People vs. YYY

The repeal of a penal statute that simultaneously reenacts the same prohibited acts does not extinguish criminal liability for offenses committed before the repeal; the reenactment neutralizes the repeal and continues the law in force without interruption, preserving both the offense and the court’s jurisdiction over pending cases.

The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation tracked electronic mails of YYY in July 2016 and uncovered nude photographs of minor girls being sold to online male customers. The FBI traced the emails to northern Angeles City, Pampanga, Philippines, and an undercover agent engaged YYY in an online chat where she offered child pornography, sexual webcam shows, and a sexual meet-up. The US Embassy’s Legal Attache sent a letter to the Philippine National Police (PNP) reporting YYY’s activities, prompting a local investigation that confirmed the FBI’s information through surveillance, a search warrant, and the eventual rescue of three minor children from YYY’s house.

• The FBI Lead and Surveillance: In July 2016, FBI agents tracked emails from YYY containing nude photos of minor girls sold to online male customers, and an FBI undercover agent chatted with YYY, who offered child pornography and sexual webcam shows. On July 27, 2016, the US Embassy Legal Attache transmitted its findings to the PNP. The acting chief of the PNP Anti-Trafficking in Persons Division directed Police Senior Inspector Mary Gallano (PSI Gallano) to verify the report. PSI Gallano located YYY’s house in Mabalacat City, Pampanga, and on August 6, 2016, together with Police Senior Inspector Jigs Madato, conducted a surveillance by posing as buyers of YYY’s house. During a house tour, they saw minor girls, a computer with a webcam, a vibrator, and children’s panties. Photographs they took matched the room and fixtures in the FBI materials.

• Issuance and Implementation of the Search Warrant: On August 11, 2016, Colonel Villamar Tuliao (Col. Tuliao) applied for a search warrant before the RTC. Executive Judge Ramon Pamular personally interviewed Col. Tuliao and PSI Gallano under oath, examined the supporting documents, and issued a warrant that same day. The warrant authorized a search of YYY’s house for items related to child pornography, itemized in detail, including computer sets, digital storage devices, sex toys, pornographic images, and a black Toyota Vios. On August 16, 2016, police officers and barangay officials implemented the warrant in the presence of YYY, her live-in partner, and two barangay officials. They seized a computer set, modem, wallets with receipts, a vibrator, assorted receipts, a Hello Kitty poster, a Samsung cellphone, vehicle official receipt, compact discs, empty pills, checks, and a clear book. The evidence custodian inventoried the items, and the barangay officials attested that the search was lawful, peaceful, and orderly. Three minor children—AAA, BBB, and CCC—were rescued and turned over to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). The police returned the warrant and presented the seized items to the RTC, which ordered a digital forensic examination.

• The Victim’s Testimony: On September 15, 2016, operatives interviewed AAA, a six-year-old girl born on November 1, 2009. She stated that YYY, her aunt and custodian, ordered her to enter a room, remove her clothes, and stand naked in front of a computer monitor with a webcam, exposing her breasts and vagina to an unidentified old man who spoke English. On two separate occasions, YYY took pictures and videos of AAA and made AAA touch her genitalia in front of the screen. YYY gave AAA money and brought her to the mall after each incident.

• Digital Forensic Examination: On September 20, 2016, digital forensic examiner SPO2 Jocar Samenian extracted from the seized computer and cellphone nude photos and videos of AAA touching her genitalia and waving at the camera. He also recovered an online conversation between YYY and a foreign customer concerning the sale of AAA’s nude pictures and videos.

• The Defense: YYY pleaded not guilty and claimed that on August 16, 2016, police officers and a DSWD social worker forcibly took the children and then fabricated child pornography and cybercrime charges against her.

• Effect of Repeal and Reenactment: Whether the express repeal of Republic Act No. 9775 by Republic Act No. 11930 without a saving clause, while YYY’s appeal was pending, extinguished her criminal liability and deprived the courts of jurisdiction.

• Sufficiency of the Evidence: Whether the prosecution proved all elements of child pornography under Sections 4(a), (b), and (c) of Republic Act No. 9775 beyond reasonable doubt.

• Defective Information: Whether the Information was fatally defective for failing to state the precise date of the offense.

• Validity of the Search and Seizure: Whether the search warrant was validly issued and lawfully executed, and whether the digital and physical evidence seized was admissible.

• Effect of Repeal and Reenactment: Criminal liability was not extinguished. The repeal of Republic Act No. 9775 by Republic Act No. 11930 was accompanied by the simultaneous reenactment of the same unlawful acts, albeit with an expanded scope and updated nomenclature (OSAEC and CSAEM). Under the established doctrine, where a penal statute is repealed and at the same time reenacted, the reenactment neutralizes the repeal and continues the law in force without interruption. Consequently, the acts penalized before the reenactment remain offenses, pending cases are unaffected, and the courts retain jurisdiction. The absence of a saving clause was immaterial because the legislative intent to preserve criminal liability was manifest in the reenactment itself.

• Sufficiency of the Evidence: All elements were proven beyond reasonable doubt. AAA’s minority was established by her certificate of live birth. She positively identified YYY—her aunt and custodian—as the person who persuaded, induced, and coerced her to undress, stand naked, and touch her genitalia in front of a computer with a webcam for a male customer watching online. This constituted hiring, employing, using, persuading, inducing, or coercing a child to perform in the creation of child pornography, and the consequent production of such material, in violation of Section 4(a) and (b) of Republic Act No. 9775. The digital forensic examination yielded nude photographs and videos of AAA and an electronic conversation showing YYY offered to sell them, satisfying Section 4(c). The trial court’s assessment of AAA’s credibility was entitled to the highest respect, especially absent any showing that material facts were overlooked. YYY’s unsubstantiated denial could not outweigh AAA’s positive, categorical testimony, and no ill motive on AAA’s part was shown.

• Defective Information: The Information was not defective. The exact date is not an essential element of child pornography; the material averment is that the prohibited acts were committed. The allegation “on or about August 2016 or sometime prior thereto” sufficiently apprised YYY of the charge and did not impair her ability to mount a defense. Furthermore, any objection to the sufficiency of the Information was waived when YYY entered a plea without moving for a bill of particulars or quashal before arraignment.

• Validity of the Search and Seizure: The search warrant satisfied all requisites under Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Probable cause was personally determined by Judge Pamular after a searching examination under oath of applicant Col. Tuliao and witness PSI Gallano, who testified on facts within their personal knowledge—including the FBI report, the results of the prior surveillance, and a location map. The warrant particularly described YYY’s exact address and itemized the objects to be seized. The enforcement was peaceful and orderly, conducted in the presence of YYY, her live-in partner, and two barangay officials; only items specified in the warrant were taken. A proper return was made to the court. The articles seized were therefore admissible.

• Repeal by Reenactment Neutralizes the Repeal — Where a penal law is simultaneously repealed and reenacted, the reenactment neutralizes the repeal and continues the law in force without interruption. Crimes committed under the old law remain punishable, pending cases are not affected, and the courts’ jurisdiction is preserved. The doctrine applies even if the repealing statute contains no saving clause, because the reenactment itself manifests the legislative intent to retain criminal liability for the same acts.

• Requisites of a Valid Search Warrant — Under Section 4, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, a valid search warrant requires: (1) probable cause; (2) the personal determination of probable cause by the judge; (3) the personal examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and witnesses; (4) the applicant and witnesses must testify on facts personally known to them; and (5) the warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized.

• Elements of Child Pornography under Sections 4(a), (b), and (c) of R.A. No. 9775 — (1) The victim is a child (below 18); (2) the offender (a) hires, employs, uses, persuades, induces, or coerces a child to perform in the creation or production of any form of child pornography, or (b) produces, directs, manufactures, or creates any form of child pornography, or (c) publishes, offers, transmits, sells, distributes, broadcasts, advertises, promotes, exports, or imports any form of child pornography; and (3) the child’s sexual activities are represented through visual, audio, or written combination, by electronic, mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic, or any other means.

• “Where a clause or provision or a statute for that matter is simultaneously repealed and reenacted, there is no effect upon the rights and liabilities which have accrued under the original statute, since the reenactment, in effect ‘neutralizes’ the repeal and continues the law in force without interruption. … The repeal of a penal law or provision, under which a person is charged with violation thereof and its simultaneous reenactment penalizing the same act done by him under the old law, will neither preclude the accused’s prosecution nor deprive the court of its jurisdiction to hear and try his case.” — This passage encapsulates the controlling doctrine on repeal with reenactment, drawn from Benedicto v. Court of Appeals.

• “The exact date of the crime has no substantial bearing on its commission. Neither date nor time of commission an essential element of the crime of child pornography. What is decisive is that the commission of the crime has been sufficiently proven.” — This statement resolves the issue on the alleged defect in the Information.

• “The sexually explicit images and videos of innocent children circulating online is a mode of re-victimization that traps them in a cycle of extreme, permanent, and continuing emotional and psychological torture that they will deeply suffer until their adult years.” — The Court’s concluding observation underlining the gravity of online child sexual exploitation.

• Benedicto v. Court of Appeals, 416 Phil. 722 (2001) — The primary precedent that formulated the rule that the simultaneous repeal and reenactment of a penal statute neutralizes the repeal and preserves criminal liability and jurisdiction. The Court relied directly on this ruling.

• People v. Sapla, 874 Phil. 240 (2020) — Cited for the definition of probable cause for a search warrant as “facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent individual to believe that an offense has been committed and that items sought in connection with the offense … are in the place to be searched.”

• Cadajas v. People, G.R. No. 247348, November 16, 2021 — An En Banc decision that enumerated the elements of child pornography under Republic Act No. 9775, which the Court applied to determine that the prosecution had proven YYY’s guilt.

• Republic Act No. 9775, Sections 4(a), (b), and (c) — These provisions define the unlawful acts of child pornography. The Court found that YYY’s conduct in coercing AAA to undress and perform in front of a computer, recording the acts, and offering to sell the images fell squarely within these subsections.

• Republic Act No. 9775, Section 16 — Imposes the penalty in its maximum period when the offender is a parent, ascendant, guardian, step-parent, or collateral relative within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity, or any person having control or moral ascendancy over the child. YYY, as the victim’s aunt and custodian, fell within this provision.

• Republic Act No. 10175, Section 4(c)(2) — Qualifies child pornography committed through a computer system and imposes a penalty one degree higher than that provided in Republic Act No. 9775. The use of a webcam, computer, and the internet to broadcast the abuse and distribute the images triggered this provision.

• Republic Act No. 11930, Section 44 — The express repealing clause that abrogated Republic Act No. 9775. The Court held that this repeal was neutralized by the reenactment in Republic Act No. 11930 of the same prohibited acts.

• Rule 126, Section 4 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Governs the issuance of search warrants; the requisites were fully satisfied in the procurement of the warrant against YYY.

Chief Justice Gesmundo, Senior Associate Justice Leonen, and Associate Justices Caguioa, Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Zalameda, Gaerlan, Rosario, Dimaampao, and Marquez concurred. Associate Justices Inting, J. Lopez, Kho, Jr., and Singh were on official business.

No dissenting opinions were registered.