FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 260401. November 29, 2022.]
RODERICK BUENA Y SUAREZ, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated November 29, 2022 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 260401 (Roderick Buena y Suarez v. People of the Philippines). — The Motion for an Extension of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglamentary period on May 13, 2022 within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED.
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 (Petition) assails the Decision 2 dated 06 July 2021 and the Resolution 3 dated 05 April 2022 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 44169. The CA affirmed the Decision 4 dated 16 August 2018 of Branch 16, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos City, Bulacan, convicting petitioner Roderick Bueno y Suarez (petitioner) of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) 5 in relation to Section 5 (b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610 6 (RA 7610).
After evaluating the records of the case, this Court resolves to DENY the instant Petition and AFFIRM the conviction of petitioner.
Petitioner was not able to show any reversible error on the part of the CA when it affirmed his conviction for the offense of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610.
It has been held that in a charge involving Acts of Lasciviousness, the sole testimony of the victim, if credible, is sufficient to warrant a conviction. 7 The rule holds more weight when the victim is one of young age, who is not shown to have any ill-motive against the accused. 8 We give due respect to the observation of the RTC in this case, which found all the elements of the crime present primarily on the basis of complainant AAA's 9 testimony. Notably, AAA was merely 8 years old when the incident happened, and the RTC found her as a credible witness. Clearly, the RTC was in a better position to make such observation as it had the opportunity to observe the deportment and behavior of the witness on the stand. 10 Therefore, the positive and categorical identification of AAA should prevail over petitioner's defenses of alibi and denial. 11
However, there is a need to modify the penalty. The penalty imposed by the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, is 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to 15 years, 6 months, and 20 days of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The penalty for Acts of Lasciviousness in relation to Section 5(b) of RA 7610 is reclusion temporal in its medium period, or 14 years, 8 months, and 1 day to 17 years and four months. Notably, there are no aggravating or mitigating circumstances alleged and proved in this case.
In accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL), the minimum term of the indeterminate penalty should be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree, which is reclusion temporal in its minimum period, or 12 years and one day to 14 years and eight months. On the other hand, the maximum term should be 15 years, six months, and 21 days of reclusion temporal. Following the case of People v. Tulagan, 12 the minimum should be 12 years, ten months, and 21 days of reclusion temporal. Further, the maximum imposed should also be modified as it is short of one day. In accordance with the ISL, the maximum should be 15 years, six months, and 21 days of reclusion temporal.
Further, We maintain the RTC's imposition of the P15,000.00 fine as this is in accordance with Section 31 of RA 7610. Lastly, the CA's modified award of damages of P50,000.00 each for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, and the imposition of interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of the judgment until full payment, are consistent with recent jurisprudence. 13
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated 06 July 2021 and the Resolution dated 05 April 2022 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 44169 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner Roderick Bueno y Suarez is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5 (b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610. He is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate sentence of 12 years, 10 months, and 21 days of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to 15 years, 6 months, and 21 days of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
Petitioner is further adjudged to pay AAA (1) civil indemnity of P50,000.00; (2) moral damages of P50,000.00; and (3) exemplary damages of P50,000.00; He is also ordered to pay fine of P15,000.00. The total monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
The Manifestation of Atty. Maria Estella M. Maniquis of the Public Attorney's Office-Special and Appealed Cases Services (PAO-SACS), counsel for petitioner, stating that the filing of the motion for extension of time to file a petition for review on certiorari was made through registered mail due to limited number of personnel to immediately effect personal filing and service, is NOTED.
SO ORDERED." Marquez, J., on official business.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 13-29.
2.Id. at 34-45. Penned by Associate Justice Emily R. Aliño-Geluz and concurred in by Associate Justices Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and Angelene Mary W. Quimpo-Sale.
3.Id. at 47-50. Penned by Associate Justice Emily R. Aliño-Geluz and concurred in by Associate Justices Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and Angelene Mary W. Quimpo-Sale.
4.Id. at 66-82. Penned by Presiding Judge Sita Jose Clemente.
5. Entitled "AN ACT REVISING THE PENAL CODE AND OTHER PENAL LAWS." Approved: 08 December 1930.
6. Entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." Approved: 17 June 1992.
7. See Cabila v. People, 563 Phil. 1020 (2007).
8.Id.
9. The identity of the victim or any information which could establish or compromise her identity is withheld pursuant to SC Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015.
10.People v. Alcala, G.R. No. 233319, 07 July 2020.
11. See People v. Molejon, 830 Phil. 519 (2018).
12. G.R. No. 227363, 12 March 2019 and People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
13. See People v. Tulagan, G.R. No. 227363, 12 March 2019 and People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).