BBB255466 vs. People of the Philippines

Conviction under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 requires proof of psychological violence as the means employed by the perpetrator and the mental or emotional suffering sustained by the offended party; the victim's testimony alone is sufficient to establish emotional anguish, as such experiences are personal to the victim. For Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610, when the victim is under twelve years of age, the moral ascendancy of a parent over a child substitutes for violence or intimidation, and the child's inability to give rational consent is tantamount to coercion.

Petitioner BBB255466 and CCC were common-law partners since 2003 and had a child, AAA, born on January 12, 2005. The prosecution charged petitioner with two separate offenses: psychological violence under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 for acts committed against CCC from 2010 until June 2012, and violation of Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 for sexual abuse committed against AAA in March 2012. Republic Act No. 9262 defines and penalizes violence against women and children, while Republic Act No. 7610 provides special protection for children against sexual abuse, with Section 5(b) specifically addressing child prostitution and other sexual abuse and prescribing prosecution under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code when the victim is under twelve years of age.

Petitioner BBB255466 and CCC became common-law partners in 2003 and had a child, AAA, born on January 12, 2005. From the outset of their relationship, CCC suffered constant verbal and physical abuse from petitioner. He would slap her, chase her with a bolo, threaten to chop her body into pieces, and at one point attempted to throw a 50-kilogram liquefied petroleum gas tank at her. Petitioner was also unemployed and frequently intoxicated. Because of the abuse, CCC left petitioner and went to xxxxxxxxxxx, Benguet to work, initially leaving AAA in petitioner's care.

In 2010, petitioner and AAA followed CCC to xxxxxxxxxxx, Benguet, where the parties agreed on AAA's custody arrangements. However, whenever AAA was in CCC's custody, petitioner would frequently cause trouble at her boarding house — forcibly opening the door, uttering abusive words, and making scenes that embarrassed CCC in front of others. He would also demand money from CCC and attempt to persuade her to reconcile, resorting to threats when she refused. Petitioner's harassment escalated to the point where CCC and AAA had to escape through a window of the boarding house to seek police assistance. On June 11, 2012, CCC reported to Police Officer II Dexter Gosgos that petitioner was "creating trouble" at her boarding house, leading to petitioner's invitation to the police station for investigation.

During this period, AAA disclosed to CCC that petitioner had been sexually abusing her. AAA recounted that in March 2012, while staying with petitioner at her uncle's house in xxxxxxxxxxx, Benguet, petitioner touched her vagina while she was in bed at night, reaching under her clothes. He would also pull her hand and place it on his penis. On one occasion, petitioner slapped AAA when she refused to reveal where CCC was staying. On June 12, 2012, Dr. Michelle Payagen conducted a physical examination of AAA and observed swelling on her right cheek, which could have been secondary to injury or caused by blunt force trauma. Despite the opportunity, petitioner failed to secure the services of a lawyer and present his own evidence during trial.

The RTC found petitioner guilty of both charges, crediting CCC's testimony regarding the physical and verbal abuse and AAA's testimony regarding the sexual abuse. The CA affirmed with modifications, observing that AAA narrated in a straightforward, candid, and spontaneous manner how petitioner touched her vagina and made her hold his penis against her will, and that CCC suffered mental and emotional anguish through petitioner's repeated physical, verbal, and emotional abuse.

• Insufficiency of Proof of Anguish: Petitioner contended that the prosecution failed to demonstrate the anguish he allegedly caused to CCC, arguing that nowhere in CCC's testimony did she state the details of how she suffered mentally or emotionally, and that absent specific testimony to this effect, all elements of psychological violence were not established.
• Failure to Prove Elements of Section 5(b) RA 7610: Petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to prove all elements of violation of Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610, specifically that the law requires (1) AAA was either exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse, and (2) she is a child as defined under Republic Act No. 7610.
• Contest of Victim's Age: Petitioner contested the age of AAA at the time of the commission of the crime, attempting to escape conviction by challenging whether AAA was under twelve years old.

• Mere Rehash: The Office of the Solicitor General asserted that the grounds relied upon in the petition were a mere rehash of matters previously raised and considered by the CA, which had already carefully considered and found them without merit.
• Factual Findings Finality: Respondent maintained that the factual findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, were supported by substantial evidence and entitled to respect and finality, and that questions of fact could not be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

• Psychological Violence under Section 5(i) RA 9262: Whether the CA erred in affirming petitioner's conviction for psychological violence under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 committed against his common-law partner, CCC.
• Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 RPC in relation to Section 5(b) RA 7610: Whether the CA erred in affirming petitioner's conviction for violation of Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 committed against his daughter, AAA.
• Propriety of Petition: Whether the petition raised only questions of law proper for review under Rule 45, or whether it improperly sought review of factual findings already determined by the lower courts.

• Psychological Violence under Section 5(i) RA 9262: No, the CA did not err. All elements of violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 were present, as CCC's testimony sufficiently established petitioner's repeated physical and verbal abuse and the resulting mental and emotional anguish.
• Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 RPC in relation to Section 5(b) RA 7610: No, the CA did not err. All elements of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 were proven, as AAA was seven years old at the time, petitioner committed lascivious conduct, and his moral ascendancy as AAA's father substituted for intimidation.
• Propriety of Petition: No. The petition raised questions of fact, which are beyond the province of a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, and the arguments were a mere rehash of matters already considered by the CA.

• Psychological Violence under Section 5(i) RA 9262: The elements of violation of Section 5(i) are: (1) the offended party is a woman and/or her child; (2) the woman is the wife, former wife, or a woman with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child; (3) the offender causes mental or emotional anguish; and (4) the anguish is caused through acts such as repeated verbal and emotional abuse, denial of financial support, or similar acts. The first and second elements were satisfied because CCC was petitioner's common-law partner and they had a common child. As to the third and fourth elements, CCC's testimony provided material details of petitioner's words, actions, and patterns of behavior — including threats to chop her body, chasing her with a bolo, attempting to throw an LPG tank, forcibly entering her boarding house, and constant verbal abuse — all designed to inflict mental or emotional suffering. The law does not require proof that the victim becomes psychologically ill; it only requires emotional anguish and mental suffering, which jurisprudence establishes can be proven by the victim's testimony alone, as such experiences are personal to the victim. Petitioner's repeated abuse created a cycle of fear that perpetuated control and emotional harm; his actions were not isolated incidents but part of a deliberate pattern aimed at instilling fear, demonstrating willful disregard for CCC's well-being. The determination of whether mental anguish was proven is a question of fact beyond the province of a Rule 45 petition, and the RTC's factual findings, as affirmed by the CA, are accorded respect and finality.

• Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 RPC in relation to Section 5(b) RA 7610: The requisites for conviction under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 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 18 years of age. Additionally, the elements of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code must be satisfied: (1) the offender commits any act of lasciviousness; (2) it is done under circumstances including grave abuse of authority or when the offended party is under 12 years of age; and (3) the offended party is another person of either sex. "Lascivious conduct" under the IRR of RA 7610 includes the intentional touching of the genitalia or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, with intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade. AAA's Certificate of Live Birth established she was born on January 12, 2005, making her seven years old in March 2012; the birth certificate is the best evidence of age and prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. AAA testified in a straightforward manner that petitioner touched her vagina under her clothes and pulled her hand to place it on his penis. The phrase "other sexual abuse" covers not only a child abused for profit but also one engaged in lascivious conduct through coercion or intimidation by an adult. A child is generally unable to give rational consent to any lascivious act, and such inability is tantamount to coercion. As AAA's biological father, petitioner exercised moral ascendancy and influence over her, which takes the place of violence or intimidation. All elements were therefore proven.

• Propriety of Petition: Only questions of law should be raised in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45, as the Court is not a trier of facts. Questions of fact include the review of the truthfulness or falsity of the parties' allegations or the correctness of the lower court's appreciation of evidence. Factual findings of lower courts are deemed final, binding, and conclusive when supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner's arguments were a mere rehash of matters already considered and found without merit by the CA, and petitioner failed to show that the case fell under any exception warranting review of factual findings.

• Elements of Psychological Violence under Section 5(i) of RA 9262 — The elements are: (1) the offended party is a woman and/or her child or children; (2) the woman is the wife, former wife, or a woman with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child; (3) the offender causes mental or emotional anguish; and (4) the anguish is caused through acts of public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, denial of financial support or custody, or similar acts or omissions. Conviction requires proof of psychological violence as the means employed and mental or emotional suffering as the effect. The law does not require proof that the victim becomes psychologically ill; only emotional anguish and mental suffering must be proven, and the victim's testimony is sufficient as such experiences are personal to the victim.

• Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of RA 7610 (victim under 12) — When the victim is under twelve years of age, the perpetrator shall be prosecuted under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code for lascivious conduct, with the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period. The requisites under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 (act of lascivious conduct, child subjected to other sexual abuse, child below 18) must be established together with the elements of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336. Moral ascendancy of a parent over a child substitutes for violence or intimidation, and a child's inability to give rational consent is tantamount to coercion.

• Finality of Factual Findings on Appeal — Factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA, are accorded respect and even finality. The credibility of witnesses is best assessed by the trial court, which has the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor, attitude, and candor of witnesses. Such findings will not be disturbed on appeal absent any clear showing that the court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied facts or circumstances.

• Specific Criminal Intent under Section 5(i) of RA 9262 (from Concurring Opinion) — Conviction under Section 5(i) requires proof that the accused willfully or intentionally caused mental or emotional anguish. The crime is mala in se, meaning the accused's actions were chosen specifically to cause mental or emotional anguish. It is not enough for the woman to experience anguish; it must be proven that the accused consciously committed the acts for the purpose of inflicting mental and emotional anguish.

• "The law does not require proof that the victim becomes psychologically ill due to the psychological violence done by her abuser. Rather, the law only requires emotional anguish and mental suffering to be proven. To establish emotional anguish or mental suffering, jurisprudence only requires that the testimony of the victim to be presented in court, as such experiences are personal to this party." — This passage articulates the evidentiary standard for proving mental or emotional anguish under Section 5(i) of RA 9262, clarifying that the victim's testimony alone suffices and that clinical psychological illness need not be demonstrated.

• "[Psychological violence is the means employed by the perpetrator, while mental or emotional anguish is the effect caused to or the damage sustained by the offended party. To establish psychological violence as an element of the crime, it is necessary to show proof of commission of any of the acts enumerated in Section 5(i) or similar such acts. And to establish mental or emotional anguish, it is necessary to present the testimony of the victim as such experiences are personal to this party." — This quotation from Dinamling vs. People distinguishes the means (psychological violence) from the effect (mental or emotional anguish) and sets out the respective evidentiary requirements for each, serving as the canonical formulation frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence.

• "a child is generally unable to give rational consent to any lascivious act, and such inability is tantamount to coercion, intimidation or influence." — This passage, quoted from Fianza vs. People within the decision, establishes the principle that a minor's inability to give rational consent satisfies the coercion or intimidation element required under Section 5(b) of RA 7610, a principle central to cases of child sexual abuse.

• "moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence or intimidation." — This formulation captures the doctrine that when the perpetrator is a parent exercising moral authority over a child victim, that moral ascendancy legally substitutes for the violence or intimidation element required for Acts of Lasciviousness, removing the need for independent proof of force or threat.

• Dinamling vs. People, 761 Phil. 356 (2015) — Followed. Established the framework distinguishing psychological violence as the means employed from mental or emotional anguish as the effect, and set the elements of violation of Section 5(i) of RA 9262.
• Reyes vs. People, 855 Phil. 991 (2019) — Followed. Provided the indispensable requirements for conviction under Section 5(i) and the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law in determining the proper penalty.
• Araza vs. People, 882 Phil. 905 (2020) — Followed. Cited for the proposition that the law does not require proof of psychological illness, only emotional anguish and mental suffering, proven by the victim's testimony.
• People vs. Tulagan, 849 Phil. 197 (2019) — Followed. Applied to determine the proper penalty for Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of RA 7610, fixing reclusion temporal in its medium period as the penalty.
• Acharon vs. People, 913 Phil. 731 (2021) — Cited in the concurring opinion. Established that conviction under Section 5(i) requires proof that the accused willfully or intentionally caused mental or emotional anguish, and that the crime is mala in se.
• Dela Cruz vs. People, 903 Phil. 801 (2021) — Followed. Provided the requisites for conviction under Section 5(b) of RA 7610.
• Carbonell vs. People, 901 Phil. 501 (2021) — Followed. Cited for the elements of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code.
• People vs. Manuel, 892 Phil. 374 (2020) — Followed. Cited for the principle that intimidation must be viewed in light of the victim's perception, considering age, size, and strength of the parties.

• Section 5(i), Republic Act No. 9262 — Penalizes causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child, including repeated verbal and emotional abuse and denial of financial support or custody. Applied to convict petitioner for psychological violence against CCC through repeated physical and verbal abuse.
• Section 3(c), Republic Act No. 9262 — Defines "psychological violence" as acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering, including intimidation, harassment, stalking, repeated verbal abuse, and mental infidelity. Applied to characterize petitioner's conduct as psychological violence.
• Section 6, Republic Act No. 9262 — Prescribes penalties for acts falling under Section 5(i) as prision mayor, with a fine of not less than PHP 100,000 but not more than PHP 300,000, and mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment. Applied to impose the penalty and fine.
• Section 5(b), Article III, Republic Act No. 7610 — Penalizes acts of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child subjected to other sexual abuse, providing that when the victim is under twelve years of age, the perpetrator shall be prosecuted under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code with the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period. Applied to convict petitioner for Acts of Lasciviousness against AAA.
• Article 336, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes Acts of Lasciviousness, requiring that the offender commit any act of lasciviousness under circumstances including force, threat, intimidation, grave abuse of authority, or when the offended party is under 12 years of age. Applied in conjunction with Section 5(b) of RA 7610.
• Section 2(h), IRR of Republic Act No. 7610 — Defines "lascivious conduct" as the intentional touching of genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus, or mouth, with intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify sexual desire. Applied to characterize petitioner's acts of touching AAA's vagina and making her hold his penis.
• Article XII, Section 31(f), Republic Act No. 7610 — Provides for a fine to be determined by the court, administered as a cash fund by the DSWD for rehabilitation of child victims. Applied to impose the PHP 15,000 fine.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied to determine the proper indeterminate penalties for both convictions, with the minimum taken from the penalty next lower in degree and the maximum from the penalty prescribed by law.

• Caguioa, J. — Wrote a separate concurring opinion emphasizing that Section 5(i) of RA 9262 describes a crime that is mala in se, requiring proof that the accused willfully or intentionally caused mental or emotional anguish. The concurrence stressed that it is not enough for the woman to experience anguish; it must be proven that the accused consciously committed the acts for the purpose of inflicting mental and emotional anguish. The concurrence noted that the acts alleged (physical and verbal abuse) could also fall under Sections 5(a) and 5(b) of RA 9262, but petitioner was charged under Section 5(i), which specifically requires intent to cause mental or emotional anguish. The concurrence found that the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt petitioner's intent under Section 5(i) through CCC's testimony showing a cycle of violence creating a perpetual state of fear.
• Gaerlan, J. — Concurred.
• Dimaampao, J. — Concurred.