People v. Imbo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Nonito Imbo y Gamores was accused of committing acts of lasciviousness upon his own daughter, AAA, who was 11 years old at the time. The alleged acts occurred between October 14, 2003, and January 25, 2004. AAA testified that her father licked her vagina and mashed her breasts while she and her sister were sleeping. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 94, Quezon City, convicted petitioner of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in relation to Section 5 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610. The RTC sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty and ordered him to pay civil, moral, and exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision. He argued that the CA erred in giving credence to AAA's testimony, which he claimed was incredible and implausible, and that the CA erred in imposing the penalty under Section 5 of R.A. No. 7610 despite its absence in the Information.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in giving credence to the incredible and implausible testimony of private complainant AAA. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in imposing the penalty under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 7610 despite the Information failing to indicate its applicability.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals with modification regarding the penalty and damages. Petitioner Nonito Imbo y Gamores was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as minimum and seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum. He was ordered to pay a fine of P15,000.00, civil indemnity of P20,000.00, moral damages of P15,000.00, and exemplary damages of P15,000.00, with legal interest.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found the testimony of AAA credible and convincing, sufficient to establish the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. The Court reiterated the settled rule that the lone testimony of the offended party, if credible, is sufficient to establish guilt. The alleged inconsistencies pointed out by the petitioner, such as the number of people in the household and the lack of immediate outcry, were deemed not to discount the possibility of the crime. The Court emphasized that sexual abuse is often committed out of sight and is typically attested to only by the victim and the perpetrator. Petitioner's defense of denial and alibi was considered weak against the positive and straightforward narration of the victim. The Court also found implausible the petitioner's defense that the case was fabricated by his wife to justify a separation, noting that such a scenario would be unnatural and against human nature, especially involving the alleged manipulation of a child to accuse her own father. On Issue 2: The Court held that the elements and act of sexual abuse under Section 5, Article III of R.A. No. 7610 were sufficiently alleged in the Information and proven during the trial, despite the petitioner's contention to the contrary. The Information stated that AAA was a minor, that the petitioner committed a lascivious act against her by kissing her private parts and mashing her breasts, and that he subjected her to sexual abuse. The Court clarified that Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610 specifically provides that when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under the RPC, but the penalty shall be that provided in R.A. No. 7610, which is reclusion temporal in its medium period for lascivious conduct. The Court also noted that the aggravating circumstance of relationship, as provided in Section 31(c) of R.A. No. 7610, requires the penalty to be imposed in its maximum period. The Court modified the penalty imposed by the lower courts to conform to the Indeterminate Sentence Law, setting the minimum term within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the RPC and the maximum term within the prescribed range of R.A. No. 7610, considering the aggravating circumstance.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed that the lone, credible testimony of a victim is sufficient to convict an accused for acts of lasciviousness, even without corroboration. It reiterated that denial and alibi are weak defenses against positive identification. Furthermore, the case clarified the application of Republic Act No. 7610 in conjunction with the Revised Penal Code for offenses against minors under twelve (12) years of age, specifying that the penalty prescribed by R.A. No. 7610 shall be imposed, and that the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable, considering aggravating circumstances such as relationship.