PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DANILO SANTOS Y SUICO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Santos

The Case

This is People versus Santos, a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Danilo Santos y Suico for acts of lasciviousness committed against a five-year-old girl. The trial court convicted him, and the case reached the Supreme Court on appeal from that conviction. The decision matters for the bar because it restates, in compact form, the elements of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, and it shows how the Court weighs a child's testimony against the defenses of denial and accident.

Procedural History

The accused was charged before Branch 77 of the Regional Trial Court of the Third Judicial Region in Malolos City, Bulacan. The Information alleged that on or about February 12, 2005, in the municipality of Obando, Bulacan, he willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with lewd designs, committed acts of lasciviousness upon a minor five years of age by rubbing his penis into her vagina against her will and consent. On arraignment he entered a plea of not guilty. A pre-trial was held, where the parties stipulated on the identity of the accused and on the jurisdiction of the trial court. A trial on the merits followed, and on October 8, 2012, the trial court rendered a Decision finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code and Article III, Section 5, paragraph b of Republic Act Number 7610. He was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of twelve years and one day to fourteen years and eight months of reclusion temporal in its minimum period, the victim being only five years old when the offense was committed, with full credit for preventive imprisonment.

Aggrieved, the accused interposed an appeal, assigning as errors that the trial court gravely erred in ruling that all the elements of the crime charged attended the act complained of, and in convicting him notwithstanding the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was resolved by the Supreme Court, which denied it and affirmed the trial court's Decision in its entirety.

Facts

The accused was a neighbor of the victim's family at Panghulo, Obando, Bulacan. On February 12, 2005, the child told her mother that the accused had removed her shorts and thereafter rubbed his penis on her genitalia. The mother immediately checked her daughter's private part for blood but saw nothing. She then sought the help of a barangay tanod, who in turn asked for the assistance of the police officers of Obando, Bulacan. The accused was arrested and brought to the police station, where an investigation was conducted.

Testifying in court, the child identified the accused, whom she knew as the brother of a neighbor called Kuya Buboy. She narrated that she met the accused on February 12, 2005 at the place of Kuya Buboy, located beside their house. According to her, the accused put himself on top of her and rubbed his whole body on her body, particularly the lower part of her body. After the incident, she went straight to Che-che, the accused's niece, who had invited her to the house of Kuya Buboy.

For his part, the accused denied the accusation. He claimed that at around four o'clock in the afternoon of that day he was at the house of his brother, Salvador de Jesus, also known as Buboy, watching television on the second floor while the child, then five or six years of age, played downstairs with his niece. The child later went upstairs and asked him to remove her maong shorts so she could urinate, and afterwards asked him to help her put the shorts back on. Because of the strength exerted in lifting her, both swayed and lost their balance, and he accidentally fell on top of her. He was surprised when she said, in effect, not to, and after both got up he fixed her shorts before she went downstairs. His niece, Jessel Villaflores, testified for the defense, but she was not in the room at the exact time the lascivious conduct occurred.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that all the elements of the crime of acts of lasciviousness were present in the act complained of.
• Whether or not the accused's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt despite his defense of denial and accident.

Applicable Provisions

Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, as applied by the Court, defines the offense of acts of lasciviousness:

Article 336. Acts of lasciviousness. Any person who shall commit any act of lasciviousness or lewdness upon another person of either sex, under any of the circumstances mentioned in the next preceding article, shall be punished by prision correccional.

The Court applied this provision because the conviction rested on the presence of its elements, namely, that the offender commits an act of lasciviousness or lewdness, and that it is committed under any of the circumstances of the preceding article, including that the offended party is under twelve years of age.

The Court also cited Article III, Section 5, paragraph b of Republic Act Number 7610, the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, which the trial court invoked in its judgment:

Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.

This provision bears on the case because the victim was a child of tender age, and the trial court anchored the conviction on both the Revised Penal Code and this special law.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that all the elements of acts of lasciviousness were present. It enumerated them as follows:

Elements: a) Offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; b) Under any of the following circumstances: 1) Using force or intimidation; 2) Offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or 3) Offended party is under 12 years of age.

The record showed that, prompted by lustful and lewd designs, the accused put himself on top of the child and rubbed his whole body, particularly his genitalia, on her body. He took advantage of the situation while the child, then only five years of age, was playing at his brother's house and while he and she were alone in the living room. Citing People versus Masa, the Court stressed that to sustain a conviction for acts of lasciviousness, it is essential that the acts complained of be prompted by lustful or lewd designs and that the victim did not consent or encourage such acts.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the defense of denial and accident. It held that denials are insipid and weak, easy to fabricate and difficult to disprove, and cannot take precedence over positive testimony. The corroborative witness for the defense failed to confirm the accused's story because she was not in the room at the exact time the lascivious conduct occurred. The child's testimony, by contrast, was straightforward, spontaneous, and consistent on cross-examination, and the trial court observed that a child of six years could not have fabricated a charge so humiliating to herself and her family. No serious or dubious motive was shown on the part of the child or her family to falsely implicate the accused, and no woman would undergo the trouble and humiliation of trial for such a debasing offense unless she had actually been a victim of abuse. Finally, the Court adhered to the settled rule that the factual findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses deserve a high degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing that it overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied facts or circumstances of weight and substance.

Doctrine

For the bar, the case yields these rules. First, the elements of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code are that the offender commits an act of lasciviousness or lewdness, and that the act is committed under any of the circumstances of the preceding article, namely, by using force or intimidation, when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when the offended party is under twelve years of age. Second, the acts must be prompted by lustful or lewd designs, and the victim must not have consented to or encouraged them. Third, denial is a weak defense that cannot prevail over positive testimony, especially where it is uncorroborated or the corroboration does not cover the very act complained of. Fourth, where no improper motive is shown why the offended party would falsely implicate the accused, her testimony is worthy of full faith and credit, and the trial court's findings on credibility are accorded high respect on appeal.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the appeal for lack of merit and affirmed in its entirety the trial court's Decision convicting the accused of acts of lasciviousness and sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of twelve years and one day to fourteen years and eight months of reclusion temporal in its minimum period.

Remember This

Memorize the three elements of acts of lasciviousness and the rule that denial is insipid and weak against positive testimony. Examiners use this case to test the elements of Article 336, the weight of a child witness's testimony, and the deference given to the trial court's credibility findings.