G.R. No. 249414 . July 27, 2022.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BENNY DALAGUET, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Benny Dalaguet was charged with two counts of lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 . The prosecution alleged that in December 2009, Dalaguet, a neighbor, followed the 15-year-old victim, AAA, to a field, carried her to a hut, undressed her, and performed a push-and-pull movement with his penis on the outside of her vagina without full penetration. He threatened her not to report the incident. In March 2010, Dalaguet entered AAA’s house, sent her younger sister away, and again molested her. This second incident was witnessed by AAA’s grandfather, EEE, who caught Dalaguet in the act. A medical examination revealed healed lacerations in AAA’s genitalia.
The defense presented Dalaguet as its sole witness, who denied the accusations. He claimed he went to AAA’s house only to retrieve his cellphone and that the arrest was illegal. The Regional Trial Court convicted Dalaguet, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modifications to the penalty. Dalaguet appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed Dalaguet’s conviction for two counts of lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 .

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court meticulously applied the legal framework for acts of lasciviousness under R.A. No. 7610 . For a conviction under Section 5(b), the prosecution must prove: (1) the accused committed an act of lasciviousness; (2) it was done under coercion, intimidation, or influence; (3) the offended party is a child below 18 years of age; and (4) the child is exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. The Court found all elements present. AAA’s credible and consistent testimony, corroborated by her grandfather and medical findings, established the lascivious acts. The coercion was evident from Dalaguet’s use of force, threats, and the exploitative power dynamic as a neighbor targeting a minor. AAA was 15, a child under the law. The acts constituted “other sexual abuse,” defined as molestation or coercion intended to degrade or abuse a child’s sexuality.
The Court clarified the applicable penalty. Since the victim was under 16, the case fell under the second proviso of Section 5(b), referring to Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code (Acts of Lasciviousness). The prescribed penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court imposed a penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum for each count. The awards of damages were also modified in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. The appeal was denied for lack of merit.