JAMEL BANDAS Y CAVITE, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Bandas versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is the case of Bandas versus People of the Philippines, a criminal case in which Jamel Bandas y Cavite asks the Supreme Court to reconsider his conviction for lascivious conduct against a ten-year-old girl. He was originally convicted of sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of Republic Act Number 7610, the Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, in relation to Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code. The case matters because the Court, applying a later ruling in Gramatica versus People, reclassified the crime and fixed the correct penalty and damages. It is a compact lesson on how the Court draws the line between sexual abuse under the special law and statutory acts of lasciviousness under the Revised Penal Code.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court found Bandas guilty of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Article III, Section 5(b) of Republic Act Number 7610. Bandas appealed to the Court of Appeals, which denied his appeal and affirmed the guilty verdict in a Decision dated July 28, 2023. He sought further review, and the Supreme Court, in a Resolution dated November 25, 2024, affirmed his conviction. Bandas then filed a Motion for Reconsideration of that Resolution, insisting that the prosecution failed to prove all the elements of the offense. The People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, opposed the motion. The Court resolved the Motion for Reconsideration in this ruling.

Facts

AAA272503 was ten years old at the time of the incident. She positively identified Bandas as the person who molested her. She testified that when they visited her ninongs, Bandas repeatedly fondled her breast.

Bandas claimed that the touching was merely accidental, and that it was impossible for him to have committed the act intentionally. He argued that, viewed as a purely accidental act, the prosecution failed to prove that it debased and demeaned the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being. He added that the prosecution adduced no proof of abuse of moral ascendancy, or of coercion or intimidation against the child.

The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, maintained that the motion should be denied because the issues raised merely repeated those already presented and resolved.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved all the elements of the offense charged.
• Whether or not the touching was accidental, such that it did not debase and demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being.
• Whether or not Bandas employed intimidation that annulled or subdued the free exercise of the child's will.
• Whether or not the doctrine laid down in Gramatica versus People applies retroactively to Bandas, and if so, what crime and penalty are proper.

Applicable Provisions

Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

Article 336. Acts of lasciviousness. — Any person who shall commit any act of lasciviousness upon other persons of either sex, under any of the circumstances mentioned in the preceding article, shall be punished by prisión correccional.

This is the provision under which the Court ultimately held Bandas criminally liable.

Section 5(b) 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: x x x b. Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse: Provided, That when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period.

This is the special law under which Bandas was originally convicted, and its scope is what the Court clarified.

Article 8 of the Civil Code provides:

Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the law shall form part of the legal system of the land.

This is the basis for giving the Gramatica doctrine retroactive effect.

Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, on retroactivity, is likewise invoked, because penal laws favorable to the accused are accorded retroactive application.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the prosecution duly proved all the elements of the crime. AAA272503 was ten years old at the time of the incident, she positively identified Bandas as her molester, and she testified that he repeatedly fondled her breast when they visited her ninongs.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the claim of accident. The fact that Bandas did the act repeatedly belies his claim that the touching was simply accidental.

On the third issue, the Court found that Bandas employed intimidation as would annul or subdue the free exercise of the child's will. Citing Dela Cruz versus People, the Court explained that intimidation need not necessarily be irresistible. It is sufficient that some compulsion equivalent to intimidation annuls or subdues the free exercise of the will of the offended party. This is especially true in the case of young, innocent, and immature girls who could not be expected to act with equanimity of disposition and with nerves of steel.

On the fourth issue, the Court noted that during the pendency of the case it had promulgated Gramatica versus People. Under Article 8 of the Civil Code, judicial decisions applying or interpreting the law form part of the legal system of the land, and penal laws favorable to the accused are accorded retroactive application. Since the Gramatica ruling is favorable to Bandas, who is not shown to be a habitual criminal, its doctrine and guidelines must be applied retroactively, and his criminal liability must be modified.

The Court summarized the Gramatica guidelines. First, Section 5(b) of Republic Act Number 7610, as amended by Republic Act Number 11648, which raised the age of sexual consent to sixteen, applies to minors aged sixteen and above but below eighteen years old who are subjected to other forms of sexual abuse. Second, the provision contemplates a semblance of consent that is defective or vitiated, where the minor allows, yields, or participates in the act not through free will but because of the coercion or influence exerted by an adult, which is distinct from force or intimidation under the Revised Penal Code. Third, Section 5(b) does not apply when the lascivious conduct is committed through force or intimidation, or when the victim is deprived of reason, unconscious, or otherwise subjected to fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; in such cases the proper charge is acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code. Fourth, if the victim is below twelve years old, or below sixteen years old and the case does not fall under the specific conditions of Section 5(b), the offense should be prosecuted as either rape or acts of lasciviousness, as the case may be, under the Revised Penal Code.

Applying these rules, the Court held that any lascivious conduct committed against a child below twelve years old through force, threat, or intimidation is statutory acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code. Since Bandas committed lascivious conduct against a ten-year-old girl through intimidation, he should be held criminally liable for statutory acts of lasciviousness under Article 336.

On the penalty, Article 336 prescribes prisión correccional. In the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence should be taken from the medium period, or two years, four months, and one day to four years and two months of prisión correccional. The minimum term shall be taken from the penalty next lower in degree, which is arresto mayor, ranging from one month and one day to six months. The Court therefore modified the penalty to six months of arresto mayor as minimum, and four years and two months of prisión correccional as maximum.

Pursuant to Gramatica, the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages were increased to one hundred thousand pesos each, in view of the offender's close familial relationship with the victim and the disparity between the penalty imposed under the Revised Penal Code and the heavier penalty that would have applied under Republic Act Number 7610. These awards shall earn interest at six percent per annum from the date of finality of the Resolution until fully paid.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. Lascivious conduct committed against a child below twelve years old through force, threat, or intimidation is statutory acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, not sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of Republic Act Number 7610. Section 5(b) applies only where the minor, aged sixteen and above but below eighteen, is subjected to sexual abuse through coercion or influence, giving a defective or vitiated consent. Where the lascivious conduct is committed through force or intimidation, the proper charge is Article 336. Intimidation need not be irresistible; it is enough that it annuls or subdues the free exercise of the will, especially of young and immature girls. Finally, judicial decisions form part of the legal system under Article 8 of the Civil Code, and penal laws favorable to the accused are given retroactive application under Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code.

Disposition

The Motion for Reconsideration was denied with finality, and the earlier Resolution was affirmed with modification: Bandas was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of statutory acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six months of arresto mayor as minimum to four years and two months of prisión correccional as maximum, and ordered to pay the victim one hundred thousand pesos each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, with interest at six percent per annum.

Remember This

Memorize this line: lascivious conduct against a child below twelve through intimidation is statutory acts of lasciviousness under Article 336, not sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of Republic Act Number 7610. Examiners like to use this case to test the Gramatica guidelines on the dividing line between the special law and the Revised Penal Code, and the retroactive application of favorable penal doctrines.