NICANOR PINLAC Y RESOLME, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Pinlac versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is the case of Pinlac versus People of the Philippines, a criminal case in which Nicanor Pinlac was charged with, and ultimately convicted of, violating Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act Number 7610, the Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act. The victim was a fourteen-year-old boy whom the accused had recruited into a fraternity and plied with alcohol and marijuana before performing lascivious acts upon him. The case matters to the bar candidate for two reasons: it illustrates the elements of child sexual abuse under Section 5(b) as distinct from child prostitution, and it is a clean teaching vehicle on the limited scope of a petition for review under Rule 45, which reaches only questions of law and not the factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals.

Procedural History

The case began in the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City, Branch 72. After trial, that court rendered a decision on January 6, 2010, finding Pinlac guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act Number 7610, sentencing him to an indeterminate prison term and ordering him to pay moral damages. Pinlac appealed to the Court of Appeals, raising the credibility of the victim, the ten-month delay in reporting the crime, and the fact that the judge who penned the decision was not the judge who had heard the witnesses. The Court of Appeals denied the appeal on March 29, 2011, affirming the conviction but modifying the penalty and the awards of damages. Pinlac then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, and the case reached the Supreme Court, which decided it on November 11, 2015.

Facts

On the evening of March 9, 1997, a fourteen-year-old boy, referred to in the record as AAA, went with Pinlac to the Kale Beach Resort in Subic, Olongapo City, for initiation rites into a fraternity that Pinlac had founded. Pinlac persuaded the boy to drink alcohol and to smoke marijuana. The boy lost control of himself, in his own words, nawala ako sa sarili, meaning he lost himself, and was in a daze or near total unconsciousness. While the boy was in that condition, Pinlac sent their companions away, forcibly disrobed the boy, and performed oral sex on him until he ejaculated.

The following day, March 10, 1997, Pinlac again convinced the boy to take alcohol and to smoke marijuana, and again performed oral sex on him while he lay on the sand, still drunk and high on drugs.

Pinlac denied everything. He claimed he was not at the resort on those dates, that he was busy campaigning as a candidate for barangay kagawad, and that the case had been instigated by the victim's mother, who was also running for barangay kagawad. The trial court rejected his denial and alibi as the weakest of defenses against the positive and categorical testimony of a credible witness.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in giving credence to the testimony of the victim, AAA.
• Whether or not the factual findings of the Court of Appeals may be reviewed in a petition for review filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
• Whether or not the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act Number 7610.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5, Article III of Republic Act Number 7610 provides:

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. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following: (b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse.

This is the very provision under which Pinlac was charged and convicted, and its text supplies the elements of the offense.

Section 31, paragraph (f), Article XII of the same law provides:

Section 31. Common Penal Provisions. (f) A fine to be determined by the court shall be imposed and administered as a cash fund by the Department of Social Welfare and Development and disbursed for the rehabilitation of each child victim, or any immediate member of his family if the latter is the perpetrator of the offense.

This is the basis for the fine of fifteen thousand pesos imposed on Pinlac in addition to the civil indemnity and moral damages.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the credibility of the victim is a question of fact, and that the findings of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are entitled to great weight. The Court found no cogent reason to set them aside.

On the second issue, the Court stressed that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review under Rule 45. The errors Pinlac assigned, including the location of the resort and the assessment of the victim's credibility, were factual matters outside the ambit of the petition. The Court put the rule plainly:

The petition being a petition for review, the jurisdiction of this Court is confined to reviewing questions of law.

On the third issue, the Court held that all the elements of the offense were established beyond reasonable doubt, namely: the accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; the act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse; and the child, whether male or female, is below eighteen years of age. The victim was fourteen years and eight months old at the time. The Court also held that although Republic Act Number 7610 is a special law, the accused may still enjoy the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and it affirmed the indeterminate penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals. It added exemplary damages of fifteen thousand pesos, and imposed interest on all damages at six percent per annum from finality of the decision until fully paid.

Doctrine

First, a child is deemed exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse when the child indulges in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct for money, profit, or any other consideration, or under the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate, or group. The law covers not only prostitution but also other sexual abuse, as the very title of Section 5 shows.

Second, the elements of the offense under Section 5(b) are: the accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; the act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse; and the child is below eighteen years of age.

Third, a petition for review under Rule 45 reaches only questions of law. Factual findings of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding on the Supreme Court absent cogent reason to disturb them.

Fourth, the fact that the judge who penned the decision was not the judge who heard the witnesses does not render the decision void, and does not by itself compel the reversal of the conviction.

Disposition

The petition was denied. The conviction of Nicanor Pinlac for violating Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act Number 7610 was affirmed, with the modification that he was additionally ordered to pay fifteen thousand pesos in exemplary damages, and the bondsman was directed to surrender him to the court of origin for transfer to the Bureau of Corrections.

Remember This

Memorize the three elements of Section 5(b) of Republic Act Number 7610, and the rule that a Rule 45 petition reaches only questions of law. Examiners use this case to test whether a candidate can distinguish child prostitution from other sexual abuse, and whether the candidate knows the narrow scope of a petition for review on certiorari.