People vs.

Baraga y Arcilla
G.R. No. 208761 | 2014-06-04

FACTS:

Accused-appellant Baraga was charged with three counts of acts of lasciviousness under Section 5(b), Art
III of RA 7610, also known as the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act, and two counts of rape under Art 266-A of the RPC.
Apr 2, 2007 – victim was 11 days shy of her 12 th bday, act of lasciviousness; Apr 8, 2007 – rape ; Apr 15,
2007 – rape
Apr 19 – act of lasciviousness (victim already 12 y/o)

The RTC found Baraga guilty of 2 counts each of acts of lasciviousness and rape. RTC imposed the
indeterminate penalty of 6 yrs + 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 15 yrs, 6 mos, 20 days of reclusion
temporal as maximum plus damages for each act of lasciviousness. For each act of rape Baraga was
charged with reclusion perpetua plus damages.

Upon appeal, the CA affirmed Baraga’s guilt but imposed a modified penalty: as regards the charge of
acts of lasciviousness in Case No. 07-0685, in as much as AAA was already 12 years old when the acts
alleged therein were committed by Baraga, the CA, applying Article 336 of the RPC, imposed the penalty
of 6 mos of arresto mayor, as minimum, to 6 yrs of prision correccional, as maximum. On the charge of
acts of lasciviousness in Case No. 07-0864, since AAA was merely 11 years old at that time, the CA applied
Sec 5(b) of RA No. 7610 and meted the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from 13 yrs, 9
mos, 11 days of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to 16 yrs, 5 mos, 10 days of reclusion temporal, as
maximum. The CA affirmed the decision of the acts of rape, clarifying that the sentence was meted
without eligibility of parole.

ISSUE: Whether or not Baraga was guilty of the crimes charged

HELD:

The SC held that the lower courts were correct in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua without
eligibility of parole for the 2 counts of rape.

Acts of lasciviousness - sexual abuse under RA 7610 has three elements: (1) the accused commits an 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 is below 18 years old. Prosecution was
able to establish these facts for the two counts charged. The offense is chargeable with the penalty of
reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. However, when the victim of the sexual
abuse is under 12 years old, the imposable penalty shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period.

The CA correctly imposed the penalty of the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from 13 yrs,
9 mos, 11 days of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to 16 yrs, 5 mos, 10 days of reclusion temporal, as
maximum, to the lascivious conduct perpetrated when the victim was still 11 years old. However, the CA
erred in applying the provisions of Art 336 of the RPC in Case No. 07-0685 just because the victim was
already 12 yrs old at the time the second act of lascivious conduct was perpetrated. It should be stressed
that the information charged Baraga for violation of RA 7610, and therefore he should be penalized based
on the said act. The penalty for sexual abuse performed on a child under 18 years old but over 12 years
old under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 is reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. The
Court likewise considers the alternative circumstance of relationship against Baraga as an aggravating
circumstance. Since there is an aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstance, the penalty
shall be applied in its maximum period, i.e., reclusion perpetua. Besides, Section 31 of RA 7610 expressly
provides that the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period when the perpetrator is, inter alia,
the parent of the victim.