Scribd
Upload
109 views2 pages

People of The Philippines Vs Mendoza

The Supreme Court ruled that Roger Mendoza's right to a speedy trial was not violated because he did not provide details on what or who caused delays in the trial proceedings and he only invoked his right to a speedy trial late in the appellate proceedings. The Court also affirmed the appellate court's ruling that downgraded the charges from rape to acts of lasciviousness, as the prosecution failed to prove actual insertion of fingers, which is required to establish rape. While rape was not proven, acts of lasciviousness was considered an included offense based on prior cases.

Uploaded by

anna
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
109 views2 pages

People of The Philippines Vs Mendoza

The Supreme Court ruled that Roger Mendoza's right to a speedy trial was not violated because he did not provide details on what or who caused delays in the trial proceedings and he only invoked his right to a speedy trial late in the appellate proceedings. The Court also affirmed the appellate court's ruling that downgraded the charges from rape to acts of lasciviousness, as the prosecution failed to prove actual insertion of fingers, which is required to establish rape. While rape was not proven, acts of lasciviousness was considered an included offense based on prior cases.

Uploaded by

anna
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

People of the Philippines Vs.

Roger Mendoza

G.R. No. 180501 December 24, 2008

Ruling:

The right to speedy trial, as an adjunct to the right of all persons to a


speedy disposition of their cases before judicial and quasi-judicial
bodies, requires that court proceedings should be conducted according to
fixed rules and must be free from vexatious, capricious, and oppressive
delays. The same right may also be considered violated when unjustified
postponements of the trial are asked for and secured; or when without
cause or justifiable motive, a long period of time is allowed to elapse
without the parties having their case tried. None of these circumstances
are, to us, present in the instant case. While perhaps there might have
been delays, accused-appellant does not state in some detail what or who
caused the delays, or whether these are of the vexatious or oppressive
kind.

What is more, accused-appellant belatedly invoked his right to speedy


trial only before the CA. The proceedings cannot now be claimed to be
attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays. Accused-
appellant cannot plausibly seek the protection of the law to benefit from
the adverse effects of his failure to assert his right at the first instance.
The Court need not belabor the issue of whether or not accused-
appellant is guilty of rape which in turn resolves itself into the question
of whether or not he inserted his fingers into AAA’s sexual organ. The
issue has been peremptorily answered in the negative by the CA, basing
its resolution on the relevant finding of the examining doctor and on the
testimony of AAA, who, at best, was tentative in her response when
queried about the finger-insertion aspect of the incident. Also, the
People does not challenge the determination. And precisely because of
the fact of non-insertion that the appellate court was impelled, and
rightly so, to downgrade the criminal act to acts of lasciviousness. The
records appear to support the appellate court’s modificatory action.
Consider the following answer given by AAA to the prosecution’s
question: "Where did Roger touch you?" AAA pointed to the vagina of a
female figure she had drawn.

Absent any showing of the actual insertion of the finger in the private
part of the child, there can be no consummated rape. Thus, the failure of
the prosecution to establish accused-appellant’s guilt for rape
notwithstanding, this Court finds him liable for the lesser crime of acts
of lasciviousness. This latter crime is considered an offense included or
subsumed in the rape charge. Thus in Dulla v. Court of Appeals and
People v. Bon, the Supreme Court convicted the accused with the crime
of acts of lasciviousness even though the information charged the crime
of rape.

You might also like