People v. Sombilon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On or about August 15, 1998, AAA, a 15-year-old minor, was investigated by PO3 Benito Sombilon, Jr. (petitioner) at the Calinan Police Station, Davao City, in connection with a theft complaint. AAA alleged that petitioner took her into a locked room, pointed a gun at her forehead, and electrocuted her fingers while questioning her about the stolen necklace. Petitioner then asked AAA if she was a woman, touched her all over her body, including her breasts and private parts, and kissed her cheek, despite her resistance. They were in the room for over an hour. Afterward, petitioner announced that AAA had confessed to the theft. AAA was found pale, trembling, crying, with disheveled hair, a wet dress, and bruises on her forehead. She was brought to a clinic where she was examined by Dr. Manuel Garcia, Sr., who administered a tranquilizer and noted slight contusions on her occiput and forehead, multiple slight contusions on her fingers and breast areas, and body tremors, diagnosing slight physical injuries. Procedural History: Petitioner was charged with Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City convicted petitioner, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and appreciating the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of his public position. He was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty and ordered to pay moral and exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction with modification, increasing the maximum penalty by appreciating the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner sought to annul the CA rulings, arguing that his conviction was erroneous, that the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of his public position should not have been appreciated as it was not alleged in the Information, and that the award of damages was improper. He contended that his acts did not constitute lewdness but at most unjust vexation, and that the police station was not a conducive place for such a crime.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness. Whether the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of his public position can be appreciated despite not being alleged in the Information. Whether the award of moral and exemplary damages is proper.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed with modification. Petitioner PO3 Benito Sombilon is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code. He is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as maximum. He is ordered to pay the victim ₱30,000.00 as moral damages and ₱10,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of the petitioner for Acts of Lasciviousness: The Court affirmed the findings of the RTC and CA, holding that the petitioner committed acts of lasciviousness. The essential elements were proven: (1) the offender committed an act of lasciviousness or lewdness, and (2) it was done under circumstances of force or intimidation, or when the offended party is under twelve years of age. The Court defined "lewd" as indecent or obscene, characterized by or intended to excite crude sexual desire. Petitioner's acts of kissing the victim, fondling her breasts, and touching her private parts, coupled with his question "Dalaga ka na ba?" and statement "I am single too," clearly indicated lewd designs. The victim's attempt to cover herself did not negate the lascivious conduct, especially since the petitioner's fondling caused contusions. Furthermore, the Court found that force and intimidation were employed, evidenced by the gun pointed at the victim's forehead and the resulting physical injuries, which were sufficient to annul or subdue the victim's free will, particularly given her age and the circumstances. On the appreciation of the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position: The Court ruled that the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position could not be appreciated because it was not alleged in the Information. Citing Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Court emphasized that aggravating circumstances must be expressly and specifically alleged in the complaint or information to be considered by the court. Since the crime was committed in 1998, prior to the effectivity of the 2000 Rules, and the Information did not contain such an allegation, this circumstance could not be appreciated. Consequently, the penalty imposed by the CA, which was based on this circumstance, had to be modified. On the award of damages: The Court affirmed the award of exemplary damages in the amount of ₱10,000.00. Citing People v. Catubig, the Court held that the retroactive application of procedural rules cannot adversely affect vested rights. Since the offense was committed prior to the effectivity of the 2000 Rules, the civil liability incurred remained unaffected, and exemplary damages could be awarded if the crime was committed with an aggravating circumstance, even if not alleged. Regarding moral damages, the Court increased the award from ₱10,000.00 to ₱30,000.00, citing People v. Solmoro, which held that moral damages of ₱30,000.00 are awardable in cases of acts of lasciviousness due to the assumed moral injury and the immeasurable pain and anguish suffered by the victim, especially considering the sexual perversity of the offender and his position.
Main Doctrine
The aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position must be alleged in the Information to be appreciated, even if proven during trial, in accordance with the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. However, exemplary damages may be awarded if the crime was committed with an aggravating circumstance, even if not alleged, if the offense was committed prior to the effectivity of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure.