Amployo vs. People

When the victim of lascivious conduct is under twelve years of age, conviction under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610 requires proof of the elements of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in addition to the elements of sexual abuse under Section 5 of R.A. No. 7610, and where the lascivious conduct is committed against a child through coercion or intimidation, the perpetrator is liable for child abuse even absent proof of profit or prostitution.

Petitioner Alvin Amployo and the victim, Kristine Joy Mosquera, were neighbors in Barangay Calapandayan, Municipality of Subic, Zambales. Kristine Joy was eight years old at the time of the incident, having celebrated her birthday the day before. The prosecution was initiated under Republic Act No. 7610, the "Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act," which defines and penalizes sexual abuse of children in Section 5, Article III, prescribing the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua.

Kristine Joy Mosquera was eight years old on 27 June 1997, having celebrated her birthday the day before. She was a Grade III student walking to school at around seven o'clock in the morning when petitioner Alvin Amployo, her neighbor, emerged from hiding near a store along the route. Petitioner approached her, touched her head, placed his hand on her shoulder, and then moved it down to touch her breast several times. He thereafter told her not to report the incident to anyone.

This was not an isolated occurrence. Petitioner had done the same thing several times in the past, even when Kristine Joy was still in Grade II. According to Kristine Joy, petitioner would sometimes insert his hand under her shirt to caress her breast. It was only after the last incident that Kristine Joy finally told her grandmother, who immediately spoke to the child's mother, Gnelida Mosquera. Mother and child then reported the matter to the barangay, which referred the case to the DSWD and then to the Police Department of Subic, Zambales.

On 7 November 1997, Kristine Joy was examined by DSWD psychologist Lucrecia Cruz, who reported that the child was a victim of sexual abuse and was exhibiting unusual behavior, including feelings of insecurity, anger, anxiety, depression, guilt, fear of going to school, and low self-esteem. The psychologist's report documented Kristine Joy's statements that she felt dirty and ashamed, and that she wanted petitioner jailed. Petitioner, for his part, waived his right to present evidence after his demurrer to evidence was denied by the trial court. The trial court found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt, crediting Kristine Joy's testimony, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, modifying only the penalty upon reconsideration.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Lewd Design: Petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC, particularly the element of lewd design. He contended that the alleged act occurred at around seven o'clock in the morning on a street near the school where people abound, such that his hand merely slipped and accidentally touched the victim's breast. He further argued that lewd design could not have motivated him because the breast of an eight-year-old is still undeveloped, and that even assuming intentional touching, it was merely to satisfy a "silly whim."

• Proper Offense — RPC vs. R.A. No. 7610: Petitioner contended that even assuming the acts imputed to him amounted to lascivious conduct, the resultant crime is only acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC and not child abuse under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610, as the elements of sexual abuse under the latter provision had not been proved.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Lewd Design: Whether the factual milieu negates the presence of lewd design, and whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC.
• Proper Classification of the Offense: Whether the alleged act of petitioner constitutes acts of lasciviousness penalized under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, or only acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Lewd Design: Yes. Lewd design was proved beyond reasonable doubt, the repeated nature of the acts, the touching under the victim's shirt, and the petitioner's threats to keep her silence all negating any claim of accident or innocent motive.

• Proper Classification of the Offense: Yes. The conduct constituted child abuse through lascivious conduct under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, as the elements of sexual abuse under that provision were satisfied in addition to the elements of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Lewd Design: Lewd design is necessarily a mental process whose existence is inferred from overt acts and the environmental circumstances. The Court found that petitioner's claim of accident was untenable: the same act had been done to the same victim on multiple prior occasions; petitioner's hand did not merely slip from the shoulder but was sometimes inserted under the victim's shirt; and petitioner threatened the victim into silence. The argument that an eight-year-old's undeveloped breast could not incite lewd design was rejected, the Court noting that sexual misconduct defies categorization and what may be unusual for most may be the norm for some. The proposition that petitioner was satisfying a "silly whim" was dismissed as atrocious, given that terrifying an eight-year-old girl, invading her privacy, and intimidating her into silence can never be characterized as such. The factual findings of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, were binding on the Supreme Court, and Kristine Joy's testimony was found worthy of full faith and credence, there being no motive for her to fabricate the charge.

• Proper Classification of the Offense: Before an accused can be convicted of child abuse through lascivious conduct on a minor below twelve years of age, the requisites for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC must be met in addition to the requisites for sexual abuse under Section 5 of R.A. No. 7610. The elements of sexual abuse under Section 5 are: (1) the accused commits the 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 eighteen years of age. The first element was satisfied because the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 7610 define lascivious conduct to include the intentional touching of the breast with intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify sexual desire. The second element was satisfied because, as held in People vs. Larin, Section 5 covers not only abuse for profit but also lascivious conduct committed through coercion or intimidation, which need not be irresistible but only sufficient to annul or subdue the free exercise of the victim's will — especially true for young, innocent girls. The third element was undisputed, as Kristine Joy was eight years old. The Court therefore sustained the conviction under R.A. No. 7610 rather than solely under the RPC.

• Elements of Child Abuse through Lascivious Conduct under R.A. No. 7610 (Victim Below 12) — When the victim of lascivious conduct is under twelve years of age, conviction under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610 requires proof of the elements of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC (offender commits an act of lasciviousness; it is done under circumstances such as force, intimidation, or the victim being under 12; the offended party is another person) in addition to the elements of sexual abuse under Section 5 of R.A. No. 7610 (accused commits lascivious conduct; the act is performed with a child subjected to other sexual abuse; the child is below 18). The Court applied this framework to hold that the repeated touching of the victim's breast, sometimes under her shirt, accompanied by threats, satisfied both sets of elements.

• Lewd Design Inferred from Circumstances — Lewd design is a mental process whose existence is inferred from the nature of the acts themselves and the environmental circumstances. It cannot be pigeonholed into a precise definition and must be determined case by case. The Court found lewd design present from the repeated nature of the acts, the touching under the shirt, and the threats to keep silent.

• Sexual Abuse Under R.A. No. 7610 Not Limited to Abuse for Profit — Section 5 of R.A. No. 7610 covers not only situations where a child is abused for money or profit but also where a child engages in lascivious conduct through coercion or intimidation by an adult. Intimidation need not be irresistible; it is sufficient that compulsion equivalent to intimidation annuls or subdues the free exercise of the victim's will, especially for young and immature girls.

• Moral Damages in Lascivious Conduct Cases Without Need of Proof — Moral damages may be awarded to victims of acts of lasciviousness without need of pleading or proof, on the same rationale as in rape cases, because the trauma of mental, physical, and psychological suffering is too obvious to require recital at trial. The Court awarded P20,000 in moral damages.

• Fine as Additional Penalty Under R.A. No. 7610 — Section 31(f), Article XII (Common Penal Provisions) of R.A. No. 7610 allows the imposition of a fine at the court's discretion, to be administered as a cash fund by the DSWD and disbursed for the rehabilitation of each child victim, consistent with Article 39 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Court imposed a fine of P15,000.

• "Thus, pursuant to the foregoing provision, before an accused can be convicted of child abuse through lascivious conduct on a minor below 12 years of age, the requisites for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC must be met in addition to the requisites for sexual abuse under Section 5 of Rep. Act No. 7610." — This passage states the controlling dual-elements framework for convicting an accused of child abuse through lascivious conduct when the victim is below twelve, synthesizing the interplay between the RPC and R.A. No. 7610.

• "Section 5 of Rep. Act No. 7610 does not merely cover a situation of a child being abused for profit, but also one in which a child engages in any lascivious conduct through coercion or intimidation." — This formulation, drawn from People vs. Larin, establishes that sexual abuse under R.A. No. 7610 extends to coercive or intimidatory lascivious conduct even without proof of prostitution or profit, a critical expansion of the statute's coverage.

• "It is sufficient that some compulsion equivalent to intimidation annuls or subdues the free exercise of the will of the offended party. This is especially true in the case of young, innocent and immature girls who could not be expected to act with equanimity of disposition and with nerves of steel." — This passage defines the standard for intimidation in the context of child sexual abuse, lowering the threshold of what constitutes coercive compulsion when the victim is a young child.

• People vs. Larin, G.R. No. 128777, 07 October 1998, 297 SCRA 309 — Followed for the proposition that Section 5 of R.A. No. 7610 covers not only abuse for profit but also lascivious conduct through coercion or intimidation, and for the rule that a young decent girl would not fabricate a charge of sexual abuse.

• People vs. Abadies, G.R. Nos. 139346-50, 11 July 2002, 384 SCRA 442 — Followed as the source of the elements of sexual abuse under Section 5 of R.A. No. 7610 and as the basis for imposing a fine in addition to moral damages in lascivious conduct cases under R.A. No. 7610, pursuant to Section 31(f) of the Act.

• People vs. Solmoro, G.R. Nos. 139187-94 (140427-34), 27 November 2002, 393 SCRA 100 — Followed for the award of P30,000 in moral damages in acts of lasciviousness cases without need of proof, by analogy to rape cases.

• People vs. Prades, G.R. No. 127569, 30 July 1998, 293 SCRA 411 — Followed for the rationale that moral damages in sexual assault cases may be awarded without pleading or proof, because the victim's suffering is too obvious to require testimonial recital.

• People vs. Victor, G.R. No. 127904, 05 December 2002, 393 SCRA 472 — Followed for the rule that lewd design is inferred from the nature of the acts and environmental circumstances, and that intimidation need not be irresistible.

• U.S. vs. Gomez, G.R. No. 10341, 03 March 1915, 30 Phil. 22 — Cited as early authority acknowledging the difficulty of precisely defining lewd or lascivious conduct, which must be determined from the circumstances of each case.

• Section 5(b), Article III, Republic Act No. 7610 — Defines and penalizes child prostitution and other sexual abuse, prescribing reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua for those who commit lascivious conduct with a child subjected to other sexual abuse, with a proviso that when the victim is under twelve, the perpetrator shall be prosecuted under Article 336 of the RPC, with the penalty for lascivious conduct set at reclusion temporal in its medium period. Applied as the primary statutory basis for conviction.

• Article 336, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes acts of lasciviousness, requiring (1) an act of lasciviousness or lewdness, (2) committed under circumstances of force or intimidation, or the victim being deprived of reason or unconscious, or the victim being under 12 years of age, and (3) the offended party being another person of either sex. Applied in conjunction with R.A. No. 7610 to establish the elements of the offense.

• Section 32, Article XIII, Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 7610 — Defines "lascivious conduct" as the intentional touching, directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, with intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify sexual desire. Applied to classify petitioner's touching of the victim's breast as lascivious conduct.

• Section 31(f), Article XII, R.A. No. 7610 (Common Penal Provisions) — Allows the imposition of a fine at the court's discretion, to be administered as a cash fund by the DSWD and disbursed for the rehabilitation of each child victim. Applied as the statutory basis for the P15,000 fine.

• Article 2219, Civil Code — Provides that moral damages may be recovered in cases of seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts. Applied as the basis for the P20,000 moral damages award.

Reynato S. Puno (Chairman), Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., and Dante O. Tinga.