People v. Mariano
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The case involves a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision which affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruling finding petitioner Felix Mariano y Pilapil (Mariano) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of Republic Act (RA) No. 7610 and theft under Article 308 in relation to Article 309(6) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Two Informations were filed: one for rape under Article 266-A(2) of the RPC and another for theft under Article 308 of the RPC. The prosecution alleged that on January 29, 2017, Mariano forcibly dragged the 14-year-old victim, AAA, to a dark place, threatened him, and committed sexual assault by inserting his penis into AAA's mouth and anus. Subsequently, Mariano forcibly took AAA's iPhone 4S. Mariano fled when police officers approached, taking the cellphone. AAA reported the incident to the police, leading to Mariano's arrest the following day. A medico-legal examination revealed an injury on AAA's anus, consistent with penetrating trauma. During trial, Mariano admitted committing the crime under the influence of dangerous drugs when shown a news clip of the incident. Mariano's defense was a denial, claiming he was with his family at home during the incident. 2. Procedural History: The RTC, in a Joint Decision, found Mariano guilty of lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of RA No. 7610 and theft under Article 308, in relation to Article 309(6) of the RPC. The RTC found the elements of rape by sexual assault and theft sufficiently proven by AAA's testimony and the corroborating evidence, including the fact that AAA could unlock the stolen cellphone. The CA affirmed the RTC ruling, reiterating that the elements of rape by sexual assault were present and corroborated by the medico-legal report. Regarding theft, the CA noted that force and intimidation were employed, suggesting robbery, but upheld the theft conviction as the Information did not allege robbery, adhering to the rule against convicting for a higher offense than charged. 3. The Petition: Mariano filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, insisting that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crimes charged. The People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, maintained that the CA correctly affirmed Mariano's convictions.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the Regional Trial Court's findings that petitioner Felix Mariano y Pilapil is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of RA No. 7610. Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the Regional Trial Court's findings that petitioner Felix Mariano y Pilapil is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of theft under Article 308, in relation to Article 309(6) of the Revised Penal Code.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for review on certiorari for lack of merit. The Court affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals, which upheld the Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court finding petitioner Felix Mariano y Pilapil guilty beyond reasonable doubt of lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 and theft under Article 308, in relation to Article 309(6) of the Revised Penal Code. The Court modified the penalties imposed, particularly for theft, and ordered the payment of fines and damages.
Ratio Decidendi
On the conviction for lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of RA No. 7610: The Court found that all the essential elements for sexual assault under Article 266-A of the RPC were proven beyond reasonable doubt. Firstly, Mariano committed an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into AAA's mouth and anal orifice. Secondly, this act was accomplished through the use of force and intimidation, as evidenced by Mariano grabbing AAA by his shoulders and neck and threatening him. The Court gave full weight and credit to AAA's candid, positive, convincing, and consistent testimony, which was corroborated by the Medico-Legal Report showing an injury on AAA's anus. The Court emphasized that even without the medico-legal report, AAA's testimony alone would suffice, as it was clear, consistent with human nature, and the victim's youth and immaturity are badges of truth. Mariano's blanket denial was deemed self-serving and without evidentiary weight against AAA's positive testimony. The Court also confirmed that Section 5(b) of RA No. 7610 applies because AAA was 14 years old at the time of the offense, fitting the definition of a child subjected to sexual abuse. The conviction was properly classified as lascivious conduct under RA 7610, aligning with jurisprudence. On the conviction for theft: The Court found the conviction for theft to be in accordance with law. The elements of theft were present: (1) taking of personal property (the iPhone 4S), (2) belonging to another (AAA), (3) with intent to gain, (4) without the owner's consent, and (5) accomplished without violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things. The Court noted that while Mariano employed force and intimidation in taking the cellphone, as reflected in AAA's testimony, he could not be convicted of robbery because the Information did not allege violence or intimidation. Adhering to the rule that an accused cannot be convicted of an offense higher than that charged, the CA correctly convicted Mariano of theft. The Court affirmed the penalty imposed by the CA for theft, which was imprisonment for a straight period of four months, as the value of the stolen property was not proven, warranting the imposition of the minimum penalty under Article 309(6) of the RPC. The Indeterminate Sentence Law was correctly found inapplicable as the maximum term did not exceed one year.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction of the petitioner for lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of RA No. 7610 and theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, finding that the prosecution proved all the elements of both crimes beyond reasonable doubt. The victim's clear and consistent testimony, corroborated by the medico-legal report, established the sexual assault. The theft conviction was sustained despite the presence of force and intimidation, as the Information did not allege robbery, adhering to the rule that an accused cannot be convicted of an offense higher than that charged.