G.R. No.

240145, September 14, 2020

JAIME CAPUETA Y ATADAY, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

RESPONDENT.

DECISION

DELOS SANTOS, J.:

The Case

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing
the Decision2 dated January 30, 2018 and the Resolution3 dated April 23, 2018 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 39353. The CA affirmed the Decision4 dated
September 7, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of xxxxxxxx, Branch 254, which
found Jaime Capueta y Ataday (petitioner) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), in relation
to Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. (RA) 7610, also known as the Special Protection of
Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act.

The Facts

Petitioner was charged with violation of Section 10(a) of RA 7610 in an Information

which reads:

That on or about November 16, 2008, in the xxxxxxxx , Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit acts of child abuse on the
person of AAA, a 6-year old minor by touching her legs, arms and private organ,
demeaning and degrading her dignity as a child, and which act is prejudicial to her
emotional and psychological development against her will and to her damage and
prejudice.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 5

Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge. Whereupon, trial
ensued.

To prove its case, the prosecution presented as witnesses the victim, AAA; 6 the victim's
mother, BBB; and Barangay Tanod Arnel Cariaso (Tanod Cariaso). The testimony of the
Officer-on-Case, Police Officer II Rhona Mea Padojinog (PO2 Padojinog),7 was likewise
presented but her testimony was dispensed with after the prosecution and the defense
agreed to stipulate thereon. 8

The evidence of the prosecution showed that in the afternoon of November 16, 2008,
AAA and her brother were at the house owned by petitioner's sister. They were
playing bahay-bahayan with their friend "Len-len" at the foot of the stairs when
petitioner came down from the second floor. Upon reaching them at the stairway,
petitioner suddenly lifted AAA's skirt, touched her right thigh and vagina, and then left.
Horrified by what petitioner did to her, AAA ran home crying and reported the incident
to BBB.9

When BBB learned about what petitioner had done, she immediately confronted
petitioner but the latter denied doing anything wrong and instead uttered invectives at
her. Petitioner then threatened to punch BBB prompting the latter to bring her daughter
to the barangay hall and report to the authorities. 10

Upon receiving the report of AAA and BBB, Tanod Cariaso, together with his
fellow tanods, apprehended petitioner and brought him to the district hospital for
medical examination. Thereafter, the tanods accompanied AAA and BBB to the Women
and Children's Protection Desk of the xxxxxxxx Police Station where they executed their
sworn statements before PO1 Padojinog. Petitioner was then turned over to the police
authorities. 11

After presenting the testimonies of the witnesses, the prosecution formally offered the
following documentary evidence: (1) Sinumpaang Salaysay of AAA, stating that
petitioner had molested her; (2) Sinumpaang Salaysay of BBB, stating that she is the
mother of AAA and that upon learning what petitioner had done, she accompanied her
daughter to the barangay hall to report the incident; (3) Sinumpaang
Salaysay of Tanod Cariaso stating that he and his fellow tanods arrested petitioner after
receiving the report of AAA and BBB; (4) Birth Certificate of AAA showing her date of
birth as February 22, 2002; and (5) Investigation Report dated November 18, 2008
prepared by Officer-on-Case, PO1 Padojinog. 12

In his defense, petitioner denied the charge and testified that in the afternoon of
November 16, 2008, he was taking a nap on the second floor of their house. When he
had woken up, he wanted to buy some cigarettes. As he was going down the narrow
stairway, he tripped and fell to where AAA was standing causing him to accidentally hit
AAA. Petitioner then got up and apologized to AAA and then proceeded to the store to
buy cigarettes. When petitioner returned home, BBB suddenly began hitting him and
accused him of molesting her daughter. BBB thereafter lodged a complaint against him
at the barangay hall. BBB also demanded for him to pay the amount of P50,000.00 by
way of settlement, but when he refused, the case was filed against him. 13

The Ruling of the RTC

The RTC held that while petitioner was charged with violation of Section 10(a) of RA
7610, the facts established during the course of the trial showed that the crime actually
committed by petitioner is sexual abuse through lascivious conduct and found petitioner
to be instead guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5(b), Article III of
RA 7610.14 The RTC then rendered a Decision15 convicting petitioner, the dispositive
portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court hereby finds accused JAIME
CAPUETA y ATADAY GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5(b),
Article III of Republic Act No. 7610, and is hereby sentenced to TWELVE (12) YEARS,
TEN (10) MONTHS and TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS of reclusion temporal as minimum, to
FIFTEEN (15) YEARS, SIX (6) MONTHS and TWENTY (20) DAYS of reclusion temporal as
maximum; and to pay AAA, the amount of TWENTY THOUSAND (P20,000.00) PESOS as
civil indemnity; FIFTEEN THOUSAND (P15,000.00) PESOS as moral damages; and
FIFTEEN THOUSAND (P15,000.00) PESOS as fine, the amounts of which shall all bear
interest at the rate of six (6%) percent per annum from the date of finality of this
judgment until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.16

The RTC gave full faith and credence to the testimony of AAA, pointing out that despite
her tender age, she did not waiver in her accusation that petitioner molested her by
lifting up her skirt and touching her legs, thighs, and vagina. The RTC added that AAA's
act in immediately reporting the incident to BBB and to the authorities belied any doubt
on her credibility. 17

On the contrary, the RTC found petitioner's denial of the charge to be unconvincing for
being weak in the face of the positive testimony of AAA. The RTC further pointed out
that petitioner even admitted being at the scene of the crime at the exact time and
date of its commission. 18

The Ruling of the CA

The CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC that the prosecution had duly proven the
elements of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness, under the RPC, as well as lascivious
conduct under Section 5(b) of RA 7610. The CA held that the prosecution was able to
prove AAA's minority at the time of the incident and that petitioner exercised
intimidation over AAA and committed lascivious conduct against her by touching her
legs, arm, and vagina. 19

The CA upheld the credibility of AAA noting that she remained consistent in her account
of the horrid experience in the hands of petitioner and even maintained that petitioner's
act of touching her vagina was intentional.20 On the other hand, the CA rejected
petitioner's denial and lack of intent on the part of petitioner for his failure to present
clear and convincing evidence to support his claim. 21

The CA, however, modified the penalty imposed by the RTC noting the absence of
mitigating or aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime. The CA then
rendered the herein assailed Decision, 22 the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE the instant appeal is DENIED. The September 7, 2016 Decision of the
xxxxxxxx Regional Trial Court. Branch 254, (RTC) in the case docketed as Criminal
Case No. 08-0956 is hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION in that the accused-
appellant is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years
and one (1) day of reclusion temporal in its minimum period, as minimum, to
fifteen (15) years, six (6) months, and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal
in its medium period, as maximum.

All other aspects of the fallo of the assailed Decision STAND.

SO ORDERED.23
 The Issue

Whether the CA committed grave error in affirming the RTC's ruling that petitioner is
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Acts of Lasciviousness, in relation to Section 5(b) of
RA 7610.

Petitioner's Arguments

Petitioner contends that the prosecution failed to prove all the elements of Section 5(b)
of RA 7610. First, petitioner asserts that criminal intent on his part is wanting since the
records are bereft of any evidence showing that he had the intention of touching, either
directly or indirectly, the private parts of AAA. Petitioner likewise argues that the
Information filed against him did not allege the presence of the second element of
Section 5(b), i.e., that the act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or
subjected to other sexual abuse, and that neither was there an attempt on the part of
the prosecution to prove the same. Thus, his constitutional right to be informed of the
nature and cause of accusation against him was violated.

The Ruling of the Court

The Court finds no merit in the petition.

Section 5(b), Article III of RA 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:

xxxx

(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child
exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the
victims 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 when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age
shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period; and

xxxx

The elements of sexual abuse under Section 5, Article III of RA 7610 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; and

3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.24

Concomitantly, pursuant to Section 5(b) of RA 7610, when the victim is under 12 years
of age, the perpetrator shall be prosecuted under Article 336 of the RPC for lascivious
conduct, which requires the presence of the following elements for its commission: (a)
the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (b) the lascivious act is
done under any of the following circumstances: (i) by using force or intimidation; (ii)
when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or (iii) when
the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age; and (c) the offended party
is another person of either sex.25

All the elements of sexual abuse under Section 5 of RA 7610 and Acts of Lasciviousness
under the RPC have been proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt in the
present case.

First element. It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner committed
lascivious conduct against AAA. Lascivious conduct is defined in Section 2(h) of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 7610 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, 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 pubic area
of a person. 26

In this case, the trial court found AAA's testimony that petitioner molested her by lifting
up her skirt and touching her legs, thighs, and vagina to have been given in a clear,
candid, and categorical manner, worthy of faith and belief. Moreover, AAA positively
identified petitioner as her molester.

In Quimvel v. People,27 the Court ruled:

Well-settled is the rule that, absent any clear showing of abuse, arbitrariness or
capriciousness committed by the lower court, its findings of facts, especially when
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive upon this Court. This is so
because the observance of the deportment and demeanor of witnesses are within the
exclusive domain of the trial courts. Thus, considering their unique vantage point, trial
courts are in the best position to assess and evaluate the credibility and truthfulness of
witnesses and their testimonies. 28

Petitioner's defense that he had no criminal intent or lewd design necessarily fails in the
face of the competent and firm testimony of AAA that petitioner groped her private
parts with the intent of molesting and demeaning her. Moreover, petitioner's alibi that
he merely tripped and fell from the stairs causing him to accidentally hit AAA was not
only unsubstantiated, it was successfully belied by AAA. Even on cross examination,
AAA remained consistent in her testimony that petitioner did not fall or stumble from
the stairs but that petitioner in fact approached her, reached for her legs before he
lifted her skirt and touched her vagina. As the CA aptly ratiocinated, the fact that AAA
went home crying and terrified after what petitioner had done clearly demonstrated
that she was intimidated by petitioner and was subjected to an act so malicious and
appalling that she felt violated. The Court has repeatedly held that when the offended
parties are young and immature girls, as in this case, courts are inclined to lend
credence to their version of what transpired, considering not only their relative
vulnerability, but also the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed if
the matter about which they testified were not true. 29

Second element. The fact that petitioner performed the lewd acts with a child within the
purview of sexual abuse is established.

In Quimvel, the Court held that Section 5, paragraph (b) of RA 7610 which punishes
sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct committed on a child subjected to other sexual
abuse covers not only a situation where a child is abused for profit but also one in
which a child, through coercion, intimidation or influence, engages in sexual intercourse
or lascivious conduct. Hence, the law punishes not only child prostitution but also other
forms of sexual abuse against children. 30 As case law has it, intimidation need not
necessarily be irresistible.

In People v. Tulagan,31 the Court further explained:

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. Young girls cannot be expected to act like adults
under the same circumstances or to have the courage and intelligence to disregard the
threat.32

Moreover, the absence of force or intimidation is immaterial where the victim of the
acts of lasciviousness is below 12 years of age, 33 such as in this case.

Third element. AAA's minority was duly established by her birth certificate which shows
that she was only at the tender age of six (6) years old when the crime was committed.

Contrary to the contention of petitioner, the Information filed against him sufficiently
alleged the element that the lascivious act was committed against a child subjected to
sexual abuse. While the Information charged petitioner of violation of Section 10(a) of
RA 7610, his conviction of Section 5(b), Article III of the same Act did not violate
petitioner's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation
against him. The Court held in Tulagan:34

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,
for what controls is not the title of the information or the designation of the offense, but
the actual facts recited in the information. 35
In Escalante v. People,36 the Court further explained that:

It is doctrinal that it is not the title of the complaint or information which is controlling
but the recital of facts contained therein. The information must sufficiently allege the
acts or omissions complained of to inform a person of common understanding what
offense he is being charged with — in other words the elements of the crime must be
clearly stated. x x x. 37

In this case, the body of the Information charging petitioner contains an averment of
the acts committed which unmistakably describes acts punishable under Section 5(b),
Article III of RA 7610. The Information evidently recites the ultimate facts and
circumstances constituting the offense for which petitioner was found guilty of. The
Information, in fact, specifically alleges that petitioner committed acts of child abuse.
Hence, petitioner cannot be said to have not been apprised of the nature and cause of
accusation against him. The absence of the phrase "exploited in prostitution or subject
to other sexual abuse" or even the specific mention of "coercion" or "influence" is not a
bar for the Court to uphold the finding of guilt against an accused for violation of RA
7610.38

In fine, both the Information and the evidence on record spell out a case of child abuse
through lascivious conduct punishable under Section 5(b) of RA 7610. Perforce, the
Court finds no reason to reverse the CA's finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt
against petitioner.

Anent the proper penalty to be imposed, under Section 5 of RA 7610, the penalty for
lascivious conduct, when the victim is under 12 years of age, shall be reclusion
temporal in its medium period, which ranges from 14 years, eight (8) months and one
(1) day to 17 years and four (4) months. Accordingly, applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law,39 the maximum term of the indeterminate penalty shall be that which
could be properly imposed under the law, which is 15 years, six (6) months and 20
days of reclusion temporal. On the other hand, the minimum term shall be within the
range of the penalty next lower in degree, which is reclusion temporal in its minimum
period, or 12 years and one (1) day to 14 years and eight (8) months. 40 Thus, the CA
properly imposed the indeterminate penalty of 12 years and one (1) day of reclusion
temporal in its minimum period, as minimum, to 15 years, six (6) months, and 20 days
of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as maximum.

The Court, however, deems it prudent to revise the award of damages in order to
conform with recent jurisprudence. In Tulagan, the Court has declared that in cases of
Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC, in relation to Section 5(b) of RA
7610, the award of civil indemnity and moral damages should now be fixed in the
amount of P50,000.00 each, taking into account that the imposable penalties for the
said crimes are within the range of reclusion temporal. Moreover, in order to deter
deleterious and wanton acts of elders who abuse and corrupt the youth, exemplary
damages in the amount of P50,000.00 should likewise be awarded.

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. Accordingly, the
Decision dated January 30, 2018 and the Resolution dated April 23, 2018 of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 39353 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION on
the award of damages. Petitioner Jaime Capueta y Ataday is ORDERED to pay the
victim, AAA, the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral
damages, and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages. An interest at the legal rate of six
percent (6%) per annum is also imposed on the total judgment award computed from
the finality of this Decision until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.