People v. Mendoza
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Rodolfo C. Mendoza was charged with Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. (RA) 7610. The Information alleged that on March 8, 2016, petitioner, with lewd designs by means of force and coercion, performed lascivious acts upon AAA, a nine-year-old minor, by kissing her twice on the lips against her will and without her consent, and threatening her not to report the incident. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentencing him to suffer an indeterminate penalty and ordering him to pay civil, moral, and exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision with modification on the penalty. The CA ruled that petitioner was estopped from questioning the illegality of his arrest, that his identity was established, and that all elements of the crime were proven. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. He argued that the CA erred in affirming his conviction despite the illegality of his arrest and the prosecution's failure to establish all the elements of the crime, particularly his identity.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming the conviction despite the alleged illegality of the petitioner's arrest. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming the conviction despite the prosecution's alleged failure to establish all the elements of the crime charged, specifically the age of the victim, and the application of RA 7610 and RPC Article 336. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming the conviction despite the prosecution's alleged failure to establish the petitioner's identity beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals with modifications regarding the damages awarded. The Court found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of RA 7610.
Ratio Decidendi
On the illegality of arrest: The Court held that petitioner is estopped from questioning the legality of his arrest. Failure to move for the quashal of the Information on the ground of illegal arrest prior to arraignment bars the accused from raising the same on appeal. The Court reiterated the well-settled doctrine that any defect in the arrest is deemed cured by the voluntary act of entering a plea and actively participating in the trial. Petitioner's voluntary participation in the proceedings before the RTC, including entering a plea of not guilty and proceeding with the trial, constituted a waiver of any objection to the legality of his arrest. On the failure to establish elements of the crime, specifically the age of the victim, and the application of RA 7610 and RPC Article 336: The Court found that the prosecution sufficiently established the elements of the crime. Petitioner's assertion that the prosecution failed to present documentary evidence to prove AAA's age was dismissed. The Court reiterated that presentation of a birth certificate is not always necessary, and courts may take judicial notice of the age of a victim, especially if the victim is of tender age and it is manifest from their physical appearance. The Court noted that this issue was raised for the first time on appeal and was never disputed during the proceedings before the RTC and CA. The RTC and CA's taking judicial notice of AAA's age was therefore proper. The Court affirmed that all elements of Acts of Lasciviousness under the RPC and Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 were established. The elements of lascivious conduct under RA 7610 include the commission of such conduct with a child below 18 years of age, and when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the elements of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC must also be met. The Court found that petitioner committed a lewd act by kissing the nine-year-old child against her will and under threat, constituting sexual abuse under the coercion or influence of an adult. The Court clarified that for victims under twelve (12) years old, mere moral ascendancy of the offender is sufficient to establish influence or intimidation, which subsumes the elements of force and intimidation. On the failure to establish identity: The Court found that the petitioner was sufficiently and appropriately identified. While the victim, AAA, initially identified the perpetrator by his haircut, she had known the petitioner prior to the incident as he was working in the construction site where she lived. AAA also testified to having seen the petitioner at a store near the tricycle terminal. The Court emphasized that testimonies of child-victims are given full faith and credit, and that the RTC, having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment, was in a better position to assess credibility. The CA's affirmation of the RTC's findings further strengthened their binding nature.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction for Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5(b) of RA 7610, holding that the identity of the perpetrator was sufficiently established by the child victim's testimony, that the illegality of a warrantless arrest is deemed waived by voluntary plea and active participation in trial, and that the age of a child victim below twelve (12) years old may be judicially noticed, especially when not disputed during trial.