SC affirms conviction of pornographer for sexually abusing, exploiting her 6-year-old niece in 2016
The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the conviction of a child pornographer who sexually abused and exploited her six-year-old niece in 2016 to earn money out of the minor’s naked photographs and videos.
Affirmed was the conviction of Luisa Pineda who was sentenced to reclusion perpetua (maximum of 30 years in jail) and fined P2 million. She was also ordered to pay her niece P300,000 in civil damages.
The SC decision, written by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, has not been made public. The SC’s Public Information Office (PIO) issued a summary of the ruling on Monday, Feb. 26.
Pineda was convicted by the regional trial court (RTC). The Court of Appeals (CA) upheld her conviction for child pornography qualified with the use of a computer system.
In its summary, the PIO said that the Philippine National Police-Anti-Trafficking in Persons Division (PNP-ATPD) conducted surveillance on Pineda’s house after receiving information from the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation.
It said that the police and barangay officials, armed with a search warrant, seized from Pineda’s house a computer set and a cellular telephone with nude photos of her niece.
Aside from the niece, two other minor children were rescued by the police and were turned over to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD).
During investigation, the niece said that she was left to Pineda’s care when her parents separated. The niece narrated that Pineda ordered her to enter a room, remove her clothes, and stand naked in front of a computer monitor with a webcam where her private parts were exposed to an unidentified old man.
She also said that Pineda took pictures and videos of her in two separate occasions where she was made to touch her genitalia in front of a computer screen.
Pineda was charged with violations of Sections 4(a), (b) and (c) of Republic Act No. (RA) 9775, the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009, in relation to Section 4(c)(2) of RA 10175, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. The RTC’s judgment of conviction was affirmed by the CA.
The RTC found Pineda guilty, which was affirmed by the CA. The case reached the SC.
During the pendency of Pineda’s case before the CA, RA 11930 – the Anti-Online Sexual Abuse of Exploitation of Children (OSAEC) and Anti-Child Sexual Abuse or Exploitation Materials (CSAEM) – was enacted in 2022. RA 11930 amended RA 9775.
In resolving the case, the PIO said the SC discussed the legal consequences of such repeal on the criminal liability of Pineda.
The SC said that under absolute repeal of a law, the offense no longer exists as if the person who committed it never did so. An exception to this rule is where the repealing law reenacts the former statute and punishes the act previously penalized under the old law, it said.
The PIO said the SC ruled that under the exception, “the act committed before the reenactment continues to be an offense and pending cases are not affected, regardless of whether the new penalty to be imposed is more favorable to the accused.”
Quoting from the SC decision, the PIO also said:
“In the case of Pineda, the crime charged was committed in August 2016, when the prevailing law was RA 9775. The subsequent law, RA 11930 enacted on July 30, 2022, expressly repealed RA 9775, but at the same time reenacted the unlawful acts defined as child pornography.
“Thus, even without a saving clause, the reenactment in RA 11930 of prohibited acts considered as child pornography manifests the legislative intent to reserve the right of the State to prosecute and punish offenses in the repealed RA 9775.
“The courts retain the jurisdiction to decide pending criminal cases involving violations of RA 9775 committed prior to its repeal, including the present case of Pineda.
“The Court (SC) found all the elements of child pornography under RA 9775 present in Pineda’s case. Under Sections 4(a), (b), and (c) of RA 9775, the elements of child pornography are: (1) the victim is below 18 years old or over but unable to fully take care of himself or herself; (2) the offender either: (i) hires, employs, uses, persuades, induces or coerces a child to perform in the creation or production of any form of child pornography; or (ii) produces, directs, manufactures or creates any form of child pornography; or (iii) publishes, offers, transmits, sells, distributes, broadcasts, advertises, promotes, exports or imports any form of child pornography; and (3) the child’s sexual activities were represented through visual, audio, or written combination, by electronic, mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic, or any other means.
“In the present case, the niece was only six years old at the time of the incident. It was also established that Pineda ordered the child to remove her clothes and stand naked while touching her genitalia in front of a computer exposing her private parts to male customers watching online.
“This was supported by niece’s testimony, as well as the results of the digital forensic examination of the computer set and cellphone seized from Pineda’s residence, where the police retrieved multiple naked pictures and explicit video clips of the niece.
“Also recovered by the police was an online conversation between Pineda and a foreign customer on the sale of niece’s nude photos and videos.
“Clearly, Pineda committed the prohibited acts in RA 9775 when she persuaded, induced, and coerced her niece to perform in the creation of nude photos and videos, and when she subsequently offered to sell these child pornographic materials.”