People v. XXX
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The case involves a criminal charge against the petitioner, XXX, for committing acts of lasciviousness against AAA, his 14-year-old stepdaughter. The Information alleged that on August 3, 2012, in Valenzuela City, XXX, with lewd design and malice, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously committed acts of lasciviousness upon AAA by touching her breast against her will and without her consent. Procedural History: The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela City, in Criminal Case No. 1350-V-12, found XXX guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment and damages. XXX appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in its Decision dated April 24, 2018, affirmed the RTC's conviction but modified the penalty and damages. XXX filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CA denied in a Resolution dated August 29, 2018. The Petition: The petitioner, XXX, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's Decision and Resolution. He argues that the RTC and CA erred in convicting him, primarily relying on alleged inconsistencies in the victim's statements and testimony. The Supreme Court, however, found that any inconsistencies were minor and did not affect the core facts of the crime. The Court ultimately modified the conviction to Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610, imposing a higher penalty and adjusted damages.
Issue(s)
Whether the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals erred in convicting petitioner XXX. Whether alleged inconsistencies between the complainant's Sinumpaang Salaysay and her testimony amount to reasonable doubt. Whether the Affidavit of Desistance (recantation) executed by the complainant prior to trial overturns her trial testimony. Whether the proper nomenclature of the offense is Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336, Revised Penal Code, or Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610, and what penalty should be imposed. Whether the amounts of civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and interest awarded are proper.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The conviction is AFFIRMED but MODIFIED: petitioner XXX is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610. He is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal as minimum, to seventeen years, four months, and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum. He is ordered to pay AAA Php 50,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php 50,000.00 as moral damages, and Php 50,000.00 as exemplary damages with interest at 6% per annum from finality until full payment.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the RTC and CA erred in convicting petitioner XXX: The Court found that the evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The evaluation of credibility centered on the complainant's testimony on material facts, which the RTC and CA found consistent and credible. The Supreme Court agreed that minor inconsistencies did not affect the central fact of the crime and noted that such trivial variances are often "badges of truth." Applying People v. Villanueva, the Court held that testimonies must be considered in their entirety, and isolated discrepancies do not automatically discredit a witness. Consequently, the Court concluded that the trial court's factual findings on credibility were supported by the record and should not be disturbed. On Whether alleged inconsistencies amount to reasonable doubt: The Court reasoned that the inconsistencies pointed out by petitioner related only to peripheral matters (e.g., whether the complainant called or texted her mother first) and did not touch on the core elements of the offense. The Court emphasized that minor variances between an affidavit and in-court testimony frequently bolster rather than undermine credibility, quoting that "Minor variances in the details of a witness' account, more frequently than not, are badges of truth rather than indicia of falsehood and they often bolster the probative value of the testimony." Applying People v. Saludo and People v. Villanueva, the Court observed that sexual abuse victims often cannot recall every traumatic detail, and lapses of memory on inconsequential matters do not create reasonable doubt. Given the complainant's positive, categorical, and detailed in-court testimony on material points, the Court held that the alleged inconsistencies did not cast reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. On Whether the Affidavit of Desistance/recantation overturns trial testimony: The Court applied the principle articulated in Madali v. People that an affidavit of recantation executed prior to trial cannot prevail over testimony given in open court. The decision explained that recantations are often unreliable because they are usually taken ex parte and may be secured through improper means; therefore, subsequent in-court testimony repudiating a prior recantation is entitled to greater weight. In the present case, although AAA executed an Affidavit of Desistance on 2013-10-23, she later took the stand on 2016-07-26 and testified against the accused; the Court found her in-court testimony controlling. For these reasons, the affidavit of desistance did not suffice to overturn the trial court's finding of guilt. On Proper Nomenclature and Penalty (Article 336 RPC v. Section 5(b) R.A. No. 7610): The Court followed and applied the en banc guidance in People v. Tulagan (as to designation and penalty) to determine the correct nomenclature and sentence. The Court explained that when the victim is more than twelve but below eighteen years of age, the proper designation is "Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610," and the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua as provided in Tulagan and its antecedents. While the RTC and CA had originally designated the offense under Article 336, the Supreme Court modified the conviction to Section 5(b) R.A. No. 7610 and imposed the appropriate penalty ranges consistent with Tulagan and applicable statutory provisions. The Court acknowledged reservations by the ponente regarding due process questions in Tulagan but recognized Tulagan as the prevailing doctrine to be followed. On Damages and Interest: The Court adjusted the amounts of civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages to Php 50,000.00 each in conformity with Tulagan's guidance and imposed interest at 6% per annum from finality in line with People v. Arcillas. The decision explained that such awards and interest are proper to complete the vindication and redress owed to the victim, and the modifications were within the Court's authority when correcting the penalty nomenclature and damages consistent with current jurisprudence.
Main Doctrine
Victim testimony on material facts may be given full credence despite minor inconsistencies; where the victim is above twelve but below eighteen years of age, the proper designation is "Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610," with penalties determined pursuant to that provision as explained in People v. Tulagan.