People v. Cantoria y Carnacer

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 250438. May 3, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ROMEO CANTORIA y CARNACER A.K.A. LOLO BOBBY, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMay 3, 2021, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 250438 (People of the Philippines v. Romeo Cantoria y Carnacer a.k.a. Lolo Bobby). — This is an Appeal 1 from the Decision 2 dated July 11, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11035 which affirmed with modification the findings of Branch 199, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Las Piñas City in Criminal Case Nos. 16-0886, 16-0887, 16-0891 and 16-0892. The RTC found Romeo Cantoria y Carnacer, a.k.a. Lolo Bobby (accused-appellant), guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Acts of Lasciviousness.

The Antecedents

Accused-appellant was charged with Acts of Lasciviousness under Republic Act No. (RA) 7610 in three Informations committed against his grandchildren, AAA, * BBB, and CCC. The Informations read:

Criminal Case No. 16-0886

That sometime in the year 2015, in the City of Las Piñas, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being the ascendant (grandfather) of eight (8) year-old minor BBB, with lewd designs, through force or intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit acts of lasciviousness against his grandson BBB by then and there forcing said minor to hold his (accused) penis in full view of his five (5) year-old brother CCC against his will and without his consent, and exposing him to immorality, the complained act being a form of sexual abuse of a child which is prejudicial to the physical, psychological and moral development of the said minor, and which debases, degrades or demeans his intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 3

Criminal Case No. 16-0887

That sometime in the year 2015, in the City of Las Piñas, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being the ascendant (grandfather) of five (5) year-old minor CCC, with lewd designs, through force or intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit acts of lasciviousness against his grandson CCC by then and there forcing said minor to hold his (accused) penis in full view of his eight (8) year-old brother BBB against his will and without his consent, and exposing him to immorality, the complained act being a form of sexual abuse of a child which is prejudicial to the physical, psychological and moral development of the said minor, and which debases, degrades or demeans his intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being. CAIHTE

CONTRARY TO LAW. 4

Criminal Case No. 16-0891

That sometime during the early part of 2015, in the City of Las Piñas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being the grandfather of the complainant, with lewd design, by using his influence on her, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit acts of lasciviousness on AAA, 9 years old, by then and there kissing her on the lips, making her lie on top of him and making her hold his penis, and perform the act of masturbation on him, against her will and without her consent.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 5

A fourth Information was also filed against accused-appellant charging him with Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph (2) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended, in relation to Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610 committed against AAA. The Information reads:

Criminal Case No. 16-0892

That sometime during the early part of 2015, in the City of Las Piñas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being the grandfather of complainant AAA, with lewd design, using his influence on her, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit an act of sexual assault on AAA, 9 years old, minor by then and there inserting his finger into her genitalia, against her will and without her consent.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 6

When arraigned, accused-appellant entered his pleas of not guilty to the four Informations filed against him. 7

Trial on the merits ensued.

The facts as summarized by the CA are as follows:

Siblings AAA, BBB, and CCC lived with their grandfather, who is the herein accused-appellant; and their uncle, DDD, in Las Piñas City because their mother was working abroad.

The three siblings confided to DDD the sexual abuses committed by accused-appellant against them. In several instances, accused-appellant forced BBB and CCC to hold his penis in the presence of one another. He would also force AAA to lie on top of him, hold his penis, and masturbate it. AAA revealed that while doing this, accused-appellant would touch her genitals and kiss her lips. One time, he inserted his fingers into AAA's vagina. She could no longer count the number of times accused-appellant had done the sexual abuses to her. She further alleged that she consented to his advances out of fear. 8

In his defense, accused-appellant denied the accusations against him and insisted that they were only fabricated by his grandchildren and his son, DDD. He alleged that his son, wanted to get the attention of his mother who was working in Japan; that DDD wanted money from his mother; and that accused-appellant wanted to sell their family house, but DDD opposed it. Accused-appellant admitted that he had been imprisoned for more than a year for the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness, butt was released after his relatives posted bail. 9 DETACa

Ruling of the RTC

In the Decision 10 dated March 23, 2018, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty of three counts of Acts of Lasciviousness and sentenced him, for each count, to suffer the indeterminate penalty of fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to sixteen (16) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The RTC also ordered him to pay each victim the following: P25,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.

The RTC further convicted accused-appellant of Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of the RPC, as amended by RA 8353, 11 in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610. 12 The RTC sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay AAA moral and exemplary damages of P75,000.00 each. 13

The RTC ruled that the prosecution sufficiently established that accused-appellant forced his grandchildren to hold and masturbate his penis. 14 The RTC further ruled that AAA narrated in a clear, positive and convincing manner that accused-appellant inserted his finger into her genitalia. 15

Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA.

Ruling of the CA

On July 11, 2019, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision, but modified the penalty imposed in Criminal Case No. 16-0892 for Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph (2) of the RPC, as amended, in relation to Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610 committed against AAA in that it sentenced accused-appellant to suffer the indeterminate penalty of thirteen (13) years, nine (9) months and ten (10) days of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. In addition, it ordered accused-appellant to pay AAA the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages. 16

The CA held that accused-appellant separately committed the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness against AAA, BBB and CCC considering that all the elements of the crime are present. The ages of AAA as nine years old, BBB as eight years old, and CCC as five years old at the time of the commission of the crimes were proven by their birth certificates. 17 Moreover, the identity of accused-appellant and his act of forcing BBB and CCC to hold his penis, sometimes in full view of each other, were sufficiently proven through the witnesses' testimonies. 18

The CA furthermore ruled that accused-appellant committed the crime of Rape by Sexual Assault against AAA, who categorically testified that sometime in 2015, accused-appellant inserted his finger inside her vagina. 19

Hence, the appeal. 20

Issue

The only issue in the case is whether the CA erred in affirming accused-appellant's conviction for the crimes charged.

Ruling of the Court

The appeal has no merit.

In the landmark case of People v. Tulagan, 21 the Court decreed that when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age at the time the crime was committed, as in the case, the crime shall be designated as Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5 of RA 7610. Thus, before an accused can be convicted of child abuse through lascivious conduct on a minor below twelve (12) years of age, the requisites of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC must be present in addition to the requisites of sexual abuse under Section 5 of RA 7610. 22

To sustain a verdict of conviction under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610, the prosecution must establish that: (1) the accused commits acts 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) that the child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age. 23

On the other hand, the elements of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC are: (a) the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness upon another person of either sex; and (b) the act of lasciviousness or lewdness is committed either (i) by using force or intimidation; or (ii) when the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious; or (iii) when the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age. Lewd is defined as obscene, lustful, indecent, lecherous; it signifies that form of immorality that has relation to moral impurity. 24

All the elements of lascivious conduct under RA 7610 and Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC were clearly established in the case. Accused-appellant committed lascivious acts by forcing AAA to masturbate and suck his penis and compelling BBB and CCC to hold his penis several times; the victims were nine years old, eight years old, and five years old; and the offended parties are persons of either sex.

Moreover, accused-appellant's acts of gratifying his sexual desires by asking the victims to hold, suck, and masturbate his penis are covered by the respective definitions of "sexual abuse" and "lascivious conduct" under Section 2 of the rules and regulations of RA 7610. 25 The victims, being minors, were easily influenced, or morally coerced by accused-appellant, who is their grandfather and had moral ascendancy over them.

RA 7610 is applicable as long as the child is subjected to "sexual abuse," either by engaging in sexual intercourse or "lascivious conduct." 26

All told, the CA did not err in affirming the RTC's verdict of conviction against accused-appellant for three counts of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610. Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610 provides that reclusion temporal in its medium period shall be imposed on those who commit lascivious conduct against a child under twelve (12) years old. As the aggravating circumstance of relationship was proven in this case, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the proper penalty to be imposed upon accused-appellant is thirteen (13) years, nine (9) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum. Furthermore, the award of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages was properly reduced to P50,000.00 each. In addition, the imposition of P15,000.00 as a fine in accordance with Section 31 (f) 27 of RA 7610 is proper. The amounts shall earn 6% interest per annum from the finality of this decision until fully paid. 28 ATICcS

Also, the RTC did not err in finding accused-appellant guilty of Rape by Sexual Assault. The elements of the crime are:

(1) The offender commits an act of sexual assault;

(2) The act of sexual assault is committed by any of the following means:

(a) By inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice; or

(b) By inserting any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person.

(3) That the act of sexual assault is accomplished under any of the following circumstances:

(a) By using force and intimidation;

(b) When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or

(c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; or

(d) When the woman is under 12 years of age or demented. 29 (Emphasis in the original).

All the elements were established in the case. Accused-appellant committed a sexual act on AAA by inserting his finger into her vagina when she was only nine years old. Both the RTC and the CA gave credence to AAA's testimony for being positive, straightforward, and categorical. Indeed, the trial court's factual findings on the credibility of witnesses are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect. This is because the trial court has the unique opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor, and is in the best position to discern whether they are telling the truth or not. This rule becomes more compelling when such factual findings carry the full concurrence of the CA, as in this case. 30 As between the categorical testimony of AAA which has a ring of truth on one hand and a mere denial by accused-appellant on the other, the former is generally held to prevail. 31

Hence, the Court affirms accused-appellant's conviction for Rape by Sexual Assault, subject to the modification of its nomenclature to Sexual Assault under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of the RPC, in relation to Section 5 of RA 7610 pursuant to the recent case of People v. Tulagan32 wherein the Court took the opportunity to reconcile the provisions of Acts of Lasciviousness, Rape, and Sexual Assault under the RPC, as amended, on one hand, and Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610, on the other. 33

The penalty imposed is likewise reclusion temporal in its medium period, which ranges from fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months. Again, considering the presence of the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the CA correctly sentenced accused-appellant to thirteen (13) years, nine (9) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum.

Finally, the monetary award granted in Criminal Case No. 16-0892 is consistent with prevailing jurisprudence. 34

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The July 11, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11035 is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:

1. In Criminal Case Nos. 16-0886, 16-0887 and 16-0891, accused-appellant Romeo Cantoria is found GUILTY of three counts 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 sentenced, for each count, to suffer an indeterminate penalty of thirteen (13) years, nine (9) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum and is further ORDERED to each pay AAA, BBB, and CCC P15,000.00 as fine, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages.

2. In Criminal Case No. 16-0892, accused-appellant Romeo Cantoria is found GUILTY of Sexual Assault under Article 266-A (2) of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of thirteen (13) years, nine (9) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum. He is ORDERED to pay AAA P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; P50,000.00 as moral damages; and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages. TIADCc

3. He is further ordered to pay interest on all fine and damages awarded at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of judgment.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

* The identity of the victim or any information to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. 7610, "An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, and for Other Purposes"; Republic Act No. 9262, "An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, and for Other Purposes"; Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the "Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children," effective November 5, 2004; People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703, 709 (2006); and Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017, Subject: Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders Using Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances, (People v. AAA, G.R. No. 248777, July 7, 2020).

1. Rollo, pp. 18-19.

2. Id. at 3-17; penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios with Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Maria Filomena D. Singh, concurring.

3. As culled from CA Decision, rollo, pp. 5-6.

4. As culled from CA Decision, id. at 6.

5. As culled from CA Decision, id. at 6-7.

6. As culled from CA Decision, id. at 7.

7. CA rollo, p. 57.

8. As culled from RTC Decision, CA rollo, p. 60.

9. Id. at p. 62.

10. Id. at 53-75; penned by Presiding Judge Joselito dj. Vibandor.

11.Article 266-A. Rape: When and How Committed. — Rape is committed:

xxx xxx xxx.

2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.

12. SECTION 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. — x x x.

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 victims 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. (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, Republic Act No. 7610, [June 17, 1992]).

13. CA rollo, p. 74.

14. Id. at 69.

15. Id. at 70.

16. Rollo, p. 14.

17. Id. at 10.

18. Id.

19. Id. at 12.

20. Id. at 18-19.

21. G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019.

22. People v. Pagkatipunan, G.R. No. 232393, August 14, 2019, citing People v. Caoili, G.R. Nos. 196342 and 196848, August 8, 2017, 835 SCRA 107, 152-153.

23. Id., citing People v. Monroyo, 811 Phil. 802, 812 (2017).

24. Id., citing Lutap v. People, G.R. No. 204061, February 5, 2018.

25. Agustin v. People, G.R. No. 249036 (Notice), March 2, 2020.

26. People v. Padlan, 817 Phil. 1008 (2017).

27. SECTION 31. Common Penal Provisions. —

xxx xxx xxx.

(f) A fine to be determined by the court shall be imposed and administered as a cash fund by the Department of Social Welfare and Development and disbursed for the rehabilitation of each child victim, or any immediate member of his family if the latter is the perpetrator of the offense.

28. People v. Pagkatipunan, supra note 21.

29. BBB v. People, G.R. No. 249307, August 27, 2020, citing People v. Bagsic, 822 Phil. 784, 800 (2017).

30. People v. Pagkatipunan, supra note 21.

31. Id.

32. People v. Tulagan, supra note 20.

33. People v. Sumayod, G.R. No. 230626, March 9, 2020.

34. People v. HHH, G.R. No. 248245, August 26, 2020, citing People v. Tulagan, supra note 21.