G.R. No. 197458 - Pinlac y Resolme vs. People

Petitioner, Nicanor Pinlac y Resolme, was charged with violating Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act).
The offense charged involves the commission of lascivious conduct against a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse.
The prosecution established that the alleged acts occurred on March 9 and 10, 1997.

On March 9, 1997, the prosecution testified that "AAA," a 14-year-old minor, accompanied petitioner to the Kale Beach Resort in Olongapo City as part of initiation rites for a fraternity founded by the petitioner.
The minor was induced by the petitioner to ingest alcohol and smoke marijuana, rendering him impaired (“lost control of himself”).
While the victim was in a state of stupor or near unconsciousness, petitioner isolated him from his companions, forcibly disrobed him, and performed oral sex by sucking his penis until the minor ejaculated.
On the following day, March 10, 1997, similar conduct was repeated after the petitioner again convinced the minor to consume alcohol and drugs.

The prosecution presented detailed evidence and witness testimonies corroborating the series of events, including the administration of alcohol and drugs, and the lascivious conduct perpetrated against "AAA."
Documentation such as the minor's Certificate of Live Birth (confirming his age) and corroborative testimonies (including that of "BBB," the minor’s mother) established the victim’s identity and age.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo City, Branch 72, held petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5(b) of RA 7610, basing its decision largely on the credible and consistent testimony of "AAA."

The petitioner denied having been with the minor on the dates in question, offering an alibi that he was engaged in campaign activities for barangay kagawad accompanied by Leslie Enciro.
The defense further alleged that the case was instigated by "BBB," the minor’s mother, and questioned why the victim allegedly delayed 10 months in reporting the incident.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) rejected the petitioner’s contentions, emphasizing that the government’s evidence—particularly the affirmative and detailed testimony of the minor—overwhelmingly established the facts.
The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision with modifications, adjusting the penalty and awarding additional damages, while still upholding the conviction for lascivious conduct against a child.

Whether the CA erred in giving credence to the testimony of the minor victim "AAA," despite alleged inconsistencies with the testimony of his mother "BBB."
Whether the delay in reporting the alleged abuse should affect the credibility of the victim's account.

Whether the factual finding regarding the location of the offense (conflict between Kale Beach Resort being in Olongapo City versus Sta. Cruz, Zambales) was erroneous.

Whether the petitioner’s challenge, which predominantly raised issues on the factual findings of the trial court and the appellate court, was appropriate given that a petition for review under Rule 45 is generally limited to questions of law.