The Supreme Court affirmed with modification the conviction of XXX280727 for statutory acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, after finding that she committed lewd acts on her 11-year-old paternal nephew. The Court found her GUILTY of statutory acts of lasciviousness, adjusted her prison term, and increased the civil indemnity awarded to the victim.
The Case
An information for acts of lasciviousness was filed against XXX280727, the paternal aunt of AAA280727, a minor who was 11 years old. The charge stemmed from an incident on or about September 7, 2018. According to the information, the accused, by means of persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion, called the child to her bed, removed his clothes, inserted a condom on his penis, touched it, inserted it in her vagina, and moved it up and down, causing fear and inappropriate malice upon the child.
On arraignment, XXX280727 pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented the private complainant AAA280727; his maternal uncle BBB280727; and psychiatrist Dr. Bernadette Manalo-Arcena. The testimonies tended to establish that on September 7, 2018, the then 11-year-old AAA280727 visited the house of his paternal relatives. He slept in his father's room but later transferred to the air-conditioned room of XXX280727, the half-sister of his father, who was 25 years old at the time.
AAA280727 narrated that XXX280727 woke him in the middle of the night, ordered him to remove his clothes, and lie down on her bed. She removed her clothes, put a condom on his penis, went on top of him, and inserted his penis inside her vagina for 10 minutes. Afterwards, she told him to put his clothes back on and not to tell anyone, or else she would lie that he was the one who raped her. He testified that he did not protest at first because he felt curious, but after the incident felt ashamed and contemplated committing suicide.
On February 16, 2019, BBB280727 confronted AAA280727 after a call from the child's mother who was working in Saudi Arabia, and AAA280727 told him what happened. On February 19, 2019, Dr. Manalo-Arcena conducted a psychological debriefing and supportive psychotherapy. AAA280727 exhibited symptoms of anxiety and depression, suffered flashbacks, nightmares, and suicidal thoughts, and was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
The defense presented XXX280727, her sister YYY280727, her mother ZZZ280727, and her brother and the complainant's father CCC280727. XXX280727 denied the accusations, saying she slept in a room with her other siblings. CCC280727 testified that the case was filed only to deprive him of custody of AAA280727, as he and his wife were separated and fighting for custody.
The Issue
The Court resolved a Petition for Review under Rule 45 assailing the Court of Appeals decision that affirmed XXX280727's conviction for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610.
The Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled: "WHEREFORE, the August 30, 2024 Decision and the April 29, 2025 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 47966 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner XXX280727 is found GUILTY of statutory acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code. She is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of nine years, four months, and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 16 years, five months and nine days of reclusion temporal, as maximum."
The Court also ordered her to pay AAA280727 civil indemnity of PHP 150,000.00; moral damages of PHP 50,000.00; exemplary damages of PHP 50,000.00; and costs of suit, with interest at 6% per annum from finality until fully paid.
By the Numbers
- Incident date: on or about September 7, 2018
- Victim's age: 11 years old; accused's age at the time: 25 years old
- Psychotherapy session date: February 19, 2019
- Court of Appeals Decision: August 30, 2024; Resolution: April 29, 2025
- Penalty: nine years, four months, and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 16 years, five months and nine days of reclusion temporal, as maximum
- Civil indemnity: PHP 150,000.00; moral damages: PHP 50,000.00; exemplary damages: PHP 50,000.00
- Interest: 6% per annum from finality of the Decision
The Court's Reasoning
The Court noted that a person's reaction to an incident that differs from what is deemed "standard" does not diminish the credibility of their claims. It stated that the petitioner used her age and moral ascendancy to coerce the then 11-year-old AAA280727 into satisfying her lewd intentions.
The decision observed that the sexual violence suffered by AAA280727 caused him intense shame and guilt and traumatized him enough that he contemplated ending his life, and that petitioner gaslit him into thinking that he consented to and enjoyed what was done to him. The Court noted that if the genders were swapped, what happened would have been considered rape, but as the law stands, the acts penalized are not within the limits of rape as provided by law. Citing People v. Quintos, the Court recognized that the damage to a victim's dignity is incalculable and that rape, in whatever manner, is a desecration of a person's will and body.
Source: Supreme Court Decision in G.R. No. 280727, penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.