In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of XXX for lascivious conduct against a minor, emphasizing the importance of protecting children from sexual abuse. The Court modified the designation of the crime to “Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610,” underscoring the application of this special law in cases involving minors. This decision reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding the rights and welfare of children, sending a clear message that such offenses will not be tolerated. This ruling clarifies how the law protects minors from sexual exploitation and abuse, setting a precedent for similar cases.

When Stepfather’s Actions Cross the Line: Defining Lasciviousness Under Child Protection Laws

This case revolves around XXX, who was accused of acts of lasciviousness against his stepdaughter, AAA, a 14-year-old at the time of the incident. The prosecution presented evidence that XXX touched AAA’s breast against her will. XXX denied the accusations, claiming the charges were fabricated due to a prior disagreement. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted XXX, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA), leading to the Supreme Court review. The central legal question is whether the evidence presented was sufficient to prove XXX’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt and whether the correct designation and penalty for the crime were applied.

The Supreme Court, in its analysis, focused on the credibility of the victim’s testimony and the consistency of the prosecution’s evidence. The Court noted that minor inconsistencies between AAA’s sworn statement and her testimony in court did not detract from her overall credibility. It cited the case of People v. Villanueva, emphasizing that trivial inconsistencies are often badges of truth rather than indicators of falsehood. The Court underscored AAA’s testimony about the assault, where XXX inserted his hand under her shirt and bra and touched her breast, which was deemed believable and credible.

XXX’s defense relied heavily on an Affidavit of Desistance executed by AAA. However, the Court gave greater weight to AAA’s subsequent testimony in court, where she testified against XXX. The Court cited Madali v. People, stating that an affidavit of recantation executed prior to trial cannot prevail over testimony made during trial. The Court emphasized that such affidavits are often unreliable, easily obtained through intimidation or monetary consideration.

A significant aspect of the Supreme Court’s decision involves the nomenclature of the crime committed and the penalty imposed. While the lower courts convicted XXX of “Acts of Lasciviousness defined and penalized under Article 336 of the [RPC],” the Supreme Court modified this, citing its decision in People v. Tulagan. The Tulagan case established guidelines for designating the proper offense when lascivious conduct is committed under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610, the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act.

The Court in Tulagan held:

In People v. Caoili, We prescribed the following guidelines in designating or charging the proper offense in case lascivious conduct is committed under Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610, and in determining the imposable penalty:

1.   The age of the victim is taken into consideration in designating or charging the offense, and in determining the imposable penalty.

2.   If the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the nomenclature  of the  crime  should  be  “Acts  of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610.” Pursuant to the second proviso in  Section  5(b)  of R.A.  No. 7610,  the imposable  penalty is reclusion  temporal in  its  medium period.

3.   If the victim is exactly twelve (12) years of age, or more than twelve (12) but below eighteen (18) years of age, or is eighteen (18) years old or older but is unable to fully take care of herself/himself or protect herself/himself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition, the crime should be designated as “Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610,” and the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion  perpetua.

Applying this ruling, the Supreme Court modified XXX’s conviction to “Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610.” Given AAA’s age (14 years old) at the time of the offense, this designation was deemed more appropriate. The Court also adjusted the penalty imposed, sentencing XXX to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court adjusted the award of damages in line with Tulagan. XXX was ordered to pay AAA 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. The Court also imposed an interest rate of 6% per annum on the monetary awards from the finality of the decision until full payment. These adjustments underscore the gravity of the offense and the need to provide comprehensive redress to the victim.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether XXX was guilty of lascivious conduct against his stepdaughter and whether the correct law and penalty were applied. The Supreme Court clarified the proper designation of the crime and adjusted the penalty accordingly.
What is R.A. 7610?	R.A. 7610, also known as the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, is a Philippine law that protects children from various forms of abuse and exploitation. It provides for stiffer penalties for offenses committed against children.
What does lascivious conduct mean under the law?	Lascivious conduct generally refers to acts that are lewd, indecent, or tending to incite lustful desires. The exact definition can vary depending on the specific law and the context in which the conduct occurs.
Why was the designation of the crime changed?	The Supreme Court changed the designation to align with the guidelines set in People v. Tulagan, which clarifies the proper offense to charge when lascivious conduct is committed against a minor under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610. This ensures the penalty reflects the specific provisions of the child protection law.
What is an Affidavit of Desistance?	An Affidavit of Desistance is a document where a complainant states they are no longer interested in pursuing a case. However, Philippine courts generally give more weight to in-court testimony, especially in cases involving public interest or offenses against minors.
How did the Court address inconsistencies in the victim’s statements?	The Court considered any inconsistencies as minor and inconsequential, emphasizing that they did not detract from the central fact of the crime. It noted that minor variances can even strengthen credibility by indicating a lack of rehearsal.
What damages were awarded to the victim?	The victim was awarded P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages, and P50,000 as exemplary damages. The Court also imposed a 6% annual interest on these awards from the finality of the decision until full payment.
What is the significance of the Tulagan case?	The Tulagan case provides guidelines for designating offenses and determining penalties in cases of lascivious conduct against minors. It ensures consistent application of R.A. 7610, providing greater protection for children.

This Supreme Court decision reinforces the protection of minors under Philippine law, particularly R.A. 7610, and clarifies the proper designation and penalties for lascivious conduct against children. The ruling emphasizes the importance of credible testimony, the limited weight of affidavits of desistance, and the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding children’s rights and welfare.

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: XXX vs. People, G.R. No. 242101, September 16, 2019