GR 246146 CAguioa (Digest)
G.R. No. 246146, March 18, 2021
CICL XXX, CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAW, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
The petitioner, a Child in Conflict with the Law (CICL), was charged and convicted by the trial court for the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness under the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The case is now subject to review. The main decision (ponencia) affirmed the petitioner’s guilt but modified the nomenclature of the crime from “Acts of Lasciviousness” under Article 336 of the RPC to “Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610” and imposed a heavier penalty.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner should be convicted of Acts of Lasciviousness under the Revised Penal Code or Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610.
RULING
Justice Caguioa, in a Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, concurred with the affirmation of the petitioner’s guilt but dissented from the modification of the crime and the imposition of a heavier penalty. The opinion held that Section 5(b) of RA 7610 applies only in specific and limited instances where the child-victim is “exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse” (EPSOSA). For a conviction under Section 5(b), it is essential to prove that: (1) the accused committed the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) the act was performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and (3) the child is below 18 years of age. The element of the victim being EPSOSA is separate and distinct and must be both alleged in the Information and proved during trial. In this case, the Information only alleged that the victim was a 15-year-old minor but did not allege that she was EPSOSA. Furthermore, no evidence was presented that the victim indulged in the act for consideration or due to coercion or influence of an adult. Therefore, the petitioner should be convicted of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC, not under Section 5(b) of RA 7610. Consequently, considering the petitioner’s minority, the penalty should be within the range of arresto mayor, not the heavier penalty of prision mayor to reclusion temporal imposed by the ponencia.