G.R. No. 105227 - Verceles vs. Commission on Elections

On 28 October 2003, AAA, a 16-year-old female, was admitted to Virgen Milagrosa Medical Center due to fever and abdominal pain. She was confined in a private room with her parents, BBB and CCC, staying overnight.
On 29 October 2003, both parents left the hospital separately for errands, leaving AAA alone in her room for some time.
During this time, Jojit Garingarao, a nurse on duty, allegedly committed acts of lasciviousness against AAA.

AAA testified that between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m., Garingarao entered her room supposedly to check on her, touched her breasts, lifted her clothing, and inserted his finger into her vagina despite her protests and informing him of her menstrual period.
After being discharged from the hospital, AAA informed her parents of the abuse, who then reported the incident to Dr. Morante and to the authorities.
The City Prosecutor filed an Information against Garingarao for acts of lasciviousness in relation to Republic Act No. 7610 (RA 7610).

The prosecution presented AAA’s birth certificate, medical records, nurse duty schedules showing Garingarao was on duty, a certificate confirming BBB’s whereabouts during the incident, incident reports, and other relevant documents.
Garingarao denied the allegations, claiming an argument with BBB motivated the filing of the case and denied any improper conduct. His nursing aide, Tamayo, supported his version, testifying to the argument but denying any sexual abuse.

The Regional Trial Court found Garingarao guilty beyond reasonable doubt of acts of lasciviousness in relation to RA 7610, giving weight to AAA’s credible testimony.
It rejected Garingarao’s defense that the charges were motivated by a quarrel and found the presence of the parents outside the room during the incident was substantiated.
Penalty of reclusion temporal from 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months was imposed, along with moral damages and fines.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision with modifications, ruling that under RA 7610, Garingarao should be convicted accordingly since AAA was 16 years old, and not under the Revised Penal Code.
It explained that the elements of lascivious conduct under RA 7610 include intentional touching or introduction of objects into the genitals with sexual intent.
The Court rejected the defense’s claims of fabrication due to argument and the denial/alibi, emphasizing the victim’s credible testimony.
Penalty modifications were issued: minimum reclusion temporal of 14 years and 8 months to a maximum of 20 years, raising moral damages and indemnity awards. The motion for reconsideration was denied.

Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming, with modifications, the conviction of Jojit Garingarao for acts of lasciviousness in relation to RA 7610.