G.R. No. 203114 - Awas vs. People

The case involves VIRGILIO LABANDRIA AWAS (petitioner) versus PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (respondent) with G.R. No. 203114, decided on June 28, 2017.
The petitioner was charged with acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610.
The alleged offense involves rape through sexual abuse committed against a minor.

The incident occurred on or about January 24, 2010, in Valenzuela City, Metro Manila.
The minor victim, identified as AAA, was 10 years old at the time of the incident, and a Grade III pupil.
The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, with a lewd design and without the victim’s consent, unlawfully inserted his finger into the victim’s vagina—an act constituting sexual abuse that demeaned her dignity.
The information charged that the petitioner used force and intimidation, although the petitioner later argued that no force was used.

The petitioner entered a plea of not guilty on February 12, 2010.
During the pre-trial on April 16, 2010, both the prosecution and defense stipulated that AAA was a minor at the time of the incident.
The trial court (Regional Trial Court, Branch 172, Valenzuela City) rendered a decision on February 4, 2011, convicting the petitioner of acts of lasciviousness.

The victim, AAA, testified detailing the events including being called into a room, being touched on her vagina, and being warned by the petitioner not to disclose the incident.
Testimony from AAA’s brother who noted her distress and confirmed she cried following the incident.
A medico-legal examination by a PNP Crime Laboratory officer reported essentially normal findings with no visible evidence of abuse; however, the absence of physical marks did not negate the occurrence of the act.

The petitioner testified that he was merely visiting his girlfriend’s house (AAA being the sister of his girlfriend) and denied entering the house on the day of the alleged incident.
He recounted being accosted by members of his girlfriend’s family who confronted him with the accusation, asserting that he was surprised by the charge.

The RTC found the petitioner guilty and imposed an indeterminate sentence of reclusion temporal with a minimum of 12 years and one day and a maximum of 15 years, six months and 20 days, along with moral and exemplary damages, and a fine.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction with modifications:

The CA decreed new amounts for the civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages payable to the victim, AAA.
The CA’s decision also included a sentencing modification, though it initially imposed a fine which later required correction.

The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied on August 6, 2012.

The petitioner raised the issue of whether the CA erred in affirming the trial court’s decision, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and questioning the credibility of AAA’s account.
The Supreme Court had to address the weight of the victim’s testimony, the interpretation of “force or intimidation” especially in the context of a minor below 12 years of age, and the correctness of the imposed sentence and fine.
The Court corrected the sentence’s maximum term by increasing it by one day and deleted the fine on the basis that no law prescribed such a penalty.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the trial court’s decision despite the petitioner’s contentions that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the alleged acts committed by the petitioner successfully satisfy the elements of acts of lasciviousness as defined under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code and Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610.
Whether the absence of a visible physical injury or overt resistance by the victim (AAA), in light of her tender age, undermines the credibility and sufficiency of the victim’s testimony.
Whether the evidence presented, particularly the sole testimony of the minor victim, is adequate to establish the crime given the behavioral variations expected in victims of sexual abuse.
Whether the imposition of a fine by the lower courts, contrary to the statutory provisions, is legally sustainable.