Simbolon, Jr. vs. People

9/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 601
G.R. No. 175528. September 30, 2009.*
PO3 BENITO SOMBILON, JR., petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, respondent.
Criminal Law; Acts of Lasciviousness; Elements.—For an accused to

be convicted of acts of lasciviousness under the foregoing provision, the
prosecution is burdened to prove the confluence of the following essential
elements: (1) that the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or
lewdness; and (2) that it is done under any of the following circumstances:
(a) by using force or intimidation; (b) when the offended woman is deprived
of reason or otherwise unconscious; or (c) when the offended party is under
twelve (12) years of age.
Same; Same; Words and Phrases; The term “lewd” is commonly
defined as something indecent or obscene, characterized by or intended to
excite crude sexual desire.—In the case of Amployo v. People, 457 SCRA
282 (2005), the Court expounded on the definition of the term lewd, thus:
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 interpreted 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 is not lewd conduct, by its very nature, cannot be pigeonholed into a
precise definition. As early as U.S. v. Gomez we had already lamented 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 circum-
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
406
406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Simbolon, Jr. vs. People
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bc5b603b91d49c068000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/14
stances 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.
Same; Same; Force and Intimidation; In cases of acts of
lasciviousness, it is not necessary that intimidation be irresistible.—In
People v. Victor, 393 SCRA 472 (2002), the Court held that in cases of acts
of lasciviousness, it is not necessary that intimidation be irresistible. It being
sufficient that some compulsion equivalent to intimidation annuls or
subdues the free exercise of the will of the offended party. Here, the victim
was locked inside a windowless room together with her aggressor who
poked a gun at her forehead. Even a grown man would be paralyzed with
fear if threatened at gunpoint, what more the hapless victim who was only
15 years old when she was subjected to such atrocity.
Same; Same; Criminal Procedure; Pleadings and Practice; Qualifying
Circumstances; Aggravating Circumstances; Right to be Informed; It is now
a requirement that the aggravating as well as the qualifying circumstances
be expressly and specifically alleged in the complaint or information,
otherwise, they cannot be considered by the trial court in its judgment, even,
if they are subsequently proved during trial.—It is now a requirement that
the aggravating as well as the qualifying circumstances be expressly and
specifically alleged in the complaint or information. Otherwise, they cannot
be considered by the trial court in its judgment, even, if they are
subsequently proved during trial. A reading of the Information shows that
there was no allegation of any aggravating circumstance.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure is
given retroactive application if it benefits the accused.—In People v.
Buayaban, 400 SCRA 48 (2003), the crime was committed and the
Information was filed in 1990. Still, the Court gave the 2000 Rules of
Criminal Procedure retroactive application since it benefited the accused and
disregarded the generic
407
VOL. 601, SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 407
aggravating circumstance of band because it was not alleged in the

Information. The Court explained, viz.: Section 8 simply provides that the
information or complaint must state the designation of the offense given by
the statute and specify its qualifying and generic aggravating circumstances.
With regard to Section 9, we held in People vs. Nerio Suela that the use of
the word “must” in said Section 9 indicates that the requirement is
mandatory and therefore, the failure to comply with sec. 9, Rule 110, means
that generic aggravating circumstances, although proven at the trial, cannot
be appreciated against the accused if such circumstances are not stated in
the information. In this case, we cannot properly appreciate the ordinary
aggravating circumstance of band in the commission of the crime since
there was no allegation in the information that “more than three armed
malefactors acted together in the commission of the crime.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Procedural Rules and Technicalities; The
retroactive application of procedural rules, nevertheless, cannot adversely
affect the rights of the private offended party that have become vested prior
to the effectivity of said rules.—As to the damages awarded, Article 2230 of
the Civil Code provides that in criminal offenses, exemplary damages as
part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed
with one or more aggravating circumstances. Since the generic aggravating
circumstance of taking advantage of public position was not alleged in the
Information against petitioner it cannot be appreciated in the imposition of
the penalty. But as regards the award of exemplary damages, in the case of
People v. Catubig, 363 SCRA 621 (2001), the Court declined retroactive
application of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, to wit: The retroactive
application of procedural rules, nevertheless, cannot adversely affect the
rights of the private offended party that have become vested prior to the
effectivity of said rules. Thus, in the case at bar, although relationship has
not been alleged in the information, the offense having been committed,
however, prior to the effectivity of the new rules, the civil liability already
incurred by appellant remains unaffected thereby. Thus, in accordance with
the foregoing pronouncement,
408
the Court affirms the CA’s award of exemplary damages to the victim in the
amount of P10,000.00.
Same; Same; Evidence; Damages; Moral Damages; Upon a finding of
guilt of the accused for acts of lasciviousness, the amount of 30,000.00 as
moral damages may be further awarded to the victim in the same way that
moral damages are awarded to victims of rape even without need of proof
because it is assumed that they suffered moral injury.—With regard to the
awarded moral damages in the amount of P10,000.00, the same should be
increased to P30,000.00. In People v. Solmoro, 393 SCRA 100 (2002), we
declared that upon a finding of guilt of the accused for acts of
lasciviousness, the amount of P30,000.00 as moral damages may be further
awarded to the victim in the same way that moral damages are awarded to
victims of rape even without need of proof because it is assumed that they
suffered moral injury. Considering the immeasurable pain and anguish that
the victim had to suffer in the hands of the petitioner; the trauma that she
had to endure even after the incident; and the sexual perversity of petitioner,
who is a police officer, the award of moral damages in the amount of
P30,000.00 is proper.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Leopoldo L. Cagatin for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for respondent.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

This resolves the petition for review which seeks to annul and set
aside the following rulings of the Court of Ap-
409
VOL. 601, SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 409

peals (CA) in C.A. C.R. No. 27729: a) the Decision1 dated July 28,
2005 which affirmed with modification the decision2 dated May 13,
2003 of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City (RTC), convicting
petitioner of acts of lasciviousness; and b) the Resolution3 dated
September 22, 2006 denying petitioner’s Motion for
Reconsideration of the aforesaid Decision.
The facts found during trial, as succinctly stated by the CA, are
as follows:
“The facts found during the trial reveal that on or about August 15, 1998,
AAA, a fifteen (15)-year old minor, was investigated by Appellant at the
Calinan Police Station, Davao City in connection with a complaint for Theft
filed by a certain Aileen Dagoc.
AAA alleged that Appellant, in conducting the investigation, took her
inside a room and locked it. She testified that the room had no window but
had a cot, a table, and a clothesline where some clothes were hanged. She
claimed that Appellant pointed a gun at her, with the end of the barrel
touching her forehead and pushed her with it, causing her head to violently
bang against the wall, and asked her: “Did you steal the necklace?” She
answered that she did not. Appellant then took an electric wire from a
drawer and inserted its male plug to a socket. She was ordered to place her
two hands on top of the table where her fingers were electrocuted with the
end of the wire. She was again asked the same question, which she kept
answering in the negative. Subsequently, she was asked: “Dalaga ka na ba?’
(Are you a woman now?), and was told: “I am single too.” Simultaneously,
she was touched all over her body including
_______________
1 Penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro, with Associate Justices Arturo G.

Tayag and Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr., concurring; Rollo, pp. 18-31.
2 Id., at pp. 49-57.
3 Id., at p. 47.
410

her breasts, her belly, and her private parts. She was also kissed on her
cheek. She struggled to resist the sexual advances but Appellant prevailed.
She claimed that they were inside the room for more than one (1) hour.
Thereafter, they went out of the room where Appellant announced to P03
Danilo Mendez and Aileen Dagoc that she had already admitted having
stolen the necklace. Pale, AAA was trembling and crying; her hair
disheveled, her dress wet. She also had bruises on her forehead.”
The police officers allowed AAA and her mother to go home on

the condition that they would pay the value of the necklace. Because
of AAA’s condition, AAA’s mother brought her daughter to the
Medical Clinic of St. Luke where AAA was examined by Dr. Manuel
Garcia, Sr.4 Dr. Garcia gave AAA a tranquilizer to calm down the
latter who was trembling and incoherent.5 At first, AAA could not
answer the doctor when she was asked what happened to her. Later,
upon regaining her composure, she revealed that she was
electrocuted and sexually molested by petitioner.6 The Medical
Certificate7 issued by Dr. Garcia disclosed the following injuries:
“1. Slight contusion over occiput region.

2. Slight contusion over center area of forehead.
3. Multiple slight contusions of fingers of bilateral hands.
4. Multiple slight contusions of bilateral breast areas.
5. Slight body tremors.
Diagnosis: Slight Physical Injuries
_______________
4 TSN, May 22, 2000, p. 11.

5 TSN, July 5, 2000, p. 8.
6 TSN, November 13, 2000, p. 7.
7 Record, p. 15.
411
VOL. 601, SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 411

In an Information8 dated August 23, 1999, petitioner was charged

with the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness committed as follows:
“The undersigned accuses the above-named accused of the crime of Acts

of Lasciviousness, under Art. 336, in relation to Art. 344 of the Revised
Penal Code, upon the instance of the complainant AAA, who is 15 years
old, whose affidavit is hereto attached to form part of this Information. The
crime is committed as follows:
That on or about August 14, 1998, in the City of Davao, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-mentioned
accused, motivated by lewd design, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously
upon the person of AAA, by then and there embracing, mashing the breast,
and touching the private part, against her will.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded “not guilty.” Trial ensued

thereafter.
On May 13, 2003, after trial on the merits, the RTC rendered a
decision finding petitioner guilty of acts of lasciviousness with the
aggravating circumstance of petitioner’s taking advantage of his
public position and sentenced him to six (6) months of arresto
mayor, as minimum, to five (5) years, four (4) months and twenty-
one (21) days of prision correccional, as maximum. The dispositive
portion of the Decision reads:
“For the foregoing judgment is hereby rendered, finding accused PO3 Benito
Sombilon, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Acts of
Lasciviousness, under Article 366 of the Revised Penal Code, and is hereby
sentenced to suffer imprisonment under the Indeterminate Sentence Law from Six
(6)
_______________
8 Id., at p. 1.
412

months of Arresto Mayor, as minimum to Five (5) years, Four (4)

months and Twenty-one (21) days of Prision Correccional, as
maximum and directed to pay private complainant AAA the
following:
a.) by way of moral Damages, the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos
(PhP10,000.00); and
b.) by way of Exemplary Damages, the amount of ten Thousand Pesos
(PhP10,000.00).”9
From the above decision, petitioner interposed an appeal to the

CA, which was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 40419.
On July 28, 2005, the CA rendered the herein challenged
Decision affirming with modification the RTC’s judgment of
conviction. Appreciating the aggravating circumstance of taking
advantage of public position which was adequately established
during the trial, the CA increased the maximum penalty imposed
against petitioner to its maximum period of six years of prision
correccional. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
“WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Br. 8, Davao

City in Criminal Case No. 43, 810-99 is hereby AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION. Appellant PO3 Benito Sombilon, as found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of acts of lasciviousness, defined and
penalized under article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, is hereby sentenced
to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 6 months of arresto mayor as
minimum, to 6 years of prision correccional, as maximum. Appellant is
likewise ordered to pay the victim, AAA, the amount of Php10,000.00 as

moral damages and another Php10,000.00 as exemplary damages.
With costs.
_______________
9 Supra note 2 at pp. 56-57.
413
VOL. 601, SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 413

SO ORDERED.”10
Thus, petitioner filed the instant petition, with the following

allegations:
I
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING
THE TRIAL COURT THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF THE
CRIME CHARGED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT;
II
ASSUMING BUT NOT ADMITTING, THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE APPRECIATION OF THE
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TAKING ADVANTAGE OF HIS
PUBLIC POSITION FOR FAILURE TO ALLEGE IN THE
INFORMATION;
III
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING
THE AWARD OF DAMAGES.11
Petitioner contends that the CA erred in affirming his conviction

for acts of lasciviousness. Even as he admits having merely touched
the victim, petitioner argues that the act of touching did not
constitute lewdness. At most, he could only be convicted of unjust
vexation. Petitioner likewise asserts that while the victim was being
touched, the latter tried to cover her body with her arms. Lastly
petitioner posits that the police station does not favor the
perpetration of the crime of acts of lasciviousness.
_______________
10 Supra note 1 at pp. 30-31.

11 Rollo, p. 7.
414

Petitioner’s contention deserves scant consideration.
The crime of acts of lasciviousness as punished under Article 336

of the Revised Penal Code provides:
“ART. 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
prision correccional.”
For an accused to be convicted of acts of lasciviousness under the

foregoing provision, the prosecution is burdened to prove the
confluence of the following essential elements: (1) that the offender
commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; and (2) that it is
done under any of the following circumstances: (a) by using force or
intimidation; (b) when the offended woman is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious; or (c) when the offended party is under
twelve (12) years of age.12
In the case of Amployo v. People,13 the Court expounded on the
definition of the term lewd, thus:
“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 interpreted 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 is not lewd conduct, by its very nature, cannot be pigeonholed into a
precise definition. As early as U.S. v. Gomez we had already lamented that
—
_______________
12 People v. Victor, G.R. No. 127904, December 5, 2002, 393 SCRA 472, 485.
13 G.R. No. 157718, April 26, 2005, 457 SCRA 282, 292.
415
VOL. 601, SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 415

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.”
Undoubtedly, petitioner committed acts which fall within the

above described lascivious conduct. It cannot be viewed as mere
unjust vexation as petitioner would have the Court do. The intention
of petitioner was intended neither to merely annoy or irritate the

victim nor to force her to confess the theft. He could have easily
achieved that when he electrocuted the latter. Petitioner intended to
gratify his sexual desires.
As found by the RTC and affirmed by the CA, petitioner’s acts of
kissing the victim, fondling her breasts and touching her private
parts constitute lascivious conduct intended to quench his salacious
desire. Petitioner’s lewd intent was betrayed when he asked AAA,
“Dalaga ka na ba?” as a prelude to his lustful advances on the
victim, and thereafter conveyed to her that “I am single too.” We
quote with approval the CA’s ratiocination:
“Undeniably, appellant committed lewd acts against AAA. “Lewd” is

defined as obscene, lustful, indecent, and lecherous. It signifies that form of
immorality which has relation to moral impurity; or that which is carried on
a wanton manner. The evidence shows that appellant committed lewd acts
against AAA when he touched her “all over her body” which includes
mashing her breasts, touching her private parts, and kissing her on the
cheek. These acts were clearly done with lewd designs as appellant even
previously asked AAA, as if it was a prelude for things
416

to come, “Dalaga ka na ba?” and thereafter conveyed to her that “he is

single too.”14
The fact that the victim tried to cover her body with her arms
does not negate petitioner’s lascivious conduct. Petitioner succeeded
in fondling the victim’s breasts intense enough to cause multiple
slight contusions of bilateral breast areas.
As aptly observed by the CA, petitioner employed force and
intimidation against AAA:
“Moreover, appellant employed force and intimidation when he

committed these acts on AAA. In fact, as found by the trial court, appellant
pointed a gun at the forehead of AAA as evidenced by the bruises on her
forehead. Further, the medical Certificate shows that AAA suffered slight
physical injuries which include “multiple slight contusion of bilateral breast
areas” which supports AAA’s claim.”15
In People v. Victor,16 the Court held that in cases of acts of

lasciviousness, it is not necessary that intimidation be irresistible. It
being sufficient that some compulsion equivalent to intimidation
annuls or subdues the free exercise of the will of the offended party.
Here, the victim was locked inside a windowless room together with
her aggressor who poked a gun at her forehead. Even a grown man
would be paralyzed with fear if threatened at gunpoint, what more
the hapless victim who was only 15 years old when she was
subjected to such atrocity.
Petitioner’s assertion that the locus criminis i.e., the police station
makes it unlikely for him to commit the crime
_______________
14 Supra note 1 at p. 27.

15 Id., at p. 28.
16 Supra note 12.
417
VOL. 601, SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 417

of acts of lasciviousness is specious. The presence of other

policemen on duty and of the victim’s mother outside the room
where the incident took place does not render commission of the
offense impossible. It has been shown that there was a room in the
precinct which, except for two doors which could be locked, was
totally enclosed.17 During the commission of the acts of
lasciviousness, petitioner and AAA were the only persons inside the
room. Lust, as we have often held, is no respecter of either place or
time.18
As to the appreciation of the aggravating circumstance of taking
advantage of public position, petitioner points out that said
circumstance was not alleged in the information. The Solicitor
General shares the same view.
Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure, which took effect on December 1, 2000, provide:
“Sec. 8. Designation of the offense.—The complaint or information

shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or
omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and
aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense,
reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing
it.
Sec. 9. Cause of the accusations.—The acts or omissions complained
of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating
circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not
necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to
enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being
charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the
court to pronounce judgment.”
_______________
17 Record, p. 114; TSN, July 19, 2000, pp. 6, 15-16.

18 People v. Candaza, G.R. No. 170474, June 16, 2006, 491 SCRA 282, 298.
418

Clearly, it is now a requirement that the aggravating as well as

the qualifying circumstances be expressly and specifically alleged in
the complaint or information. Otherwise, they cannot be considered
by the trial court in its judgment, even, if they are subsequently
proved during trial.19 A reading of the Information shows that there
was no allegation of any aggravating circumstance.
In People v. Buayaban,20 the crime was committed and the
Information was filed in 1990. Still, the Court gave the 2000 Rules
of Criminal Procedure retroactive application since it benefited the
accused and disregarded the generic aggravating circumstance of
band because it was not alleged in the Information. The Court
explained, viz.:
“Section 8 simply provides that the information or complaint must state

the designation of the offense given by the statute and specify its qualifying
and generic aggravating circumstances. With regard to Section 9, we held in
People vs. Nerio Suela that the use of the word “must” in said Section 9
indicates that the requirement is mandatory and therefore, the failure to
comply with sec. 9, Rule 110, means that generic aggravating
circumstances, although proven at the trial, cannot be appreciated against
the accused if such circumstances are not stated in the information.
In this case, we cannot properly appreciate the ordinary aggravating
circumstance of band in the commission of the crime since there was no
allegation in the information that “more than three armed malefactors acted
together in the commission of the crime.”
Here, the crime was committed in 1998, the generic aggravating

circumstance of taking advantage of public posi-
_______________
19 People v. Casitas, Jr., 445 Phil. 407, 427; 397 SCRA 382, 398-399 (2003).
20 G.R. No. 112459, March 28, 2003, 400 SCRA 48, 65.
419
VOL. 601, SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 419

tion was not alleged in the information. As such, it cannot be

appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. Consequently, the
penalty imposed must be modified.
Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law21 (ISL) states that
(i)n imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the
Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the
accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which
shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be
properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum
which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that
prescribed by the Code for the offense. Under Article 366 of the
Revised Penal Code, the penalty for acts of lasciviousness is prision
correccional. Since no aggravating or mitigating circumstance
attended the commission of the offense in this case, the penalty
should be applied in its medium period, the duration of which is two
(2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two
months, as maximum. The minimum shall be within the range of the
penalty next lower in degree which is arresto mayor, with the
duration of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months.
Applying the ISL, the proper penalty would be imprisonment of
six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum to four (4) years and
two (2) months of prision correccional as maximum.22
As to the damages awarded, Article 2230 of the Civil Code
provides that in criminal offenses, exemplary damages as part of the
civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with
one or more aggravating cir-
_______________
21 Act No. 4103, as amended.

22 People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 131200, February 15, 2002, 377 SCRA 99, 115.
420

cumstances. Since the generic aggravating circumstance of taking

advantage of public position was not alleged in the Information
against petitioner it cannot be appreciated in the imposition of the
penalty. But as regards the award of exemplary damages, in the case
of People v. Catubig,23 the Court declined retroactive application of
the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, to wit:
“The retroactive application of procedural rules, nevertheless, cannot

adversely affect the rights of the private offended party that have become
vested prior to the effectivity of said rules. Thus, in the case at bar, although
relationship has not been alleged in the information, the offense having been
committed, however, prior to the effectivity of the new rules, the civil
liability already incurred by appellant remains unaffected thereby.”
Thus, in accordance with the foregoing pronouncement, the

Court affirms the CA’s award of exemplary damages to the victim in
the amount of P10,000.00.
With regard to the awarded moral damages in the amount of
P10,000.00, the same should be increased to P30,000.00. In People
v. Solmoro24 we declared that upon a finding of guilt of the accused
for acts of lasciviousness, the amount of P30,000.00 as moral
damages may be further awarded to the victim in the same way that
moral damages are awarded to victims of rape even without need of
proof because it is assumed that they suffered moral injury.
Considering the immeasurable pain and anguish that the victim had
to suffer in the hands of the petitioner; the trauma that she had to
endure even after the incident; and
_______________
23 G.R. No. 137842, August 23, 2001, 363 SCRA 621, 636.
24 G.R. Nos. 139187-94 (140427-34), November 27, 2002, 393 SCRA 100, 111-
112.
421
VOL. 601, SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 421

the sexual perversity of petitioner, who is a police officer, the award

of moral damages in the amount of P30,000.00 is proper.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby denied and the Decision
dated July 28, 2005 of the Court of Appeals finding petitioner PO3
Benito Sombilon GUILTY of the crime of acts of lasciviousness
under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code is AFFIRMED with
Modification that he is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty
of imprisonment of six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum to
four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as
maximum, and to pay the victim the amount of P30,000 as moral
damages and P10,000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.
Puno (C.J., Chairperson), Carpio, Corona and

Bersamin, JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed with modification.
Notes.—If rape can be committed in places where people

congregate, even in the same room where other members of the
family are sleeping, there is less reason to believe that other people
sleeping in the same room can serve as a deterrent for the
commission of lascivious acts. (People vs. Jimenez, 356 SCRA 508
[2001])
There are material differences between a criminal action and a
civil complaint for quasi-delict arising from the same act of
lasciviousness—a judgment of conviction or acquittal in the criminal
case cannot at all be invoked as being one of res judicata in the
independent suit for damages. (London vs. Baguio Country Club
Corporation, 390 SCRA 618 [2002])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Simbolon, Jr. vs. People

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document informationKBHSDKJB

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Simbolon, Jr. vs. People

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Simbolon, Jr. vs. People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 601

G.R. No. 175528. September 30, 2009.*

PO3 BENITO SOMBILON, JR., petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE

Criminal Law; Acts of Lasciviousness; Elements.—For an accused to

406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED