Case Summary (G.R. No. 246231)
Procedural Posture
- Petitioner pleaded not guilty at arraignment. Trial followed pre‑trial conference.
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted petitioner under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 and imposed imprisonment and damages.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) modified the conviction: it found insufficient proof for Section 5(b) but held the elements of Section 10(a) — other forms of child abuse — were proved and convicted petitioner under that provision.
- Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court.
Prosecution’s Version (Victim’s Testimony)
AAA testified that while taking a diagnostic exam inside the mini‑library she heard a tapping sound, turned, and saw petitioner masturbating: he held a binder in his left hand and was masturbating with his right hand. She described the distance (less than one meter) and her immediate actions (moving to the reception area, reporting to a classmate and her mother, and filing a police complaint). Her testimony was consistent and detailed at trial.
Defense Version
Petitioner denied the allegation. He claimed he was organizing books in the mini‑library, claimed a broken zipper and wardrobe adjustment, and said he was standing facing a bookshelf while carrying and arranging books. He admitted AAA took and later returned the diagnostic exam packet. University security arrested him; a police inspection found no visible discharge on his underwear. An ad hoc university disciplinary committee cleared him administratively.
RTC Findings and Rationale
The RTC credited AAA’s testimony and found petitioner guilty under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610, treating masturbation as lascivious conduct under the agency rules. The RTC emphasized the child’s positive and candid testimony and concluded the victim’s account outweighed petitioner’s denial. The RTC imposed imprisonment and awarded civil, moral, and exemplary damages.
CA Ruling and Rationale
The CA determined the prosecution did not prove the additional element required by Section 5(b) (i.e., that the child was subjected to other sexual abuse or exploited in prostitution) and therefore reversed the conviction under Section 5(b). However, the CA found that the elements of Section 10(a) were established: petitioner committed an act prejudicial to the child’s development (masturbating in the child’s presence), which amounted to “other acts of child abuse.” The CA convicted petitioner under Section 10(a) and imposed an indeterminate sentence and monetary awards.
Issue on Review
Whether the CA erred in convicting petitioner of the crime of child abuse under Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610.
Supreme Court’s Holding (Liability under Section 10(a))
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s conviction under Section 10(a). The Court held that intentional masturbation in the presence of a minor constitutes psychological abuse and an act prejudicial to the child’s development within the scope of R.A. No. 7610. Masturbation is classified by the implementing rules as “lascivious conduct,” and such conduct committed in the presence of a child debases, degrades, or demeans the child’s intrinsic worth and dignity, making Section 10(a) applicable even if the elements of Section 5(b) were not satisfied.
Legal Reasoning on Lewd Design and Lascivious Conduct
The Court relied on established definitions and jurisprudence: “lewd” or lascivious conduct is determined from overt acts and surrounding circumstances; intent can be inferred from conduct that can only be interpreted as lewd. The implementing rules explicitly list masturbation and lascivious exhibition as lascivious conduct. The Court concluded that petitioner’s conduct, given the proximity to the child and the setting (an educational institution), demonstrated a lewd design and was not merely private behavior or mere vexation.
Sufficiency of the Information and Amendment Doctrine
The Court applied the principle that what matters is whether the Information recites the ultimate facts constituting the offense; a failure to identify the specific statutory subsection does not necessarily violate the accused’s right to be informed, provided the facts and circumstances are sufficiently alleged to constitute the offense charged. The Information’s allegations (minority of the victim; acts prejudicial to development; fondling and masturbation in the victim’s presence) were held sufficient to support conviction under Section 10(a).
Credibility Assessment
The Court affirmed the RTC and CA’s credibility determinations, noting the trial court’s appreciation of the victim’s demeanor and testimony is generally given deference. The Court found the victim’s testimony direct, detailed, consistent under cross‑examination, and sufficient to overcome petitioner’s denials and alibi. The Court rejected petitioner’s argument that the victim’s calm behavior or later finishing the exam undermined her credibility, recognizing that trauma reactions vary.
Rejection of Unjust Vexation Argument
Petitioner argued his acts warranted only criminal liability for unjust vexation (RPC Article 287). The Court rejected this, finding overwhelming evidence that the act was lascivious and intended to excite sexual desire rather than merely to
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 246231)
Case Caption and Procedural Posture
- Supreme Court, Third Division; G.R. No. 246231; Decision dated January 20, 2021.
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court by petitioner Allan De Vera y Ante, assailing the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated September 27, 2018 in CA-G.R. CR No. 39723.
- CA partly granted the appeal from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Decision and modified the conviction; petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
- The petition was denied by the Supreme Court; the CA decision was affirmed with modifications by the Supreme Court.
Accusation / Information
- Petitioner was charged in the Information with Violation of Section 5, paragraph (b) of Republic Act No. 7610.
- Accusatory portion alleged that on or about July 7, 2012, in Quezon City, petitioner "with lewd designs" willfully and unlawfully committed acts of lascivious conduct upon AAA, a 16-year-old minor, by fondling his penis and masturbating while beside the complainant who was taking her examination at the XXX University, thereby prejudicing her psychological and physical development and debasing, degrading, or demeaning her intrinsic worth and dignity.
- Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty; pre-trial and trial on the merits followed.
Factual Background (Prosecution Version)
- AAA: 16-year-old, first-year college student at XXX University; dual Philippine and American citizenship; moved to the Philippines in high school.
- On July 7, 2012, at about 8:30 a.m., AAA went to the Filipino Department to ask for her class section under the Special Filipino Program; petitioner was alone in the office and asked if she wanted to take the Filipino for Foreigners Diagnostic Exam, which she agreed to take.
- AAA took the diagnostic exam inside the Tinio Mini-Library; she sat on a couch and used the coffee table; petitioner stood less than one meter to her left, facing a bookshelf.
- While taking the exam, AAA heard a tapping/tapping-like sound (clapping or skin slapping) which grew louder; when she looked, she saw petitioner masturbating, holding a binder in his left hand and masturbating his penis with his right hand.
- Afraid, AAA calmly packed up, told petitioner she would continue in the reception area; after finishing the exam she handed it to petitioner, who had come out to the reception area.
- AAA immediately informed classmate CCC of what she saw; on CCC’s advice she called her mother BBB, who instructed her to report to University Security; petitioner had already been brought to the police station when BBB arrived; AAA and BBB filed a formal complaint at the police station.
Factual Background (Defense Version)
- Petitioner denied the allegations.
- He said he was assigned to arrange books at the Tinio Mini-Library (adjacent to the Filipino Department reception area) and that the library was well-lit and frequented by professors, students, employees, and visitors.
- Supervisor Imelda Agbayani Estrelles called petitioner’s attention to a broken zipper on his Guess pants (a vertical tear along the right sideline of the zipper); because he worked half-day on Saturdays and lived in Antipolo, he "decided to pull the pants upward and his clothes downward" rather than go home to change.
- Petitioner stated he was assigned by Professor Carlota Francisco to administer a special diagnostic exam to students of Filipino for Non-Filipino Speakers; he let AAA take the exam in the Mini-Library while he arranged books, with the library door open.
- He claimed he stood less than one meter away facing the cabinet, using one hand to arrange books and the other to carry books to be shelved.
- After AAA moved to the reception area to finish her exam, she gave the completed exam to petitioner.
- University security officers arrested petitioner a few minutes after 9:00 a.m.; his underwear was inspected at the police station and no traces of discharge were found.
- An ad hoc disciplinary committee of XXX University later cleared petitioner of the alleged masturbation incident; nevertheless, the criminal case proceeded.
Trial Court (RTC) Findings and Ruling
- The RTC found petitioner guilty of Violation of Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610.
- RTC reasoning emphasized that under Section 2(h) of the Rules and Regulations on Reporting and Investigation of Child-Abuse Cases, masturbating constitutes lascivious conduct.
- RTC found AAA’s testimony positive and candid, giving it great weight, and held that her testimony prevailed over petitioner’s denial.
- Dispositive portion (as reproduced): petitioner found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Section 5(b) R.A. No. 7610 and sentenced to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor (minimum) to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal (maximum); ordered to pay costs and civil indemnity P20,000, moral damages P30,000, exemplary damages P2,000.
Court of Appeals Ruling and Reasoning
- On appeal, petitioner argued (a) no sufficient proof that the child saw him actually masturbating and (b) prosecution failed to prove elements of Section 5(b) R.A. No. 7610, particularly that the minor was subjected to other sexual abuse or exploited in prostitution.
- The CA partly granted the appeal: it found petitioner could not be held under Section 5(b) but determined that the elements of Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610 were established.
- CA held that masturbating in the presence of a child is "another act of abuse" prejudicial to the child’s development and that, despite the Information not specifying Section 10(a), the prosecution proved the ultimate facts to sustain conviction under Section 10(a).
- CA modified the sentence: petitioner found guilty of child abuse under Section 10(a) R.A. No. 7610 and sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of four (4) years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional (minimum) to six (6) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor (maximum); civil indemnity P10,000 and moral damages P20,000 with 6% interest per annum from finality.