The Supreme Court has affirmed that inserting a finger into a 12-year-old girl’s vagina and fondling her breasts constitutes not only acts of lasciviousness but also child abuse under Republic Act No. 7610. This ruling underscores the state’s commitment to safeguarding children from sexual abuse and exploitation. The decision clarifies that such actions fall squarely within the definition of child abuse, emphasizing the vulnerability of minors and the need for stringent legal protection.

When Indecency Meets Infancy: Can a Lascivious Act Constitute Child Abuse?

In Pedro Perez v. People of the Philippines, the central question before the Supreme Court was whether the acts committed by Pedro Perez against a 12-year-old girl, AAA, amounted to child abuse under Republic Act No. 7610, also known as the Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act. Perez was accused of inserting his finger into AAA’s vagina while simultaneously fondling her breasts. The trial court found Perez guilty, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Perez then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that his actions, if proven, should only be considered acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, and that the prosecution failed to sufficiently prove the elements of child abuse.

The prosecution presented AAA, SPO4 Mila Billones, and Dr. Winston Tan as witnesses. AAA testified that Perez kissed her on the nape, told her to keep silent, and then inserted his finger in her vagina while mashing her breasts. SPO4 Billones, the women’s desk officer, testified that AAA disclosed the incident during an interview and was visibly upset while narrating the events. Dr. Tan’s medico-legal report indicated signs of physical abuse, including a deep healed laceration on AAA’s hymen and ecchymosis in the right mammary region, consistent with AAA’s allegations. The defense presented Perez, his sister Alma Perez, and CCC as witnesses. Perez denied the allegations, claiming AAA had a romantic interest in him and that he was not present at the scene of the crime. Alma testified that AAA liked her brother and gave her a love letter for him. CCC claimed she did not see Perez at her house and did not notice anything unusual about AAA that day.

The Regional Trial Court found Perez guilty beyond reasonable doubt, holding that the prosecution had established all the elements of a violation of Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, and Perez then elevated the case to the Supreme Court. Perez raised several arguments, including the improbability of AAA’s narrative given her clothing, her failure to seek help, and the presence of other people nearby. He also argued that the medico-legal report did not conclusively prove his responsibility for AAA’s injuries and that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of child abuse. The Supreme Court, however, found these arguments unconvincing.

The Court rejected Perez’s claim that AAA’s clothing made the act impossible, finding it absurd to suggest her cycling shorts were impenetrable. The Court also noted that AAA’s failure to seek help was understandable given her age and the fear induced by Perez’s threats. Quoting the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court highlighted the disparity in strength between Perez and the child, emphasizing that adults often have ascendancy over children. The Court also cited several cases, including Awas v. People and People v. Barcela, to underscore that there is no standard behavior for victims of crimes against chastity, especially children who may not fully comprehend the implications of the abuse. In Awas v. People, the Supreme Court stated that, “[t]here is no standard behavior for a victim of a crime against chastity.” This perspective acknowledges the varied responses victims may have to traumatic experiences.

Addressing Perez’s argument that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of child abuse, the Court clarified that under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610, the elements of sexual abuse are: (1) the accused commits an act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) the act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and (3) the child is below 18 years of age. Perez conceded the first and third elements but argued that the prosecution failed to show that AAA was “exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse.”

The Supreme Court disagreed, citing People v. Villacampa, which held that the fact a child is under the coercion and influence of an adult is sufficient to classify the child victim as one subjected to other sexual abuse. The Court also referenced Quimvel v. People, which states that, “[t]o the mind of the Court, the allegations are sufficient to classify the victim as one ‘exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse.’” It emphasized that Section 5 of RA 7610 encompasses children who indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult. By inserting his finger into AAA’s vagina with the use of threat and coercion, Perez was deemed liable for sexual abuse.

Building on this principle, the Court in Ricalde v. People clarified that children who are coerced into lascivious conduct are “deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.” This legal interpretation establishes that the act of coercion in itself is sufficient to satisfy the element of exploitation or abuse under the law. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the charge of child abuse under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 but modified the penalty imposed by the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Under Section 5(b), “the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period.” The Court imposed an indeterminate penalty of fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum. Consistent with People v. Pusing, the Court also awarded P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, with interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of the judgment until fully paid.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Pedro Perez v. People of the Philippines reinforces the state’s commitment to protecting children from sexual abuse and exploitation. This landmark ruling ensures that perpetrators of such heinous crimes are held accountable under the full extent of the law, sending a clear message that acts of lasciviousness against children will not be tolerated.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the acts committed by Pedro Perez against a 12-year-old girl constituted child abuse under Republic Act No. 7610, specifically whether the element of “exploitation or subjection to other sexual abuse” was sufficiently proven.
What is Republic Act No. 7610?	Republic Act No. 7610, also known as the Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, is a law designed to protect children from various forms of abuse, exploitation, and discrimination. It provides penalties for those who violate its provisions.
What did Pedro Perez do that led to the charges?	Pedro Perez was accused of inserting his finger into the vagina of a 12-year-old girl and fondling her breasts. These acts were deemed lascivious and constituted the basis for the child abuse charges.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ finding of guilt, holding that Perez’s actions constituted child abuse under Republic Act No. 7610. However, the Court modified the penalty imposed.
What is the significance of the “coercion or influence” element?	The “coercion or influence” element, as discussed in the case, means that if a child is induced into sexual activity or lascivious conduct due to the coercion or influence of an adult, that child is considered exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. This satisfies one of the key elements for a conviction under R.A. 7610.
What penalty did the Supreme Court impose on Pedro Perez?	The Supreme Court imposed an indeterminate penalty of fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum. Additionally, Perez was ordered to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages.
Why didn’t the victim immediately seek help?	The Court recognized that a 12-year-old child might not react in the same way as an adult in such a situation. Fear and intimidation can prevent a child from seeking help immediately.
How does this case affect future child abuse cases?	This case clarifies that acts of lasciviousness against children, especially when coupled with coercion or abuse of authority, can constitute child abuse under Republic Act No. 7610. It reinforces the importance of protecting children from sexual exploitation.

The legal principles articulated in Pedro Perez v. People of the Philippines serve as a crucial cornerstone in the protection of children’s rights. This decision reinforces that acts of lasciviousness, when committed against minors, are not merely isolated incidents but fall under the ambit of child abuse, carrying severe legal consequences for perpetrators. These legal precedents provide a framework for safeguarding children from exploitation and abuse, ensuring that the justice system recognizes their unique vulnerabilities and rights.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: PEDRO PEREZ VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 201414, April 18, 2018