GR No 128777

People of the Philippines vs Ernesto Larin

GR No 128777         October 7, 1998

Facts:

Larin was accused of committing an act in violation of Section 5 (b) in relation to Section 31 (e) of Republic Act No 7610 (An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against Child Abuse Exploitation and Discrimination, Providing Penalties for its Violation and for other Purposes).

            Upon prior sworn complaint, Carla Lenore Calumpang, then 14 years of age, was inside the ladies’ shower room on April 17, 1996. Larin, a public employee of UP Los Banos, by taking advantage of his authority, influence and moral ascendancy as trainer/swimming instructor of Calumpang, committed lascivious conduct against the said minor.

            The trial court found the testimony of Calumpang worthy of full faith and credence. It further reasoned that unless motivated by a genuine desire to seek justice, such minor would not fabricate the story, undergo a medical examination, appear in court and announce to the whole world that she was sexually abused.

            On appeal, Larin assails the sufficiency of the evidence adduced against him.

Issue: WON Larin is guilty of the crime charged against him.

Held:

            The appeal is unmeritorious.

            Under the RA 7610, the elements of the offense penalized are the following: 1) the accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; 2) the said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; 3) the child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.

            A child is deemed exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse, when the child indulges in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct for a) money, profit or consideration, or b) under the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group. Persons below 18 years of age are those unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, or exploitation or discrimination because of their age or mental disability or condition.

            As to the credibility of the witness, it is a well-entrenched rule that the trial court’s evaluation of the credibility of the witness and his or her testimony is entitled to the highest degree of respect. The victim’s testimony, given in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous, and candid manner, is worthy of faith and belief. No proof of ill motive on her part to falsely accuse and testify against the appellant has been offered.

            The utter submissiveness of Calumpang to the lascivious conducts of Larin may be derived from psychological coercion which happens when the accused is of a more powerful person who is in power. Apparently, regardless of how intelligent children may be, when faced with these acts, they may react differently. One cannot reasonably expect uniform reactions from victims of sexual assault. Said submissiveness does not exonerate an accused from criminal liability. Moral coercion or ascendance is sufficient.

            As to the imposable penalty, RA 7610 mandates that the penalty provided for in the Act shall be imposed in its maximum period when the offender is a public officer. Larin’s employment at UPLB as a swimming instructor makes him a public officer.