G.R. No. 242101 , September 16, 2019
XXX, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

An Information was filed against petitioner XXX, the step-father of the minor AAA (14 years old), for Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code. The charge alleged that on or about August 3, 2012, in Valenzuela City, XXX, by means of force or intimidation, touched AAA’s breast against her will. During arraignment, XXX pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution’s version, as summarized by the Court of Appeals, states that on April 28, 2012, AAA was in their house when XXX approached her from behind, inserted his hand under her shirt and bra, touched her breast while uttering “pahawak nga,” and attempted to pull down her shorts. AAA resisted, ran to the kitchen where her mother was, but did not immediately disclose the incident out of fear. She later called her boyfriend, went to her biological father’s house, and then texted her mother about the incident. After her mother advised her to return home, they went to the police station to file a complaint.
The defense’s version claimed that AAA fabricated the story due to resentment from a prior incident where XXX prohibited her boyfriend from spending the night at their house. XXX denied the allegations and presented an alibi.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted XXX, finding AAA’s testimony consistent and credible. The RTC sentenced him to imprisonment and ordered him to pay indemnity and moral damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty and damages, correcting the RTC’s erroneous application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. XXX filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied, leading to this Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the RTC and the CA erred in convicting XXX.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal but modified the conviction from Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code to Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act).
The Court held that the prosecution sufficiently established XXX’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It found that the alleged inconsistencies between AAA’s sworn statement (Sinumpaang Salaysay) and her court testimony pertained to minor and trivial details, such as whether she called or texted her mother first, which did not affect the central fact of the crime. The Court emphasized that such minor variances often bolster the credibility of a witness rather than indicate falsehood. It also rejected the defense’s claim that AAA’s failure to immediately scream or report the incident was contrary to normal human behavior, noting that different people react differently to traumatic situations.
Furthermore, the Court found the defense’s theory of fabrication—based on XXX’s prohibition of AAA’s boyfriend from staying overnight—to be flimsy and unpersuasive, as it was unlikely for a young girl to subject herself and her family to public scrutiny and shame without just cause.
Regarding the proper crime and penalty, the Supreme Court, citing jurisprudence, held that when the victim is a child below 18 years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, or guardian, the applicable law is Republic Act No. 7610 , not the Revised Penal Code. Since AAA was 14 years old and XXX was her step-father, the act constituted Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 . The Court modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The awards of damages were also modified to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, with interest at 6% per annum from the finality of the judgment until fully paid.