G.R. No. 258257, August 09, 2023
Pedro “Pepe” Talisay, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Pedro “Pepe” Talisay was charged with Violation of Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act). The Information alleged that on or about September 29, 2016, in Leyte, with deliberate intent and lewd design, and taking advantage of the minority of the 15-year-old victim AAA, he committed acts of lasciviousness by kissing her cheeks, removing her pants and panty, and placing his penis outside her vagina by means of force, threat, and intimidation.
During arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented AAA, who testified that on September 29, 2016, around 1:00 p.m., while she was fetching water, petitioner followed, caught, and dragged her to a pig pen. There, he kissed her cheeks, removed both their clothes, and, while both were naked and standing, placed his penis on top/outside of her vagina, making push and pull movements despite her resistance, pushing, and shouting. Afterward, petitioner gave her two hundred pesos and instructed her not to tell her mother, but she reported the incident.
The defense presented petitioner, his wife, and their son. They claimed that on September 22, 2016, AAA, known to suffer from epilepsy, collapsed after drinking water at their store, and out of pity, they gave her money. A barangay confrontation occurred on September 28, 2016, where AAA denied being touched or sexually abused, and petitioner signed an agreement not to give money to children. They alleged that on September 29, 2016, petitioner was at home all day and did not commit the acts.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of acts of lasciviousness in relation to R.A. No. 7610, sentencing him to 14 years and 8 months to 20 years of reclusion temporal and ordering him to pay damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the nomenclature of the crime to “Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610” and increased the damages awarded. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the decision of the RTC finding petitioner guilty of lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA Decision. The Court held that the issues raised by petitioner—challenging the credibility of AAA’s testimony, the alleged lack of force or coercion, and the proof of AAA’s age—are questions of fact. As a rule, a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 covers only questions of law, and factual findings of the CA are final and conclusive. While exceptions exist, none were applicable here.
The Court found that the prosecution successfully established all elements of lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610: (1) the accused committed an act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) it was done under coercion or influence; (3) the offended party is a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse; and (4) the child is below 18 years of age. AAA’s candid, straightforward, and unwavering testimony, corroborated by medical findings, detailed the lascivious acts. Her resistance, manifested by pushing, shouting, and an epileptic episode, established coercion. Her minority was admitted by the defense during pre-trial and confirmed by her testimony and a medical certificate indicating her age, making the presentation of a birth certificate not indispensable.
The CA correctly modified the nomenclature of the crime and the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to Fifty Thousand Pesos (₱50,000.00) each, with 6% interest per annum from finality of the decision, in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.