People vs. Ladra

The act of squeezing a child's genitalia constitutes lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 in relation to Article 336 of the RPC, not mere unjust vexation, because the intentional touching of genitalia — more so squeezing, which strongly suggests intent — falls within the statutory definition of lascivious conduct as conduct with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify sexual desire, and the fact that the victim was clothed is inconsequential.

Private complainant AAA, born September 3, 1995, was the eldest of five siblings residing with her family in a remote area in Dumarait, Balingasag, Misamis Oriental. Accused-appellant Dominador Ladra was a relative of AAA's mother, BBB, who allowed him to stay with the family out of pity; he ran errands and attended to the children when BBB was washing clothes and her husband, CCC, was tending to their farm.

Private complainant AAA, born on September 3, 1995, was the eldest of five siblings living with her family in a remote area in Dumarait, Balingasag, Misamis Oriental. Accused-appellant Dominador Ladra was a relative of AAA's mother, BBB, who had allowed him to stay with the family out of pity. He ran errands and attended to the children when BBB was busy washing clothes and her husband, CCC, was tending to their farm.

Sometime between 2000 and 2001, when AAA was around five years old, she and her siblings were left at home with accused-appellant. After their meal, accused-appellant ordered them to sleep. AAA was awakened when she felt accused-appellant, already naked, on top of her; he forced his penis into her vagina and made push-and-pull movements, causing her pain. Accused-appellant threatened to kill her if she told anyone. Thereafter, he repeatedly molested her — more than ten times — each time bringing his bolo with him. The sexual abuse ceased in 2002, when accused-appellant left their house.

Years later, on the evening of April 16, 2008, AAA — then twelve years old — was surprised to see accused-appellant in their kitchen. Without warning, he squeezed her vagina and told her that they were going to visit his house. Scared, AAA cried and told her cousin, DDD, about the incident. She also disclosed the earlier rape incidents and the subsequent molestations. Eventually, AAA told BBB about her traumatic experiences, and together they reported the matter to the barangay and had the incident recorded in the police blotter. Criminal cases were thereafter filed against accused-appellant, who was subsequently arrested.

On April 19, 2008, Dr. Ma. Josefina Villanueva Taleon, Medical Officer III at the Northern Mindanao Medical Center, conducted a physical examination on AAA and found old healed lacerations in her genitalia at the 3, 8, and 10 o'clock positions. Accused-appellant was charged with violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610 for the 2000–2001 incidents and with Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC for the April 16, 2008 incident. When arraigned, he pleaded not guilty. In defense, he denied the charges and claimed that AAA's family was angry at him when he left their house, leaving no one to attend to their errands; he asserted he left because he could no longer understand what they were asking him to do.

The RTC found AAA's testimony straightforward, clear, categorical, and positive, and credited the medical findings of Dr. Taleon, which supported her account of defloration. As to the April 16, 2008 incident, the RTC found that accused-appellant "just squeezed" AAA's vagina but held that the prosecution failed to establish the element of lasciviousness or lewdness, since the act did not show intent to gratify sexual desires or demonstrate carnal lust — particularly because AAA still had her underwear on. The RTC accordingly convicted him of Unjust Vexation under Article 287 of the RPC. The CA affirmed these findings in toto.

• Impossibility of Commission: Accused-appellant argued that it was impossible for him to commit the rape because AAA's younger brother was sleeping beside her at the time of the alleged incident.
• Denial and Ill Motive: Accused-appellant denied all charges and claimed that AAA's family was angry at him when he left their house, leaving no one to attend to their errands, suggesting the charges were motivated by resentment rather than truth.

• Rape Conviction: Whether the CA erred in affirming accused-appellant's conviction for Rape despite his contention that the crime could not have been committed in the presence of AAA's sleeping younger brother.
• Unjust Vexation vs. Acts of Lasciviousness: Whether the act of squeezing AAA's vagina constitutes Unjust Vexation, as found by the courts a quo, or Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of RA 7610.

• Rape Conviction: No. The CA committed no error in affirming the rape conviction; the presence of another person in the room does not negate the commission of rape, and AAA's credible testimony, corroborated by medical findings, sufficiently established the offense.
• Unjust Vexation vs. Acts of Lasciviousness: Modified. The act of squeezing a 12-year-old child's vagina constitutes Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of RA 7610, not mere Unjust Vexation, as the intentional squeezing of genitalia falls within the statutory definition of lascivious conduct.

• Rape Conviction: The Court accorded great weight and respect to the RTC's factual findings on witness credibility, as affirmed by the CA, applying the established rule that such findings bind the appellate court absent any overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted fact of weight and influence. The RTC, having had the opportunity to personally scrutinize AAA's conduct and demeanor during trial, found her testimony straightforward, clear, categorical, and positive — an evaluation the CA sustained and which now binds the Court. Accused-appellant failed to discharge his burden of bringing forward facts or circumstances of weight that were overlooked or misinterpreted. His argument that the rape could not have been committed because AAA's younger brother was sleeping beside her was rejected, the Court reiterating the settled doctrine that rape can be committed even inside a house where there are other occupants and even in the same room where other family members are sleeping, as lust is not a respecter of time or place. The medical findings of Dr. Taleon — healed lacerations at the 3, 8, and 10 o'clock positions — corroborated AAA's account of defloration. The conviction for Rape under Article 266-A of the RPC was sustained, with damages increased conformably with prevailing jurisprudence to P75,000.00 each for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages.

• Unjust Vexation vs. Acts of Lasciviousness: The Court disagreed with the lower courts' finding that the act of squeezing AAA's vagina constituted only Unjust Vexation. The elements of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC — (a) the offender commits an act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (b) it is done under circumstances such as force, threat, or intimidation, or when the offended party is under twelve years of age or is demented; and (c) the offended party is another person of either sex — were all satisfied. In addition, the requisites for sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 were met: (1) the accused commits the act of lascivious conduct; (2) the act is performed with a child subjected to other sexual abuse; and (3) the child is below 18 years of age. AAA was 12 years old at the time, as established by her Certificate of Live Birth, and accused-appellant, an adult who exercised influence over her, committed the lascivious act by squeezing her vagina. The Court relied on the statutory definition of "lascivious conduct" as the intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia with intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify sexual desire. Drawing on Amployo vs. People, the Court noted that lewd design is a mental process inferred from overt acts and environmental circumstances. The mere fact of squeezing the private part of a 12-year-old girl could not have signified any other intention but one of lewd or indecent design, particularly given that accused-appellant had raped AAA in the same house years prior. That AAA was clothed was inconsequential, as the law punishes the intentional touching of genitalia regardless of clothing. The lower courts' conclusion that the act was done merely to annoy or vex was thus erroneous. The prescribed penalty under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 is reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua; absent mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the maximum term was taken from the medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum was taken from the penalty next lower in degree, yielding an indeterminate penalty of 10 years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 17 years, four months, and one day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.

• Credibility of Trial Court's Findings — Factual findings of the trial court, especially on the credibility of witnesses, are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal, except where a fact or circumstance of weight and influence has been ignored or misconstrued, or where the trial court acted arbitrarily in its appreciation of the facts. The Court applied this doctrine by deferring to the RTC's evaluation of AAA's demeanor and testimony, as affirmed by the CA, finding no overlooked or misinterpreted fact that would warrant reversal.

• Rape Committed in the Presence of Others — Rape can be committed even in places where people congregate, inside a house where there are other occupants, and even in the same room where other family members are sleeping; lust is not a respecter of time or place. The Court applied this doctrine to reject accused-appellant's argument that the rape could not have occurred while AAA's younger brother slept beside her.

• Definition of Lascivious Conduct under RA 7610 — "Lascivious conduct" is defined as 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, with intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. The Court applied this definition to hold that squeezing a child's vagina constitutes lascivious conduct, the intentional nature of the act being strongly suggested by the act of squeezing itself.

• Elements of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC — The elements are: (a) the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (b) it is done under any of the following circumstances: (i) through force, threat, or intimidation, (ii) when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, (iii) by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority, or (iv) when the offended party is under twelve years of age or is demented; and (c) the offended party is another person of either sex. The Court found all elements present in the April 16, 2008 incident.

• Requisites for Sexual Abuse under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 — The requisites 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. The Court found all requisites satisfied, as AAA was 12 years old and accused-appellant, an adult exercising influence, committed lascivious conduct by squeezing her genitalia.

• "The mere fact of 'squeezing' the private part of a child - a young girl 12 years of age - could not have signified any other intention but one having lewd or indecent design." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi for upgrading the conviction from Unjust Vexation to Acts of Lasciviousness, establishing that the nature of the act itself — squeezing a child's genitalia — inherently demonstrates lewd design.

• "Rape can be committed even in places where people congregate, in parks, along the roadside, within school premises, inside a house where there are other occupants, and even in the same room where other members of the family are also sleeping." — This is the canonical formulation of the doctrine that the presence of others does not negate rape, frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence on sexual assault committed in shared spaces.

• "That an accused is entertaining a lewd or unchaste design is necessarily a mental process the existence of which can be inferred by overt acts carrying out such intention, i.e., by conduct that can only be interpreted as lewd or lascivious." — Quoted from Amployo vs. People, this passage defines how lewd design is established — through inference from the nature of the acts themselves and the environmental circumstances.

• People vs. Esperanza, 453 Phil. 54 (2003) — Cited for the doctrine that factual findings of the trial court on witness credibility are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal, subject to recognized exceptions.

• People vs. Lupac, 695 Phil. 505 (2012) — Cited for the principle that the trial judge's evaluation of witness credibility, when sustained by the CA, binds the Supreme Court, leaving to the accused the burden to show overlooked or misinterpreted facts of weight.

• People vs. Bangsoy, G.R. No. 204047, Jan. 13, 2016, 780 SCRA 564 — Cited for the doctrine that rape can be committed even in the presence of other occupants or family members in the same room.

• People vs. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, Apr. 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331 — Cited for the updated amounts of damages in rape convictions (P75,000.00 each for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages).

• Quimvel vs. People, G.R. No. 214497, Apr. 18, 2017 — Cited for the elements of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC and the requisites of sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of RA 7610, as well as the applicable penalties and damages.

• Amployo vs. People, 496 Phil. 747 (2005) — Cited for the definition of "lewd" as something indecent or obscene, characterized by or intended to excite crude sexual desire, and for the principle that lewd design is inferred from the nature of the acts and environmental circumstances.

• U.S. vs. Gomez, 30 Phil. 22 (1915) — Cited (through Amployo) for the early recognition that what constitutes lewd or lascivious conduct must be determined from the circumstances of each case.

• Cabila vs. People, 563 Phil. 1020 (2007) — Cited (through Quimvel) for the requisites of sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of RA 7610.

• PO3 Sombilon, Jr. vs. People, 617 Phil. 187 (2009) — Cited for the definition of "lewd" as obscene, lustful, indecent, and lecherous, signifying immorality related to moral impurity carried on in a wanton manner.

• Article 266-A, Revised Penal Code (as amended) — Defines and penalizes Rape. The Court applied this provision to affirm accused-appellant's conviction for statutory rape committed against AAA when she was five to six years old, the penalty being reclusion perpetua.

• Article 336, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes Acts of Lasciviousness with prision correccional. The Court applied this provision, in relation to Section 5(b) of RA 7610, to convict accused-appellant for the April 16, 2008 incident of squeezing AAA's vagina, finding all elements present.

• Article 287, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes Light Coercions and Unjust Vexation with arresto menor or a fine. The lower courts applied this provision, but the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the act constituted Acts of Lasciviousness, not mere unjust vexation.

• Section 5(b), Republic Act No. 7610 — 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 sexual abuse. The Court applied this provision to impose the indeterminate penalty of 10 years and one day of prision mayor to 17 years, four months, and one day of reclusion temporal, and to award damages of P20,000.00 civil indemnity, P15,000.00 moral damages, P15,000.00 exemplary damages, and P15,000.00 fine.

• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied to determine the minimum term of the indeterminate penalty from the penalty next lower in degree (prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods to reclusion temporal in its minimum period) and the maximum term from the medium period of the prescribed penalty (reclusion temporal).

Justice Leonardo-De Castro (Acting Chairperson) and Justice Caguioa concurred. Chief Justice Sereno was on leave; Justice Del Castillo was on official leave.