GR 239756; (September, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. 239756 , September 14, 2020
Rodolfo C. Mendoza, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Rodolfo C. Mendoza was charged with Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Republic Act No. 7610 (the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act). The Information alleged that on March 8, 2016, he kissed the lips of AAA, a nine-year-old minor, twice against her will. AAA testified that she was pulled by her arm while urinating outside at night, brought to a dark area, and kissed. She recognized petitioner by his distinct haircut when he moved to a well-lighted area, having seen him previously in the vicinity. The defense presented denial and alibi, claiming petitioner was asleep with other workers at the time.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 .
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. On the procedural matter, petitioner is estopped from questioning any irregularity in his arrest due to his failure to raise this objection before entering his plea. On the merits, the Court upheld the findings of the lower courts, emphasizing that questions of fact are not reviewable in a Rule 45 petition absent any showing that the case falls under recognized exceptions. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, particularly the straightforward and credible testimony of the child victim, is accorded great weight.
The legal logic is clear: the prosecution successfully established all elements of the crime. The act of kissing a minor constitutes lascivious conduct under Article 336. Furthermore, as the victim was under twelve years old, the provisions of R.A. No. 7610 apply. The law presumes that such acts are committed with coercion and are abusive, as a child of that age cannot validly consent. Petitioner’s defenses of denial and alibi, which are inherently weak, were rightly rejected for being uncorroborated and failing to overcome the positive identification by the victim. The penalty was properly imposed under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and the award of damages in line with prevailing jurisprudence was sustained.