G.R. No. 259861 - Laconsay vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 259861)

Factual Background

The complaint charged that on the early morning of August 28, 2011, petitioner entered the residence of the private complainant and committed acts of lasciviousness upon a fourteen-year-old girl, hereinafter AAA, by caressing her left foot upward to her groin while she slept, contrary to law.

Prosecution Evidence

AAA testified that at about 2:30 a.m. she awakened to see a person at her feet using a cellphone, that the person pulled down her blanket and caressed her left leg up to her groin, and that she shouted for help causing the person to flee. Her sister, BBB, corroborated that she saw a man peep through the door, that the man used his cellphone which allowed her to see him clearly, that the man pulled down the blanket, and that she recognized him as petitioner when he was later pointed out.

Investigative and Identification Events

After the incident, AAA initially did not immediately name petitioner to their father for reasons of fear for the father’s health, but BBB identified the assailant as “Resty” and barangay tanods proceeded to the petitioner’s house where AAA and BBB nevertheless confirmed petitioner’s identity under the light from his cellphone.

Defense Case

Petitioner denied the accusation and testified that he spent the night drinking and at entertainment establishments until early morning, and that when approached by barangay tanods he removed his shirt to show he had no tattoo; petitioner relied on a defense of denial and claimed an alibi supported by his father, Antonio Laconsay.

Trial Court Proceedings and Ruling

The RTC conducted trial, heard direct and cross-examination of witnesses, and, in its June 6, 2019 Judgment, convicted petitioner of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610, sentencing him to an indeterminate term and awarding civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages in specified amounts.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in its October 29, 2020 Decision but modified the penalty and increased the damages, holding that the victim’s identification under the cellphone light and the corroborative testimony of BBB established petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and rejecting petitioner’s denial and alibi as unsubstantiated.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The principal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner committed acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 in relation to Section 5(b) of RA 7610, particularly whether the identity of the assailant was sufficiently established given alleged inconsistencies in AAA’s testimony.

Parties’ Contentions on Appeal

Petitioner contended that the prosecution failed to prove identity and that AAA’s testimony contained inconsistencies that undermined her reliability. The Office of the Solicitor General, for the People, maintained that the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt and argued that minor inconsistencies did not exculpate petitioner, especially where the offended party was a minor.

Standard of Review and Weight of Factual Findings

The Court applied the settled rule that factual findings and witness credibility determinations of the trial court are accorded great weight on appeal, especially where the appellate court has affirmed those findings and where no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, or arbitrary conclusions appear in the record.

Legal Elements and Statutory Definitions

The Court recited the elements required for conviction under Article 336 in relation to Section 5(b) of RA 7610 and the definition of lascivious conduct under the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 7610, noting that the prosecution had to prove lascivious conduct committed upon a child under eighteen and that a child is deemed subjected to “other sexual abuse” when indulged in lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of an adult.

Credibility Findings and Evidence Evaluation

The Court found the identification by AAA credible because the cellphone backlight provided sufficient illumination for her to see petitioner’s face and because BBB independently and vividly described petitioner’s entry, movements, and identity; the Court deemed AAA’s temporary hesitation to name petitioner to her father rationally explained by fear for the father’s health, and it rejected petitioner’s and his father’s inconsistent and uncorroborated statements as self-serving.

Rejection of Alibi and Denial Defenses

The Court concluded that petitioner’s defenses of denial and alibi were unsubstantiated and could not prevail over the positive identifications of AAA and BBB in open court; the Court also found that Antonio’s testimony contained inconsistencies and omissions that undermined its reliability, particularly the claim about an assailant’s tattoo.

Penalty Determination and Legal Consequences

Applying the penalty structure of Section 5(b) of RA 7610 and relevant precedents, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ modification of the sentence to an indeterminate penalty of eight years and one day of prision mayor medium as the minimum to seventeen years, four months, and one d

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 259861)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Resty Laconsay filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 assailing the Court of Appeals Decision dated October 29, 2020 and Resolution dated March 11, 2022 in CA-G.R. CR No. 43836.
People of the Philippines prevailed below when the Regional Trial Court, Branch xxxxxxxxxxx, Olongapo City convicted petitioner in Criminal Case No. 27-2012FC.
The Court acted as the reviewing tribunal and rendered judgment affirming the conviction with modification of penalty and damages.

Key Factual Allegations

The offended party, referred to as AAA, was fourteen years old when she was allegedly molested on August 28, 2011 at about 2:30 a.m. in her family’s living room.
AAA alleged that an intruder pulled down her blanket, touched her left foot, stroked her left leg up to her groin, and then fled when she shouted for help.
BBB, AAA’s sister, testified that she saw the intruder use his cellphone which shed light enabling her clearer view and later identified the intruder as petitioner.
Neighbors and barangay tanods searched and brought petitioner to the house where both AAA and BBB pointed to him as the assailant.

Charges and Information

The Information charged petitioner with Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Article III, Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610.
The accusatory portion alleged that petitioner, with lewd design, caressed the minor’s foot and moved his hand up to her groin against her will.

Trial Evidence

AAA testified to the circumstances of the molestation and to recognizing petitioner by the backlight of his cellphone while she was initially sleeping.
BBB corroborated AAA’s account and testified as to petitioner’s entry, use of a cellphone, and the timing of the caressing and flight.
The prosecution also presented testimony that AAA shouted for help and that her father, GGG, pursued the fleeing person without success.
Petitioner submitted a judicial affidavit asserting an alibi that he spent the night drinking and at establishments until about 4:00 a.m., and his father, Antonio Laconsay, offered an affidavit corroborating the alibi.

Defense Contentions

Petitioner denied commission of the offense and relied on a defense of alibi and denial as to identity.
Petitioner argued that inconsistencies in AAA’s testimony and her initial hesitation to name the assailant defeated proof of identity beyond reasonable doubt.

Trial Court Decision

The RTC found all elements of Acts of Lasciviousness in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 proven beyond reasonable doubt and convicted petitioner.
The RTC ruled that consent was immaterial under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 7610 and rejected petitioner’s alibi and denial as unmeritorious.
The RTC sentenced petitioner to an indeterminate penalty of twelve years, ten months, and twenty days of reclusion temporal as minimum to fifteen years, six months, and twenty days of reclusion temporal as maximum a