G.R. No. 197712 - Imbo y Gamores vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 197712)

Factual Background

The information charged that during the period from October 14, 2003 to January 25, 2004 in Quezon City, petitioner, with force and intimidation, committed acts of lasciviousness upon his daughter, AAA, then eleven years old, by forcing her to remove her shorts, mashing her breasts and licking and kissing her private parts. AAA testified that she awoke while the household slept and that petitioner licked her vagina and mashed her breasts. She shouted repeatedly for her mother, CCC, without awakening anyone. AAA claimed that petitioner left the room and that she disclosed the incident to her mother the next day. Petitioner denied the charge, contending that CCC fabricated the accusation after a marital quarrel on August 6, 2003, and asserting an alibi that his work hours were from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Trial Court Proceedings

Petitioner pleaded not guilty at arraignment. At pretrial, the parties stipulated that AAA was a minor of eleven years at the time of the alleged offense and that petitioner was her father. The trial court found AAA's testimony credible and convicted petitioner of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336, Revised Penal Code, sentencing him to an indeterminate term equivalent to fourteen years and eight months to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal in accordance with Section 5 of R.A. No. 7610. The trial court ordered payment of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals, by Decision dated February 17, 2011, affirmed the trial court's conviction and its findings on credibility and proof. Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court, urging errors in the appellate disposition.

Issues on Appeal

Petitioner raised two principal assignments of error: (I) that the Court of Appeals erred in crediting the alleged incredible and implausible testimony of the private complainant, AAA; and (II) that the Court of Appeals erred in applying the penalty under Section 5, Article III, R.A. No. 7610 because the Information did not allege the applicability of that statute.

Credibility and Sufficiency of Evidence

The Supreme Court examined the elements of Article 336, Revised Penal Code, noting the parties' stipulation of AAA's minority. The Court observed that the only contested element was whether petitioner committed the lascivious acts. The Court reiterated the settled rule that the lone testimony of an offended party, if credible, is sufficient to support conviction. The Court found AAA's testimony detailed and straightforward, describing licking of the vagina and mashing of the breasts. The Court rejected petitioner's attacks on credibility based on the household's proximity and the absence of corroboration, reasoning that sexual abuse is often committed out of sight and is attested to only by victim and perpetrator. The Court characterized petitioner's denial and alibi as weak defenses when weighed against a credible victim's positive identification and narration. The Court similarly found implausible petitioner's claim of fabrication induced by the mother, observing that the alleged scheme would require the mother and child to endure the public trial of a false incest accusation and that the mother's influence would have likely produced corroboration from other children. In support, the Court relied on its precedents, including People v. Padigos, G.R. No. 181202, 5 December 2012, and Garingarao v. People, G.R. No. 192760, 20 July 2011, among others, to affirm the credibility assessment and the conviction.

Applicability of R.A. No. 7610 and Allegations in the Information

The Court addressed petitioner's contention that the Information failed to allege the applicability of Section 5, Article III, R.A. No. 7610. It held that the Information sufficiently alleged the elements of sexual abuse under R.A. No. 7610 by specifying AAA's minority, the lascivious acts of kissing and mashing private parts and breasts, and by alleging that petitioner subjected AAA to sexual abuse that debased and degraded her dignity. The Court invoked the definition of lascivious conduct in Section 32, Article XIII of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 7610 and observed that the statute proscribes lascivious conduct with a child subjected to sexual abuse as an offense independent of whether the underlying penal provision is the Revised Penal Code, noting that the offense is malum prohibitum. The Court concluded that prosecution under Article 336 with penalties prescribed by R.A. No. 7610 was proper.

Penalty Determination and Application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law

The Court examined the proper imposition of penalty under Section 5(b), Article III, R.A. No. 7610, which prescribes reclusion temporal in its medium period when the victim is under twelve years of age. The Court stated the medium period range as fourteen years, four months and one day to seventeen years and four months. The Court explained the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, R.A. No. 4103, distinguishing offenses punished by the Revised Penal Code from those punished by "any other law," and relied on People v. Simon, G.R. No. 93028, 29 July 1994 to clarify that the minimum under the Indeterminate Sentence Law for an offense punished by the Code must be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code. Consequently, the Court determined that the correct minimum term should be within the reclusion temporal in its minimum period, i.e., twelve years and one day to fourteen years and eight months. The Court further recognized the aggravating circumstance of relationship under Section 31(c), Article XII of R

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 197712)

Parties and Procedural Posture

NONITO IMBO Y GAMORES, PETITIONER was charged, tried, and convicted for Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in relation to Section 5, Article III of R.A. No. 7610 at the Regional Trial Court, Branch 94, Quezon City.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT prosecuted the case through private complainant AAA and obtained a conviction at trial with awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the trial court's conviction in CA-G.R. CR No. 32804 by Decision dated 17 February 2011.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, Rules of Court before the Supreme Court First Division which resolved the appeal in the decision under review.

Key Factual Allegations

AAA testified that between 14 October 2003 and 25 January 2004 she awoke at night when Petitioner, her father, licked her vagina, mashed her breasts, and kissed her private parts while she slept on the second level of their residence.
AAA testified that she shouted repeatedly for her mother, CCC, who did not respond, and that Petitioner left the room and ran away after she shouted.
AAA reported the incident to CCC the following day and the parties stipulated at pre-trial that AAA was 11 years old at the time and that Petitioner was her father.
Petitioner denied the charge, claimed fabrication by CCC motivated by marital conflict, and offered an alibi that he worked from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Charges and Trial Evidence

The Information alleged that Petitioner forcibly and with intimidation committed acts of lasciviousness upon AAA, thereby subjecting her to sexual abuse and degrading her dignity.
The prosecution relied primarily on the testimony of AAA as the offended party and on the stipulation of her minority and relationship to Petitioner.
Petitioner proffered denial, an alibi as to his whereabouts, and a theory of ill motive imputing fabrication by CCC.

Issues Presented

Petitioner raised whether the Court of Appeals erred in crediting the testimony of AAA, which he described as incredible and implausible.
Petitioner also urged that the Court of Appeals erred in applying Section 5, Article III of R.A. No. 7610 for purposes of penalty because the Information allegedly failed to indicate its applicability.

Trial and Appellate Findings

The trial court found AAA’s testimony credible and convicted Petitioner of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC, imposing an indeterminate sentence and monetary awards.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and the applicability of Section 5, Article III of R.A. No. 7610 to the imposition of penalty.
The Supreme Court First Division affirmed the factual findings as to credibility and conviction but modified the sentence and monetary awards in light of applicable sentencing law and jurisprudence.

Statutory Framework

Article 336 of the RPC defines the elements of Acts of Lasciviousness, including commission of lascivious acts under force or when the offended party is under twelve years of age.
Section 5, Article III of R.A. No. 7610 prescribes penalties for child prostitution and other sexual abuse and provides that when the victim is under twelve years of age the offender shall be prosecuted under the RPC but penalized under R.A. No. 7610.
Sectio