THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 183619. October 13, 2009.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. SALVINO

SUMINGWA, appellant.

DECISION

NACHURA, J : p

On appeal before us is the January 31, 2008 Court of Appeals (CA)

Decision 1 in CA-G.R. CR No. 30045 affirming with modification the February
14, 2006 Regional Trial Court 2 (RTC) Consolidated Judgment 3 against
appellant Salvino Sumingwa in Criminal Case Nos. 1644 and 1645 for Acts of
Lasciviousness; 1646, 1649 and 1654 for Rape; 1651 for Attempted Rape;
and 1655 for Unjust Vexation. Assailed also is the June 5, 2008 CA
Resolution 4 denying appellant's motion for reconsideration.
In twelve Informations, the prosecution charged appellant with two (2)
counts of Acts of Lasciviousness, 5 four (4) counts of Rape, 6 three (3) counts
of Unjust Vexation, 7 one (1) count of Other Light Threats, 8 one (1) count of
Maltreatment, 9 and one (1) count of Attempted Rape 10 for acts committed
against his minor 11 daughter AAA from 1999-2001.
Appellant pleaded "not guilty" to all the charges. On September 24,
2004, the RTC dismissed 12 Criminal Case Nos. 1647 for Rape; 1648 for
Unjust Vexation; 1650 for Other Light Threats; 1652 for Unjust Vexation; and
1653 for Maltreatment, on the basis of the Demurrer to Evidence 13 filed by
appellant.
Sometime in August 1999, between 8:00 and 10:00 in the morning,
AAA, together with her brothers and her father, appellant herein, was in their
residence in Mountain Province, watching television. Appellant called AAA
and ordered her to sit in front of him. As she was sitting, appellant told her
that it was not good for a girl to have small breasts. Suddenly, he inserted
his hands into AAA's shirt then fondled her breast. AAA resisted by moving
her hands backwards. 14
One afternoon in September 1999, AAA's mother and brothers went to
school leaving AAA and appellant in their house. While in the master's
bedroom, appellant ordered AAA to join him inside. There, appellant
removed his undergarments then forced her to grasp and fondle his penis
until he ejaculated. Appellant thereafter told her not to be malicious about it.
15 ATESCc

The same incident took place in August 2000. This time, appellant
forced AAA to lie down on the bed, went on top of her, removed her short
pants and panty, then rubbed his penis against her vaginal orifice. AAA
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 resisted by crossing her legs but appellant lifted her right leg and partially
inserted his penis into her vagina. As she struggled, appellant stood up then
ejaculated. AAA felt numbness on her buttocks after the bestial act
committed against her. 16
Appellant repeated his dastardly act against AAA on separate
occasions in September and November 2000. During these times, appellant
satisfied himself by rubbing his penis against AAA's vagina without trying to
penetrate it. After reaching the top of his lust, he used AAA's short pants to
wipe his mess. Instead of keeping her harrowing experience to herself, AAA
narrated it to her best friend. 17
On November 24, 2000, appellant approached AAA and told her that he
wanted to have sex with her. When she refused, appellant forcibly removed
her pants and boxed her right buttock. AAA still refused, which angered
appellant. He then went to the kitchen and returned with a bolo which he
used in threatening her. Luckily, AAA's grandmother arrived, prompting
appellant to desist from his beastly desires. 18
On December 20, 2000, AAA and her best friend were doing their
school work in front of the former's house. When appellant arrived, he
embraced AAA. He, thereafter, pulled her inside the house and kissed her on
the lips. 19
The last incident occurred inside the comfort room of their house on
May 27, 2001. When AAA entered, appellant pulled down her short pants and
panty, unzipped his trousers, brought out his penis, then repeatedly rubbed
it on her vagina while they were in a standing position. 20
AAA decided to report the sexual abuses to her grandmother who
forthwith brought her to the National Bureau of Investigation where she was
examined by the medico-legal officer. It was found during the examination
that there were no extragenital physical injuries on AAA's body but there
were old, healed, and incomplete hymenal lacerations. 21
Appellant denied all the accusations against him. He claimed that in
August and September 1999, he was at the house of his mistress in Antipolo
City. He also explained that in August 2000, he stayed in Baguio City and
worked there as a karate instructor. He added that he only went home in
September 2000 but left again in October for Quirino, Ilocos Sur where he
stayed for three weeks. When he went back home, his wife informed him
that AAA had not been coming home. Thereafter, appellant went to Baguio
City to buy medicine for his wife, then returned home again on the third
week of December 2000. While there, he was confronted by his wife about
his womanizing. His wife got mad and refused to forgive him despite his
repeated pleas. Consequently, he became furious and almost choked his
wife to death when she ignored and refused to talk to him. This prompted
him to leave and go back to Baguio. 22 DAaIEc

Sometime in April 2001, appellant went back home to reconcile with

his wife. While talking to his wife and the latter's family, his mother-in-law
berated him and demanded his separation from his wife. Appellant got mad
and threatened to kill his wife's family. His mother-in-law, in turn, threatened
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 to file charges against him. 23
To belie the claim of AAA that she was sexually abused in August,
November and December 2000, allegedly during school hours, her teacher
testified that the former was not absent in class during those times. 24
On November 24, 2004, AAA executed an Affidavit of Recantation 25
claiming that while appellant indeed committed lascivious acts against her,
she exaggerated her accusations against him. She explained that appellant
did not actually rape her, as there was no penetration. She added that she
charged appellant with such crimes only upon the prodding of her mother
and maternal grandmother.
On February 14, 2006, the RTC rendered a decision convicting
appellant of six (6) counts of acts of lasciviousness, 26 one (1) count of
attempted rape 27 and one (1) count of unjust vexation, 28 the dispositive
portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, a Consolidated Judgment is hereby rendered
sentencing Salvino Sumingwa to suffer —

1. The penalty of six (6) months of [arresto mayor] as

minimum to six (6) years of [prision correccional] as maximum; and
ordering him to pay the offended party P10,000.00 [as] indemnity [ex-
delicto], P10,000.00 as moral damages and P5,000.00 as exemplary
damages for each count of Acts of Lasciviousness charged in Crim.
Cases 1644, 1645, 1646, 1649 and 1654;

2. The penalty of six (6) years of [prision correccional] as

minimum to twelve (12) years of [prision mayor] as maximum; and
ordering said offender to pay the victim P15,000.00 as indemnity [ex-
delicto], P15,000.00 as moral damages and P10,000.00 as exemplary
damages in Crim. Case 1651 for Attempted Rape; and
3. The penalty of thirty (30) days of [arresto menor] and fine
of P200.00 for Unjust Vexation in Crim. Case 1655.
SO ORDERED. 29

The trial court gave credence to AAA's testimonies on the alleged

lascivious acts committed against her. In view of the withdrawal of her
earlier claim of the fact of penetration, the court sustained the innocence of
appellant on the rape charges and concluded that the crime committed was
only Acts of Lasciviousness.
In Criminal Case No. 1651, the RTC found that appellant committed all
the acts of execution of the crime of Rape, but failed to consummate it
because of the arrival of AAA's grandmother. Hence, he was convicted of
attempted rape. In embracing and kissing AAA in full view of the latter's best
friend, appellant was convicted of Unjust Vexation. TDEASC

On appeal, the CA affirmed the conviction of appellant, except that in

Criminal Case No. 1646; it convicted him of Qualified Rape instead of Acts of
Lasciviousness. The pertinent portion of the assailed decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, herein appeal is hereby
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 DISMISSED for evident lack of merit and the assailed Consolidated
Judgment dated 14 February 2006 is hereby AFFIRMED with the
following MODIFICATION:
1. The Appellant SALVINO SUMINGWA is hereby convicted of
the crime of QUALIFIED RAPE i n Criminal Case No.
1 6 4 6 and the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA is
hereby imposed upon him. The Appellant is likewise
ordered to pay the Victim, [AAA], civil indemnity in the
amount of Php75,000.00 as well as moral damages in the
amount of Php50,000.00, in conformity with prevailing
jurisprudence.

2. I n Criminal Case No. 1651 for Attempted Rape, the

Appellant, is hereby ordered to indemnify the victim [AAA]
in the sum of P30,000.00 as civil indemnity, plus the sum of
P25,000.00 as moral damages.

SO ORDERED. 30

The appellate court concluded that, notwithstanding AAA's retraction

of her previous testimonies, the prosecution sufficiently established the
commission of the crime of Rape. It added that the qualifying circumstances
of minority and relationship were adequately proven.
Hence, this appeal.
First, in light of the recantation of AAA, appellant questions the
credibility of the prosecution witnesses and insists that his constitutional
right to be presumed innocent be applied. 31 Second, he argues that in
Criminal Case No. 1651 for Attempted Rape, he should only be convicted of
Acts of Lasciviousness, there being no overt act showing the intent to have
sexual intercourse. 32 Lastly, he insists that he could not be convicted of all
the charges against him for failure of the prosecution to show that he
employed force, violence or intimidation against AAA; neither did the latter
offer resistance to appellant's advances. 33
In rape cases particularly, the conviction or acquittal of the accused
most often depends almost entirely on the credibility of the complainant's
testimony. By the very nature of this crime, it is generally unwitnessed and
usually the victim is left to testify for herself. When a rape victim's testimony
is straightforward and marked with consistency despite grueling
examination, it deserves full faith and confidence and cannot be discarded.
34 If such testimony is clear, consistent and credible to establish the crime
beyond reasonable doubt, a conviction may be based on it, notwithstanding
its subsequent retraction. Mere retraction by a prosecution witness does not
necessarily vitiate her original testimony. 35 SDHacT

A retraction is looked upon with considerable disfavor by the courts. 36

It is exceedingly unreliable for there is always the probability that such
recantation may later on be repudiated. It can easily be obtained from
witnesses through intimidation or monetary consideration. 37 Like any other
testimony, it is subject to the test of credibility based on the relevant
circumstances and, especially, on the demeanor of the witness on the stand.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 38

As correctly held by the CA, AAA's testimony is credible

notwithstanding her subsequent retraction. We quote with approval its
ratiocination in this wise:
Clearly, the retraction made by the Victim is heavily unreliable.
The primordial factor that impelled the Victim to retract the rape
charges against her father was her fear and concern for the welfare of
her family especially her four (4) siblings. It does not go against reason
or logic to conclude that a daughter, in hopes of bringing back the
harmony in her family tormented by the trauma of rape, would
eventually cover for the dastardly acts committed by her own father.
Verily, the Victim's subsequent retraction does not negate her previous
testimonies accounting her ordeal in the hands for (sic) her rapist. 39

We now proceed to discuss the specific crimes with which appellant

was charged.
Criminal Case Nos. 1646, 1649 and 1654 for Rape
The CA correctly convicted appellant of Qualified Rape in Criminal Case
No. 1646, and of Acts of Lasciviousness in Criminal Case Nos. 1649 and
1654.
The crime of rape is defined in Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC), as amended by the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, as follows:
ART. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. — Rape is
committed —
1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman
under any of the following circumstances:
a. Through force, threat or intimidation.

In her direct testimony, AAA stated that appellant removed her short pants
and panty, went on top of her and rubbed his penis against her vaginal
orifice. She resisted by crossing her legs but her effort was not enough to
prevent appellant from pulling her leg and eventually inserting his penis into
her vagina. Clearly, there was penetration.
It is noteworthy that appellant pulled AAA's leg, so that he could insert
his penis into her vagina. This adequately shows that appellant employed
force in order to accomplish his purpose. Moreover, in rape committed by a
father against his own daughter, the former's moral ascendancy and
influence over the latter may substitute for actual physical violence and
intimidation. The moral and physical dominion of the father is sufficient to
cow the victim into submission to his beastly desires, and no further proof
need be shown to prove lack of the victim's consent to her own defilement.
40 AHacIS

While appellant's conviction was primarily based on the prosecution's

testimonial evidence, the same was corroborated by physical evidence
consisting of the medical findings of the medico-legal officer that there were
hymenal lacerations. When a rape victim's account is straightforward and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 candid, and is corroborated by the medical findings of the examining
physician, the same is sufficient to support a conviction for rape. 41
Aside from the fact of commission of rape, the prosecution likewise
established that appellant is the biological father of AAA and that the latter
was then fifteen (15) 42 years old. Thus, the CA aptly convicted him of
qualified rape, defined and penalized by Article 266-B of the RPC, viz.:
ART. 266-B. Penalties. — . . . .

xxx xxx xxx

The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is

committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying
circumstances:
1) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and
the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common
law spouse of the parent of the victim.

In view of the effectivity of Republic Act (R.A.) 9346, appellant was correctly
meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole.
As to damages, appellant should pay AAA P75,000.00 as civil
indemnity, which is awarded if the crime is qualified by circumstances that
warrant the imposition of the death penalty. 43 In light of prevailing
jurisprudence, 44 we increase the award of moral damages from P50,000.00
to P75,000.00. Further, the award of exemplary damages in the amount of
P30,000.00 45 is authorized due to the presence of the qualifying
circumstances of minority and relationship. 46
In Criminal Case Nos. 1649 and 1654, although appellant was charged
with qualified rape allegedly committed on the second week of November
2000 and May 27, 2001, he should be convicted with Acts of Lasciviousness
committed against a child under Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. 7610, 47
which reads:
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: CASaEc

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 victim 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion
temporal in its medium period; . . . . (Italics supplied.)
The elements of sexual abuse under the above provision are as follows:
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 other sexual abuse.
3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age. 48

AAA testified that in November 2000, while she and appellant were
inside the bedroom, he went on top of her and rubbed his penis against her
vaginal orifice until he ejaculated. 49 She likewise stated in open court that
on May 27, 2001, while inside their comfort room, appellant rubbed his penis
against her vagina while they were in a standing position. 50 In both
instances, there was no penetration, or even an attempt to insert his penis
into her vagina.
The aforesaid acts of the appellant are covered by the definitions of
"sexual abuse" and "lascivious conduct" under Section 2 (g) and (h) of the
Rules and Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse
Cases promulgated to implement the provisions of R.A. 7610:
(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 public area of a
person.

Following the "variance doctrine" embodied in Section 4, in relation to

Section 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, appellant can be
found guilty of the lesser crime of Acts of Lasciviousness committed against
a child. The pertinent provisions read:
SEC. 4. Judgment in case of variance between allegation and
proof. — When there is variance between the offense charged in the
complaint or information and that proved, and the offense as charged
is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused
shall be convicted of the offense proved which is included in the
offense charged, or of the offense charged which is included in the
offense proved. TCAHES

SEC. 5. When an offense includes or is included in another. —

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 An offense charged necessarily includes the offense proved when some
of the essential elements or ingredients of the former, as alleged in the
complaint or information, constitute the latter. And an offense charged
is necessarily included in the offense proved, when the essential
ingredients of the former constitute or form part of those constituting
the latter.

As the crime was committed by the father of the offended party, the
alternative circumstance of relationship should be appreciated. In crimes
against chastity, such as Acts of Lasciviousness, relationship is always
aggravating. 51
Section 5 (b) of R.A. 7610 prescribes the penalty of reclusion temporal
in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. Since there is an aggravating
circumstance and no mitigating circumstance, the penalty shall be applied in
its maximum period — reclusion perpetua for each count. 52
Consistent with previous rulings 53 of the Court, appellant must also
indemnify AAA in the amount of P15,000.00 as moral damages and pay a
fine in the same amount in Criminal Case Nos. 1649 and 1654.
Criminal Case Nos. 1644 and 1645 for Acts of Lasciviousness
Appellant is likewise guilty of two (2) counts of Acts of Lasciviousness
under Section 5 (b), Article III, R.A. 7610 committed against AAA on the
second week of August 1999 and on the first week of September 1999. AAA
testified that in August, appellant, with lewd design, inserted his hands
inside her shirt then fondled her breasts; and in September, he forced her to
hold his penis until he ejaculated.
The trial and the appellate courts were correct in giving credence to
the victim's testimony, in dismissing appellant's defense of denial and alibi,
and in disbelieving that AAA initiated the criminal cases only upon the
prodding of the latter's grandmother. Settled jurisprudence tells us that the
mere denial of one's involvement in a crime cannot take precedence over
the positive testimony of the offended party. 54
We are not unmindful of the fact that appellant was specifically
charged in an Information for Acts of Lasciviousness defined and penalized
by Article 336 of the RPC. However, the failure to designate the offense by
statute, or to mention the specific provision penalizing the act, or an
erroneous specification of the law violated, does not vitiate the information if
the facts alleged clearly recite the facts constituting the crime charged. 55
The character of the crime is not determined by the caption or preamble of
the information nor from the specification of the provision of law alleged to
have been violated, but by the recital of the ultimate facts and
circumstances in the complaint or information. 56
In the present case, the body of the information contains an averment
of the acts alleged to have been committed by appellant which unmistakably
refers to acts punishable under Section 5 (b), Article III, R.A. 7610.
Appellant should, therefore, be meted the same penalties and be made
to answer for damages as in Criminal Case Nos. 1649 and 1654. CDcHSa

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 Criminal Case No. 1651 for Attempted Rape
AAA testified that on November 24, 2000, while AAA and her brothers
were sleeping inside their parents' bedroom, appellant entered and asked
AAA to have sex with him. When AAA refused, appellant forcibly removed her
clothes and boxed her right buttock. As she still resisted, he took a bolo,
which he poked at her. Appellant desisted from committing further acts
because of the timely arrival of AAA's grandmother. With these, appellant
was charged with Other Light Threats in Criminal Case No. 1650; Attempted
Rape in Criminal Case No. 1651; Unjust Vexation in Criminal Case No. 1652;
and Maltreatment in Criminal Case No. 1653.
On September 24, 2004, the RTC dismissed Criminal Case Nos. 1650,
1652 and 1653 for insufficiency of evidence. Criminal Case No. 1651, among
others, proceeded, however. Eventually, appellant was convicted of
Attempted Rape, which the CA affirmed.
A careful review of the records reveals, though, that the evidence is
insufficient to support appellant's conviction of Attempted Rape.
Rape is attempted when the offender commences the commission of
rape directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution by
reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance. 57 The prosecution must, therefore, establish the following
elements of an attempted felony:
1. The offender commences the commission of the felony directly
by overt acts;
2. He does not perform all the acts of execution which should
produce the felony;
3. The offender's act be not stopped by his own spontaneous
desistance;
4. The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause or
accident other than his spontaneous desistance. 58

The attempt that the RPC punishes is that which has a logical
connection to a particular, concrete offense; and that which is the beginning
of the execution of the offense by overt acts of the perpetrator, leading
directly to its realization and consummation. 59 In the instant case, the
primary question that comes to the fore is whether or not appellant's act of
removing AAA's pants constituted an overt act of Rape.
We answer in the negative.
Overt o r external act has been defined as some physical activity or
deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, more than a
mere planning or preparation, which if carried out to its complete
termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by external
obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically
and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense. 60 TAHCEc

The evidence on record does not show that the above elements are
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 present. The detailed acts of execution showing an attempt to rape are
simply lacking. It would be too strained to construe appellant's act of
removing AAA's pants as an overt act that will logically and necessarily ripen
into rape. Hence, appellant must be acquitted of Attempted Rape.
Neither can we hold appellant liable for Other Light Threats for
threatening AAA with a bolo; for Unjust Vexation for undressing her without
her consent, causing disturbance, torment, distress, and vexation; nor for
Maltreatment for boxing the right side of AAA's buttocks. Although all of the
above acts were alleged in the Information for Attempted Rape in the Order
dated September 24, 2004, Criminal Case Nos. 1650, 1652 and 1653
involving the above crimes were dismissed for insufficiency of evidence
based on the demurrer to evidence filed by appellant.
The order granting appellant's demurrer to evidence was a resolution
of the case on the merits, and it amounted to an acquittal. Any further
prosecution of the accused after an acquittal would violate the proscription
on double jeopardy. 61 Accordingly, appellant's conviction of any of the
above crimes, even under Criminal Case No. 1651, would trench in his
constitutional right against double jeopardy.
Criminal Case No. 1655 for Unjust Vexation
Appellant was charged with Unjust Vexation, defined and penalized by
Article 287 of the RPC, which reads:
ART. 287. Light coercions. — Any person who, by means of
violence, shall seize anything belonging to his debtor for the purpose of
applying the same to the payment of the debt, shall suffer the penalty
o f arresto mayor in its minimum period and a fine equivalent to the
value of the thing, but in no case less than 75 pesos.
Any other coercion or unjust vexation shall be punished by
arresto menor or a fine ranging from 5 to 200 pesos, or both.
The second paragraph of this provision is broad enough to include any
human conduct that, although not productive of some physical or material
harm, could unjustifiably annoy or vex an innocent person. The paramount
question to be considered is whether the offender's act caused annoyance,
irritation, torment, distress, or disturbance to the mind of the person to
whom it was directed. 62
Appellant's acts of embracing, dragging and kissing AAA in front of her
friend annoyed AAA. The filing of the case against appellant proved that AAA
was disturbed, if not distressed by the acts of appellant.
The penalty for coercion falling under the second paragraph of Article
287 of the RPC is arresto menor or a fine ranging from P5.00 to P200.00 or
both. Accordingly, appellant is sentenced to 30 days of arresto menor and to
pay a fine of P200.00, with the accessory penalties thereof.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the January 31, 2008 Court of
Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CR No. 30045 with MODIFICATIONS. The Court
finds appellant Salvino Sumingwa: SaICcT

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 1. GUILTY o f QUALIFIED RAPE in Criminal Case No. 1646. He is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for
parole and ordered to pay AAA P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as
moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
2. GUILTY of four (4) counts of ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS under
Section 5 (b) Article III of R.A. 7610 in Criminal Case Nos. 1644, 1645, 1649,
and 1654. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and
ordered to pay AAA P15,000.00 as moral damages and a fine of P15,000.00,
for EACH COUNT.
3. NOT GUILTY in Criminal Case No. 1651.
4. GUILTY of UNJUST VEXATION in Criminal Case No. 1655. He is
sentenced to suffer 30 days of arresto menor and to pay a fine of P200.00,
with the accessory penalties thereof.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio, Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr. and Peralta, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal, with Associate Justices

Jose Catral Mendoza and Jose C. Reyes, Jr., concurring; rollo, pp. 2-38.

2. Branch 35, Bontoc Mountain Province.

3. Penned by Pairing Judge Artemio B. Marrero; CA rollo, pp. 59-74.

4. Rollo, pp. 42-44.
5. Docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 1644 and 1645.

6. Docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 1646, 1647, 1649 and 1654.

7. Docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 1648, 1652 and 1655.

8. Docketed as Criminal Case No. 1650.

9. Docketed as Criminal Case No. 1653.

10. Docketed as Criminal Case No. 1651.

11. The acts complained of were committed when the victim was 15 and 16
years old.

12. Records (Criminal Case No. 1644), pp. 156-158.

13. Id. at 141-148.

14. TSN, December 10, 2003, pp. 4-6.

15. Id. at 6-8.

16. Id. at 8-10.
17. Id. at 11-12.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 18. Id. at 12-13.
19. Id. at 14.
20. Id. at 14-15.
21. Records (Criminal Case No. 1644), p. 20.

22. Rollo, pp. 10-11.

23. Id. at 11.
24. Id.
25. Records (Criminal Case No. 1644), p. 206.

26. In Criminal Cases No. 1644, 1645, 1646, 1649, and 1654.

27. In Criminal Case No. 1651.

28. In Criminal Case No. 1655.

29. CA rollo, p. 73.

30. Rollo, pp. 37-38.
31. Id. at 56.
32. Id. at 56-58.
33. CA rollo, p. 53.

34. People v. Abulon, G.R. No. 174473, August 17, 2007, 530 SCRA 675, 687-
688.
35. People v. Deauna, 435 Phil. 141, 163 (2002).
36. People v. Miñon, G.R. Nos. 148397-400, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 671, 685-
686.
37. People v. Deauna, supra note 35, at 164.
38. People v. Miñon, supra note 36, at 685-686.
39. Rollo, pp. 17-18.
40. Campos v. People, G.R. No. 175275, February 19, 2008, 546 SCRA 334,
347-348; People v. Balonzo, G.R. No. 176153, September 21, 2007, 533
SCRA 760, 771.

41. People v. Guambor, 465 Phil. 671 (2004).

42. AAA was born on November 12, 1984 as shown in her Certificate of Live
Birth; records (Criminal Case No. 1644), p. 138.

43. People v. Antonio, G.R. No. 180920, March 27, 2008, 549 SCRA 569, 574.
44. People v. Bejic, G.R. No. 174060, June 25, 2007, 525 SCRA 488; People v.
Ibañez, G.R. No. 174656, May 11, 2007, 523 SCRA 136.
45. People of the Philippines v. Lilio U. Achas, G.R. No. 185712, August 4, 2009;
People of the Philippines v. Adelado Anguac y Ragadao, G.R. No. 176744,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 June 5, 2009; The People of the Philippines v. Lorenzo Layco, Sr., G.R. No.
182191, May 8, 2009.

46. People v. Bejic, supra note 44; People v. Ibañez, supra note 44, at 145.
47. "Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act".
48. Malto v. People, G.R. No. 164733, September 21, 2007, 533 SCRA 643, 656;
Navarrete v. People, G.R. No. 147913, January 31, 2007, 513 SCRA 509, 521;
Olivares v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 163866, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA 465,
473.
49. TSN, December 10, 2003, p. 22.

50. Id. at 25.

51. People v. Montinola, G.R. No. 178061, January 31, 2008, 543 SCRA 412.
52. Id.
53. Id. People v. Candaza, G.R. No. 170474, June 16, 2006, 491 SCRA 280;
Olivares v. Court of Appeals, supra note 48.
54. People of the Philippines v. Heracleo Abello y Fortada, G.R. No. 151952,
March 25, 2009.

55. Malto v. People, supra note 48.

56. Olivares v. Court of Appeals, supra note 48.
57. People of the Philippines v. Catalino Mingming y Discalso, G.R. No. 174195,
December 10, 2008; Baleros, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 138033, February 22,
2006, 483 SCRA 10, 27.
58. People of the Philippines v. Catalino Mingming y Discalso, supra note 57;
People v. Lizada, G.R. Nos. 143468-71, January 24, 2003, 396 SCRA 62, 94.
59. Baleros, Jr. v. People, supra note 57, at 27.
60. Baleros, Jr. v. People, id. at 27-28; People v. Lizada, supra note 58, at 94.
61. People v. Lizada, Jr., G.R. No. 128587, March 16, 2007, 518 SCRA 393, 403;
People v. Sandiganbayan, 426 Phil. 453 (2002).
62. Maderazo v. People, G.R. No. 165065, September 26, 2006, 503 SCRA 234,
247; Baleros, Jr. v. People, supra note 57, at 30.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com