Pol-Ocan v. People

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 250494. June 30, 2021.]

MAGNO POL-OCAN, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 30, 2021, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 250494 (Magno Pol-Ocan v. People of the Philippines). — Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assailing the Decision 2 dated July 24, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 41747, which affirmed with modification the Decision 3 dated April 24, 2018 of Branch 34, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Banaue, Ifugao in Criminal Case No. 521. The RTC Decision found Magno Pol-Ocan (petitioner) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Acts of Lasciviousness in relation to Republic Act (RA) No. 7610. 4

The Antecedents

Petitioner was charged with Rape by Sexual Assault punished under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610, committed against AAA. 5 The Information 6 reads:

That sometime on [sic] the morning of May 29, 2017 at _____, Ifugao and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused through force, threat and intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit an act of sexual assault against [AAA], a thirteen (13)-year old minor by inserting his finger into her vagina, against her will and consent, which acts debased, degraded and demeaned the intrinsic worth of the victim as a human being.

CONTRARY TO LAW and to the damage and prejudice of the victim. 7

When arraigned, the petitioner entered his plea of not guilty to the charge. 8

Trial on the merits ensued.

The facts, as summarized by the CA, are as follows:

AAA testified that sometime on May 29, 2017, when she was then 13 years old, and while asleep in their house, she was awakened by someone touching her legs. Upon realizing that it was her grandfather, herein petitioner, she kicked him away. The petitioner pinned her down and told her to keep quiet. Despite her resistance, the petitioner was able to insert his hand inside her undergarments and then into her vagina. She continued to struggle against the petitioner until her niece was awakened. At that point, the petitioner stopped and left. She then took refuge in her aunt's house nearby. 9

One day, visibly intoxicated, the petitioner looked for AAA. Unable to find her, he threatened to kill everyone at her aunt's house. Out of fear, AAA and her aunt hid at a friend's house. It was then that she told her aunt what the petitioner did to her. Soon after, they went to the police station to report AAA's ordeal with the petitioner. 10

In his defense, the petitioner maintained that there was no truth to AAA's allegations; and that she just fabricated the charges against him because he was overly strict. He averred that on May 29, 2017, he was busy repairing their septic tank. 11

The Ruling of the RTC

On April 24, 2018, the RTC found the petitioner guilty of Acts of Lasciviousness in relation to RA 7610. While the evidence of the prosecution was insufficient to establish penetration which is the gravamen of rape, it was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness. 12 It decreed:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds Magno D. Pol-ocan GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of acts of lasciviousness in relation to Republic Act No. 7610. He is sentenced to suffer the penally of 14 years[,] 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum and ordered to pay [AAA] P30,000.00 as civil indemnity, P25,000.00 as moral damages and a fine of P15,000.00.

SO ORDERED. 13

Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the CA.

The Ruling of the CA

In the assailed Decision 14 dated July 24, 2019, the CA affirmed with modification the petitioner's conviction. It held that the petitioner's acts of lying down beside AAA and inserting his finger into the latter's genitalia constituted Lascivious Conduct under RA 7610. 15 It held:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated 08 May 2018 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 34, Banaue, Ifugao is MODIFIED, in that accused-appellant is instead convicted of Lascivious Conduct under Serious 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610, and sentenced to Twenty (20) Years of Reclusion Temporal in its maximum period, as maximum, to Fourteen (14) Years and Eight (8) Months of Reclusion Temporal in its minimum period, as minimum.

Further, accused-appellant is ordered to pay the victim, AAA, the amounts of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as Civil Indemnity, Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as Moral Damages, and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as Exemplary Damages.

SO ORDERED. 16 (Emphasis omitted).

Hence, the instant petition.

The Issue

In the main, the petitioner asserts that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court's Ruling

The Court is not persuaded.

In the landmark case of People v. Tulagan (Tulagan), 17 the Court clarified that if the victim is 12 years old or above but under 18 years old, or at least 18 years old under special circumstances, "the nomenclature of the crime should be 'Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610' with the imposable penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua, 18 but it should not make any reference to the provisions of the RPC." The crime shall be called "Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC" with the imposable penalty of prision mayor only when the victim of the sexual assault is 18 years old or above and not demented. 19

Here, dialectical nuances led the RTC to hold that there was no clear showing of penetration that would make the crime committed Rape by Sexual Assault. Nonetheless, petitioner's act of fondling AAA's private parts and inserting his fingers into her vagina constitute sexual abuse and lascivious conduct as defined in the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 7610, known as the "Rules and Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases," which pertinently provide:

Section 2. Definition of Terms. — As used in these Rules, unless the context requires otherwise —

xxx xxx xxx.

(g) "Sexual abuse" includes the employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of a child to engage in, or assist another person to engage in, sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct or the molestation, prostitution, or incest with children;

(h) "Lascivious conduct" means 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[.] (Italics supplied.)

As clarified in Tulagan, 20 the phrase "children exploited in prostitution" contemplates four scenarios: (a) a child, whether male or female who, for money, profit or any other consideration, indulges in lascivious conduct; (b) a female child who, for money, profit or any other consideration, indulges in sexual intercourse; (c) a child, whether male or female, who, due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulges in lascivious conduct; and (d) a female, due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulges in sexual intercourse. 21

Meanwhile, the phrase "other sexual abuse" is construed in relation to the definitions of "child abuse" under Section 3, Article I of RA 7610 and of "sexual abuse" under Section 2 (g) of the Rules and Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases. 22 "Child abuse" as defined in the former provision refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the child which includes sexual abuse, among other matters; on the other hand, "sexual abuse" as defined in the latter provision includes the employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of a child to engage in, or assist another person to engage in, sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct or the molestation, prostitution, or incest with children. 23

Based on the facts, it is undeniable that AAA was subjected to sexual abuse under the above definitions. She was a child who, due to the coercion or influence of the petitioner — her grandfather who exercised moral ascendancy over her — was subjected to lascivious conduct. Significantly, she was only 13 years old at the time of the incident. This fact was alleged in the Information and shown in the Certificate from the Office of the Civil Registrar of Banaue, Ifugao. 24 Under Section 3 (a) of RA 7610, the term "children" refers to persons below 18 years of age or those over, but 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. 25 Given that AAA was only 13 years old at the time of the incident, the petitioner should thus be held liable for Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610. 26

The Court likewise rejects the petitioner's contention that the present charge against him was filed out of hatred given his strictness in raising AAA. The alleged reason, truth be told, is too inconsequential for a victim to make up a story and subject herself to public scrutiny and the lifelong stigma that a rape trial brings in its wake.

In sum, the evidence presented by the prosecution has convincingly established the guilt of the petitioner. The credibility accorded by the trial court to AAA is an important aspect of evidence which the appellate court can rely on because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses, particularly their demeanor, conduct, and attitude during the direct and cross-examination by counsel. There is no showing that the trial court judge overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight which would affect the result of the case, his assessment of credibility deserves the Court's highest respect. 27

As regards the penalty and damages, considering that AAA was more than 12 years old but less than 18 years old at the time of the incident, the penalty to be imposed is reclusion temporal, in its medium period, to reclusion perpetua. In the absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the maximum term of the sentence shall be taken from the medium period of the prescribed penalty. Moreover, notwithstanding the fact that RA 7610 is a special law, the petitioner may still enjoy the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. In applying its provisions, the minimum term shall be taken from within the range of the penalty next lower in degree, which is prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period. Thus, the petitioner is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, for violation of Section 5 (b) of RA 7610. 28

As properly adjusted by the CA, the amount of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages awarded for Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 wherein the victim is a child below eighteen (18) years of age and the penalty imposed is within the range of reclusion temporal medium is P50,000.00 each. 29

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated July 24, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 41747 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that petitioner Magno Pol-Ocan is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610.

Accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to pay AAA the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, all with legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this Resolution until full payment.

SO ORDERED." (ROSARIO, J., designated as Additional Member per Special Order No. 2833, effective June 30, 2021).

By authority of the Court:

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

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 12-31.

2.Id. at 32-47; penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios with Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Rafael Antonio M. Santos, concurring.

3.Id. at pp. 70-78; penned by Presiding Judge Ester L. Piscoso-Flor.

4. Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, approved on June 17, 1992.

5. 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 (RA) No. 7610, "An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, Providing Penalties for its Violation and for Other Purposes"; RA 9262, "An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefore, and for Other Purposes"; Section 40 of Administrative Matter No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the "Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children," effective November 15, 2004; People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 (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.

6. As culled from the CA Decision; rollo, p. 33.

7.Id.

8.Id. at 34.

9.Id.

10.Id.

11.Id.

12.Id. at 78.

13.Id.

14.Id. at 32-47.

15.Id. at 39.

16.Id. at 45-46.

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

18.Id. citing People v. Caoili, 815 Phil. 839, 894 (2017).

19.People v. VVV, G.R. No. 230222, June 22, 2020.

20.People v. Tulagan, supra note 17.

21.Id.

22.Id.

23.Id.

24.Rollo, p. 42.

25.Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. —

(a) "Children" refers to person 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[.]

26. Section 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 of lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject 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[.]

27.People v. Moya, G.R. No. 228260, June 10, 2019.

28.Encinares v. People, G.R. No. 252267, January 11, 2021, citing People v. Tulagan, supra note 17.

29.Id.