In the case of Amplayo vs.

People of the Philippines, the court explained that the term ‘lewd’
is commonly defined as something indecent or obscene; it is characterized by or intended to
excite crude sexual; desire. That an accused is entertaining a lewd or unchaste design is
necessarily a mental process the existence of which can be inferred by overt acts carrying out
such intention, i.e., by conduct that can only be inter\preted as lewd or lascivious. The
presence or absence of lewd designs is inferred from the nature of the acts themselves and
the environmental circumstances. What is or what us not lewd conduct, by its very nature,
cannot be pigeonholed into a precise definition.

In this case, the very nature of the acts of the accused, Prince Phillip Salvador, constitutes
lewdness as touching of other persons thighs and breast is beyond normal. It is characterized
as an indecent and obscene character. This act is supported by the corroborating testimonies
of the witnesses presented by prosecution testifying the acts happened during the grab trip
and even after the trip. The accused took refuge on his own version of the story, leaving out
details that would further explain the complaint made by the complainant against him.

Further, the accused is contesting that he merely grazed the thighs of the victim since he is
driving a manual car despite no proof presented to support such claimed fact. Moreover, the
incident could never be labeled as merely accidental as this is contradicted by the Grab
Investigation report that stated that the accused has been suspended for committing acts of
sexual harassment in response to the complaint made by Princess Aurora Avenue.

The environmental circumstance plays a critical role in determining the lewdness of an act.
The court in U.S vs. Gomez, stressed the importance and the impossibility of this circumstance
narrating that it would be somewhat difficult to lay down any rule specifically establishing just
what conduct makes one amenable to the provisions of article 439 of the Penal Code. What
constitutes lewd or lascivious conduct must be determined from the circumstances of each
case. It may be quite easy to determine in a particular case that certain acts are lewd and
lascivious, and it may be extremely difficult in another case to say just where the line of
demarcation lies between such conduct and the amorous advances of an ardent lover.

In this case the mere fact that the alleged act happened inside a moving vehicle in the unholy
hours of the night, taking advantage of the tiring feeling of the complainant as she was from
her work shift, is a clear indication that the acts complained of is in its very nature lewd.

Amplayo vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 157718, 26, April 2005.
U.S. vs. Gomez, G.R. No. 10341, 03 March 1915, 30 Phil. 22, 25