GR No 219889

People of the Philippines vs Edwin Dagasa

GR No 219889         January 29, 2018

Facts:

            Dagasa was accused to have committed the crime of rape as defined under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (d) and penalized under Article 266-B, paragraph 6 (5) both of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to RA No 7610.

            On October 2004, while AAA was walking home with two of her classmates after having been dismissed from class, Dagasa blocked their path and told the classmates to go ahead as he would be giving AAA a candy. As Dagasa was a cousin of AAA’s father, AAA stopped walking and the others went ahead. However, after walking a little farther, the classmates looked back and saw Dagasa remove AAA’s panty and fondle her vagina. When BBB, the mother of AAA, knew of what happened based on what AAA and the classmates told, proceeded to the police station to report the incident. A criminal complaint was then filed.

            The trial court rendered judgment finding Dagasa guilty as charged. RTC gave full credence to the testimonies of the witnesses finding them to be straightforward, categorical, convincing and bearing the hallmark of truth.

            Dagasa appealed with CA contending that the testimonies of BBB were only hearsay evidence as those were only the things AAA and classmates told her. CA held a judgment against accused of the crime of acts of lasciviousness as it is included in the crime of rape and elements for the same have been sufficiently established during the trial. Dagasa appealed.

Issue:

            WON Dagasa was guilty of the crime charged against him.

Held:

            The appeal lacks merit.CA did not commit an error in finding the accused not liable for rape. In this case, the prosecution failed to establish that Dagasa had carnal knowledge of AAA.

            Under the variance doctrine, even though the crime charged against the accused was for rape through carnal knowledge, he can be convicted of the crime of acts of lasciviousness without violating any of his constitutional rights because said crime is included in the crime of rape.

            According to Article 336 of RPC in relation to Sec 5(b), Article 3 of RA 7610, the child prostitution and other sexual abuse 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; and 3) the child, whether male or female is below 18 years of age.

            To apply, it has been defined that lascivious conduct be committed through intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing of the genitalia with intent to gratify the sexual desire of any person, among others. AAA was only 4 years old at the time that the offense was committed against her.

            As the elements of the offense charged have been present in this case, the SC upheld the ruling in CA. Dagasa was guilty of committing acts of lasciviousness.

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.