People v. Dalaguet
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellant Benny Dalaguet was charged with two counts of lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610. The Informations alleged that sometime in December 2009 and March 2010, Dalaguet, with lewd designs and by means of force, coercion, and intimidation, had sexual intercourse with AAA, a minor then 15 years old, without her consent and against her will. Procedural History: Upon arraignment, Dalaguet pleaded not guilty. After joint trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 45 of Bais City, found Dalaguet guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each count. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with modification, finding Dalaguet guilty of two counts of lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 and imposing an indeterminate penalty. The CA found that while sexual intercourse was not proven due to lack of penetration, the elements of lascivious conduct were established. The Petition: Dalaguet appealed to the Supreme Court, questioning the CA's error in convicting him of lascivious conduct despite the alleged failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in convicting accused-appellant of lascivious conduct under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, despite the alleged failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the elements of lascivious conduct under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610 were sufficiently established, including the credibility of the victim's testimony, the inapplicability of R.A. No. 11648, and the appropriate penalty and damages.
Ruling
The appeal is unmeritorious. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, finding accused-appellant Benny Dalaguet guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of lascivious conduct under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610. He was sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, in its medium period, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as maximum term of imprisonment for each count of violation. He was also ordered to pay AAA ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱50,000.00 as moral damages, and ₱50,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count, with legal interest.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of conviction for lascivious conduct: The Court held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant committed two counts of lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610. The victim, AAA, testified clearly and positively that Dalaguet made her lie down and undressed her, while he also undressed himself, on two separate occasions. Although AAA stated that Dalaguet had "sexual intercourse" with her, she consistently clarified that his penis did not penetrate her vagina, thus negating the element of carnal knowledge required for rape. However, these acts of undressing and engaging in sexual acts outside the vagina, performed against the victim's will and under circumstances of coercion and intimidation, sufficiently constitute lascivious conduct as defined under R.A. No. 7610. On the elements of lascivious conduct under R.A. No. 7610, the credibility of the victim's testimony, the inapplicability of R.A. No. 11648, and the penalty and damages: The Court found that all elements were established. First, Dalaguet committed lascivious conduct. Second, AAA was a child subjected to sexual abuse. Third, AAA's birth certificate confirmed her age. The Court reiterated that the testimony of the offended party, if clear, positive, and probable, is sufficient to convict. The Court determined that the retroactive application of R.A. No. 11648 would not be favorable to the accused-appellant. The Court imposed the indeterminate penalty and affirmed the award of damages.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction for two counts of lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610, holding that while sexual intercourse (rape) was not proven due to lack of penetration, the acts of undressing the victim and engaging in sexual acts outside the vagina constituted lascivious conduct, especially given the victim's tender age and the perpetrator's coercive influence.