THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 238314. March 27, 2019.]
CHRISTOPHER BAUTISTA Y ESNARDO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated March 27, 2019, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 238314 (Christopher Bautista y Esnardo v. People of the Philippines). — Petitioner Christopher Bautista y Esnardo was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 94, with Rape by Sexual Assault, under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8353, otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, allegedly committed against his neighbor, eight-year-old AAA. 1 The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. R-QZN-13-01668-CR.
After trial, the RTC promulgated its Decision 2 on May 3, 2016 finding petitioner guilty as charged and sentencing him as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Christopher Bautista y Esnardo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape under Article 266-A paragraph (2) of the Revised Penal Code and he is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum.
Accused is further ordered to pay private complainant AAA civil indemnity in the amount of Php30,000.00, moral damages in the amount of Php30,000.00 and exemplary damages in the amount of Php30,000.00. 3
Petitioner's appeal before the Court of Appeals was docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 38720.
In its Decision 4 dated November 20, 2017, the Court of Appeals denied petitioner's appeal but modified the RTC judgment, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal of accused-appellant Christopher Bautista y Esnardo is DENIED. CAIHTE
The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 94 in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-13-01668-CR is hereby MODIFIED. Accused-appellant Bautista is sentenced to an indeterminate sentence with a minimum term of twelve (12) years, ten (10) months, and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal and a maximum term of fifteen (15) years, six (6) months, and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal. The award of civil indemnity is increased to fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) and the award of moral damages is likewise increased to fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00). All monetary awards for damages shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this Decision until fully paid. 5
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the appellate court in its Resolution 6 dated March 15, 2018.
Presently before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the aforementioned Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals.
Petitioner insists that his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt; that there was insufficient proof that he inserted his finger into AAA's vagina; that it was very improbable for AAA to have recognized him considering her testimony that her molester immediately fled when she opened her eyes; and that the redness and abrasions in AAA's genital orifice could have been brought about by causes other than the insertion of a finger.
Petitioner's assigned errors are evidentiary and factual in nature since they require a re-appreciation and re-examination of the evidence. The Petition must therefore be denied because: (a) it violates the limitation under Rule 45 to only questions of law, and (b) the Court, not being a trier of facts, will not disturb the factual findings of the Court of Appeals, unless they were mistaken, absurd, speculative, conflicting, tainted with grave abuse of discretion, or contrary to the findings reached by the court of origin, which was not shown to be the case here. 7
Besides, the findings of fact of the RTC, its calibration of the testimonial evidence, its assessment of the probative weight thereof as well as its conclusions anchored on the said findings, are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The RTC had the opportunity to observe the witnesses on the stand and detect if they were telling the truth. 8 Hence, the Court will not depart from the general rule and disturb the factual findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, absent established exceptional circumstances.
Petitioner also contends that his Constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him was violated when the Court of Appeals imposed upon him the penalty under Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, otherwise known as the Special Protection of Children against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, instead of that imposed by Article 226-A in relation to Art. 266-B of the RPC, as amended.
The Court is not persuaded.
The Court of Appeals modified the penalty imposed by the RTC based on Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, which provides:
SEC. 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. — Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:
xxx xxx xxx
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period. (Emphases supplied.)
The elements of sexual abuse under the aforequoted provision are, to wit:
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. DETACa
3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age. 9
The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 7610 defines "lascivious conduct" as:
The intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person.
All of the aforementioned elements for lascivious conduct with a child under 12 years of age were sufficiently alleged in the Information filed against petitioner before the RTC, and subsequently established with proof beyond reasonable doubt during the trial of the present case. Hence, the proper nomenclature of the offense committed by petitioner is Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5 of R.A. No. 7610.
Although the designation of the offense in the Information filed against petitioner was different from that for which he was eventually convicted, it cannot be said that his constitutional right to be informed of the charges against him was violated herein. It is well-settled that allegations in the Information determine the nature of the offense, and not the technical name that the public prosecutor assigns in the preamble of the Information. From a legal point of view, and in a very real sense, the accused is not concerned with the technical name of the crime of which he stands charged as it does not aid him in any way in his defense on the merits. Petitioner's attention and interest should be directed toward the facts alleged in the Information. The real question is not "did he commit a crime given in the law with some technical and specific name," but "did he perform the acts alleged in the body of the information in the manner therein set forth." 10
The Information herein charged petitioner with rape through sexual assault by the insertion of his finger in AAA's vagina. The very same act also amounts to lascivious conduct as defined in R.A. No. 7610. Petitioner had been sufficiently apprised through the Information filed against him of the factual allegations against which he should defend himself.
Accordingly, for the minor victim's benefit, the higher penalty under R.A. No. 7610 is imposed upon petitioner for his acts of lasciviousness. As the Court pronounced in People v. Chingh: 11
The Court is not unmindful to the fact that the accused who commits acts of lasciviousness under Article 366, in relation to Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, suffers the more severe penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period than the one who commits Rape through Sexual Assault, which is merely punishable by prision mayor. This is undeniably unfair to the child victim. To be sure, it was not the intention of the framers of R.A. No. 8353 to have disallowed the applicability of R.A. No. 7610 to sexual abuses committed to children. Despite the passage of R.A. No. 8353, R.A. No. 7610 is still good law, which must be applied when the victims are children or those "persons below eighteen (18) years of age or those over but are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition."
Finally, the awards of damages are further modified in accordance with recent jurisprudence. Pursuant to People v. Quimvel 12 and People v. Macapagal, 13 petitioner is ordered to pay moral damages, exemplary damages, and a fine amounting to PhP15,000.00 each, plus civil indemnity in the amount of PhP20,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the instant Petition for failure of petitioner to show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in its assailed Decision and Resolution. It AFFIRMS WITH MODIFICATION the Decision dated November 20, 2017 and Resolution dated March 15, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 38720. It hereby finds petitioner GUILTY of the crime of Act of Lasciviousness, as defined and punished under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5 of R.A. No. 7610, and ORDERS him to pay the victim, AAA, civil indemnity in the amount of PhP20,000.00, as well as moral damages, exemplary damages, and a fine in the amount of PhP15,000.00 each. All monetary awards shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid. aDSIHc
SO ORDERED." LEONEN, J., on wellness leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Under Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act), Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence against Women and Their Children Act of 2004), its implementing rules, and A.M. No. 12-7-15-SC, the real name of the woman or child victim and those of the victim's immediate relatives, as well as other personal circumstances that would establish or compromise their identities, are withheld and replaced with fictitious initials to protect the victim's privacy.
2.Rollo, pp. 73-79; penned by Presiding Judge Roslyn M. Rabara-Tria.
3.Id. at 79.
4.Id. at 30-52; penned by Associate Justice Pablito A. Perez with Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario and Ramon A. Cruz concurring.
5.Id. at 51.
6.Id. at 54-58.
7.Roque v. People, 757 Phil. 392, 398 (2015).
8.Id.
9.People v. Aycardo, G.R. No. 218114, June 5, 2017, 826 SCRA 1, 22-23.
10.Padiernos v. People, 766 Phil. 657, 670 (2015).
11. 661 Phil. 208, 222-223 (2011); see also Ricalde v. People, 751 Phil. 793, 812 (2015).
12. G.R. No. 214497, April 18, 2017, 823 SCRA 192, 252.
13. G.R. No. 218574, November 22, 2017.