1) Alfredo Bon was convicted on 8 counts of raping his two nieces, AAA and BBB, over several years when the girls were between 6-12 years old.
2) The trial court sentenced Bon to death on all 8 counts, which was affirmed by the appellate court except for reducing two counts to attempted rape.
3) The Supreme Court could not affirm the death penalty sentences because a new law had prohibited the death penalty in the Philippines. The court replaced the death sentences with life imprisonment.
1) Alfredo Bon was convicted on 8 counts of raping his two nieces, AAA and BBB, over several years when the girls were between 6-12 years old.
2) The trial court sentenced Bon to death on all 8 counts, which was affirmed by the appellate court except for reducing two counts to attempted rape.
3) The Supreme Court could not affirm the death penalty sentences because a new law had prohibited the death penalty in the Philippines. The court replaced the death sentences with life imprisonment.
1) Alfredo Bon was convicted on 8 counts of raping his two nieces, AAA and BBB, over several years when the girls were between 6-12 years old.
2) The trial court sentenced Bon to death on all 8 counts, which was affirmed by the appellate court except for reducing two counts to attempted rape.
3) The Supreme Court could not affirm the death penalty sentences because a new law had prohibited the death penalty in the Philippines. The court replaced the death sentences with life imprisonment.
1) Alfredo Bon was convicted on 8 counts of raping his two nieces, AAA and BBB, over several years when the girls were between 6-12 years old.
2) The trial court sentenced Bon to death on all 8 counts, which was affirmed by the appellate court except for reducing two counts to attempted rape.
3) The Supreme Court could not affirm the death penalty sentences because a new law had prohibited the death penalty in the Philippines. The court replaced the death sentences with life imprisonment.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
People v.
Bon Ting | Oct. 30, 2006 | Prohibition on Death Penalty
FACTS: 1. 8 Informations were filed by Ass. Provincial Prosecutor of Gumaca, Quizon against Alfredo Bon, charging him with rape of AAA and BBB, daughters of his older brother. The rape was committed in a span of 6 years. Both AAA and BBB testified and identified Bon as the man who raped them. 2. AAA a. Testified that she was only 6 years old when she was first molested in 1994 in her grandmother’s house, where Bon stayed. He inserted his penis into her vagina, and Bon threatened to kill her if she told anyone. b. 3 years after (1997) she slept in the house and was sexually abused by Bon again, at 9 years old. c. At 11 years old in 1999, she was raped in her grandmother’s house. d. When she was 12, she was abused again in the outdoor clearing. e. Only on June 12, 2000 did she tell her mother, CCC, about the rape to which the latter answered by filing a complaint against AAA’s uncle. 3. BBB a. Raped in 1997 when she was 10 years old in the same house. Bon held a knife to her, so she was scared and did not report the rape to her parents. b. In 1998 and 1999, raped again with a threat of bladed weapon. c. She was last raped on January 15, 2000 d. June 14, 2000 BBB told her mother, and stated that she only reported it after five months of last rape in fear of Bon killing her and her family. 4. CCC didn’t tell her husband in fear of the latter killing Bon. The physician who examined BBB and AAA testified (Dr. Purita Tullas). In the medical certificate of BBB, it showed that there was no external sign of physical injury however the labio majora and minor of BBB was slightly gaping and her orifice could admit two fingers without resistance. 5. In AAA’s medical certificate, there was no external physical injuries on her body, and her labia majora and minor were well coaptated and hymen was still intact ALTHOUGH sexual penetration could have still happened with a person having an elastic hymen. 6. Bon offered a general denial of the charges against him and said that he seldom saw his nieces. 7. RTC convicted appellant on all 8 counts of rape, and considered the qualifying circumstance that the victim was under 18 years old and the offender is a relative of consanguinity within 3rd civil degree. 8. Penalty was 8 death sentences, and was elevated to the Court but pursuant to the ruling in People v. Mateo, it was remanded to the CA. 9. CA – affirmed RTC ruling in 6 of the 8 death sentences, saying that there was no reason to deviate from the finding of the trial court except in at least 2 cases. In these two cases, the convictions were downgraded to attempted rape. 10. 2 Cases – Bon raped AAA in 1999 and on 11 June 2000, but there’s no evidence BRD that Bon penetrated AAA’s vagina, not even moral certainty that Bon’s penis ever touched her labia. So the CA reduced the penalties to the two counts of rape from DEATH to an indeterminate penalty of 10 years of prision mayor as minimum, to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal.
ISSUE Whether or not the imposition of the death penalty by the RTC, affirmed by the CA, was proper – NO
RULING The sentence of death imposed by RTC and affirmed by CA can no longer be affirmed in view of R.A. No. 9346 titled “An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the PH.” Sec. 2 states that the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed instead of the death penalty.
