Catuiza y Enrico v. People

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 237031. April 4, 2018.](Formerly UDK-16056)

ADOLFO CATUIZA y ENRICO, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 4, 2018, which reads as follows: HTcADC

"G.R. No. 237031 (Formerly UDK-16056) — ADOLFO CATUIZA y ENRICO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. — The petitioner's motion for an extension of thirty (30) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.

The Court further resolves to DENY the petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision dated September 29, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 38998 for failure of the petitioner to sufficiently show that the appellate court committed any reversible error in the challenged decision.

The Court of Appeals was correct in affirming the verdict handed down by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tayug, Pangasinan, Branch 52 in Criminal Case No. T-5354, finding petitioner Adolfo Catuiza y Enrico (Catuiza) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of acts of lasciviousness in relation to Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as the "Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act." The Court of Appeals then affirmed Catuiza's conviction. Hence, Catuiza filed this appeal.

The applicable provision of law in this case is Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code which is reproduced below:

Art. 336. Acts of lasciviousness. — Any person who shall commit any act of lasciviousness upon other persons of either sex, under any of the circumstances mentioned in the preceding article, shall be punished by prision correccional.

The elements of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code are: (a) the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (b) the lascivious act is done under any of the following circumstances: (i) by using force or intimidation; (ii) when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or (iii) when the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age; and (c) the offended party is another person of either sex. 1 aScITE

Pertinently, Article II, Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610 states that:

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 subjected 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.

Jurisprudence instructs us that sexual abuse under Section 5 (b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610 has three elements: (1) the accused commits an 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 is below 18 years old. 2 In relation to the aforementioned, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 7610 define "lascivious conduct" as follows:

[T]he 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. x x x. 3

The foregoing elements of acts of lasciviousness in relation to Republic Act No. 7610 are present in the case at bar. Contrary to Catuiza's claim, the element of intimidation was established by the prosecution when the victim, AAA, 4 testified in court that Catuiza brandished a knife at her when he molested her in the early hours of August 22, 2011. Even if we agree with Catuiza's assertion that no intimidation was present because AAA's testimony plainly stated that Catuiza poked a knife at her only after she had awakened from her slumber and not during his fondling of her vagina, the felony charged still applies since the element of performing a lewd act on a person who is not conscious or otherwise asleep is clearly present. HEITAD

In prosecutions for acts of lasciviousness, the lone testimony of the offended party, if credible, is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. Moreover, youth and immaturity of the victim are generally badges of truth that the courts cannot justly ignore. 5 Likewise, it is settled that the findings of fact by the trial court are accorded great weight, and are even held to be conclusive and binding unless they were tainted with arbitrariness or oversight since it is recognized that the trial court is better situated to assess the testimonies and evidence laid out before it during the trial. 6

Thus, the Court of Appeals was correct in upholding the trial court's reliance on the credibility of the testimony of the lone witness, AAA, despite her youth. Having observed AAA's demeanor when she testified, the trial court found her statements to be credible than Catuiza's defense of denial that he did not molest AAA. Moreover, Catuiza admitted that he was in the house of AAA during the incident, allegedly upon the invitation of AAA's own mother, BBB, who, however, claimed that Catuiza was an uninvited guest to their house on that fateful early hours of August 22, 2011.

Therefore, the offense of sexual abuse under Section 5 (b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610 was committed by Catuiza through lascivious conduct upon a child above twelve (12) years old but below eighteen (18) years of age.

In Ricalde v. People, 7 this Court stated that the legislature intended to impose a higher penalty when the victim is a child when it enacted Republic Act No. 7610. Thus, in order to conform to prevailing law and jurisprudence, the penalty of imprisonment imposed upon Catuiza must however be modified. He is now sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty 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 there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance present. The monetary awards granted by the trial court, and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are in accord with current jurisprudence, subject to 6% interest from the finality of this decision until fully paid.

Thus, the Decision dated September 29, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 38998 is affirmed with the modification that accused is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty 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. The monetary awards that consist of civil indemnity in the amount of P20,000.00 and moral damages of P30,000.00, with interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid are affirmed in toto. ATICcS

The letter dated February 1, 2018 of Atty. Alfonso C. Bince, Jr. remitting Postal Money Order No. 0200008540 dated January 29, 2018 with the amount of P1,030.00 representing payment of docket and other legal fees and as replacement to the old postal money order which has been returned due to the discrepancy in words and figures is NOTED; and the Court of Appeals is hereby DELETED as party respondent in this case pursuant to Sec. 4, Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.

SO ORDERED." SERENO, C.J., on leave.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Fianza v. People, G.R. No. 218592, August 2, 2017.

2.People v. Baraga, 735 Phil. 466, 473 (2014).

3.Id.

4. In conformity with the ruling in People v. Cabalquinto (533 Phil. 703 [2006]) and with the mandate of A.M. No. 12-7-15-SC, we shall not disclose the real name of the victim and her family members as well as other relevant information tending to establish their identities.

5.Awas v. People, G.R. No. 203114, June 28, 2017.

6.People v. Rodriguez, 781 Phil. 826, 836 (2016).

7. 751 Phil. 793 (2015).