G.R. No. 214673 November 20, 2017
RIZALDO L. ORSOS, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Rizaldo Orsos, a teacher and CAT Commandant, was charged with acts of lasciviousness against his student, AAA, a 14-year-old minor. The prosecution alleged that on April 21, 2007, under the pretense of initiation rites for becoming a CAT officer, Orsos lured AAA to his house. There, he declared his feelings for her, kissed her on the lips, lifted her clothing, and sucked her breast for about two minutes, stopping only when she pleaded that she was menstruating as he attempted to unzip her pants. He then warned her not to report the incident. AAA disclosed the abuse to a friend but not to her family until over a year later, prompted by her mother’s inquiry after other students filed similar complaints against Orsos.
The defense consisted of denial and alibi. Orsos claimed AAA was never his student, that no initiation occurred in April 2007 as rites were held during the school year on campus, and that he was on vacation in a different municipality at the time. The Regional Trial Court convicted Orsos, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals with modifications to the awarded damages. Orsos appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the CA erred in affirming his conviction.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner Rizaldo Orsos’s conviction for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimony of the minor victim, AAA, to be clear, candid, and consistent, detailing the lascivious acts committed by Orsos. The Court reiterated the doctrine that testimonies of child-victims are given full weight and credit, as no young girl would willingly fabricate a tale of sexual abuse and endure the ordeal of a public trial unless motivated by truth. The delay in reporting the incident was sufficiently explained by AAA’s fear and the accused’s position of authority over her as a teacher, which does not undermine her credibility.
The Court rejected Orsos’s defenses of denial and alibi for being inherently weak and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence. Denial cannot prevail over the positive and credible identification by the victim. Furthermore, the defense failed to prove the physical impossibility of Orsos being at the crime scene. The elements of acts of lasciviousness were all present: the offender committed any lascivious conduct through force or intimidation; the act was performed with lewd design; and the offended party was another person of either sex. The Court sustained the penalty imposed and the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to the victim.