G.R. No. 173491 ; November 23, 2007
EDWIN CABILA, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Edwin Cabila, a tricycle driver, was charged with violating Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act). The Information alleged that on August 7, 1998, with lewd design, he committed lascivious conduct against AAA, an eight-year-old minor, by touching her private parts against her will. The prosecution established that after AAA’s classmates had disembarked from his tricycle, Cabila, while driving, inserted his fingers inside AAA’s underwear and touched her private part. AAA, in pain and fearing she might be pushed off a bridge, did not resist. She later reported the incident to her parents, leading to a medical examination that revealed a linear erythema on her hymen.
Cabila denied the accusation, claiming the road was rough and the ride was merely bumpy, and that he only became acquainted with AAA during the barangay confrontation. The Regional Trial Court convicted him under R.A. 7610, imposing an indeterminate penalty of 8 years and 1 day to 15 years, 6 months, and 20 days. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, giving full credence to AAA’s straightforward testimony and rejecting Cabila’s denial as a weak defense.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the petitioner for violation of Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610 .

RULING

The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. It vacated the conviction under R.A. No. 7610 but found petitioner guilty of the lesser crime of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court clarified the legal logic for the modification. For a conviction under Section 5(b) of R.A. 7610, the law requires that the child be “exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse,” which implies a context of inducement or consideration for the lascivious act. The facts of the case did not establish that AAA was a child exploited in prostitution or was subjected to sexual abuse for money, profit, or any other consideration due to the coercion or influence of an adult.
Since the essential element of exploitation or inducement for consideration under R.A. 7610 was absent, the proper charge was for Acts of Lasciviousness under the Revised Penal Code. All elements of this crime were present: (1) the offender committed any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) it was done under circumstances of force, intimidation, or when the offended party is deprived of reason or unconscious, or is under twelve years of age; and (3) the offended party is another person of either sex. AAA was under twelve, making her consent immaterial. Consequently, the Court modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of six months of arresto mayor as minimum, to four years and two months of prision correccional as maximum. The award of moral damages was sustained.