G.R. No. 246702 - Carbonell y Ballesteros vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 246702)

Factual Background

The private complainant, identified in the records as "AAA", was fifteen years old at the time of the incident. AAA's mother, CCC, held a birthday party on the evening of November 28, 2015, at their residence. Petitioner, then the boyfriend of AAA's older sister BBB, attended the celebration. AAA testified that petitioner entered her room, locked the door, told her he might have impregnated her sister, threatened to tell others that AAA was taking contraceptive pills, and then grabbed and mashed her breast. AAA pushed petitioner out of the room. She later learned that petitioner spread rumors about her and, with her mother's assistance, filed a complaint.

Information and Charge

The Information charged petitioner with the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336, Revised Penal Code, alleging that on or about November 28, 2015, petitioner, with intent to arouse or gratify his sexual desire and by means of force, threat and/or intimidation, wilfully and unlawfully committed lascivious conduct on the person of Private Complainant "AAA", a fifteen-year-old minor, by mashing her breasts, against her will and consent.

Regional Trial Court Proceedings and Ruling

At trial the RTC credited AAA's testimony as clear, definite, and straightforward, and found petitioner’s denial uncorroborated. In its June 15, 2017 Judgment the RTC convicted petitioner of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336, sentenced him to an indeterminate term of six months of arresto mayor as minimum to four years and two months of prision correccional as maximum, and awarded civil indemnity of P20,000.00 and moral damages of P15,000.00, with legal interest.

Court of Appeals Decision and Modification

Petitioner appealed to the CA. In its August 28, 2018 Decision the CA affirmed the RTC's factual findings but modified the legal characterization of the offense, convicting petitioner of Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610 (the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act) in relation to Section 2(h) of its Implementing Rules and Regulations. The CA imposed an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment from ten years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen years, four months and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum, and awarded P20,000.00 civil indemnity, P15,000.00 moral damages, P15,000.00 exemplary damages, and a P15,000.00 fine, with six percent per annum interest.

Issues Raised in the Petition

Petitioner sought review in the Supreme Court, raising three principal issues: (1) that the CA erred in affirming conviction despite alleged inconsistencies in AAA's testimony; (2) that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and (3) that the CA improperly disregarded petitioner’s defense of denial.

Supreme Court’s Assessment of Credibility

The Court reiterated the settled rule that assessment of witness credibility by the trial court commands great respect because the trial judge observes witness demeanor. The Court found no substantial reason to overturn the RTC's and CA's congruent findings that AAA's testimony was credible. The Court noted that child witnesses’ youth and immaturity ordinarily operate as badges of truth and sincerity and that the circumstances surrounding AAA’s fear and reaction were assessed in the light of her age and relationship to petitioner.

Application of the Statutes and Legal Elements

The Court examined the elements of Article 336, Revised Penal Code, and of Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610. It observed that Article 336 presupposes an act of lasciviousness committed under enumerated circumstances, while R.A. No. 7610 applies where the victim is a child below eighteen or otherwise protected and where the child is subjected to other sexual abuse through coercion or influence. The Court adopted the statutory definition in the Implementing Rules, Sec. 2(h), that defines "lascivious conduct" to include intentional touching of the breast with intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire.

Findings on Elements and Intimidation

Applying these standards, the Court found all elements of Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610 present. AAA testified that petitioner grabbed and mashed her breast while intimating that he would disclose her use of contraceptive pills, thereby producing fear. The Court held that the prosecution proved that petitioner committed lascivious conduct, that the victim was a child under eighteen, and that the act was performed under coercion or intimidation constituting other sexual abuse. The Court emphasized that consent is immaterial under Section 5(b).

Sufficiency of the Information and Controlling Authority

The Court addressed the omission of an explicit reference to R.A. No. 7610 in the Information. It applied controlling precedents, including Flordeliz v. People, to hold that failure to designate the statute in the Information is not fatal where the recited facts plainly describe the conduct punishable under the statute. The Court therefore sustained the conviction under Section 5(b) based on the ultimate facts alleged.

Penalty Calculation and Award of Damages

The Court applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law to comp

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 246702)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Jan Victor Carbonell y Ballesteros, Petitioner, sought review by writ of certiorari under Rule 45 contesting the Court of Appeals' rulings in CA‑G.R. CR No. 40239.
People of the Philippines, Respondent, prosecuted petitioner for acts of sexual molestation arising from events on November 28, 2015.
The case originated in Criminal Case No. 38798‑R before the Regional Trial Court, Baguio City, Branch 4, which rendered a Judgment dated June 15, 2017.
The Court of Appeals issued a Decision dated August 28, 2018 and a Resolution dated April 4, 2019 modifying the RTC judgment and convicting petitioner under R.A. No. 7610.
The Supreme Court, Third Division, resolved the Petition by Decision dated April 28, 2021.

Key Facts

AAA was fifteen years old on November 28, 2015 and remained in her room during her mother's birthday party.
Petitioner, who was the boyfriend of AAA's older sister BBB, allegedly entered AAA's room, locked the door, and confided he might have impregnated BBB.
AAA allegedly gave petitioner contraceptive pills and petitioner allegedly threatened to tell others she had pills if she did not remove her shirt.
Petitioner then allegedly grabbed and mashed AAA's breast and AAA pushed him out of the room.
AAA did not immediately report the incident, later learned petitioner spread rumors about her, and, with her mother's assistance, filed a criminal complaint almost a month later.
Petitioner denied the allegation and testified that he stayed elsewhere with friends and never had a moment alone with AAA.

RTC Judgment

The Regional Trial Court found AAA's testimony clear, definite, and straightforward and gave it full weight and credit.
The RTC rejected petitioner's uncorroborated denial and convicted him of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336, Revised Penal Code.
The RTC imposed an indeterminate sentence of six months arresto mayor to four years and two months prision correctional and awarded AAA P20,000 civil indemnity and P15,000 moral damages with six percent interest.

CA Judgment

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's factual findings but modified the legal designation and convicted petitioner of Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610.
The CA held that the factual averments in the Information sufficed to support conviction under Section 5(b) despite the Information captioning Article 336, RPC.
The CA imposed an indeterminate sentence of ten years and one day of prision mayor to seventeen years, four months, and one day of reclusion temporal and awarded P20,000 civil indemnity, P15,000 moral damages, P15,000 exemplary damages, and P15,000 fine with six percent interest.

Issues Presented

Petitioner contended that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming conviction despite alleged inconsistencies in AAA's testimony.
Petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Petitioner asserted th