PEOPLE-VS-PALOTES

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2

PEOPLE VS PALOTES GR No.

209786, July 6, 2015

FACTS:
The accused-appellant was charged with one count of rape against AAA, a
fourteen year-old minor with mental abilities of an 8-9 years old child. The
crime occurred in July 2005 in Cebu City where AAA was living with her
mother, BBB and her father, CCC.
On the day of the incident, AAA was asked by her neighbor, Dimple, to buy
a diaper. While AAA was on her way back to her neighbor's house, she was
pulled by appellant Jerry Palotes inside the latter's house. Appellant then
held AAA, laid her down, removed her short pants and underwear and
eventually inserted his penis into AAA’s vagina. The abuse happened
repeatedly, totaling three instances.
On September 23, 2005, AAA was brought by her mother, BBB, to her
grandmother. Her grandmother noticed that AAA did not have her monthly
period. BBB and the grandmother brought AAA to a Health Center and
found the latter pregnant. AAA told her mother that it was their neighbor,
Jerry Palotes whom she had sexual intercourse with but she cannot recall
when it happened.
Dr. Naomi N. Poca conducted a medical examination on AAA, which
revealed lacerations in her genital area consistent with sexual assault.
Palotes denied the allegations, claiming he was elsewhere at the time of the
incident. He presented testimonies from Rose Bistes and Marina Abella to
support his alibi. However, their testimonies were found to be inconsistent
and unconvincing.
The RTC convicted the accused for
one count of rape which was affirmed by the CA. In his appeal the accused
questioned
the credibility of AAA and her mental capability.
The RTC convicted the accused for one count of rape which was affirmed by
the CA. In his appeal, the accused questioned the credibility of AAA and her
mental capability.
ISSUE: Whether the accused is guilty for the crime rape.
RULING: Yes the accused is guilty of the crime rape.
REASONING: The Supreme Court held that for a charge of rape to prosper,
the prosecution must prove that: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a
woman; and (2) he accomplished such act through force, threat, or
intimidation, or when she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious,
or when she was under twelve years of age or was demented. The element of
carnal knowledge in this case was adequately established by the testimony
of AAA. That AAA was mentally deficient - thus, deprived of reason –
when the accused-appellant succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her
was clearly established in this case. Dr. Rosemarie Gonato, a psychologist at
the Vicente Sotto Memorial Hospital, testified that she conducted a
psychological evaluation of AAA. The results thereof indicated that AAA’s
mental age was equivalent to a child of 6 to 7 years of age and her
functioning was within the mild mental retardation. Wherefore, the decision
of the CA was affirmed.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy