GR 203114; (June, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 203114, June 28, 2017
VIRGILIO LABANDRIA AWAS, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
The petitioner, Virgilio Labandria Awas, was charged with rape through sexual abuse for allegedly inserting his finger into the vagina of AAA, a ten-year-old minor, on January 24, 2010, in Valenzuela City. During trial, AAA testified that the petitioner, her sister’s boyfriend, called her into a room, made her lie down, and touched her vagina over her leggings and panty. He then warned her not to tell her parents. The medico-legal report, however, revealed normal genital findings with no evidence of sexual abuse. The petitioner denied the accusation, claiming he was lured to the house where he was immediately accused by AAA’s mother and brother, forced to go to the police, and that he never entered the house on the said date.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the petitioner’s conviction for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Republic Act No. 7610, despite the prosecution’s alleged failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalties and damages. The Court held that the petitioner was correctly convicted of acts of lasciviousness, not rape. The information alleged “insertion,” but AAA’s categorical testimony only established that the petitioner “touched” her vagina over her clothing. This act constitutes lascivious conduct under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code. The credibility of AAA, a child witness, was upheld. The Court emphasized that the testimony of a victim, especially a minor, is accorded full weight and credibility, and her straightforward narration of the touching incident was sufficient to establish the crime. The normal medico-legal findings do not negate the commission of lasciviousness, which does not require penetration or physical injury.
Regarding the penalty, the Court applied Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610, which prescribes reclusion temporal in its medium period for lascivious acts against a child. The indeterminate sentence imposed by the lower courts was adjusted for correctness. The Court also awarded civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, with legal interest, but deleted the fine imposed by the RTC as it was not prescribed by the special law for the offense. The appeal was denied for lack of merit.