SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 240294. April 3, 2019.]
ONASIS ALTIGA y ACOP ALIAS "ONIE", petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 03 April 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 240294 — Onasis Altiga y Acop alias "Onie" versus People of the Philippines
After a careful review of the records of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition and AFFIRM the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 1 dated January 12, 2018 and Resolution 2 dated May 31, 2018 in CA-G.R. CR No. 39067, which affirmed the Consolidated Judgment 3 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, of La Trinidad, Benguet (RTC) in Criminal Case Nos. 08-CR-7537 to 08-CR-7540, finding Onasis Altiga y Acop (Altiga) guilty of four (4) counts of violation of Section 10 (a) of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 7610, 4 as amended, or the Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act.
At the outset, the Court notes that the Rule 45 Petition filed by Altiga is replete with procedural errors. Specifically, the Petition lacks: (1) a sworn certification on non-forum shopping and (2) a proper verification. 5 Following Section 5, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, these procedural lapses are enough to warrant the denial of the Petition.
Nevertheless, even if the Court were to disregard these procedural infirmities, the Petition would still be denied. The CA committed no reversible error in affirming Altiga's conviction. The conclusions reached are sufficiently supported by the evidence and are in accord with law and prevailing jurisprudence.
The Court agrees with the CA that even if no nude photos or videos of private complainants were found in Altiga's cellular phone, the acts that he had committed still render him liable under Section 10 (a) of R.A. 7610. 6 As found by the RTC and the CA, the prosecution was able to prove the elements of violation of Section 10 (a) of R.A. 7610, namely: (1) the minority of the private complainants; (2) Altiga's acts of peeping and taking videos of the private complainants while they were taking a bath, which debase, degrade, or demean their intrinsic worth and dignity; and (3) that said acts are clearly punishable under R.A. 7610. 7
Contrary to Altiga's claim, his identity as the perpetrator was proven by direct evidence, not merely circumstantial evidence. The identification by an eyewitness of a suspect or accused as the perpetrator of the crime constitutes direct evidence. 8 Here, Altiga was positively identified by FFF 9 (AAA's 10 neighbor), GGG 11 (BBB's 12 mother), JJJ 13 (DDD's 14 sister), and CCC 15 herself. 16 As against the positive identification of Altiga, his defenses of denial and alibi cannot stand. 17
Since the elements of the crime had been proven and Altiga's identity as the perpetrator had been positively identified by direct evidence, the CA was justified in no longer discussing the issue surrounding the act of Altiga's mother of asking forgiveness from the private complainants. Such discussion would only be superfluous.
For Altiga's failure to show any reversible error committed by the CA, the Petition should be denied.
SO ORDERED. (REYES, J., JR., J., on wellness leave)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 34-47. Penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, with Associate Justices Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy concurring.
2.Id. at 49.
3.Id. at 122-142. Dated October 11, 2013 and penned by Presiding Judge Francis A. Buliyat, Sr.
4. AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION, PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR ITS VIOLATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
5.Rollo, p. 9.
6.Id. at 41.
7. See Del Poso v. People, 802 Phil. 713, 722 (2016).
8.People v. Fajardo, G.R. No. 216065, April 18, 2018, p. 14.
9. The real name of the victim, her personal circumstances and other information which tend to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family, or household members, shall not be disclosed to protect her privacy, and fictitious initial shall, instead, be used, in accordance with People v. Cabalquinto (533 Phil. 703 [2006]) and Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dates September 5, 2017.
10.Id.
11.Id.
12.Id.
13.Id.
14.Id.
15.Id.
16.Rollo, p. 45.
17. See People v. DelaPeña, G.R. No. 219581, January 31, 2018, p. 7.