Title
Allan De Vera y Ante vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 246231
Decision Date
Oct 9, 2023
Petitioner acquitted of child abuse charges as prosecution failed to prove intent to degrade minor; inconsistencies in testimony and insufficient evidence of trauma led to reasonable doubt.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 246231)

Petitioner’s Alleged Offense

Petitioner was charged by Information with committing lascivious acts under Section 5(b)/Section 10(a) concepts of Republic Act No. 7610: that on July 7, 2012 he fondled his penis and masturbated beside AAA while she was taking an examination, thereby prejudicing her development and debasing her dignity. Petitioner pleaded not guilty and exercised trial and appellate rights.

Key Dates and Procedural Milestones

  • Alleged incident: July 7, 2012.
  • RTC conviction: Decision dated August 2, 2016 (found guilty under Section 5(6) of RA 7610).
  • CA decision: September 27, 2018 (convicted under Section 10(a) of RA 7610; modified RTC sentence).
  • Supreme Court initial Decision: January 20, 2021 (denying petition for review; affirmed CA).
  • Motion for Reconsideration filed with the Court; Supplement filed.
  • Supreme Court Resolution (granting reconsideration and acquitting petitioner): October 9, 2023.
    Applicable constitutional framework: 1987 Philippine Constitution (case decision dates are after 1990).

Applicable Law and Regulatory Definitions

  • Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination): Sections 3(b) (definition of child abuse), 5(b) (sexual abuse/lascivious conduct provisions), and 10(a) (other acts of child abuse).
  • Rules and Regulations on Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases: definitions including psychological injury, cruelty, physical injury, and lascivious conduct (e.g., Section 2(b)–(e), 2(h)).
  • Governing legal standards: presumption of innocence, requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, and appellate review principles permitting reversal of factual findings in criminal cases where credibility or evidence warrant.

Prosecution Version of Facts

AAA testified that while taking a diagnostic Filipino exam in the Mini‑Library at about 8:30 a.m., she heard a tapping or clapping‑like sound that progressively intensified; upon looking to her left she saw petitioner holding a binder with his left hand and using his right hand to masturbate his penis. Afraid, she relocated to the reception area, finished her exam, and later reported the incident to university security; petitioner was taken to the police. BBB assisted AAA in translation during police investigation. AAA subsequently consulted psychiatrists; Dr. Halili‑Jao assessed AAA as suffering from post‑traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and prescribed treatment; manifestation of anxiety, insomnia, withdrawal and other symptoms were described in psychiatric reports and testimony.

Defense Version of Facts

Petitioner denied the accusation and explained that his jeans zipper was broken that morning; he had no spare clothes and allegedly adjusted his clothing by pulling his shirt down and pants up. He asserted he was arranging books at the Mini‑Library, the room was well lit and the door to the reception area was kept open, and professors, students and staff frequently passed by. Agbayani‑Estrelles testified regarding the broken zipper and the context. Security and police inspection reportedly found petitioner’s pants and briefs dry, without discharge. An ad hoc university disciplinary committee cleared petitioner administratively.

RTC Ruling and Sentence

The RTC found petitioner guilty of sexual abuse / lascivious conduct (referring to Section 5(6) as cited in the Information), gave great weight to AAA’s testimony, and found the act to be lascivious conduct that prejudiced AAA’s development and demeaned her dignity. The court imposed a penal sentence (prision mayor range), ordered civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The CA partly granted appellate relief by modifying the RTC decision: it convicted petitioner under Section 10(a) of RA 7610 (other acts of child abuse) reasoning that masturbation in the presence of a minor constitutes child abuse under Section 10(a). The CA applied an indeterminate sentence with specified minimum and maximum terms and adjusted awards for civil indemnity and moral damages.

Supreme Court’s January 20, 2021 Decision (Affirmance)

In its January 20, 2021 Decision, the Supreme Court denied petitioner’s petition for review, concluding that masturbating in AAA’s presence was lascivious conduct amounting to psychological abuse and that the conduct was not merely unjust vexation. The Court found that petitioner acted intentionally with lewd design because he knew AAA was present and within arm’s length.

Motion for Reconsideration: Arguments Advanced by Petitioner

Petitioner moved for reconsideration and filed a supplement reiterating prior arguments: (1) AAA’s testimony contained material inconsistencies; (2) petitioner’s evidence (including photographs of a broken zipper) corroborates his account and undermines AAA’s lone testimony; (3) masturbation, if it occurred, requires the child’s participation to constitute punishable conduct under RA 7610; (4) lewd design was not proven, making the offense at most unjust vexation; (5) PTSD or serious psychological harm was not established; (6) abuse must be directed at the child and intent to debase/demean must be shown; (7) mitigating circumstances (voluntary surrender) should have been considered; and (8) damages awarded were excessive.

Office of the Solicitor General’s Response

The OSG opposed reconsideration, arguing that AAA’s inconsistencies were trivial, petitioner failed to prove the broken zipper precluded masturbation, masturbation requires no physical contact with the child to constitute child abuse under Section 10(a), lewd design and psychological harm were proven, voluntary surrender does not apply, and damages were appropriately awarded consistent with RA 7610 objectives.

Issue Presented on Reconsideration

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt petitioner’s guilt for violating Section 10(a) of RA 7610 (other acts of child abuse) — specifically: whether petitioner masturbated in AAA’s presence; whether that act caused severe or serious psychological injury constituting child abuse; and whether petitioner acted with the specific intent to debase, degrade or demean AAA’s intrinsic worth and dignity.

Supreme Court Resolution (October 9, 2023): Acquittal and Principal Grounds

After “a second hard look” at the record, the Court granted the Motion for Reconsideration and reversed its January 20, 2021 Decision and the CA and RTC rulings. The Court acquitted petitioner for failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court identified three principal deficiencies in the prosecution case: (1) petitioner’s masturbation in AAA’s presence was not satisfactorily established; (2) psychological injury to AAA was not shown to be serious or severe so as to constitute child abuse under RA 7610; and (3) specific intent to debase, degrade or demean AAA was not proven.

Reasoning: Insufficiency of Evidence that Masturbation Occurred

The Court scrutinized AAA’s lone testimony and found material inconsistencies and shortcomings:

  • The police sworn statement omitted explicit reference to masturbation and described only that AAA “saw the penis” and heard a “kaluskos” (rustling), whereas subsequent statements referred to a “tapping” or “clapping” sound and to seeing masturbatory motion.
  • On cross‑examination AAA conceded she combined what she heard and saw to conclude masturbation; at other points she described mere fondling or touching rather than a push‑and‑pull stroking motion.
  • AAA’s descriptions of the audible cue varied (kaluskos vs tapping vs skin slapping), and the Court found the translation explanation undermined because BBB assisted with translation and confirmed the meaning of “kaluskos.”
  • AAA’s testimony was inconsistent as to what petitioner held in his left hand (binder/book) despite claiming sufficient time to recognize details; she also admitted the glance was fleeting.
  • AAA’s finishing and submission of her exam to petitioner shortly after the alleged event, and failure to seek immediate help from other persons present, raised questions about the reliability of the claimed panic and its consequences.

Given these inconsistencies and the absence of independent eyewitness corroboration, the Court concluded AAA’s testimony was not “impeccable” or free from serious contradiction and therefore insufficient as sole proof to meet the requirement of moral certainty.

Reasoning: Psychological Injury Not Proven as Severe or Serious

The Court analyzed statutory and regulatory definitions and legislative purpose, emphasizing that child abuse by psychological injury contemplates harm that is severe or serious to the child’s psychological or intellectual functioning (manifested by severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal, or aggressive behavior). The Court found the prosecution failed to carry the burden:

  • Clinical and comparative jurisprudence cited suggested indecent exposure or public masturbation generally produces minimal psychological harm absent evidence of severe or long‑term effects.
  • The alleged exposure was fleeting; AAA had prior exposure to masturbation imagery in media and sexual education and thus was not necessarily uniquely traumatized by the event itself.
  • The psychiatric report of Dr. Halili‑Jao was considered inadequate to establish causal linkage: the report offered a diagnosis (PTSD) but lacked detailed explanation of diagnostic process and causal nexus to petitioner’s conduct; the psychiatrist acknowledged omissions in the written report and the limited duration of her mental status examination; her testimony did not establish petitioner’s act as the proximate cause of AAA’s PTSD.
  • The Court highlighted alternative or intervening factors (peer reaction, classmates’ laughter, subsequent social responses) that could have contributed materially to AAA’s sense of humiliation and emotional response, weakening causal attribution to petitioner’s conduct alone (invoking precedent where proximate causation was requi

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

    About Privacy Terms