G.R. No. 259827 , December 04, 2023
Felix Mariano y Pilapil, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Felix Mariano was charged with Rape under Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and Theft under Article 308 of the RPC. The prosecution alleged that on January 29, 2017, Mariano, through force, threat, and intimidation, sexually assaulted the 14-year-old victim, AAA, by performing oral and anal penetration. After the assault, Mariano forcibly took AAA’s iPhone 4S cellphone. AAA immediately reported the incident to patrolling police officers. Mariano was arrested the following day, and upon questioning, he surrendered the cellphone, which AAA was able to unlock. A medico-legal examination confirmed blunt force penetrating trauma to AAA’s anus. During trial, a news video was presented where Mariano admitted to the act, claiming he was under the influence of drugs.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Mariano not of rape but of the lesser crime of Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 (the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act), and of Theft. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision. Mariano elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari, arguing that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the CA correctly affirmed Mariano’s conviction for Lascivious Conduct under R.A. No. 7610 and for Theft under the RPC.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the convictions. On the charge of sexual abuse, the Court held that the RTC correctly convicted Mariano of Lascivious Conduct under R.A. No. 7610 instead of Rape under the RPC. For a conviction of rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A(2) of the RPC, the act committed by the offender must be for the purpose of sexual gratification. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove this specific intent. The Information charged Mariano with committing the act “with lewd design,” but the evidence presented did not sufficiently establish that his primary objective was his own sexual gratification. Consequently, the elements of rape were not met. However, the acts—oral and anal penetration committed against a child—undeniably constitute lascivious conduct under R.A. No. 7610 , which penalizes sexual abuse of children and does not require proof of the specific intent for sexual gratification. The credible and consistent testimony of AAA, corroborated by medical findings, firmly established the commission of the acts.
Regarding the charge of Theft, the Court upheld the conviction. All elements were present: Mariano took AAA’s personal property (the cellphone); the taking was without consent; it was done with intent to gain; and it was accomplished without violence or intimidation. The fact that the taking occurred immediately after the sexual assault did not transform it into Robbery, as the force or intimidation used was solely for the sexual abuse and was not employed to facilitate the taking of the phone. The separate crime of Theft was thus properly adjudged. The Court modified the penalties and awarded damages, imposing the appropriate indeterminate sentence for lascivious conduct and affirming the straight penalty for theft, while also awarding civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages, and a fine for the victim’s rehabilitation.