Supreme Court E-Library
Information At Your Fingertips

  View printer friendly version

Court of Appeals
On appeal is the Decision (Rollo, pp. 44-49) dated November 12, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 86 of Quezon City, finding Accused-Appellant Noel Sosa y Camarillo (hereinafter accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness, as defined and penalized under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in relation to Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610 (RA 7610). The fallo of the appealed Decision reads:

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused Noel Sosa y Camarillo, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of acts of lasciviousness and hereby sentences (sic) to suffer the indeterminate penalty ranging from ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, and to pay the private complainant the amount of P20.000.00 as moral damages, plus costs.

SO ORDERED." (Rollo, pp. 48-49)

The conviction of the accused-appellant stemmed from an Information in Criminal Case No. Q-06-140983 for Acts of Lasciviousness under the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610, the accusatory portion of which reads:

"That on or about the 22nd day of April 2006, in Quezon City, Philippines, accused with lewd designs and by means of force, violence and intimidation, did  then and there willfully, unlawfully  and feloniously commit acts of lasciviousness upon the person of one AAA,^[1]  9 years old, a minor, against her will, by then and there mashing her private parts, to the damage and prejudice of said minor.

CONTRARY TO LAW." (Records, p. 1)

When arraigned on May 30, 2006, accused-appellant, assisted by counsel, pleaded "NOT GUILTY" to the offense charged. (Records, p. 12)

Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued and the prosecution and the defense presented their respective version of the facts surrounding the instant case.

The prosecution tends to establish the following version of facts:

On April 22, 2006 at around 5 o'clock in the afternoon, the victim, AAA who was then nine (9) years old, was left alone in their house. AAA was then lying on the floor of their living room and watching television. While watching television, accused-appellant knocked on the door. When AM opened the door, accused-appellant forced himself inside the house and told AAA that he wants to buy ice. Accused-appellant likewise told AAA that he wants to borrow a hammer. Thence, AAA got ice from refrigerator and handed it to accused-appellant who in turn gave her the payment. Thereafter, AAA returned to her position. Accused-appellant did not leave yet. Instead, he placed the ice on the top of a table and suddenly touched AAA's sexual organ and mashed her breasts, which acts lasted for about one (1) minute. Accused-appellant left immediately after the incident. When AAA's grandfather arrived, she immediately reported the incident to him. The latter then informed AAA's father. On, the same day AAA's father and grandfather were able to apprehend the accused-appellant and brought him to the barangay hall. Accused-appellant was later brought to the police station.

Refuting the accusations against him, accused-appellant narrated the following version:

Between 4 o'clock to 5 o'clock in the afternoon of April 22, 2006, accused-appellant came to AAA's house to buy ice. Unfortunately, accused-appellant was not able to buy ice since they ran out of it. AAA was alone at that time, watching television. Accused-appellant joined her in watching television for about five (5) minutes. Suddenly, AAA's father and grandfather arrived and he noticed that they were already drunk. Accused-appellant was taken a back when AAA's father told him that he touched his daughter's private parts, an allegation which he outrightly denied. Thereafter, AAA's father told him to go with them to the barangay hall. He voluntarily went with them.

After trial on the merits, the RTC found sufficient evidence against the accused-appellant. Thus, on November 12, 2007, the RTC rendered the appealed Decision, supra, finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. The dispositive portion of the said appealed Decision was quoted in the early part of this Decision.

Accused-appellant seasonably filed an appeal with this Court raising the following errors-

"I

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN APPRECIATING SECTION 5(B) OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7610 WHEN ITS ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS ARE ABSENT IN THE INFORMATION[;] [AND]

II"

THE COURT, A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED."(Rollo, p. 33)

Accused-appellant assert that he cannot be convicted of acts of lasciviousness in relation to Section 5(b) of RA 7610 since the Information failed to alleged the essential elements of Section 5(b) of RA 7610. Otherwise, his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him would be violated.

He likewise contends that his guilt for the offense charged was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The appeal is not impressed with merit.

Evidently, it is undisputed that at the time of the commission of the sexual abuse, AAA was barely nine (9) years old. (TSN dated September 11, 2006, p. 13; Records, p. 22) As such, the instant case calls for application of RA 7610 otherwise known as "The Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act."This special law defines sexual abuse of children and prescribes the penalty therefor in Article III, Section 5, to wit:

"SEC. 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.

*           *           *           *           *           *           *

(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse: Provided, That when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period."

Verily, paragraph (b) punishes sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct not only with a child exploited in prostitution, but also with a child subjected to other sexual abuses. The provision covers not only a situation where a child is abused for profit, but also where one, through coercion, intimidation or influence, engages in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child. (Malto vs. People, 533 SCRA 643, 656-657[2007J)

Nonetheless, before an accused can be convicted of child abuse through lascivious conduct committed against a minor below 12 years of age, the requisites for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC must be met in addition to the requisites for sexual abuse under Section 5 of RA 7610. (Navarrete vs. People, 513 SCRA 509, 517 [2007]  )

The crime of Acts of Lasciviousness is defined and penalized under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code which reads:

"ART. 336. Acts of lasciviousness.- Any person who shall commit any act of lasciviousness upon other persons of either sex, under any of the circumstances mentioned in the preceding article, shall be punished by prision correccional."

For an accused to be convicted of acts of lasciviousness under the foregoing provision, the prosecution is burdened to prove the confluence of the following essential elements:

(1) that the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; and

(2) that it is done under any of the following circumstances: (a) by using force or intimidation; (b) when the offended woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or (c) when the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age. (Sombilon, Jr. vs. People, G.R No. 175528, September 30, 2009)

In addition, the following elements of sexual abuse under Section 5, Article III of RA 7610 must be proven:

(1) The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct;

(2) The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and

(3) The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age. (People vs. Sumingwa, G. R. No. 183619, October 13, 2009; People vs. Montinola, 543 SCRA 412, 431 [2008])

Lascivious conduct is defined under Section 32, Article XIII of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 7610 in this wise:

"[T]he intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or public area of a person."

During the direct examination, AAA testified as follows:

"Q. Will you please tell the Honorable Court how did the accused committed (sic) that acts of lasciviousness?

"A. At first the accused committed the act by touching the lower part of my body and upper part of my body.

"Q. The accused touched your breast and other vital part of your body?

"A. Yes, sir.

*           *           *           *           *           *           *

"Q. What was the reaction when the accused touched your breast and your private part?

"A. I was scared.

*           *           *           *           *           *           *

"Q. Is this the first time that the accused touched your breast and private part?

"A. No, sir.

"Q. When was the first time?

"A. February 2006."(TSN dated September 11, 2006, pp. 5-7)

From the definition of lascivious conduct, accused-appellant's act of touching AAA's breasts and private organ obviously amounted to lascivious conduct. Considering that the act was committed on a child less than twelve years old, it is beyond cavil that accused-appellant is guilty under the aforesaid laws.

Significantly, it must be noted that the information, supra, indicting the accused-appellant specifically charged him with Acts of Lasciviousness under the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of RA 7610 and the body of the information contained an averment of the acts alleged to have been committed by the accused-appellant and unmistakably describes acts likewise punishable under Section 5(b). Article III of RA 7610.

Indeed, AAA's testimony that accused-appellant performed lecherous acts should be given full faith and credence. In cases of acts of lasciviousness, the lone testimony of the offended party, if credible, is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. (Navarrete vs. People, 513 SCRA 509 [2007] ) Moreover, courts are inclined to lend credence to the testimony of children of tender years. The revelation of an innocent child whose chastity has been abused deserves full credit, as her willingness to undergo the trouble and the humiliation of a public trial is an eloquent testament to the truth of her complaint. (People vs. Cachapero, 428 SCRA 744, 753 [2004] )

Besides, the alleged inconsistencies in AAA's testimony pertain to AAA's report of the incident to her grandfather which are minor details and do not touch on the elements of the crime charged against him. Far from weakening AAA's testimony, such inconsistencies tend to strengthen her credibility as they actually indicate veracity rather than prevarication, and erase any suspicion of being rehearsed. On this point, We find as highly instructive the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in People v. Solmoro, Jr., (393 SCRA 100, 108 [2002] ) thus:

"* * * The alleged inconsistencies refer to minor and trivial matters that do not puncture the gravamen of the crimes. Jurisprudence is replete with pronouncements by this Court that a few discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details which do not touch the essence of the crime do not impair their credibility. They cannot deflect us from giving full faith to the complainant's testimony especially because at the time she testified in court complainant was still a lass of tender years who was unaccustomed to a public trial. The natural fickleness of human memory compounded by the trauma of a harrowing experience may have conspired to cause difficulty in recalling with accuracy the ugly details of the outrage * * *" (underscoring for emphasis)

From the foregoing factual and legal milieus, We find no plausible reason to overturn the findings of the RTC. Thus, the RTC did not err in convicting the accused-appellant for the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness defined and penalized under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, instant appeal is denied. The appealed Decision dated November 12, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 86 of Quezon City in Criminal Case No. Q-06-140983 finding Accused-Appellant Noel Sosa y Camarillo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5 (b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Villamor and Ybañez., JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Name and identity of the victim withheld as per the case of People vs. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006