People v. Pinlac
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On the evening of March 9, 1997, a 14-year-old boy, referred to as "AAA," accompanied the petitioner, Nicanor Pinlac, to the Kale Beach Resort in Subic, Olongapo City, for fraternity initiation rites. After being persuaded by the petitioner to consume alcohol and smoke marijuana, "AAA" lost self-control. While in a dazed state, the petitioner isolated "AAA," forcibly disrobed him, and performed oral sex, causing ejaculation. The following day, March 10, 1997, the petitioner again performed oral sex on "AAA" after convincing him to ingest alcohol and smoke marijuana. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo City, Branch 72, found petitioner Nicanor Pinlac guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act (RA) No. 7610, sentencing him to suffer an indeterminate imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as minimum to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal as maximum, and to pay P30,000.00 as moral damages. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC ruling with modification, sentencing the petitioner to suffer an indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P15,000.00, P20,000.00 as civil indemnity, and P15,000.00 as moral damages. The Petition: The petitioner filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision and raising the sole issue of whether the CA erred in giving credence to the testimony of "AAA." He also questioned the factual finding regarding the location of the Kale Beach Resort and the credibility assessment of "AAA's" testimony.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in giving credence to the testimony of the victim "AAA". Whether the factual finding of the Court of Appeals regarding the location of Kale Beach Resort was erroneous. Whether the petitioner's denial and alibi constitute sufficient defense against the charge.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review. It affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, finding petitioner Nicanor Pinlac y Resolme guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610. The Court upheld the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Petitioner was also ordered to pay "AAA" P20,000.00 as civil indemnity, P15,000.00 as moral damages, P15,000.00 as a fine, and an additional P15,000.00 as exemplary damages. All damages shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from finality of the decision until fully paid.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of giving credence to the victim's testimony: The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit as it raised questions of fact, which are beyond the scope of a Rule 45 petition. The Court reiterated that factual findings of the CA, when affirmed by the RTC, are generally binding and conclusive. The Court found no cogent reason to set aside the findings of the lower courts, as the CA's decision was in accord with the evidence and the law. The Court emphasized that the elements of the offense under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 were satisfactorily established: (1) the commission of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse; and (3) the child being below 18 years of age. In this case, "AAA" was 14 years and eight months old when the acts were committed. On the alleged factual error regarding the location of Kale Beach Resort: The Court dismissed this contention, noting that it pertained to a factual finding. The Court reiterated its limited jurisdiction in petitions for review under Rule 45, which confines it to questions of law. Regardless, the Court found no reversible error in the assailed decision, implying that any discrepancy in the location did not affect the core findings of guilt. On the petitioner's denial and alibi: The Supreme Court characterized the petitioner's defense of denial and alibi as weak and self-serving. The Court noted that denial is the weakest defense and cannot overcome affirmative testimony, especially when the witness is credible. The RTC had already found the petitioner's version to be concocted and his alibi unreliable, a finding affirmed by the CA. The Court also addressed the delay in reporting, stating that there is no fixed behavioral norm for victims of sexual abuse, and such delay, especially for a minor, should not automatically imply untruthfulness, particularly when the victim's testimony is positive and categorical.
Main Doctrine
The act of sucking a minor's penis, especially when the minor is under the influence of alcohol and drugs, constitutes lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of RA 7610, constituting child abuse. The credibility of a minor victim's testimony is generally given full faith and credit, and any delay in reporting the offense does not necessarily diminish its veracity, especially considering the victim's age and the circumstances.