    No. The SC explained that contrary to the trial court's determination, the Informations
    actually charged Udang with sexual abuse, under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610,
    and not with rape, under Article 266-A(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
    Notes:

    A single act may give rise to multiple offenses. Thus, charging an accused with
    rape, under the Revised Penal Code, and with sexual abuse, under Republic Act
    No. 7610, in case the offended party is a child 12 years old and above, will not
    violate the right of the accused against double jeopardy.

    The provisions show that rape and sexual abuse are two (2) separate crimes with
    distinct elements. The "force, threat, or intimidation" or deprivation of reason
    or unconsciousness required in Article 266-A(1) of the Revised Penal Code
    is not the same as the "coercion or influence" required in Section 5(b) of
    Republic Act No. 7610. Consent is immaterial in the crime of sexual abuse
    because "the [mere] act of [having] sexual intercourse ... with a child exploited in
    prostitution or subjected to ... sexual abuse"  is already punishable by law.
    85

    However, consent exonerates an accused from a rape charge as exhaustively


    explained in Malto v. People:86

    All the elements of sexual abuse are present in this case.

    You might also like