XXX279464 v. People
CLARIFICATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: XXX279464 was charged with acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 (RA 7610) for allegedly committing lascivious acts against AAA279464, an eight-year-old girl. The Information alleged that XXX279464, motivated by lust and lewd designs, removed AAA279464's pants and rubbed his penis on her buttocks, and lifted her shirt exposing her back while holding his penis and caressing her legs. AAA279464 testified that XXX279464 made her sit on his lap, covered them with a blanket, pulled down both their pants, and rubbed his penis against her buttocks. Her mother, BBB279464, testified that AAA279464 reported the incident to her, and XXX279464 eventually asked for forgiveness. A psychologist, Fowaya, evaluated AAA279464, noting negative emotions due to the alleged sexual abuse. XXX279464 denied the allegations, claiming AAA279464 was his wife's niece, often stayed at his house, and that he only cut her hair for lice. He also claimed AAA279464's father was spreading rumors due to a prior argument. 2. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found XXX279464 guilty beyond reasonable doubt of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of RA 7610, imposing an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, maximum, plus a PHP 15,000.00 fine and civil damages. The RTC found AAA279464's testimony straightforward and convincing, and XXX279464's denial insufficient. XXX279464 appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the RTC erred, questioning AAA279464's credibility due to delayed reporting, lack of fear, and calm demeanor during interviews, and the impossibility of the act in broad daylight with others present. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) opposed, asserting the elements were proven and AAA279464 was credible. The CA affirmed the RTC's ruling with a modification to the maximum penalty, finding AAA279464 credible and dismissing XXX279464's arguments. 3. The Petition: XXX279464 filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, claiming the CA erred in denying his appeal. He insisted the prosecution failed to prove force or intimidation, that AAA279464 was not a credible witness due to inconsistencies between her affidavit and testimony, her "unsophisticated" testimony, and her actions after the alleged molestation (delayed reporting, riding his vehicle, calm demeanor). He also argued the prosecution should have presented his other daughter as a witness and reiterated the impossibility of the act in broad daylight with others present. The OSG sought denial of the Petition, citing procedural defects (failure to serve CA, raising questions of fact) and reiterating that all elements were proven, AAA279464 was credible, and there is no standard reaction for abuse victims.
Issue(s)
Whether the CA erred when it ruled that petitioner XXX279464 is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610.
Ruling
The Petition is DENIED. The February 17, 2025 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 48113 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner XXX279464 is GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of statutory acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code. He is SENTENCED to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of six months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four years and two months of prision correccional, as maximum. Petitioner is likewise ORDERED to PAY AAA279464: (1) PHP 50,000.00 as civil indemnity; (2) PHP 50,000.00 as moral damages; and (3) PHP 50,000.00 as exemplary damages. The foregoing awards shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until full payment.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court initially noted that the Petition was fatally defective due to procedural lapses, specifically the failure to serve a copy to the Court of Appeals and raising questions of fact instead of questions of law, which are grounds for outright dismissal under Rule 45, Sections 3 and 5 of the Rules of Court. However, the Court opted to take cognizance of the Petition due to recent developments in relevant jurisprudence, particularly the Gramatica v. People case, which compelled a reconsideration of the crime and corresponding penalties. Applying the guidelines set in Gramatica, the Court clarified the proper designation of the crime. Since AAA279464 was eight years old at the time of the incident, she was below the statutory age of 12, making the crime statutory acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), rather than acts of lasciviousness in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 (RA 7610). The Court emphasized that in statutory acts of lasciviousness, the minor is presumed incapable of giving consent, rendering evidence of force or intimidation immaterial. The prosecution successfully proved the elements of statutory acts of lasciviousness: the petitioner committed lewd acts against AAA279464 by rubbing his penis against her buttocks, and AAA279464 was a female below the statutory age of 12. The Court found AAA279464's testimony credible, consistent with the Barona v. People and Amployo v. People definitions of lewd conduct. The Court rejected the petitioner's arguments against AAA279464's credibility. First, inconsistencies between her affidavit and testimony were deemed minor and collateral, not affecting her credibility, as held in Kummer v. People. Affidavits are often incomplete and inferior to in-court testimony. Second, AAA279464's actions and omissions after the molestation, such as delayed reporting or calm demeanor, do not diminish her credibility, as there is no standard reaction for victims of sexual abuse, as established in People v. Dalaguet. The Court noted that AAA279464 did immediately inform her father, though he delayed reporting to the police. Third, her testimony was found sufficiently detailed and credible. The petitioner's claim that force or intimidation was not proven was irrelevant for statutory acts of lasciviousness against a victim below 12 years old, where consent is presumed absent. The argument that the act was impossible in broad daylight was also dismissed, as lust is not limited by time or place, citing People v. Ladra. Finally, the defense of denial was considered weak against the positive and straightforward testimony of the victim, especially since no ill motive was shown for AAA279464 to testify falsely, consistent with Gumawid v. People and People v. Ampo. The prosecution's discretion in presenting witnesses, as affirmed in People v. Gomez, meant they were not obligated to present the petitioner's other child. The Court modified the penalty based on Article 336 of the RPC, which prescribes prision correccional (six months to six years). Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and noting the absence of modifying circumstances, the minimum term was set from arresto mayor (one month and one day to six months), and the maximum term from the medium period of prision correccional (two years, four months, and one day to four years and two months). Thus, the indeterminate penalty was six months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four years and two months of prision correccional, as maximum. Civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages of PHP 50,000.00 each were awarded to AAA279464, with interest at 6% per annum from finality until full payment, in line with Tulagan v. People and Nacar v. Gallery Frames.
Main Doctrine
This case clarifies the application of Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 (RA 7610) regarding acts of lasciviousness against minors, particularly in light of the Gramatica v. People guidelines. It emphasizes that statutory acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC apply when the victim is below 12 years old, irrespective of force or intimidation, as the minor is presumed incapable of consent. This distinguishes it from Section 5(b) of RA 7610, which applies to minors aged 16 and above but below 18 who are subjected to sexual abuse through coercion or influence, where there is defective consent. The decision underscores that the specific age of the victim dictates the proper legal classification and elements to be proven.