G.R. No. 128777, October 07, 1998
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Ernesto Larin y Bondad, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Ernesto Larin y Bondad, a lifeguard/employee at the University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB), was charged with violating Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 (The Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act). The Information alleged that on or about April 17, 1996, inside the ladies’ shower room at the Baker’s Hall, UPLB, Laguna, the accused, taking advantage of his authority, influence, and moral ascendancy as the trainor/swimming instructor of the 14-year-old minor AAA, and through moral compulsion, willfully committed lascivious conduct on her. The specific acts included shaving her pubic hair, performing cunnilingus, licking her breasts, forcing her to hold and squeeze his penis, and forcibly kissing her the day after. The prosecution presented AAA, her mother, a doctor who conducted a physical examination, and a clinical child psychologist. AAA testified to the details of the sexual abuse in the shower room and the forced kissing the following day. The defense presented witnesses, including the appellant, who denied the accusations, claimed he was only a lifeguard and not a swimming instructor, and asserted that AAA was not alone at the material time. The Regional Trial Court found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay moral damages.

ISSUE

The main issues are: (1) whether the accused-appellant is guilty of violating Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610; (2) whether the testimony of the offended party is credible; and (3) whether the penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court ruled that all the elements of the crime under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 were present: (1) the appellant committed lascivious conduct; (2) the act was performed with a child subjected to other sexual abuse; and (3) the child was below 18 years old. The Court found AAA’s testimony credible, natural, and convincing, and noted the absence of ill motive to falsely accuse the appellant. The Court also ruled that the appellant, as a UPLB employee, was a “public officer” for the purpose of the aggravating circumstance under Section 31(e) of R.A. No. 7610, as he took advantage of his position and moral ascendancy over the victim. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed as the correct penalty under the law, considering the presence of the aggravating circumstance. The award of moral damages was also sustained.