People v. Villacampa
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In March 2006, Ceferino Villacampa y Cadiente @ 'Daddy Gaga,' the common-law husband of the victims' mother, sexually abused four minor siblings: AAA (11), BBB (6), CCC (14), and DDD (13). For AAA (FC Nos. 1359-1361): On 21 March 2006, Villacampa inserted finger into her vagina near kitchen, attempted penile penetration stopped by knock; on 23 March, finger insertion and licking on papag; on 25 March, finger insertion and licking while babysitting siblings. AAA reported to mother (ignored) and father (furious). For BBB (FC Nos. 1362-1367): Multiple finger insertions—alone at home, eating together, playing/siblings sent out, sleeping, watching TV, playing outside—last with death threat to mother; reported to AAA; BBB was 8 at testimony. For CCC (FC Nos. 1368-1369): 21 March, finger insertion and kiss after death threat to father; 25 March, after forced beer, penile penetration while asleep, resulting in pregnancy and birth of daughter surnamed Villacampa; reported to mother (disbelieved), father, executed affidavit. For DDD (FC No. 1370): 25 March midnight, penile penetration while asleep, mouth covered, threats; reported to mother (disbelieved). Victims examined: AAA/CCC by Dr. Chincuangco (healed lacerations); BBB/DDD by Dr. Guevarra. Villacampa denied, claimed victims coached by father/aunt, courted CCC. Procedural History: RTC (Branch 45, San Fernando, Pampanga) convicted Villacampa of 9 counts rape through sexual assault (FC 1359-1367), simple rape (1368), acts of lasciviousness (1369) under RA 7610; acquitted 1370 (DDD's testimony doubtful); penalties included reclusion perpetua, indeterminates, fines/damages. CA affirmed with mods: corrected penalties to RPC-based indeterminates, clarified case assignments, adjusted damages. Villacampa appealed to SC. The Petition: Appellant argued victims' testimonies incredible, coached by father/aunt; failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; for CCC, consensual relation with child. Prosecution relied on consistent victim testimonies, medical evidence, minority, moral ascendancy.
Issue(s)
Whether the CA erred in affirming conviction for nine counts of rape through sexual assault under RA 7610, one simple rape, one sexual abuse; and whether the evidence presented was sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Whether proper nomenclature, penalties, and civil liabilities were applied for lascivious conduct on minors under RA 7610 vis-à-vis RPC.
Ruling
Appeal denied; CA Decision affirmed with modifications: Guilty of 9 counts Acts of Lasciviousness (Art. 336 RPC r.a. Sec. 5(b) RA 7610) in FC 1359-1367 (indeterminate 12y10m20d RT min to 15y6m20d RT max + fine P15k, civ ind P20k, moral P15k, exemp P15k each); simple rape (1368) reclusion perpetua + P75k each civ ind/moral/exemp; Lascivious Conduct Sec. 5(b) RA 7610 (1369) indeterminate 10y PM min to 16y5m10d RT max + fine P15k, civ ind P20k, moral P15k, exemp P15k; 6% interest on damages; acquitted 1370.
Ratio Decidendi
On sufficiency of evidence and guilt: Lower courts correctly found guilt beyond reasonable doubt as victims' testimonies consistent, corroborated by medical evidence (healed lacerations admitting fingertip), pregnancy/birth for CCC; moral ascendancy of stepfather substitutes force (People v. Antonio); elements of RA 7610 Sec. 5(b) met—lascivious acts (finger insertion/kissing/licking per IRR Sec. 2(h)); victims under coercion/influence classifying as 'subjected to other sexual abuse' even once (Quimvel v. People); minority proven/admitted; defenses (coaching/consent) rejected as contrary to child credibility doctrine. Acquittal in 1370 proper due to doubtful testimony. On nomenclature/penalties: Modified to Acts of Lasciviousness Art. 336 RPC r.a. RA 7610 Sec. 5(b) for under-12 (AAA/BBB) as finger insertion is lascivious, not sexual assault; penalty reclusion temporal medium (14y8m1d-17y4m) indeterminately (min RT min per People v. Chingh); for CCC (14yo, 1369) Lascivious Conduct Sec. 5(b) RA 7610 (RT med-perpua); simple rape 1368 (penile-vaginal) RPC Art. 266-A(1); rejected CA's RPC-only penalties, RA 7610 governs quantum despite RPC prosecution (Caoili guidelines reiterated); damages per Jugueta/Escalante; fine per Sec. 31(f) RA 7610.
Main Doctrine
For lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 on victims under 12 years old, the proper nomenclature is 'Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of RA 7610,' with penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period, applied indeterminately with minimum from reclusion temporal minimum period. If victim is 12 or above but under 18, it is 'Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of RA 7610,' penalized by reclusion temporal medium to reclusion perpetua. The elements of sexual abuse are: (1) act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse (satisfied by coercion/influence of adult, even for single act); (3) child under 18. Finger insertion into vagina constitutes lascivious conduct, not rape through sexual assault when RA 7610 applies to minors. Moral ascendancy of stepfather substitutes for force/threat. RA 7610 penalties supersede RPC even if prosecuted under RPC nomenclature for under-12 victims.