G.R. No. 139346-50 - People vs. Abadies y Claveria

The case is an appeal from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of San Pedro, Laguna, in Criminal Case Nos. 0658-SPL to 0661-SPL.
Accused-appellant Jose Abadies was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of four counts of violating Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act).
Each count charged him with acts of lasciviousness committed against his 17-year-old daughter, Rosalie Abadies y Manunghaya.
The sentencing imposed reclusion perpetua and a fine of P30,000.00 for each count.
The decision was later modified to also order the payment of moral damages of P50,000.00 for each count.

Accused-appellant was charged with committing acts of lasciviousness on five separate occasions in July 1997.

July 1, 1997 – At approximately 6:00 a.m., he was alleged to have kissed, mashed the complainant’s breast, and touched her private parts while she was asleep.
July 2, 1997 – Similar incident occurred where he resumed unwanted contact while the complainant was asleep.
July 3, 1997 – He again molested the complainant, who asked him why he was abusing her, yet he persisted.
July 7, 1997 – An incident where he straddled her, inserted his hand into her shorts, and touched her intimate parts.
July 26, 1997 – A more menacing episode where he took her to another location, threatened to kill or rape her, and although he started kissing her, the complainant managed to escape.

The incidents occurred while the family was residing in a single room in Barangay Pulo, Landayan, San Pedro, Laguna.
The complainant, despite being awakened and abused repeatedly, refrained from exposing the acts immediately due to fear of her father.

The complainant provided a detailed and consistent account of the repeated abuses.

She testified to being awakened by unwanted touching, struggling, and reacting with fear during the assaults.
Her testimony included not shouting or defending herself because of the terror induced by her father’s moral ascendancy.

Evidence also included documentary records such as her birth certificate which established the parent–child relationship.
The trial court also considered the demeanor and consistency of the complainant’s testimony, which was found to be credible.

Accused-appellant denied committing the alleged acts, presenting an alibi that he was busy preparing for work.
He contended that on the dates of the alleged incidents he was involved in routine activities in the household.
He argued that the complainant’s failure to immediately report the abuse to her mother implied a pardon or forgiveness.
He also attempted to downplay the use of force by claiming that his strict treatment of the children did not equate to the use of force or intimidation as required by law.

The trial court gave significant weight to the complainant’s account, interpreting her silence and inability to call for help as a result of the terror induced by her father’s strict and intimidating behavior.
Accused-appellant’s letter from his detention cell, wherein he sought forgiveness for his “misdeeds,” was considered as an implied admission of guilt.
The case also discussed the applicability of aggravated circumstances due to the familial relationship between the accused and the complainant.

Whether the complainant’s consistent account of the alleged abuses is credible and reliable.
Whether her failure to immediately report the incidents undermines her testimony.

Whether accused-appellant’s account of his whereabouts and actions on the dates of the incidents stands up to scrutiny.
Whether his general denial is sufficient to rebut the positive testimonies of credible witnesses.

Whether the accused’s letter asking for forgiveness constitutes an implied admission of guilt.
The legal implications of such a letter under provisions governing compromise and admission in criminal cases.

Whether the complainant’s failure to report earlier incidents amount to an implied pardon.
The requirement under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code and the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure for an express pardon rather than an implied one.

Whether the crime of lascivious conduct, as defined under the Act, was properly established given the elements of the crime.
Whether the aggravating circumstance of familial relationship was rightly applied in imposing a harsher penalty.

Whether the imposition of reclusion perpetua along with a fine for each count is justified.
The rationale for awarding moral damages in addition to the criminal penalties.