GR 249131; (December, 2021) (Digest)
G.R. No. 249131. December 06, 2021
TITUS A. BARONA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND AAA, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
The case stemmed from an Information filed against petitioner Titus A. Barona for Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that from 2004 to February 2011, Barona, as the pastor and leader of the BOLTS Ministry, committed lascivious acts upon AAA, a member and elder of the ministry. Specific instances included sending inappropriate text messages, calling to say “mahal kita,” attempting to kiss her, asking for a massage, embracing her and making his chest touch her breasts, and touching and pressing her left thigh. AAA did not immediately report due to fear and Barona’s moral ascendancy as the “anointed one of God.” The prosecution also presented affidavits from two other ministry members who confronted Barona, and he allegedly admitted the acts were due to exhaustion. Barona denied the accusations, claiming they were fabrications instigated by a disgruntled member, Lorna Sevilla, and pointed to friendly emails and a CCTV footage of a hug from AAA as evidence of a normal relationship. He also argued the complaint was belatedly filed.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner Titus A. Barona’s conviction for the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the conviction. The Court held that all elements of Acts of Lasciviousness were proven: (1) the offender committed any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) it was done under any of the circumstances specified in Article 336 (by using force or intimidation, or when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or is under 12 years of age); and (3) the offended party is another person of either sex. The acts described constituted lascivious conduct. Intimidation was present due to Barona’s moral ascendancy and influence as the pastor and leader over AAA, which produced fear sufficient to subdue her will. The defense of frame-up was not credible, and the delay in reporting was sufficiently explained by AAA’s fear and the accused’s influential position. The penalty imposed by the Regional Trial Court, as modified by the Supreme Court, was AFFIRMED: an indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as maximum. The awards of moral damages and civil indemnity were increased to P50,000.00 each.