De Vera v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The case originated from an incident where Allan De Vera y Ante (petitioner) was accused of committing acts of lascivious conduct upon a 16-year-old female student, AAA, while she was taking an examination. The Information initially charged the petitioner with Violation of Section 5(b) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610, alleging that the petitioner, with lewd designs, willfully and unlawfully committed acts of lascivious conduct by fondling his penis and masturbating beside the complainant, thereby prejudicing her psychological and physical development. Procedural History: The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the petitioner guilty of Violation of Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610, considering masturbation as a lascivious conduct and a form of sexual abuse. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) modified the RTC's decision, finding that while the elements of Section 5(b) were not sufficiently proven, the petitioner was guilty of child abuse under Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610, as the act of masturbating in the presence of the child constituted psychological abuse and was prejudicial to her development. The CA allowed conviction under Section 10(a) despite it not being specifically charged in the Information. The Petition: The petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision. He argued that there was insufficient proof that the child saw him masturbating and that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610. The petitioner contended that his act should have been penalized as unjust vexation under the Revised Penal Code, as it was not directed at the minor and lacked lewd designs. The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA's ruling that the act of masturbation in the presence of a minor constitutes child abuse under Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610, as it is considered a lascivious conduct, psychological abuse, and an act prejudicial to the child's development, regardless of whether it was specifically charged in the Information.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in convicting the petitioner of the crime of violation of Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610, and whether the Information was sufficient to convict him under this section, considering the defenses of denial and alibi. Whether the act of masturbation in the presence of a minor constitutes child abuse under R.A. No. 7610 or unjust vexation under the Revised Penal Code, and the appropriate penalty and damages.
Ruling
The Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Decision dated September 27, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 39723 is AFFIRMED. Petitioner Allan De Vera y Ante is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610 and is penalized to suffer the indeterminate sentence of four (4) years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum. Petitioner is ordered to pay the minor victim P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, all with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of the Decision until full payment.
Ratio Decidendi
On the conviction for violation of Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610, the sufficiency of the Information, the credibility of the victim, and the defenses of denial and alibi: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that the act of intentional masturbation in the presence of a minor constitutes psychological abuse and is punishable under Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610. The Court held that even if the Information did not specifically charge the petitioner under Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610, he could still be convicted of that offense because the Information sufficiently alleged the elements of child abuse under Section 10(a). The Court found the victim's testimony to be credible and dismissed the petitioner's defenses of denial and alibi as weak. On whether the act constitutes unjust vexation and the appropriate penalty and damages: The Court rejected the petitioner's contention that his act should only be penalized as unjust vexation, explaining that the act of masturbation in the presence of a minor is a lascivious conduct aimed at satisfying sexual desire and has a far greater impact than mere irritation. The Court affirmed the indeterminate sentence imposed by the CA, increased the awards for civil indemnity and moral damages to P50,000.00 each, and reinstated and increased the exemplary damages to P50,000.00.
Main Doctrine
The act of intentional masturbation in the presence of a minor constitutes psychological abuse and is punishable under Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610, as it debases, degrades, or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being, and is considered a condition prejudicial to the child's development. Such an act is not merely unjust vexation under the Revised Penal Code.