SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 227835. February 1, 2017.]
ROYCEN JANAP Y LUCI, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated01 February 2017 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 227835: ROYCEN JANAP Y LUCI v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
This resolves an appeal of a conviction for acts of lasciviousness against a female minor. 1
On April 24, 2004, at about 6:30 a.m., AAA, then 16 years old, was riding a bicycle on her way home in Barangay Lupac, Boac, Marinduque. 2 Petitioner Roycen Janap y Luci, alias "Dibil," lived in the same barangay as AAA. 3 On his way to his coconut plantation, 4 petitioner crossed the same road AAA was cycling on. 5 Petitioner gave her a "bad stare" 6 when she saw him. 7
As AAA rode past him, petitioner grabbed her bicycle from behind, pulled it back, and punched AAA in the stomach. Pain shot through her body. 8 Petitioner then hooked his arm on her neck, forcibly separated her from her bike, 9 and brought her to the nearby sasahan (nipa palm plantation), 10 which was on higher ground. 11
Pinning her to the ground, petitioner punched AAA in the stomach and on her side repeatedly for about 20 times. 12 The blows to her torso caused AAA to urinate. 13 Petitioner then laid her face down and boxed her back several times. 14 When AAA screamed for help, he tried to choke her, and while doing so, pulled up her blouse, and fondled her breasts. 15 As AAA struggled to fight his advances, they both rolled down the slope. AAA continued shouting for help. Wanting to quiet her, petitioner released his grip on her neck and forced his fingers into her mouth. 16 AAA bit his fingers, 17 which angered him even more. 18 Petitioner punched her in the mouth. 19
At this point, AAA felt that he was about to rape her. 20 Petitioner straddled her, 21 and this gave her an opportunity to kick him in the groin. 22 He punched her again. 23 They tussled and rolled down the slope. 24 Petitioner only stopped and fled when he saw a certain Tatang Daniel, who was then only a few meters away from them. 25
AAA went straight to the house of her cousin, Virgie Malitao (Virgie), to whom she relayed her ordeal. Virgie brought AAA to her father and informed him of what had happened. 26 AAA and her father then went to the police station and reported the incident. 27
PO3 Reynaldo Lozanta (PO3 Lozanta) received the complaint on the same day of the incident. The police went to the place identified by AAA. Seeing petitioner in front of his house, the police arrested him. Petitioner peacefully went with them. He claimed that the incident happened because she hit him with her bicycle. 28
Meanwhile, at about 7:55 a.m. of the same day, AAA went to see Dr. Narciso Manuel Jr. (Dr. Manuel). 29 Personally examining the victim, 30 Dr. Manuel found that she suffered from abrasion on the chest, contusion on the stomach, and abrasions on the neck, elbow, and upper lip. 31 However, Dr. Manuel could not interview her as she was in shock and was crying while being examined. AAA was confined for treatment for two (2) days. 32
On April 28, 2004, the public prosecutor charged petitioner with the crimes of acts of lasciviousness and slight physical injuries under two (2) Informations. 33 The charging portions in the Informations are as follows:
Criminal Case No. 35-04 [Acts of Lasciviousness]
That on or about the 24th day of April 2004, at around 6:30 o'clock in the morning, at Barangay Lupac, Municipality of Boac, Province of Marinduque, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with lewd design, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and lasciviously, pull 16 year old AAA to the sasahan, lay her on the ground, raise her blouse and touch her breasts, against her will and consent, to her moral damage and prejudice. aDSIHc
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Criminal Case No. 36-04 [Slight Physical Injuries]
That on or about the 24th day of April 2004, at around 6:30 o'clock in the morning, at Barangay Lupac, Municipality of Boac, Province of Marinduque, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with lewd design, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, box and strangle 16 year old AAA, inflicting upon her injuries which will require two (2) days medical treatment.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 34
The prosecution presented the testimonies of AAA 35 and Dr. Manuel, 36 as well as the Medico-Legal Certificate of Dr. Manuel's findings and AAA's Certificate of Birth. 37 On the other hand, the defense submitted petitioner's testimony and a certification from a certain Gilmer Manguera, 38 who allegedly reported to the police that AAA hit petitioner on the waist while on her bicycle. 39
In the Decision 40 dated December 19, 2013, the Regional Trial Court convicted petitioner of acts of lasciviousness and serious physical injuries. The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the accused ROYCEN JANAP is hereby CONVICTED of violation of the crime of ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS.
The penalty for acts of lasciviousness is prision correccional. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances alleged and proven in this case, the penalty prescribed by law shall be imposed in its medium period, i.e., from 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, said penalty shall constitute the maximum term, while the minimum shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for the offense, i.e., arresto mayor or 1 month and 1 day to 6 months. The accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of 6 months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, as maximum.
On the crime of Slight Physical Injuries, the ACCUSED is hereby CONVICTED of the said offense, and is hereby meted the penalty of imprisonment of arresto menor.
SO ORDERED. 41 (Emphasis in the original)
In the Decision 42 dated June 23, 2016, the Court of Appeals convicted petitioner of acts of lasciviousness under Section 336 in relation to Article 335 (1) of the Revised Penal Code. 43 Article 336 provides:
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 "preceding article" referred to in Article 336 is the old provision on rape (Article 335), 44 which provides:
Article 335. When and How Rape is Committed. — Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
1. By using force or intimidation[.]
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's finding that petitioner committed lewd acts against the child through force — by choking and punching her. 45 Force qualified petitioner's touching of AAA's breasts to acts of lasciviousness, under Sections 336 and Article 335 (1) of the Revised Penal Code. 46 According to the Court of Appeals, AAA's testimony is more credible than that of petitioner, as the latter's defense consisted merely of denials and alibis. 47
However, on the second crime, the Court of Appeals overturned the Regional Trial Court Decision and acquitted petitioner of slight physical injuries. 48 It held that there are no two separate intents to harm and to perpetrate acts of lasciviousness; rather, the force and coercion were a necessary means to overpower and silence the minor victim so he could commit the sexual abuse against her. 49 Stated otherwise, petitioner punched and choked AAA to accomplish his lewd designs. 50
Quoting the Office of the Solicitor General, the Court of Appeals held:
[Petitioner's] lewd designs were set in motion first by punching the victim's stomach to disable her, making it easier to transport her to the sasahan, an isolated location where he could have his way with her without getting caught. Since she resisted and attempted to cry for help, he punched and choked her to diminish her physical and emotional resistance, as well as to silence her. ETHIDa
The violence inflicted on the victim, although numerous and occurring at various stages of the crime, forms part of a single, continuous, uninterrupted, and necessary force, which [petitioner] intentionally adopted to accomplish her lewd designs against her.
Certainly, the violence employed by [petitioner] cannot be treated independently of, and punished separately from, his acts of lasciviousness. Hence, he can only be liable for acts of lasciviousness. 51
The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
FOR THESE REASONS, the Decision dated 19 December 2013 rendered by Branch 94 of the Regional Trial Court in Boac, Marinduque convicting accused-appellant Roycen Janap y Luci of acts of lasciviousness in Criminal Case No. 35-04 and slight physical injuries in Criminal Case No. 36-04 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATIONS that:
(1) In Criminal Case No. 35-04, private complainant AAA is awarded the amounts of P30,000.00 as moral damages and P20,000.00 as civil indemnity. Appellant is also ordered to pay interest of 6% per annum on all the monetary awards from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid; and
(2) In Criminal Case No. 36-04, accused-appellant is ACQUITTED of the crime of Slight Physical Injuries.
SO ORDERED. 52 (Emphasis in the original)
The Motion for Reconsideration 53 was denied in the Resolution 54 dated October 17, 2016.
Petitioner appealed 55 before this Court via Rule 45. He denies the charge against him. According to petitioner, the only incident that happened was that AAA hit him while she was on her bicycle, after which "he just went home and did nothing." 56
For resolution is whether petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of acts of lasciviousness.
Petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of acts of lasciviousness, his penalty being that under Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as the Special Protection of Children against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act. Specifically, his acts constitute sexual violence of a child through the lascivious conduct of touching her breasts, under Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610, in relation to Article 2 (h) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 7610. Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610 provides:
Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. —
xxx xxx xxx
(b) Those who commit the act of . . . lascivious conduct with a child . . . subjected to other sexual abuse[.]
The following are the essential elements of this provision:
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. 57 (Emphasis supplied)
Article 2 (h) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 7610 defines lascivious conduct, thus:
[T]he intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast . . . 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. 58 (Emphasis supplied)
The Information for acts of lasciviousness, of which petitioner was duly informed, charged him as follows: that, "with lewd design . . . [he] willfully, unlawfully and lasciviously, pull[ed] 16 year old [AAA] to the sasahan, la[id] her on the ground, raise[d] her blouse and touch[ed] her breasts, against her will and consent, to her moral damage and prejudice." 59 These were duly proven before the Regional Trial Court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
The first element of lewd design is readily seen when petitioner pulled up her blouse and fondled her breasts. cSEDTC
The second and third elements are also present: AAA was below 18 years old when the crime was committed, and petitioner subjected her to other sexual abuse. Olivarez v. Court of Appeals60 has held that the phrase "other sexual abuse" under Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610 includes a child against whom lascivious conduct was committed through coercion or intimidation. 61
AAA positively and categorically identified petitioner as the person who attacked her in the sasahan. 62 During trial, she candidly narrated, in a direct and equivocal manner, 63 the horrific experience she suffered in petitioner's hands. 64 Petitioner grabbed her from the bicycle she was riding, held her neck, forcibly brought her to the sasahan, punched her several times, and caressed her breasts. 65 These acts are a patent display of petitioner's lewdness, accompanied by force and coercion. At that time, AAA, merely a 16-year-old girl, had no means to defend herself against her aggressor.
That no other witness corroborated her testimony does not negate the experience she suffered. By its very nature, an act of sexual violence is generally committed away from the prying eyes of the public and is only attested to by the victim and the perpetrator. 66 To accomplish his lewd design, petitioner brought AAA to an isolated location — in the sasahan — where her cries could not penetrate what petitioner called the "deafening silence of the barrio." 67
A woman, especially a child, would not likely submit herself to the shame and humiliation of a public trial to narrate, in detail, the traumatic assault to her dignity, unless she was impelled by a sincere desire to see that justice was served. In People v. Dalipe: 68
[A] young girl's revelation that she had been raped, coupled with her voluntary submission to medical examination and willingness to undergo public trial where she could be compelled to give out the details of an assault on her dignity, cannot be so easily dismissed as mere concoction. 69
The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals properly gave credence to AAA's and Dr. Manuel's testimonies and the Medico-Legal Certificate showing the injuries she suffered at petitioner's hands. 70 Against the prosecution's positive identification and straightforward testimonies, petitioner only gave bare denials and alibis. Denials and alibis are inherently weak and unreliable defenses. 71
We find no cogent reason to overturn the findings of facts of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals. It is settled that "factual findings of the trial court and its evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal, unless the trial court is shown to have overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied any fact or circumstance of weight and substance." 72
For petitioner's acts of lasciviousness, the penalty under Republic Act No. 7610 must be applied for the minor victim's benefit. We have held that imposing a lower penalty for a sexual offender "is undeniably unfair to the child victim." 73 Thus, in People v. Chingh74 and People v. Ricalde, 75 we meted the higher penalty for rape as stated in Republic Act No. 7610 76 (that is, reclusion temporal in its medium period), instead of the lower penalty stated in the Revised Penal Code (that is, prision mayor). The same principle applies here.
Under the second paragraph of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 7610, the proper penalty should be imprisonment of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua, instead of only prision correccional under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code.
Thus, we apply the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for 14 years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to reclusion perpetua, as maximum. We retain the award of civil indemnity of P20,000.00, but increase the moral damages from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00. 77
WHEREFORE, this Court AFFIRMS WITH MODIFICATIONS the Court of Appeals' June 23, 2016 Decision in CA-G.R. CR. No. 36575.
For acts of lasciviousness under Republic Act No. 7610, petitioner Roycen Janap y Luci is meted the penalty of imprisonment of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances alleged and proven in this case, petitioner is hereby SENTENCED to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for 14 years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to reclusion perpetua, as maximum.
Private complainant AAA is awarded the amounts of P50,000.00 as moral damages and P20,000.00 as civil indemnity. Petitioner is likewise ordered to pay interest of 6% per annum on all monetary awards from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid. SDAaTC
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 12-28, Petition.
2.Id. at 31, Court of Appeals Decision.
3.Id. at 13, Petition.
4.Id. at 15.
5.Id. at 66, Regional Trial Court Decision.
6.Id. at 53, petitioner's Brief before the Court of Appeals.
7.Id. at 36, Court of Appeals Decision.
8.Id.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 31.
11.Id. at 64, Regional Trial Court Decision.
12.Id.
13.Id. at 37, Court of Appeals Decision.
14.Id. at 64, Regional Trial Court Decision.
15.Id.
16.Id. at 38, Court of Appeals Decision.
17.Id.
18.Id. at 64, Regional Trial Court Decision.
19.Id. at 32, Court of Appeals Decision.
20.Id. at 39.
21.Id. at 64, Regional Trial Court Decision.
22.Id.
23.Id. at 39, Court of Appeals Decision.
24.Id.
25.Id. at 32.
26.Id.
27.Id.
28.Id. at 65, Regional Trial Court Decision.
29.Id.
30.Id. at 69.
31.Id. at 65. The Medical Certificate was not attached to the Petition. The Petition quotes the medical findings as follows: "contusion with abrasion (L) post chest; contusion (L) flank area epigastric area; contusion with abrasion anterior neck; and abrasion (L) elbow upper lip" (Id. at 15).
32.Id.
33.Id. at 32, Court of Appeals Decision.
34.Id. at 32-33.
35.Id. at 35-39.
36.Id. at 65.
37.Id.
38.Id. at 66, Regional Trial Court Decision.
39.Id. at 15, Petition.
40.Rollo, pp. 63-70. The Decision was penned by Presiding Judge Antonina M. Calderon-Magturo of Branch 94, Regional Trial Court of Boac, Marinduque.
41.Id. at 69-70.
42.Id. at 30-44. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez and concurred in by Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes of the Seventh Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
43.Id. at 42.
44. Article 335 has been repealed by sec. 4 of Rep. Act No. 8353 (1997), or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997. Now under Article 266-A, the new provision on rape provides:
Article 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. — Rape is committed —
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation[.]
45.Rollo, p. 42.
46.Id.
47.Id. at 40.
48.Id. at 44.
49.Id. at 43.
50.Id.
51.Id.
52.Id. at 43-44.
53.Id. at 90-96.
54.Id. at 46-47. The Resolution penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez and concurred in by Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes of the Seventh Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
55.Id. at 12-28.
56.Id. at 22.
57.People v. Larin, 357 Phil. 987, 997 (1998) [Per J. Panganiban, First Division].
58. See Garingarao v. People, 669 Phil. 512, 523 (2011) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division]. See also People v. Chingh, 661 Phil. 208, 222 (2011) [Per J. Peralta, Second Division].
59.Rollo, p. 32. Emphasis supplied.
60. 503 Phil. 421 (2005) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
61.Id. at 432.
62.Rollo, p. 64.
63.Id. at 35-39.
64.Id. at 67.
65.Id.
66.Imbo v. People, G.R. No. 197712, April 20, 2015 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2015/april2015/197712.pdf> 5 [Per J. Perez, First Division].
67.Rollo, p. 20.
68. 633 Phil. 428 (2010) [Per J. Mendoza, Third Division].
69.Id. at 448.
70.Rollo, p. 65.
71.People v. Liwanag, 415 Phil. 271, 295 (2001) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
72.People v. De Jesus, 695 Phil. 114, 122 (2012) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
73.People v. Chingh, 661 Phil. 208, 222 (2011) [Per J. Peralta, Second Division].
74. 661 Phil. 208 (2011) [Per J. Peralta, Second Division].
75. G.R. No. 211002, January 21, 2015 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2015/january2015/211002.pdf> [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
76. Rep. Act No. 7610 (1992), art. 3, sec. 5 (b).
77.People v. Padigos, 700 Phil. 368 (2012) [Per J. Leonardo-de Castro, First Division].