G.R. No. 259861, October 21, 2024
Resty Laconsay, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

The petitioner, Resty Laconsay, was charged with Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Republic Act No. 7610. The Information alleged that on or before August 28, 2011, at around 2:30 a.m., in Zambales, the accused, with lewd design, willfully committed acts of lasciviousness upon the 14-year-old minor AAA by caressing her left foot going up to her groin, against her will. The petitioner pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution’s version, as narrated by AAA, was that she was sleeping in her house when she woke up and saw a person by her feet using a cellphone. The person pulled down her blanket, touched her left foot, and caressed her leg up to her groin. She shouted for help, causing the person to flee. AAA’s father, GGG, gave chase but failed to catch the assailant. AAA stated she saw the person’s face through the cellphone’s backlight but did not initially know his name. Her sister, BBB, identified the assailant as “Resty,” later identified as the petitioner. BBB corroborated AAA’s account, testifying she saw petitioner peep through their door, enter, use his cellphone for light, pull down AAA’s blanket, and move his hand under it before fleeing when AAA shouted.
The defense presented denial and alibi. Petitioner claimed he was having a drinking session with friends from 10:00 p.m. on August 27 until 1:00 a.m. on August 28, then went to a videoke bar until 3:00 a.m., and to a convenience store until 4:00 a.m. Upon returning home, his father informed him of a commotion at the neighbor’s house. Barangay tanods arrived and asked him to remove his shirt because the assailant was described as having a tattoo, which he did not have. His father, Antonio, corroborated this, stating BBB had described the assailant as having a tattoo.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty and ordering him to pay civil indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s judgment with modifications to the penalty and increased the damages. The CA found the testimonies of AAA and BBB credible and rejected the defense of denial and alibi. Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the petitioner’s conviction for Acts of Lasciviousness in relation to R.A. No. 7610.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the findings of the lower courts. The Court held that all elements of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 were proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) it is 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 when the offended party is under 12 years of age); and (3) the offended party is another person of either sex. The Court found that the act of caressing AAA’s foot up to her groin while she was asleep constituted lascivious conduct. Furthermore, the victim was a 14-year-old child, and the crime was committed under circumstances of sexual abuse as defined under R.A. No. 7610.
The Court upheld the credibility of AAA’s and BBB’s positive identification of the petitioner. It ruled that the illumination from the cellphone was sufficient for identification and that minor inconsistencies in AAA’s testimony did not undermine her credibility, especially given her minority. The defense of denial and alibi was deemed weak and could not prevail over the positive identification by credible witnesses. The Court also affirmed the penalties and damages as modified by the CA.