Case Digest (G.R. No. 252791)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 252791)
Facts:
Dr. Ulysses Trocio y Mendoza v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 252791, August 23, 2022, Supreme Court Third Division, Inting, J., writing for the Court. The petitioner is Dr. Ulysses M. Trocio (physician); the respondent is the People of the Philippines.On June 12, 2015, AAA, then 15 years old, sought treatment at petitioner’s clinic for ear pain. The prosecution alleges that petitioner took AAA to the clinic’s second floor, applied a substance (“agua”) to her ear that caused facial numbness, fondled her breasts, touched her genitals, kissed her neck, handed her P200 and told her not to tell her parents; AAA fled. AAA later disclosed the incident in 2016 and, with her mother CCC, filed a complaint with barangay and police officers who assisted her in executing a sworn statement in September 2016.
Petitioner admitted AAA was his patient and that she visited on the dates in question, but denied the lascivious acts. He maintained that he only examined her for otitis media, prescribed antibiotics, and reminded her about an unpaid P430 medical balance; his wife, Dr. Greta Trocio, corroborated that AAA and companions briefly went upstairs and that petitioner reminded AAA about the unpaid fee.
Petitioner was charged with Child Abuse through Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610. After arraignment and trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch xxx, convicted petitioner in a Decision dated January 26, 2018, finding his denial unconvincing and AAA’s testimony credible; it imposed an indeterminate prison term and awarded civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which in a Decision dated December 2, 2019 (with a Resolution June 25, 2020), affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty and the damages and imposed a P15,000 fine under Section 31(f), Article XII of RA 7610. Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court seeking reversal of his conviction, arguing inconsistencies in AAA’s testimony and pointing to her social media as evidence of improper motive; the Office of the Solicitor General opposed the petition.
Issues:
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner committed lascivious conduct in violation of Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)