Laconsay v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents The case involves a criminal charge against Resty Laconsay for Acts of Lasciviousness, as defined under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Republic Act No. 7610. The Information alleged that on or about August 28, 2011, Laconsay, with lewd design, committed lascivious acts upon a 14-year-old minor, AAA, by touching her left foot, leg, and groin against her will. The prosecution presented AAA's testimony, wherein she recounted waking up to find a person touching her and then caressing her leg up to her groin. Her sister, BBB, corroborated this account, identifying Laconsay as the perpetrator. The defense, however, denied the accusation, with Laconsay presenting an alibi of being with friends during the time of the incident. His father, Antonio Laconsay, also testified in his defense. Procedural History The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch xxxxxxxxxxx, Olongapo City, in Criminal Case No. 27-2012FC, found Resty Laconsay guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Acts of Lasciviousness in relation to Republic Act No. 7610. The RTC sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty and ordered him to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages. Laconsay appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in its Decision dated October 29, 2020, affirmed the RTC's finding of guilt but modified the penalty and damages awarded. The CA further denied Laconsay's Motion for Reconsideration in a Resolution dated March 11, 2022. The Petition Aggrieved by the CA's rulings, Resty Laconsay filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. He assails the CA's affirmation of his conviction, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove his identity as the assailant and that AAA's testimony contained inconsistencies. The Office of the Solicitor General, representing the People of the Philippines, maintained that the prosecution successfully proved Laconsay's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the credibility of the witnesses and the positive identification made. The core issue presented to the Supreme Court was whether Laconsay is guilty of Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution proved petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610, including the proper nomenclature of the offense, and the penalty and damages. Whether AAA's testimony was inconsistent and unreliable. Whether petitioner's defenses of denial and alibi were meritorious.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari, affirmed the Court of Appeals' Decision with modification, and found petitioner Resty Laconsay guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610. He was sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of eight years and one day of prision mayor medium, as the minimum, to 17 years, four months, and one day of reclusion temporal, as the maximum. Petitioner was also 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, all with legal interest, and to pay a fine of PHP 15,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of the petitioner for Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610, the proper nomenclature of the offense, and the penalty and damages: The Court affirmed the conviction, finding that all the elements of the crime were sufficiently established. The victim, AAA, was 14 years old at the time of the offense. AAA clearly testified how the acts of lasciviousness were committed by the petitioner, identifying him as the assailant. Despite the darkness, AAA recognized the petitioner's face through the backlight of his cellphone, which he also used to focus light on her face. This identification was corroborated by AAA's sister, BBB, who also saw the petitioner inside their house and recognized him. BBB's familiarity with the petitioner, knowing him as the elder brother of her classmate who lived across their house, further strengthened the identification. The Court reiterated that factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are entitled to great weight and respect. The Court clarified that while the RTC and CA used the nomenclature "Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Article III, Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610," the proper nomenclature for the offense when committed against a victim who is 12 years old or below 18 years old is "Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610," as settled in People v. Tulagan. Since AAA was 14 years old, the correct classification is Lascivious Conduct. The Court affirmed the CA's imposition of the indeterminate penalty of eight years and one day of prision mayor medium, as the minimum, to 17 years, four months, and one day of reclusion temporal, as the maximum, which falls within the range prescribed by law for Lascivious Conduct under RA 7610. The Court also affirmed the awards of PHP 50,000.00 each for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, as well as the fine of PHP 15,000.00, with legal interest from the finality of the decision. On the alleged inconsistency in AAA's testimony: The Court found no merit in the petitioner's contention that AAA's testimony was inconsistent. AAA explained that her initial hesitation to identify the petitioner to her father was due to fear that her father might suffer a heart attack, as she had witnessed him have convulsions when angered. However, she eventually identified the petitioner, and her admission was not out of fear of her father but because he was indeed the perpetrator. The Court emphasized that the alleged inconsistency was already discussed and resolved by the RTC and CA. The Court also noted that when the offended party is a young and immature girl, her version of events is generally given credence due to her vulnerability and the shame associated with such experiences. On the defenses of denial and alibi: The Court rejected petitioner's defenses of denial and alibi. These defenses were unsubstantiated and could not prevail over the positive identification made by AAA and BBB in open court. The Court found no ill motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses to testify falsely against the petitioner. Furthermore, the testimony of petitioner's father, Antonio, was found to be unreliable due to inconsistencies and changes in his statements during the trial, including his admission that he did not include material facts in his affidavit and later changed his account of who he spoke to regarding the perpetrator's alleged tattoo. The claim of a tattoo was also belied by the prosecution witnesses, casting doubt on its veracity and suggesting it was fabricated to defend the petitioner.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction for Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610, holding that the positive identification by the victim and her sister, corroborated by the circumstances, was sufficient to overcome the defenses of denial and alibi. The Court also clarified the proper nomenclature for the offense when committed against a minor between 12 and 18 years old.