Case Digest (G.R. No. 243151)
Facts:
XXX v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 243151, September 02, 2019, Supreme Court Second Division, Caguioa, J., writing for the Court. The petitioner is XXX; the respondent is the People of the Philippines.An Information was filed charging XXX with committing lascivious acts against AAA (a child) sometime in 2005 at the family residence in Laguna. The Information alleged that the accused, by force, intimidation and coercion, touched AAA’s breasts, vagina and other parts of her body. During arraignment, XXX pleaded not guilty and trial on the merits followed in Branch 36, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calamba City, Laguna (Criminal Case Nos. 17538-2010).
The prosecution presented AAA, her older sister BBB, and a social welfare officer. AAA testified she was eight years old in 2005, lived with her mother and siblings and the accused (her mother’s common-law husband/stepfather), and recounted repeated incidents of touching of her breasts and vagina, occurring almost daily until she ran away in 2010. The prosecution introduced a photocopy of AAA’s baptismal certificate and a Social Case Study Report; no original birth certificate was presented. The defense presented XXX as its sole witness, who denied living at the victim’s house in 2005, asserted an alibi (working in Cavite and lodging at an employee barracks about two kilometers from the victim’s house), and denied ever meeting the child in person.
On July 12, 2016, the RTC convicted XXX for violation of Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 (child abuse/sexual abuse of a child) and imposed an indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, and ordered fines and damages. The RTC gave full faith and credit to AAA’s testimony and found the delay in reporting immaterial.
XXX appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). In a Decision dated July 26, 2018 (CA‑G.R. CR No. 40229), the CA affirmed the RTC, holding that AAA’s testimony proved the elements of acts of lasciviousness and that, because she was under 12 years old, the CA followed prevailing jurisprudence treating the offense in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. 7610. The CA denied the appellant’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated November 6, 2018.
...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the prosecution adequately prove the victim AAA’s age under the guidelines in People v. Pruna?
- Did the RTC and CA err in convicting XXX of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. 7610, or should the conviction be limited to Article 336 RPC alone?
- Were the elements of Acts of Lasciviousness, particularly the use of force or intimidation, proven beyond reasonable doubt g...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)