Case Summary (G.R. No. 128777)
Procedural Background
On May 27, 1996, the State Prosecutor filed an Information charging appellant with violation of Section 5(b) in relation to Section 31(e) of RA 7610 for committing acts of lascivious conduct against AAA. At arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty and waived pretrial. After trial, the RTC convicted him of Section 5(b) and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordered cancellation of bail, and imposed P100,000 in moral damages. He appealed.
Trial Court’s Findings
The RTC credited the victim’s testimony in its entirety, finding no evidence of ill motive or fabrication. It concluded that appellant, by virtue of his authority and moral ascendancy as AAA’s swimming instructor, willfully and feloniously committed multiple acts of lascivious conduct against her.
Prosecution’s Evidence
AAA testified that on April 17, 1996, after swim practice at UPLB’s Baker Hall pool, appellant followed her into the women’s shower room, ordered her to remove her towel and swimsuit under the pretext of shaving her pubic hair, then:
- Performed cunnilingus on her
- Licked her breasts while touching her vagina
- Forced her to hold and squeeze his penis
- The following day compelled her to kiss him on the cheek and lips
Medical examination confirmed partial shaving of pubic hair. A psychologist diagnosed post-traumatic stress symptoms.
Defense’s Evidence
Appellant denied wrongdoing, asserting he was only a lifeguard, not a trainer. Witnesses testified that UPLB policy prohibited him from conducting swimming lessons for high-school students, that other persons were present at the pool, and that he escorted AAA to the boarding area. A rebuttal witness disputed testimony suggesting a training relationship and payments.
Statutory Elements under RA 7610
Section 5(b) penalizes sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. The elements are:
- Commission of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct;
- Victim is a child below 18 exploited for money, profit, other consideration, or under coercion or influence;
- Accused performed the act with knowledge of the victim’s age and exploitative or coercive circumstances.
Application of Law to Established Facts
The Information alleged appellant used his authority and moral ascendancy to coerce the minor into lascivious acts. The victim’s age (14) placed her within RA 7610’s protection. Her detailed, consistent account and corroborating expert testimony proved each element beyond reasonable doubt.
Credibility of the Victim
The Supreme Court accorded great respect to the RTC’s assessment of AAA’s credibility, noting her spontaneous, straightforward narrative and the absence of any plausible motive to fabricate. Demeanor observations and medical and psychological evidence supported the trial court’s findings.
Coercion and Moral Ascendancy
Expert psychological testimony explained how appellant built a trusting relationship over a
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 128777)
Statement of the Case
- Appellant Ernesto Larin y Bondad was charged under Section 5(b) in relation to Section 31(e) of Republic Act No. 7610 for committing lascivious acts upon a 14-year-old minor, AAA.
- The Regional Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna, Branch 34 found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua with accessory penalties and moral damages of ₱100,000; bail was cancelled and appellant was ordered confined pending appeal.
- Appellant filed an appeal with the Supreme Court contesting (a) the conviction under RA 7610, (b) the credibility of the lone eyewitness, and (c) the severity of the penalty.
Facts – Prosecution Version
- On April 17, 1996, AAA went to the UP Los Baños pool for swim practice; thereafter she entered the ladies’ shower room alone.
- Accused, her swimming instructor/trainer, followed her, ordered her to remove her towel and swimsuit so he could shave her pubic hair.
- Instead of shaving, he performed cunnilingus, licked her breasts while touching her vagina, forced her to hold and squeeze his penis, and on the following day forced her to kiss him on the cheek and lips.
- AAA repeatedly protested (“nandidiri ako”) but appellant used moral compulsion (“huwag mong lagyan ng malisya,” “pretend I’m your boyfriend,” “para mawala ang kaba mo, halik lang ang kailangan”).
- AAA suffered nightmares, anxiety about returning to school, and decided to quit swimming; she reported the incident to her mother, underwent medical examination, and filed a complaint.
Facts – Defense Version
- Appellant denied any sexual misconduct, asserting he was only a lifeguard—not a trainer—and that AAA was never alone in the bathhouse.
- Defense witnesses (lifeguards, PE department chair, students) testified:
• University policy prohibited swimming lessons to minors by lifeguards.
• On the date in question, AAA was seen in the pool with classmates; no one observed her enter the bathhouse alone.
• Appellant accompanied AAA to the boarding area after practice in company of others. - Rebuttal wi