G.R. No. 192760 ; July 20, 2011
JOJIT GARINGARAO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

On October 28, 2003, AAA, a 16-year-old, was confined at Virgen Milagrosa Medical Center. On October 29, 2003, between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m., while her parents were away, the accused, Jojit Garingarao, a nurse on duty, entered her room. Garingarao lifted AAA’s bra and touched her left breast, claiming he was examining her. He left and returned 15-30 minutes later with a stethoscope, lifted her shirt, pressed the stethoscope to her stomach, and touched her nipples. He then lifted her pajama and underwear, pressed her lower abdomen, and inserted his finger into her vagina. AAA protested and informed him she was menstruating, upon which he stopped, washed his hands, and left. After her father BBB returned, AAA insisted on going home. At home, she narrated the incident to her parents, who then reported it to the attending physician, Dr. George Morante. An Information was filed charging Garingarao with acts of lasciviousness in relation to Republic Act No. 7610 (RA 7610). The prosecution presented AAA’s testimony, her birth certificate, medical records, nurse duty schedule showing Garingarao was on duty, and other documentary evidence. The defense claimed the case was fabricated due to a prior heated argument between Garingarao and BBB over the administration of medicine, alleging BBB was present during the alleged time of the incident. The trial court found Garingarao guilty, a decision affirmed with modifications by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the conviction of Jojit Garingarao for acts of lasciviousness under RA 7610.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals’ decision is affirmed. The Supreme Court held that the conviction under RA 7610 was proper. Since the victim, AAA, was 16 years old at the time of the incident, the applicable law is Section 5(b) of RA 7610, not Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code on acts of lasciviousness. The elements of child abuse under RA 7610 were established: (1) the accused committed an act of sexual abuse; (2) the act was performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and (3) the child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age. AAA’s credible and categorical testimony, corroborated by documentary evidence, proved that Garingarao, with lewd design, touched her breasts and inserted his finger into her vagina. The defense of denial and alleged motive of revenge from a prior argument were deemed insufficient to overcome the positive identification and credible testimony of the victim. The penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals was in accordance with law.