G.R. No. 125383 - Duque vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 125383)

Petitioner

Jojit Garingarao — accused nurse who was on duty the morning of 29 October 2003 and who denies the charged acts, asserting alibi/denial and alleging the complaint arose from a prior argument with the victim’s father.

Respondent

People of the Philippines — prosecution that filed Information charging acts of lasciviousness in relation to Republic Act No. 7610.

Key Dates

Incident: 29 October 2003. Information filed: 20 January 2004. Trial Court Decision (conviction): 5 November 2007. Court of Appeals Decision (affirmed with modifications): 26 November 2009; CA Resolution denying reconsideration: 22 June 2010. Supreme Court decision date used for constitutional basis: 20 July 2011 (1987 Constitution applied).

Applicable Law and Authorities

Primary statutory basis: Republic Act No. 7610 (An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination). Relevant Penal reference: Article 336, Revised Penal Code (as referenced in the Information). Implementing rules and definitions relied upon: Section 32, Article XIII of RA 7610’s Implementing Rules and Regulations (definition of lascivious conduct) and Section 2(h) of the Rules and Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases. The decision applies principles under the 1987 Philippine Constitution as the controlling charter.

Charge and Information Filed

Information charged that on or about 29 October 2003 at Virgen Milagrosa University Hospital, Garingarao, with lewd designs, willfully and unlawfully touched the breast of AAA, touched her genitalia, and inserted his finger into her vagina, resulting in psychological and emotional disturbance. The charge was framed as acts of lasciviousness in relation to RA 7610 and cited Article 336 RPC in relation to RA 7610.

Prosecution Evidence and Testimony

Victim AAA testified to two intrusions into her privacy by Garingarao between 7:00 and 8:00 a.m.: initial lifting of her bra and touching of her left breast; later return with a stethoscope, touching of nipples, lifting of pajama and underwear, pressing of lower abdomen, and insertion of a finger into her vagina, persisting despite her objections and declaration that she was menstruating; Garingarao ceased only upon seeing her menstrual blood. Prosecution documentary evidence included AAA’s birth certificate (establishing age 16), hospital confinement and discharge records, nurses’ duty schedule showing Garingarao on duty 12:00 a.m.–8:00 a.m., a Department of Education certificate of BBB’s presence in Lingayen (8:00–9:00 a.m.), medical payment notice, incident report to police, and hospital administrator’s letter requesting an explanation from Garingarao.

Defense Version and Testimony for the Accused

Garingarao denied touching the victim’s breasts or inserting his finger; he claimed that he and aide Tamayo entered the room to administer medicines and check vitals, that an argument with BBB ensued concerning medication administration, and that the filing of the complaint was motivated by that argument. Tamayo corroborated being present with Garingarao and described the argument with BBB; he stated he usually accompanied Garingarao on patient visits.

Trial Court Findings

The Regional Trial Court credited AAA’s testimony over the accused’s denial and alibi, finding Garingarao positively identified as the person who touched the victim’s breasts and inserted his finger into her private part. The trial court rejected the argument that the complaint was a fabrication due to an argument with BBB, deeming it illogical for parents to subject their daughter to public trial for mere revenge. The trial court convicted Garingarao of acts of lasciviousness in relation to RA 7610 and imposed reclusion temporal (minimum 12 years, one day to maximum 14 years and 8 months), plus moral damages and a fine.

Court of Appeals Decision and Modifications

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s conviction but modified the disposition: it held that because AAA was 16 years old, the appropriate conviction was under RA 7610 rather than prosecution under the RPC provisions applicable to victims under 12 years. The CA relied on Section 5(b) of RA 7610 and on the reporting/investigation rules defining lascivious acts (including introduction of any object into genitalia and intentional touching of breasts for sexual gratification). The CA raised the maximum duration of reclusion temporal to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years and increased awards of moral damages and indemnity to align with jurisprudence.

Issue on Review Before the Supreme Court

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming with modifications the trial court’s conviction of Garingarao for acts of lasciviousness in relation to RA 7610.

Supreme Court Ruling and Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision with modifications. It held Garingarao guilty beyond reasonable doubt of acts of lasciviousness in relation to RA 7610 and imposed a sentence of reclusion temporal from 14 years and 8 months to 20 years, and monetary awards adjusted by the Court.

Credibility and Evidentiary Analysis

The Court applied established rules that in acts of lasciviousness cases the lone testimony of the offended party, if credible, may suffice to establish guilt. Denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and cannot outweigh a positive, credible identification by the victim. The Court found AAA’s testimony consistent, straightforward, and corroborated by circumstantial evidence (nurses’ duty roster, hospital records, parents’ absence at relevant times), and it rejected the defense theory of fabrication stemming from an argument as implausible. The Supreme Court relied on precedents cited in the record reflecting these evidentiary pr

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 125383)

Nature and Procedural Posture of the Case

Petition for review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the Court of Appeals' 26 November 2009 Decision and 22 June 2010 Resolution in CA-G.R. CR No. 31354.
G.R. No. 192760; decision of the Supreme Court promulgated 20 July 2011; reported at 669 Phil. 512.
The Court of Appeals affirmed with modifications the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Carlos City, Pangasinan, Branch 56 decision that found petitioner Jojit Garingarao guilty beyond reasonable doubt of acts of lasciviousness in relation to Republic Act No. 7610 (RA 7610).
The petition sought reversal of the Court of Appeals' affirmation and modifications; the Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed with its own modifications.

Antecedent Facts (chronology and context)

28 October 2003: AAA, a minor, brought to Virgen Milagrosa Medical Center by parents (named in source as BBB and CCC) for fever and abdominal pain; Dr. George Morante recommended confinement for observation.
AAA admitted to a private room; parents stayed for the night.
29 October 2003 morning: BBB left the hospital to Lingayen, Pangasinan to process Medicare papers (arrived ~8:00 a.m., left ~9:00 a.m. per certificate); CCC left to attend to their store in Urbiztondo, leaving AAA alone in the private room.
On 29 October 2003 around between 7:00–8:00 a.m., AAA alleges Garingarao, a nurse on duty, entered her room and sexually abused her.
When BBB returned, AAA told him she wanted to go home; despite doctor's advice, AAA was discharged and they arrived home ~11:30 a.m.; at home AAA cried and narrated the alleged sexual abuse, whereupon the family returned to the hospital and reported the incident to Dr. Morante.
20 January 2004: City Prosecutor filed an Information against Garingarao for acts of lasciviousness in relation to RA 7610.

Criminal Information and Specific Allegations

Information alleged that on or about 29 October 2003 at Virgen Milagrosa University Hospital, San Carlos City, Garingarao, with lewd designs, willfully and unlawfully touched the breast of AAA (16 years old), touched her genitalia, and inserted his finger into her vagina causing psychological and emotional disturbance, anxiety, sleeplessness and humiliation, contrary to Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to RA 7610 (as charged in the Information filed).

Prosecution Evidence and Testimony

AAA’s testimony:
- Between 7:00–8:00 a.m., a man in white uniform (identified as Garingarao) entered her room, asked about medicines and pain; lifted her bra and touched left breast.
- Left and returned 15–30 minutes later with a stethoscope; lifted shirt, pressed stethoscope to stomach and touched both nipples.
- Lifted pajama and underwear, pressed the lower abdomen and inserted his finger into her private part.
- AAA crossed her legs, asked him to stop and informed him she had her monthly period; Garingarao continued until he saw she had her period, then washed hands and left.
- At home, AAA narrated the incident to her parents and they reported it to Dr. Morante.
Dr. George Morante’s testimony corroborated AAA’s confinement to and discharge from the hospital and that the incident was reported to him.
Documentary evidence presented by the prosecution:
- AAA’s birth certificate establishing she was 16 at the time.
- AAA’s medical records showing confinement and discharge from Virgen Milagrosa Medical Center.
- Hospital nurses’ duty schedule showing Garingarao was on duty 12:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. on 29 October 2003.
- Certificate from Department of Education Division Office showing BBB was present at the office from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. on 29 October 2003.
- AAA’s Medical Payment Notice.
- Incident report filed by AAA’s parents with the police.
- Letter from hospital administrator requiring Garingarao to explain why no administrative action should be filed against him in view of the incident.

Defense Evidence and Version

Garingarao’s account:
- Alleged that he and nursing aide Edmundo Tamayo entered AAA’s room to administer medicines and check vitals between 7:00–8:00 a.m.
- Alleged BBB accused them of not administering medicines properly and an argument ensued; Garingarao denied any fondling or insertion of finger into AAA’s private part.
- Claimed the filing of the case was motivated by the argument with BBB, suggesting a retaliatory motive.
Tamayo’s testimony:
- Asserted he accompanied Garingarao when they visited patients’ rooms and was with him in AAA’s room between 7:00–8:00 a.m.
- Confirmed an argument occurred between BBB and Garingarao; stated he always accompanied Garingarao on patient visits.
Defense theory emphasized denial and an asserted alibi/argument context; denied the physical acts alleged.

Decision of the Regional Trial Court (Trial Court)

RTC Decision dated 5 November 2007 found Garingarao guilty beyond reasonable doubt of acts of lasciviousness in relation to RA 7610.
RTC credited AAA’s testimony over Garingarao’s denial and alibi; concluded Garingarao was positively identified and that BBB and CCC were not in AAA’s room when the acts occurred.
RTC found the argument-motivation defense baseless and illogical, stating it was unlikely parents would expose daughter to public trial for a fabricated story to get even.
Dispositive portion of RTC judgment:
- Convicted Garingarao; sentenced him to suffer imprisonment ranging (as stated in the RTC Decision) from “12 years to 1 day of Reclusion Temporal as minimum to 14 years and 8 months of Reclusion Temporal as maximum.”
- Ordered payment to AAA of P20,000.00 as moral damages and P10,000.00 as fine.

Decision of the Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals Decision dated 26 November 2009 affirmed the RTC decision but modified penalties and damages.
Legal characterization: while charged as acts of lasciviousness in relation to RA 7610, the Court of Appeals ruled