G.R. No. 197458. November 11, 2015.

*
 
NICANOR PINLAC y RESOLME, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals; Petition for Review

on Certiorari; Only questions of law may be raised in a petition for
review filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.—It must be
stressed that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for
review filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The issue raised
by petitioner as well as his arguments pertains to factual findings
which are not within the ambit of a petition for review. Our ruling
in Ortega v. People, 575 SCRA 519 (2008), is pertinent: “The
petition being a petition for review, the jurisdiction of this Court
is confined to reviewing questions of law.”

_______________

*  SECOND DIVISION.

 
 
628

628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pinlac vs. People

Criminal Law; Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse;

Penalties; Under Section 5, Article III of Republic Act (RA) No.
7610, the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to
reclusion perpetua shall be imposed on those who commit acts of
lasciviousness with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to
other sexual abuse.—Under Section 5, Article III of RA No. 7610,
the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to
reclusion perpetua shall be imposed on those who commit acts of
lasciviousness with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected
to other sexual abuse. Notwithstanding the fact that RA No. 7610
is a special law, the petitioner in this case may enjoy the benefits
of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. In applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty next lower in degree is
prisión mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal in its
minimum period. Thus, the CA correctly imposed the
indeterminate sentence of eight (8) years and one (1) day of
prisión mayor as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4)
months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  Manuel R. Rosapapan, Jr. for petitioner.
  Office of the Solicitor General for respondent.

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

 
This Petition filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
assails the March 29, 2011 Decision1 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) which affirmed with modification the ruling2
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo City, Branch
72, finding petitioner Nicanor Pinlac (petitioner) guilty of
violation of Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act (RA) No.
7610 (other-

_______________

1   Rollo, pp. 36-62; penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-

Leagogo and concurred in by Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-
Fernando and Michael P. Elbinias.
2  Id., at pp. 27-34; penned by Judge Richard A. Paradeza.

 
 
629

VOL. 774, NOVEMBER 11, 2015 629

Pinlac vs. People

wise known as the Special Protection of Children

Against Child Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination
Act), which provides:
 
SEC. 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:
 x x x x
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child
exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual
abuse. x x x
 
The prosecution established that on the evening of
March 9, 1997, “AAA,”3 a 14-year-old boy, went with
petitioner to the Kale Beach Resort in Subic, Olongapo City
for initiation rites in a fraternity founded by the latter.
After succumbing to petitioner’s “persuasion” to drink
alcohol and smoke marijuana, “AAA” lost control of himself
(“nawala ako sa sarili”). While in a daze, stupor, or near
total unconsciousness, petitioner isolated “AAA” from his
companions and other fraternity recruits, forcibly disrobed
“AAA,” and performed oral sex on him by sucking his penis
until he ejaculated. The following day or on March 10,
1997, petitioner again performed oral sex

_______________

3   Pursuant to Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the “Anti-

Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004” and its
implementing rules, the real name of the victim, together with that of
her/his immediate family members, is withheld and fictitious initials
instead are used to represent her/him, both to protect her/his privacy.
(People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703; 502 SCRA 419 [2006])

 
 
630

630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pinlac vs. People

on “AAA” after convincing him anew to ingest alcohol

and to smoke marijuana.
Petitioner denied the charges against him. He
disclaimed that he was at the Kale Beach Resort in Subic,
Olongapo City on March 9, 1997; that “AAA” underwent
initiation to join a fraternity; that he isolated “AAA” from
his companions and other fraternity recruits; that he
forcibly disrobed “AAA” and performed oral sex on him;
that he sucked “AAA’s” penis until “AAA” ejaculated; and
that on March 10, 1997, he again performed oral sex on
“AAA” after convincing the latter anew to ingest alcohol
and to smoke marijuana. He claimed that he was a
candidate for barangay kagawad at the time and that he
was too preoccupied then campaigning for that post, so that
he could find no time at all for some other activities,
including the commission of the alleged acts of
lasciviousness imputed to him. He insisted that this case
was instigated by “BBB,” “AAA’s” mother, who was also
running for the position of barangay kagawad.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

 
The RTC did not lend credence to the version of
petitioner. In a Decision dated January 6, 2010, it found
petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of having
violated Section 5(b), Article III of RA No. 7610, thus:  
On the basis of the foregoing evidence presented,
the Court finds and so holds that the prosecution has
presented the required evidence to prove the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt [of] [v]iolation of
Section 05(b) of Article III of Republic Act 7610.
Prosecution evidence would show that on March 9,
1997 accused brought the victim [AAA,] a minor,
together with other persons to Kale Beach Resort
located in Subic at around 7:00 o’clock in the evening
as part of their initiation as x  x  x recruits of the
fraternity founded by the accused. At the said place,
the accused let [AAA] take alcohol, marijuana, and
drugs as part of their initiation.
 
 
631

VOL. 774, NOVEMBER 11, 2015 631

Pinlac vs. People

After taking drugs and marijuana the victim lost

control of himself (nawala sa sarili) because he was
“high[”] at that time. Seeing the situation of the
victim, the accused asked their companions to leave
the place leaving him (accused) and the victim in the
said place. While the victim was [in that] condition,
and taking advantage of such condition of the victim,
the accused sucked his penis. The following day,
particularly on March 10, 1997, the accused did the
same thing to the victim, that is, sucking again the
 minor victim’s penis while lying on the sand. Before
the accused sucked his penis, the accused [first] took
off x  x  x his shirt and pants. The victim was [then
still] drunk and “high” on drugs.
It was very clear that the prosecution was able to
present a complete picture detailing how the accused
sexually abused the minor victim by sucking his penis
[on] the night of March 9, 1997 and also on the
following day while the victim was under the
influence of liquor and dangerous drugs.
On the other hand, accused[’s] defense is merely
denial. He denied having in [his] company x  x  x the
victim on said dates. His denial was also corroborated
by a witness who happened to be his friend. The court
is not persuaded by the version of the accused
insinuating that the filing of the instant case was
concocted and instigated by the mother of the minor
victim and that the victim had asked forgiveness for
the same. For one, it is very apparent that the
accused was just concocting [a] story to exculpate
himself. Accused stated that there was no occasion on
said dates and prior thereto that he was with the
victim because he was always with Leslie Enciro who
always accompanied him in his campaign sorties as a
candidate for barangay kagawad. This is, however,
hard to believe. The testimony of Leslie Enciro that
there was no time that she was not [in] the company
of the accused on said dates due to their campaign
activities even made the defense more unreliable.
Denial and alibi are the weakest defense in criminal
cases. (People v. Bulan, 459 SCRA 550) Settled is the
rule that denial is essentially the weakest defense
and it can never overcome an af-
 
 
632

632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pinlac vs. People

firmative testimony particularly when it comes

from the mouth of a credible witness. (People v.
Mendoza, 450 SCRA 328)
x x x x
Section 5(b) of Republic Act 7610 provides:
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:
x x x x
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child
exploited in prostitution or subjected to other
sexual abuse: x x x
Undoubtedly, the accused’s act of sucking the penis
of the minor victim amounts to lascivious conduct.
Hence, there is no doubt that the accused is guilty of
the crime charged against him.4
 
Thereafter, the RTC disposed decretally as follows —   
 
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing
considerations, the Court finds the accused
NICANOR PINLAC y RESOLME GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt for Violation of Section 5(b) of
Republic Act 7610 (Special Protection of Children
Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination
Act) and hereby sentences him to suffer the
indeterminate imprisonment of TWELVE YEARS

_______________

4  Rollo, pp. 32-34.

 
 
633

VOL. 774, NOVEMBER 11, 2015 633

Pinlac vs. People

(12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Reclusion

Temporal as the minimum to FIFTEEN (15) YEARS
SIX MONTHS and TWENTY DAYS of Reclusion
Temporal as the maximum, and for the accused to pay
the sum of THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P30,000.00) as moral damages.
 SO ORDERED.5

Proceedings before the Court of Appeals

 
On appeal, petitioner challenged “AAA’s” credibility by
citing alleged inconsistencies in his testimony vis-à-vis the
testimony of his mother, “BBB.” He likewise questioned
why it took “AAA” 10 months to report the crime to the
authorities. He also asserted that the judge who penned
the Decision was not the judge6 who tried and heard the
case, hence, did not allegedly have the opportunity to
personally observe the deportment and demeanor of the
prosecution witnesses who gave the testimonies that led to
his conviction.
Dismissing petitioner’s arguments, the CA held that the
government’s case was erected upon actual,
incontrovertible facts which proved beyond reasonable
doubt that petitioner did in fact commit the crime set forth
under Section 5(b), Article III of RA No. 7610 i.e.,
performing lascivious acts upon a child exploited in
prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse, and that the child
victim, in this case “AAA” as clearly and specifically spelled
out in the trial court’s discussion, was below 18 years of
age.
The CA stressed that —
 
In the instant case, the act of accused-appellant in
disrobing the minor AAA, who was then under the
influence of illegal drugs and liquor after he was
made to take

_______________

5  Id., at p. 34.
6  This case was originally tried by Judge Eliodoro G. Ubiadas, and at a
certain stage of the proceedings by Judge Josefina D. Farrales.

 
 
634

634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pinlac vs. People

them by accused-appellant, and thereafter, sucking

AAA’s penis, is clearly a lascivious conduct performed
by accused-appellant on AAA.
 A child is deemed exploited in prostitution or
subjected to other sexual abuse, when the child
indulges in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct
(a) for money, profit, or any other consideration; or (b)
under the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate
or group. The law covers not only a situation in which
a child, through coercion or intimidation, engages in
any lascivious conduct. The very title of Section 5,
Article III (Child Prostitution and Other Sexual
Abuse) of RA 7610 shows that it applies not only to a
child subjected to prostitution but also to a child
subjected to other sexual abuse. A child is deemed
subjected to “other sexual abuse” when he or she
indulges in lascivious conduct under the coercion or
influence of any adult. In the instant case, accused-
appellant influenced minor AAA to go to Sta. Cruz,
Zambales; made him to take drugs and drink liquor;
and when he was already high and out of control,
accused-appellant performed lascivious conduct on
AAA.
When the said lascivious conduct was performed on
09 and 10 March 1997 by accused-appellant on AAA,
the latter was fourteen years old. As indicated in his
Certificate of Live Birth (Exhibit “A”), AAA was born
on 21 August 1982. During the pretrial, the defense
stipulated on AAA’s birth certificate (Exhibit “A”).
BBB, the mother of AAA, also testified that AAA was
born on 21 August 1982. AAA further testified that he
was born on 21 August 1982.7
 
The CA gave short shrift to petitioner’s pale and stale
alibi and denial of the sexual abuse charges, appropriately
characterizing these as “weak and self-serving.” The CA
held such a characterization both telling and compelling in
light of “AAA’s” positive and categorical assertions
graphically detailing the lewd and lascivious acts
perpetrated by the petitioner.

_______________

7  Rollo, p. 53.

 
 
635

VOL. 774, NOVEMBER 11, 2015 635

 Pinlac vs. People

Regarding “AAA’s” alleged delay of 10 months in

reporting the incident to the authorities, the CA held that
there is no behavioral norm that victims of sexual abuse
follow in respect to the time-frame for making such report,
each case being determined by its peculiar milieu and
setting; and that assuming for argument’s sake that there
was indeed some delay in this case, such delay should not
be construed as implying that the accusation might not
have been true at all especially in light of the fact that the
victim was a minor.8
Anent petitioner’s contention that the judge who wrote
the Decision was not the judge who presided over the trial
and did not have the opportunity to personally observe the
deportment and demeanor of the witnesses and hence was
not in a position to calibrate the credibility of these
witnesses, the CA ruled that —
 
x  x  x The fact that the judge who heard the
evidence was not himself the one who prepared,
signed and promulgated the decision constitutes no
compelling reason to jettison his findings and
conclusions, and does not per se render his decision
void. The validity of a decision is not necessarily
impaired by the fact that its ponente only took over
from a colleague who had earlier presided at the trial.
x x x9
 
On March 29, 2011, the CA rendered judgment as
follows:
 
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is
DENIED. The Decision dated 06 January 2010 of the
Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City, Branch 72, in
Criminal Case No. 79-1999 finding accused-appellant
Nicanor Pinlac y Resolme guilty beyond reasonable
[doubt] for violation of Section 5(b), Article III of
Republic Act No. 7610, is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION in that,

_______________

8  People v. Llanas, Jr., 636 Phil. 611, 623; 622 SCRA 602, 612 (2010).
9  Rollo, p. 56.

 
 
 636

636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pinlac vs. People

accused-appellant is hereby sentenced to suffer the

indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 8 years and
1 day of prisión mayor, as minimum, to 17 years, 4
months and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as maximum,
and to pay a fine of P15,000.00; and for him to pay the
victim AAA the amounts of P20,000.00 as civil
indemnity, and P15,000.00 as moral damages. Costs
against accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.10
 
Hence, this Petition raising the sole issue of:
 
Whether x x x the Court of Appeals erred in giving
credence to the testimony of “AAA.”11
 
Our Ruling
 
Petitioner claims that the CA erred in its “findings of
facts.”12 He avers that the factual finding of the CA that
the crime was committed at Kale Beach Resort, Sta. Cruz,
Zambales was erroneous; he posits that Kale Beach Resort
is in Olongapo City and not Sta. Cruz which is another
local government unit.13 Petitioner next insists that the
appellate court erred in its assessment of “AAA’s”
credibility.14
The Petition lacks merit.
It must be stressed that only questions of law may be
raised in a petition for review filed under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court. The issue raised by petitioner as well as his
arguments pertains to factual findings which are not
within the ambit of a petition for review. Our ruling in
Ortega v. People15 is pertinent:

_______________

10  Id., at p. 59.
11  Id., at p. 14.
12  Id., at p. 15.
13  Id., at p. 16.
14  Id., at pp. 17-18.
15  595 Phil. 1103; 575 SCRA 519 (2008).

 
  
637

VOL. 774, NOVEMBER 11, 2015 637

Pinlac vs. People

“The petition being a petition for review, the jurisdiction

of this Court is confined to reviewing questions of law.”16
In any event, we find no cogent reason to set aside the
findings of the trial court which were affirmed by the CA.
After a thorough review of the records of this case, we find
that the CA Decision squares with the evidence and with
the law as well as with the jurisprudential doctrines laid
down by this Court. Both the RTC of Olongapo City,
Branch 72 and the CA reached the correct conclusion that
petitioner was indeed guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
having violated Section 5(b), Article III of RA No. 7610. We
find, as did the RTC and the CA, that the State had
satisfactorily established the following elements
constitutive of the offense charged: “(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 sexual abuse; and (3) the child,
whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.”17 In this
case “AAA” was 14 years and eight months old when he
was subjected to sexual abuse by the herein petitioner on
March 9 and 10, 1997. This Court thus finds no reversible
error in the assailed Decision.

Penalties and Awards of Damages

 
Under Section 5, Article III of RA No. 7610, the penalty
of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion
perpetua shall be imposed on those who commit acts of
lasciviousness with a child exploited in prostitution or
subjected to other sexual abuse. Notwithstanding the fact
that RA No. 7610 is a special law, the petitioner in this
case may enjoy the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence
Law.18 In applying the Inde-

_______________

16  Id., at p. 1113; p. 528.

17  People v. Fragante, 657 Phil. 566, 584; 642 SCRA 566, 584 (2011).
18   See People v. Leonardo, 638 Phil. 161, 198; 624 SCRA 166, 203
(2010).
  
 
638

638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pinlac vs. People

terminate Sentence Law, the penalty next lower in

degree is prisión mayor in its medium period to reclusion
temporal in its minimum period. Thus, the CA correctly
imposed the indeterminate sentence of eight (8) years and
one (1) day of prisión mayor as minimum, to seventeen (17)
years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal
as maximum.
The CA likewise correctly ordered petitioner to pay
“AAA” the following amounts: P20,000.00 in the concept of
civil indemnity, P15,000.00 as moral damages, and a fine of
P15,000.00 pursuant to Section 31(f), Article XII of RA No.
7610.19 In addition, this Court also orders petitioner to pay
“AAA” P15,000.00 by way of exemplary damages.20
Finally, we note that the RTC, in an Order21 dated
January 21, 2010, allowed petitioner to enjoy his
provisional liberty by posting an appeal bond thru Monarch
Insurance Company, Inc. in the amount of P50,000.00
under Bond No. JCR(2) 1004159.22 In conformity with this
Decision, the bondsman, Monarch Insurance Company, Inc.
is directed to surrender petitioner to the court of origin. In
turn, the RTC of Olongapo City, Branch 72 is directed to
order the transmittal of petitioner to the Bureau of
Corrections.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision
dated March 29, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R.
CR No. 33169 finding petitioner Nicanor Pinlac y Resolme
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of having violated Section
5(b), Arti-

_______________

19  Section 31. Common Penal Provisions.—

x x x x
(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.
20  People v. Rayon, Sr., G.R. No. 194236, January 30, 2013, 689 SCRA
745, 761.
 21  Records, p. 197.
22  Id., at p. 200.

 
 
639

VOL. 774, NOVEMBER 11, 2015 639

Pinlac vs. People

cle III of Republic Act No. 7610, and sentencing him to

suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging
from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prisión mayor, as
minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one
(1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to pay the
victim “AAA” the amounts of P20,000.00 as civil indemnity,
P15,000.00 as moral damages, and P15,000.00 by way of
fine is AFFIRMED, subject to the MODIFICATIONS
that petitioner is also ordered to pay “AAA” P15,000.00 in
the concept of exemplary damages. All damages awarded
shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from
finality of this Decision until fully paid.
The bondsman, Monarch Insurance Company, Inc. is
DIRECTED to surrender the person of petitioner to the
Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City, Branch 72 within 10
days from notice and to make a REPORT of the fact of
surrender to this Court, also within 10 days. The Regional
Trial Court of Olongapo City, Branch 72 is DIRECTED to
order or cause the transfer of petitioner to the Bureau of
Corrections within 10 days from the time petitioner was
turned over, and to make a report to this Court of such
transfer, also within 10 days. Finally, the Bureau of
Corrections is DIRECTED to make a report within 10
days of petitioner’s confinement thereat.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio (Chairperson), Reyes,** Perlas-Bernabe*** and

Leonen, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, judgment affirmed with modifications.

Notes.—Although Republic Act No. 7610 is a special

law, the rules in the Revised Penal Code for graduating
penalties

_______________
 ** Designated acting member per Special Order No. 2274 dated
November 10, 2015.
***  Designated acting member per Special Order No. 2271 dated
November 9, 2015.

 
 
640

640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pinlac vs. People

by degrees or determining the proper period should be

applied; Where the special law adopted penalties from the
Revised Penal Code, the Indeterminate Sentence law will
apply just as it would in felonies. (Sanchez vs. People, 588
SCRA 747 [2009])
Under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 in relation to
Republic Act (R.A.) 8353, if the victim of sexual abuse is
below 12 years of age, the offender should not be
prosecuted for sexual abuse but for statutory rape under
Article 266-A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code and penalized
with reclusion perpetua — on the other hand, if the victim
is 12 years or older, the offender should be charged with
either sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or rape
under Article 266-A (except paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised
Penal Code. (People vs. Matias, 672 SCRA 411 [2012])
 
 
——o0o——

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.