GR 214497; (April, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 214497 , April 18, 2017
Eduardo Quimvel y Braga, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Eduardo Quimvel was convicted of Acts of Lasciviousness in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act). The Information alleged that on July 18, 2007, in Ligao City, he, with lewd design and through force and intimidation, inserted his hand inside the panty of AAA, a seven-year-old minor, and mashed her vagina against her will. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the straightforward testimony of the child victim, AAA. She testified that while her father was out and she was sleeping with her siblings, Quimvel arrived, laid beside her, placed his leg over her body, and touched her private parts. The defense consisted of a denial and an alibi, claiming he was elsewhere during the incident.
The Regional Trial Court found Quimvel guilty and sentenced him under R.A. 7610. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the awarded damages. Quimvel appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing first that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, and second, that if guilty, he should only be convicted of simple Acts of Lasciviousness under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), not in relation to R.A. 7610.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the petitioner should be convicted under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code for Acts of Lasciviousness or under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the legal basis. It held that the petitioner should be convicted of simple Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC, not in relation to R.A. 7610. The Court clarified the distinction between the two laws. R.A. 7610, specifically Section 5(b), applies to child abuse committed through “lascivious conduct” under circumstances of sexual abuse. However, for Acts of Lasciviousness under the RPC to be committed against a child, the law requires the presence of any of the circumstances under the rape article (force, intimidation, unconsciousness, or being under 12 years of age). Since the victim here was under 12, the qualifying circumstance for the RPC crime was present.
The legal logic is that when the facts satisfy all elements of a crime under the RPC, it is the RPC that should primarily apply. The Court ruled that R.A. 7610 is a special law that applies when the acts committed do not fall under, or are not punishable by, the RPC. Here, the acts constituted Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC because the victim was under 12, making the special law inapplicable. Consequently, the penalty was adjusted to the indeterminate sentence of 6 months of arresto mayor minimum to 6 years of prision correccional maximum. The awards for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages were sustained.