G.R. No. 157718; April 26, 2005
ALVIN AMPLOYO y EBALADA, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Alvin Amployo was charged with violation of Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610 (the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act). The Information alleged that on or about June 27, 1997, in Subic, Zambales, he willfully committed acts of lasciviousness against eight-year-old Kristine Joy Mosquera by touching and mashing her breast through force, intimidation, and threats. The prosecution established that the victim, while walking to school, was accosted by Amployo, a neighbor, who touched her breast and warned her not to report the act. This was not an isolated incident, as he had committed similar acts on prior occasions.
The victim eventually reported the abuse to her grandmother and mother, leading to a barangay complaint and subsequent referral to the DSWD and police. A DSWD psychologist confirmed the child exhibited symptoms of sexual abuse, including insecurity, anger, anxiety, and a fear of going to school. The Regional Trial Court convicted Amployo of child abuse under RA 7610, sentencing him to reclusion temporal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. Amployo appealed, arguing the prosecution failed to prove the elements of lascivious conduct under the Revised Penal Code and, consequently, under RA 7610.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the acts committed by the petitioner constitute acts of lasciviousness penalized under Section 5(b) of RA 7610, and not merely under the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction under RA 7610. The Court clarified that for a conviction under Section 5(b) of RA 7610, the prosecution must prove that the accused committed lascivious conduct under circumstances of sexual abuse. The law defines “other sexual abuse” to include lascivious conduct under coercive or abusive conditions. The Court found all elements present: the victim was a child below eighteen years old; the acts of touching and mashing her breast were lascivious, intended to satisfy sexual desire; and these acts were committed through force and intimidation, as evidenced by the petitioner’s threat to prevent disclosure.
The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the act did not involve lewd design, ruling that the intentional touching of a young girl’s breast is inherently lascivious. It further held that RA 7610 is a special law that applies in lieu of the Revised Penal Code when the victim is a child and the circumstances constitute child abuse. The law’s purpose is to provide enhanced protection for children, and its provisions are applicable irrespective of whether the acts are also punishable under the penal code. The penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals was sustained as being within the range prescribed by law.