G.R. No. 145217; December 10, 2003
Pepito Sibuyo, petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Pepito Sibuyo and private complainant Jocelyn Junio were co-workers at Philusa Corporation. On May 21, 1993, Junio, experiencing stomach pains, sought permission to rest during breaktime. She proceeded to the company’s salvage room, where Sibuyo worked and which contained a folding bed sometimes used by employees. After she lay down, Junio was awakened by Sibuyo on top of her, kissing her neck and touching her breast. She struggled, kicked him, and eventually freed herself after he whispered a lewd request. Distraught, she immediately confided in two co-workers. Sibuyo later made harassing phone calls and a confrontational remark in the workplace, which led management to investigate. An administrative committee found Sibuyo guilty, resulting in his dismissal. A criminal complaint for Acts of Lasciviousness was filed approximately seven months after the incident.
The defense presented a different version, alleging Junio consented and that the complaint was fabricated due to Sibuyo’s labor case against the company for illegal dismissal. The Regional Trial Court convicted Sibuyo, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The trial court, however, failed to award moral damages.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Sibuyo’s conviction for Acts of Lasciviousness despite alleged inconsistencies in Junio’s testimony and the delay in filing the criminal complaint.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The Court found Junio’s testimony credible, straightforward, and consistent. The delay in filing the criminal case—approximately seven months—was sufficiently explained and did not undermine her credibility. Junio testified that she was initially reluctant to undergo the embarrassment of a public trial and was compelled to file only when Sibuyo, in contesting his dismissal, claimed the administrative charge was fabricated, thereby besmirching her honor. The Court ruled that such delay is not indicative of a fabricated charge but a natural reaction from a victim coping with trauma and protecting her reputation.
The Court also dismissed the defense’s argument that the act was improbable because it occurred in a place occasionally used by others. It reiterated the doctrine that lust is no respecter of time or place, noting that lascivious acts can be committed even in areas where people may be present. The subsequent harassing acts of Sibuyo, including his phone calls and confrontation, corroborated Junio’s account and demonstrated a guilty mind. Consequently, all elements of Acts of Lasciviousness—lewd design, force or intimidation, and the act being against the victim’s will—were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court modified the appealed decision to award moral damages to Junio.