SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 213872. September 21, 2020.]
FLORENCIO ALMERIA y ARIZOBAL, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated21 September 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 213872 (Florencio Almeria y Arizobal v. People of the Philippines). — After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the September 27, 2013 Decision 2 and the August 8, 2014 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 34858 for failure of petitioner Florencio Almeria y Arizobal (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in affirming his guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Lascivious Conduct, under Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610, 4 otherwise known as the 'Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act.' Accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. However, in light of prevailing jurisprudence, 5 the Court modifies the award of damages, as follows: (a) P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) P50,000.00 as moral damages; and (c) P50,000.00 as exemplary damages. Moreover, all monetary awards shall earn an interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until full payment.
The Court has declared in People v. Tulagan6 that, notwithstanding the specific definition of 'lascivious conduct' under RA 7610, as well as its Implementing Rules and Regulations, other forms of acts of lasciviousness or lascivious conduct committed against a child, such as touching of other delicate parts other than the private organ or kissing a young girl with malice, are still punished as lascivious conduct under Section 5 of RA 7610, considering that AAA 7 was twelve (12) years old at the time material to this case. There being no indication that the courts a quo overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case, the Court finds no reason to deviate from their factual findings. In this regard, it should be noted that the trial court is in the best position to assess and determine the credibility of the witnesses presented by both parties. 8
SO ORDERED. (Baltazar-Padilla, J., on leave.)"
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 9-19.
2.Id. at 24-36. Penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. with Associate Justices Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a member of this Court), concurring.
3.Id. at 37-38.
4. Entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION, PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR ITS VIOLATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on June 17, 1992.
5.People v. Tulagan, G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019.
6.Id.
7. The identity of the victim or any information which could establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. (RA) 7610, entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on June 17, 1992; RA 9262, entitled "AN ACT DEFINING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN, PROVIDING FOR PROTECTIVE MEASURES FOR VICTIMS, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on March 8, 2004; and Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, otherwise known as the "RULE ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN" (November 15, 2004). (See footnote 4 in People v. Cadano, Jr., 729 Phil. 576, 578 [2014], citing People v. Lomaque, 710 Phil. 338, 342 [2013]. See also Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015, entitled "PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES IN THE PROMULGATION, PUBLICATION, AND POSTING ON THE WEBSITES OF DECISIONS, FINAL RESOLUTIONS, AND FINAL ORDERS USING FICTITIOUS NAMES/PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES," dated September 5, 2017.) See further People v. Ejercito, G.R. No. 229861, July 2, 2018. To note, the unmodified CA Decision was not attached to the records to verify the real name of the victim.
8.People v. De Dios, G.R. No. 243664, January 22, 2020, citing Cahulogan v. People, G.R. No. 225695, March 21, 2018, 860 SCRA 86.