G.R. No. 197458 - Pinlac y Resolme vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 197458)

Factual Background

On the evening of March 9, 1997, the minor identified in the record by the initials “AAA,” then fourteen years old, accompanied petitioner to the Kale Beach Resort in Subic, Olongapo City for fraternity initiation rites conducted by petitioner. The prosecution alleged that petitioner induced AAA to ingest alcohol and to smoke marijuana, rendering AAA “high,” dazed, or near unconsciousness. While AAA was in that condition, petitioner allegedly isolated him from others, forcibly disrobed him, and performed oral sex by sucking his penis until ejaculation. The following day, March 10, 1997, the prosecution alleged a repetition of the act after petitioner again persuaded AAA to take alcohol and marijuana. Petitioner denied the allegations, claiming absence from the scene due to campaign activities and alleging the complaint was instigated by AAA’s mother.

Charge and Statutory Provision

Petitioner was charged with violating Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610, which penalizes those who commit acts of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. The criminal information alleged that petitioner committed lascivious conduct upon a child below eighteen years of age who was under the coercion or influence of an adult.

Trial Court Proceedings and Findings

The Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City, Branch 72, after trial, found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a Decision dated January 6, 2010. The RTC credited the victim’s testimony and recited the facts that petitioner brought AAA to Kale Beach Resort, caused him to take alcohol and marijuana, left him alone with AAA, disrobed him, and sucked his penis on March 9 and again on March 10, 1997. The RTC rejected petitioner’s denial and alibi as weak and self-serving, citing the settled rule that denial and alibi are the weakest defenses. The RTC imposed an indeterminate term of imprisonment of twelve years and one day to fifteen years, six months and twenty days of reclusion temporal, and awarded moral damages of P30,000.00.

Proceedings and Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On appeal, petitioner contested the credibility of AAA, pointed to alleged inconsistencies with the testimony of AAA’s mother “BBB,” questioned the ten-month delay in reporting, and argued that the judge who penned the RTC Decision did not preside at trial. The Court of Appeals, however, found the prosecution’s evidence actual and incontrovertible and affirmed the RTC’s factual findings. The CA held that the acts proved constituted lascivious conduct performed on a child who was induced by an adult and was therefore deemed subjected to other sexual abuse under Section 5, Article III of RA 7610. The CA confirmed AAA’s age by birth certificate and described petitioner’s defenses as weak. The CA further ruled that a different ponente’s signing of the decision did not void the judgment. The CA modified the penalty and sentenced petitioner to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of eight years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen years, four months and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum, imposed a fine of P15,000.00 pursuant to Section 31(f), Article XII of RA 7610, and awarded P20,000.00 as civil indemnity and P15,000.00 as moral damages to AAA.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

The petition under Rule 45, Rules of Court raised a single principal contention: whether the Court of Appeals erred in giving credence to the testimony of the minor victim AAA, thereby sustaining petitioner’s conviction.

Supreme Court Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court observed that a petition for review under Rule 45 is limited to questions of law and that petitioner’s challenge attacked findings of fact, which are generally beyond the scope of such review. Upon examination of the records, the Court found no compelling reason to overturn the factual findings of the RTC as affirmed by the CA. The Court concluded that the elements of the offense under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 were satisfactorily established: (1) commission of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) performance of the act on a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse; and (3) the child’s age being below eighteen years. The Court noted that AAA was fourteen years and eight months old at the time of the acts, as shown by his birth certificate.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reiterated the limited scope of appellate review under a Rule 45 petition and accorded due deference to the trial court’s credibility determinations. The Court relied on established jurisprudence to identify the statutory elements of the offense and to sustain the trial court’s assessment of witnesses. The Court addressed petitioner’s arguments regarding delay in reporting and the change of ponente, endorsing the CA’s reasoning that delay alone does not negate a victim’s testimony and that a judgment is not rendered void merely because another judge prepared or promulgated it. The Court also applied precedents concerning the Indeterminate Sentence Law to determine the appropriate indeterminate range of imprisonment.

Penalties, Damages, and Ancillary Relief

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s modified indeterminate sentence of imprisonment from eight years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen years, four months and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum. The Court affirmed the fine of P15,000.00 under Section 31(f), Article XII of RA 7610, and the awards of P20,000.00 as ci

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 197458)

Parties and Posture

NICANOR PINLAC Y RESOLME, PETITIONER challenged the March 29, 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming with modification the conviction entered by the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City, Branch 72.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT prosecuted the case for violation of Section 5(b), Article III, Republic Act No. 7610.
The petition was filed under Rule 45, Rules of Court and presented exclusively issues of fact and credibility.
The trial was originally presided by Judge Eliodoro G. Ubiadas and thereafter by Judge Josefina D. Farrales, while the RTC decision was penned by Judge Richard A. Paradeza.

Key Factual Allegations

The prosecution alleged that on March 9, 1997, petitioner took a 14-year-old boy identified as "AAA" to Kale Beach Resort in Subic, Olongapo City for fraternity initiation.
The prosecution alleged that petitioner induced "AAA" to drink alcohol and smoke marijuana, causing the minor to become dazed and near unconsciousness.
The prosecution alleged that petitioner isolated "AAA", forcibly disrobed him, and performed oral sex by sucking his penis until ejaculation on March 9, 1997.
The prosecution alleged that petitioner again performed oral sex on "AAA" on March 10, 1997 after inducing him to ingest alcohol and marijuana.
Petitioner denied the allegations, asserted an alibi that he was campaigning as a candidate for barangay kagawad, and alleged that "BBB", the victim's mother, instigated the case.
The identity of the minor and his immediate family were anonymized pursuant to Republic Act No. 9262 and the case records.

Trial Court Ruling

The RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5(b), Article III, R.A. 7610 in a Decision dated January 6, 2010.
The RTC credited the victim's detailed testimony and found petitioner’s denial and alibi to be weak and self-serving, citing precedents such as People v. Bulan and People v. Mendoza.
The RTC concluded that the act of sucking the minor's penis constituted lascivious conduct under the statute.
The RTC sentenced petitioner to an indeterminate term of reclusion temporal from twelve years and one day to fifteen years six months and twenty days and ordered payment of PHP 30,000 as moral damages.

Appeal and Court of Appeals Ruling

On appeal, petitioner challenged the victim's credibility, the alleged ten-month delay in reporting, and the purported inconsistency regarding the place of the incident.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's factual findings and legal conclusions in a March 29, 2011 Decision, holding that the elements of the offense were established beyond reasonable doubt.
The CA characterized petitioner’s alibi and denial as weak and corroborated the victim's age with the stipulated birth certificate (Exhibit "A").
The CA modified the sentence under the Indeterminate Sentence Law to an indeterminate term