The Supreme Court has denied the petition of a father, identified only as XXX, and affirmed his conviction for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610, for an act committed against his two-year-old daughter. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision with modification.
The Case
By Information dated June 21, 2022, XXX was charged with rape through sexual assault under Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 (the Anti-Rape Law of 1997). The Information alleged that the accused, the father of the victim, inserted a wooden stick ("kahoy") into the vagina of his daughter, two-year-old AAA, which resulted in redness of the victim's vagina. On arraignment, XXX pleaded not guilty, and trial ensued.
The prosecution presented AAA; BBB, the older sister of AAA; CCC, the older brother of AAA; Social Worker Sheralie Gaas; and Dr. Hannah M. Dapar. The defense presented XXX and Rolly Legada, XXX's neighbor.
According to the prosecution, on May 21, 2022, around 10:00 a.m., AAA was accidentally hit on the thigh with a piece of firewood while playing outside and went inside the house crying. XXX carried her upstairs to the bedroom and locked the door. Around 4:00 p.m., BBB arrived home and saw XXX come out of the bedroom. BBB and CCC noticed their father adjusting his short pants. AAA went out of the room crying and told BBB that XXX poked her vagina with "kahoy." Her genital area was observed to be reddish and swollen.
Social Worker Gaas learned that AAA used the term "kahoy" to refer to a man's private organ. Dr. Dapar, in her Medico-Legal Certificate No. 22-04, noted the presence of "mild erythema" or redness around the vaginal area, and explained there was suggestive blunt force or penetrating trauma that could be caused by sexual assault.
XXX denied the accusations, saying he was chopping firewood while his children played and did not see what happened. Legada testified that he saw the children playing with firewood when AAA fell and hit her buttocks, but he did not see what happened inside the house.
The Regional Trial Court found XXX guilty of acts of lasciviousness. On appeal, the Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated September 11, 2025, affirmed, finding that the elements of lascivious conduct and sexual abuse were proven.
The Issue
Whether the prosecution established the elements of lascivious conduct under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code and of sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610, warranting XXX's conviction.
The Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction with modification. The dispositive portion reads:
"ACCORDINGLY, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated September 11, 2025 and Resolution dated January 16, 2026 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. C.R. No. 02640-MIN are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION."
The Court found XXX guilty of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610. He was sentenced to 14 years and eight months of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to 17 years and four months of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and ordered to pay a fine of PHP 15,000.00. He was further ordered to pay AAA PHP 50,000.00 as civil indemnity, PHP 50,000.00 as moral damages, and PHP 50,000.00 as exemplary damages, with these monetary awards earning 6% interest per annum from finality of the Decision until fully paid.
By the Numbers
- Information dated June 21, 2022
- Incident on May 21, 2022, around 10:00 a.m. and around 4:00 p.m.
- Victim AAA was 2 years old; one of seven children of XXX
- Court of Appeals Decision dated September 11, 2025; Resolution dated January 16, 2026
- Penalty: 14 years and eight months of reclusion temporal (minimum) to 17 years and four months of reclusion temporal (maximum)
- Fine: PHP 15,000.00
- Civil indemnity: PHP 50,000.00; moral damages: PHP 50,000.00; exemplary damages: PHP 50,000.00
- Interest: 6% per annum from finality until fully paid
The Court's Reasoning
The Court explained that the penalty for lascivious conduct, when the victim is under 12 years of age, shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period. Since the crime was committed by AAA's father, the alternative circumstance of relationship must be appreciated. The Court noted that in crimes against chastity, such as acts of lasciviousness, relationship is always aggravating, consistent with Section 31(c) of Republic Act No. 7610, which provides that the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period when the perpetrator is the parent of the victim. With this aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstance to offset it, the penalty was applied in its maximum period.
The Court imposed a fine of PHP 15,000.00 against XXX pursuant to Section 31(f) of Republic Act No. 7610. As for damages, the Court applied People v. Tulagan, which ordained that in cases of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610, the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages should be fixed at PHP 50,000.00 each.
Source: Supreme Court Decision in G.R. No. E-05953.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.