P. v. Ladra, G.R. No.

221443, 17 July 2017

Facts: AAA was born on Sept 3, 1995. She was the eldest among 5 siblings. She lived with her
family in a remote are in Dumarait, Balingasag, Misamis Oriental. Ladra was a relative of BBB,
AAA’s mother, who allowed him to stay with their family out of pity. He ran errands for them and
attended to the children when BBB was busy washing clothes and her husband, CCC, was tending
to their farm.
It was between 2000 and 2001 when the incident happened. AAA was 5 years old. she and her
siblings were left at home with Ladra. After their meal, he ordered them to sleep. Suddenly, AAA
was awakened when she felt accused-appellant, who was already naked, on top of her, 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, each time bringing
his bolo with him until 2002 when he left their house.
In 2008, AAA was already 12 years old. She was surprised when she saw Ladra in their kitchen.
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 told DDD about the the incidents committed
by Ladra. AAA told BBB about her traumatic experiences when she was 5 years old. They reported
the incident to the barangay and thereafter, had the incident recorded in the police blotter. Later,
AAA filed criminal cases against Ladra who was subsequently arrested.
It was found in the physical examination that AAA that there was a presence of old healed
lacerations in her genitalia.
Ladra was charged Sec 5(b) of RA 7610 for his acts on AAA was 5yo and Acts of Lasciviousness
for his acts on AAA when she was 12yo.
RTC convicted Ladra with Rape and Unjust Vexation. CA affirmed the decision.

Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in affirming accused-appellant’s conviction for Rape and
Unjust Vexation

Held: No.
"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. It is not impossible or incredible for the
members of the victim's family to be in deep slumber and not to be awakened while a sexual assault
is being committed. It is settled that lust is not a respecter of time or place and rape is known to
happen in the most unlikely places."
For the unjust vexation, the Court finds that he should instead be convicted of Acts of
Lasciviousness, as charged in the information, in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610. The
requisites of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness as penalized under Article 336 of the RPC above-
enumerated must be met in addition to the requisites for sexual abuse under Section 5 (b) of RA
7610, 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) that the child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.
A judicious examination of the records reveals that all the elements of the crime of Acts of
Lasciviousness under the RPC and lascivious conduct under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 have been
sufficiently established.
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. It must not be forgotten
that several years prior, accused-appellant had raped AAA in the same house, for which act he was
appropriately convicted. Indeed, the law indicates that the mere touching - more so, "squeezing,"
in this case, which strongly suggests that the act was intentional - of AAA's genitalia clearly
constitutes lascivious conduct. It could not have been done merely to annoy or vex her.

Escalante v. P., G.R. No. 218970, 28 July 2017

Facts: On Dec 24, 2006, AAA, then 12yo, accompanied his classmate Mark in going home. On
his way back from Mark's house, AAA was called by Escalante and was pulled into a comfort
room at the Divine School in Parada, Valenzuela City. Escalante pulled down AAA's shorts and
sucked the latter's penis for about 10 minutes. Shortly thereafter, he forcibly inserted AAA's penis
into his anus.
4 days after the incident, AAA complained to his mother that he was experiencing pain in his penis
and had difficulty in urinating. He was brought to Fatima Medical Center and was found that he
was afflicted with gonorrhea and UTI.
Escalante’s alibi was that he was in Salada’s house, his neighbor, celebrating Christmas Eve. It
was impossible for him to be at school for he was tasked in passing around shots of liquor.
RTC found Escalante guilty of Sec 10(a) of RA 7610. CA affirmed the decision of RTC. Escalante
moved for reconsideration but it was denied by CA.

Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the decision of RTC

Held: No. Escalante was sufficiently and appropriately identified by AAA through a photograph.
The first rule in proper photographic identification procedure is that a series of photographs must
be shown, and not merely of that of the suspect. The second rule directs that when a witness is
shown a group of pictures, their arrangement and display should in no way suggest which one of
the pictures pertains to the suspect.
In People v. Ramos, for an alibi to prosper, the accused must prove (a) that she was present at
another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and (b) that it was physically impossible
for her to be at the scene of the crime during its commission. Escalante admitted that Salada's
house was merely a 30-minute ride away from the scene of the crime. It was very possible for him
to be at the place at that time. Further, AAA positively identified Escalante. Alibis and denials are
worthless in light of positive identification by witnesses who have no motive to falsely testify.
In People v. Larin, the Court stated that the elements of sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of R.A.
No. 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. First, in forcibly
sucking AAA's penis and thereafter inserting it in his anus, Escalante, without question exposed
AAA to lascivious conduct. Second, AAA is a child subjected to other sexual abuse. AAA was
only 12yo while Escalante was 20yo at the time of the commission of the crime.

Quimvel v. P., G.R. No. 214497, 18 April 2017

Facts: AAA, 7yo, is the oldest among the children of XXX and YYY. XXX worked as a household
helper in Batangas while YYY was a Barangay Tanod who derived income from selling
vegetables. AAA and her siblings, BBB and CCC, were then staying with YYY in Palapas, Ligao
City. Quimvel was the caretaker of the ducks of AAA’s grandfather.
On July 18, 2007, around 8pm, YYY went out of the house to buy kerosene since there was no
electricity. While YYY was away, Quimvel arrived bringing a vegetable viand from AAA's
grandfather. AAA requested Quimvel to stay with them as she and her siblings were afraid. He
agreed and accompanied them. AAA and her siblings then went to sleep. However, she was
awakened when she felt Quimuel's right leg on top of her body. She sensed Quimvel inserting his
right hand inside her panty. She felt Quimvel caressing her private part. She removed his hand.
After a few days, XXX arrived from Batangas. BBB told her about the incident between Quimvel
and AAA.
RTC found Quimvel guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness in
Sec 5(b) RA 7610. CA affirmed the decision of RTC.

Issues:
I. The CA erred in affirming the decision of the trial court as the prosecution was not able to prove
that he is guilty of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt.
II. Assuming without admitting that he is guilty hereof, he may be convicted only of acts of
lasciviousness under Art. 336 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and not in relation to Sec. 5(b) of
RA 7610.

Held:
The elements of Acts of Lasciviousness in Art 336 of the RPC are as follows: 1. That the offender
commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; 2. That it is done under any of the following
circumstances: a) Through force, threat, or intimidation; b) When the offended party is deprived
of reason or otherwise unconscious; c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of
authority; d) When the offended party is under twelve 12 years of age or is demented, even though
none of the circumstances mentioned above be present; and 3. That the offended party is another
person of either sex.
The elements of Acts of Lasciviousness in Sec5(b) 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. That child, whether male
or female, is below 18 years of age.
If Art. 336 then ceased to be a penal provision in view of its alleged incompleteness, then so too
would Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610 be ineffective since it defines and punishes the prohibited act by way
of reference to the RPC provision.
That AAA is a child of tender years does not detract from the weight and credibility of her
testimony. On the contrary, even more credence is given to witnesses who were able to candidly
relay their testimony before the trial courts under such circumstance. The child's willingness to
undergo, the trouble and humiliation of a public trial is an eloquent testament to the truth of her
complaint.