G.R. No.

88582             March 5, 1991

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
HEINRICH S. RITTER, accused-appellant,

DOCTRINE:
Art. 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed but which
are not covered by the law, and in cases of excessive penalties. — Whenever a court
has knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to repress and which is not
punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision, and shall report to the Chief
Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons which induce the court to
believe that said act should be made the subject of legislation.
FACTS:
The appellant challenges his conviction of the crime involving a young girl of about 12
years old who had been allegedly raped and who later died because of a foreign object
left inside her vaginal canal.

One of the important fact in this case related to the issue is the fact that when Ritter was
apprehended in Ermita, he was sizing up young children. Riter is a pedophile, which is a
person who has sexual perversion and compulsive desire to have sexual intercourse
with a child of either sex.

In this case, Ritter was prosecuted for rape with homicide and not pedophilia, assuming
this is a crime by itself. Pedophilia is clearly a behavior offensive to public morals and
violative of the declared policy of the state to promote and protect the physical, moral,
spiritual and social well-being of our youth. (Article II, Section 13, 1987 Constitution)
(Harvey v. Defensor Santiago, 162 SCRA 840, 848 [1989]). Pedophiles, especially thrill
seeking aliens have no place in our country. The appellant has abused Filipino children,
enticing them with money. Then the appellant should be expelled from the country.
However, no law has prohibited pedophilia, even tho this act must be suppressed.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Ritter can be convicted of the death of Rosario?
FACTS:
NO

The trial court convicted the accused citing the rationale of Article 4 of the RPC

He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.
But before the conviction is affirmed, we must first follow the rule as stated in the case
of Urbano vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (157 SCRA 1 [1988]) to wit:

The rule is that the death of the victim must be the direct, natural and logical
consequence of the wounds inflicted upon him by the accused. And since we are
dealing with a criminal conviction, the proof that the accused caused the victim's death
must convince a rational mind beyond reasonable doubt. (Emphasis supplied)

In the instant case, since there are circumstances which prevent our being morally
certain of the guilt of the appellant, he is, therefore, entitled to an acquittal.

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant

HEINRICH STEFAN RITTER is ACQUITTED on grounds of reasonable doubt. The
appellant is ordered to pay the amount of P30,000.00 by way of moral and exemplary
damages to the heirs of Rosario Baluyot. The Commissioner of Immigration and
Deportation is hereby directed to institute proper deportation proceedings against the
appellant and to immediately expel him thereafter with prejudice to re-entry into the
country.