G.R. No. 252791 , August 23, 2022
DR. ULYSSES TROCIO Y MENDOZA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Dr. Ulysses Trocio, an EENT specialist, was charged with child abuse through lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 . The Information alleged that on June 12, 2015, he committed lascivious acts against AAA, a 15-year-old minor, during a medical consultation at his clinic. The prosecution presented AAA, who testified that after applying a numbing solution to her ear, petitioner fondled her breasts, touched her genitals, and kissed her neck. He then gave her P200 and told her not to report the incident. AAA disclosed the incident in 2016 during a child abuse seminar, leading to a police report.
The defense presented a denial. Petitioner claimed AAA visited his clinic on that date with companions for a friend’s consultation, and he merely reminded her of an unpaid medical balance. His wife, Dr. Greta Trocio, corroborated his account, stating she was present and saw the group leave after about five minutes. They argued AAA could have shouted for help if the assault were true.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for violation of Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 .

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the consistent findings of the trial court and the CA, giving utmost weight to AAA’s credible testimony. The Court emphasized that in cases of lascivious conduct, the victim’s testimony, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. AAA’s narration was found to be clear, candid, and replete with details of the abuse, which remained unshaken during cross-examination. The delay in reporting the incident, which occurred in 2015 but was only reported in 2016, was sufficiently explained by AAA’s fear and trauma, and does not impair her credibility. The Court noted the absence of any evidence showing an improper motive for AAA to falsely accuse the petitioner.
The defense of denial and alibi was correctly deemed weak and self-serving, especially when weighed against the positive identification by the victim. The presence of the petitioner’s wife in the clinic does not preclude the commission of the crime, as the acts could have been swiftly executed in the private examination area. The Court also affirmed the penalties and awards of damages, modifying them in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. The crime was properly classified under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 , as the lascivious conduct was committed under circumstances of sexual abuse and exploitation of a child, not under the Revised Penal Code’s acts of lasciviousness. The elements of the crime—that the accused committed a lascivious act upon a child under eighteen years of age—were proven beyond reasonable doubt.