Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

FOURTEENTH DIVISION*

PEOPLE OF THE CA-G.R. CR NO. 42502

PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, Members:

PERALTA, JR., E.B., Chairperson

- versus - PAYOYO-VILLORDON, T.M.B. and
**
AMPUAN, A.D., JJ.

NOEL F. DOMIGPE, Promulgated:

Accused-Appellant. July 27, 2021

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

PAYOYO-VILLORDON, J.:

Accused-appellant Noel F. Domigpe (accused-appellant)

appeals from the Decision dated 5 November 2018 1 by the Regional
Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 270, Valenzuela
City (RTC) in Criminal Case No. 497-V-18, finding him guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness in relation to
Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 (R.A. 7610), and meting out to
him the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve
(12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, in its minimum
period, as the minimum, to fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal in
its medium period, as maximum, and imposing upon him to pay
private complainant civil indemnity in the amount of PhP50,000.00,
moral damages in the amount of PhP50,000.00, and exemplary
damages in the amount of PhP50,000.00.

*
CA Rules Committee Memorandum dated 26 May 2021, approved by PJ Remedios
Salazar-Fernando on 1 June 2021.
**
Acting Junior Member per Office Order No. 198-21-RSF dated 6 July 2021.
1
Records, pp. 395-411; Rollo, pp. 50-66.
CA-G.R. CR No. 42502
Decision 2

The Antecedents

Accused-appellant was charged with the crime of Acts of

Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in
relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. 7610 in an Information filed by the City
Prosecutor's Office of Valenzuela which reads as follows –

That on or about December 16, 2017 in

Valenzuela City and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd
design and malice, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously commit acts of
lasciviousness upon the person of one GABRIEL
CELSO RIZADA a.k.a. GAB-GAB, 11 years old, (DOB:
February 19, 2006), by touching his penis, kissing his
lips and holding his hand and put the same in (sic) his
penis, against his will and without his consent, thereby
subjecting the said minor to sexual abuse.

CONTRARY TO LAW.2

Upon his arraignment on 8 May 2018, the accused-appellant

pleaded not guilty to the charge against him. 3

On 16 May 2018, pre-trial was conducted. 4 The parties

stipulated on the following facts:

1. The territorial jurisdiction of the Honorable Court;

2. The identity of the accused as the same person

charged in the Criminal Information;

3. The minority of the victim, Gabriel Celso Rizada;

4. The fact that the victim is a student of Malinta

Elementary School;

5. That the accused is a volleyball coach from Serrano

Elementary School;

6. That the minor victim is part of the Valenzuela

Volleyball Team being trained by the herein
accused.

2
Records, p. 1.
3
Records, pp. 45-46.
4
Records, pp. 54-56.
CA-G.R. CR No. 42502
Decision 3

Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution presented private complainant, Richie Parco

(AAA), Psychometrician Angela Joaquin and PO2 Mary Ann Cayco,
as its witnesses. The gist of their testimonies, as summarized by the
Office of the Solicitor General, is as follows –

4. AAA was born on February 19, 2006. He

was part of the Valenzuela City Volleyball Team. From
December 15 to December 17, 2017, he attended
volleyball training headed by appellant Noel F.
Domigpe, the volleyball coach. Around 9:00 p.m. of
December 16, 2017, while the team was preparing to
sleep at the conference room, the appellant told AAA to
sleep beside him. AAA lay down beside the appellant.
AAA's teammate BBB lay on the left side of AAA. AAA
was awakened from sleep when he felt the appellant
take his hand, place it inside the appellant's shorts, and
use it to caress the appellant's penis. The appellant
also kissed AAA. Later, the appellant placed his hands
inside the shorts of AAA and squeezed AAA's penis.
Thereafter, AAA looked for a different place to sleep.

5. On the following day, AAA shared to (sic)

teammate and buddy CCC what happened to him. CCC
then told AAA, “alam mo...ginawa na rin sa amin iyan
e.” AAA told his classmate DDD what appellant did to
him. Before going home, the appellant called AAA and
asked, “...may naramdaman ka ba kagabi?(sic) When
AAA responded in the negative, the appellant said,
“Kung may naramdaman ka, atin-atin na lang iyon.”

6. Since then, AAA kept thinking whether to

tell his parents what the appellant did to him. On
December 18, 2017, AAA told his cousin DDD about
the incident between him and the appellant. They,
however, got scared of reporting the incident to AAA's
parents.

7. On January 3, 2018, the appellant sent a

private message to AAA thru (sic) Facebook. The
appellant asked for forgiveness and requested AAA to
train with the volleyball team again. AAA did not
respond. Instead, he blocked the appellant on
Facebook so that the appellant would not be able to
send him messages.
CA-G.R. CR No. 42502
Decision 4

8. On January 12, 2018, AAA shared to his

teacher what the appellant did to him. The teacher
relayed the information to AAA's school adviser. The
adviser later told AAA's family about the incident.
Thereafter, AAA, accompanied by his uncle, went to the
police and reported the matter.

9. AAA also underwent psychotherapeutic

and counseling sessions before the Child Protection
Center of the City Social Welfare and Development
Office. The psychometrician found that AAA suffered
trauma due to the incident. Despite being preoccupied
with the incident, AAA managed to function normally.
AAA needed to strengthen his protective factors as this
made him vulnerable to abuse.5

Version of the Defense

On the other hand, the defense presented the accused-

appellant, Axel James Garcia, Englebert B. Garcia, Jeffrey Josol,
John Paul Padilla, and Marviel Angelo Ongbid as its witnesses. The
synopsis of their testimonies, as summarized in Accused-Appellant's
Brief,6 is as follows –

On December 15 to 17, 2017, an in-house

training for volleyball team was conducted by accused-
appellant, as the coach, at Serrano Elementary School
located at Marulas, Valenzuela City.

Several students from different schools of

Valenzuela City joined the training hoping that they will
be chosen to join the team of Serrano Elementary
School in competing the Regional Competition.

The team Serrano Elementary School was then

the defending champion in the Regional Competition
and Palarong Pambansa, hence, accused-appellant
customized a rigid training for his volleyball players
especially to the new trainees. Private complainant is
one of the new trainees.

The training started on December 15, 2017. In

celebration of the holiday season and the birthday of
accused-appellant[,] a Christmas party was held in the
evening of December 16, 2017 which was attended by
the parents and supporters of the players. The players
5
Rollo, pp. 239-241.
6
Rollo, pp. 36-49.
CA-G.R. CR No. 42502
Decision 5

received gifts from their parents except private

complainant as none of his relatives joined the party. At
that time, private-complainant appeared to be sad and
quite (sic) which is very unusual of him.

After the party, the players went to the

conference room to settle themselves. The players
helped one another in arranging the conference room
and put on mattresses for their use. They have chosen
their sleeping arrangement, and once settled, accused-
appellant called the private complainant and checked
on him as he appears to be sad. Knowing that private
complainant is fine, accused-appellant let him settled
and thereafter he left (sic) conference room.

Accused-appellant went to the (sic) see the

guard on duty Jeffrey Josol (Jeffrey). He instructed to
check on the players and din't (sic) let anyone leave the
school premises as he will just go home for a while to
freshen up. He gave Jeffrey a cake while they were
having a little chat.

At around 10:35 pm accused[-]appellant left the

school premises and returned around 11:15 pm. He
went straight to the conference room to sleep, to which
he saw the private complainant sleeping beside Lester.

The following day, accused-appellant facilitated

the training, private complainant joined the training and
is already cheerful. After the training, the players went
home as the training and selection of players will
resume in January 2018.

Surprisingly, in January 2018, private

complainant filed the instant case. The Office of the
City Prosecutor found probable cause and thus indicted
the accused[-]appellant for Acts of Lasciviousness in
relation to RA 7610. Trial ensued, the court a quo
promulgated the assailed decision convicting accused-
appellant of the crime charged.7

In the assailed Decision, the RTC found accused-appellant

guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness
in relation to R.A. 7610, the dispositive portion of which states –

7
Ibid, pp. 39-41.
CA-G.R. CR No. 42502
Decision 6

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing,

judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Noel F.
Domigpe guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of Acts of lasciviousness, defined and penalized under
Article 366 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in
relation to Section 5(b) of RA 7610 and he is hereby
sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 12
years and one day of reclusion temporal in its
minimum period, as the minimum, to 15 years, of
reclusion temporal in its medium period, as the
maximum. The accused is further directed to pay the
private complainant civil indemnity in the amount of
Php50,000.00, moral damages in the amount of
Php50,000.00 and exempleary (sic) [in] the amount of
Php50,000.00, subject to interest of 6% per annum on
the civil indemnity, moral and exempleary (sic)
damages reckoned from the finality of this decision
until full payment.

SO ORDERED.8

Aggrieved, the accused-appellant filed this appeal based on the

following errors allegedly committed by the trial court:

I.

THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO ERRED IN

CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR THE
CRIME OF ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS,
DEFINED AND PENALIZED UNDER ARTICLE
366 (sic) OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AS
AMENDED, IN RELATION TO SECTION 5 (B) OF
RA 7610.

II.
THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO ERRED IN
AWARDING CIVIL INDEMNITY, MORAL AND
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES IN FAVOR OF PRIVATE
COMPLAINANT.9

The Ruling of the Court

The appeal is devoid of merit.

8
Supra, Note 1, pp. 65-66.
9
Supra Note 6, p. 41.
CA-G.R. CR No. 42502
Decision 7

Elements of Acts of Lasciviousness

under the RPC, in relation to
Section 5(b) of R.A. 7610

Acts of lasciviousness is defined and penalized under Article

336 of the RPC, which reads:

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 prision correccional.

There must be a confluence of the following elements before

conviction can be had for such crime: (1) that the offender commits
any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) that it is done under any of
the following circumstances: (a) through force, threat, or intimidation;
(b) when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious; (c) by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse
of authority; and (d) when the offended party is under twelve (12)
years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances
mentioned above be present; and (3) that the offended party is
another person of either sex.10

Meanwhile, Section 5 (b) of R.A. 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:
xxx

(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or

lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution
or subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when
the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the
perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335,

10
Quimvel v. People, G.R. No. 214497, 18 April 2017.
CA-G.R. CR No. 42502
Decision 8

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;

xxx

Hence, before an accused can be held criminally liable for acts

of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC, in relation to Section
5(b) of R.A. 7610, the following elements must concur:

1. That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness

or lewdness;

2. That it is done under any of the following

circumstances:

a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;

b) When the offended party is deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or
grave abuse of authority;
d) When the offended party is under twelve
(12) years of age or is demented, even
though none of the circumstances
mentioned above be present;
xxx

3. That said act is performed with a child exploited in

prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and

4. That the offended party is a child, whether male or

female, below 18 years of age.11

After a punctilious review of the evidence, this Court finds that

all the elements of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness under the RPC
and lascivious conduct under Section 5 (b) of R.A. 7610 have been
sufficiently established.

First Element. Lending credence to the testimony of private

complainant, the prosecution was able to prove that accused-
appellant committed lascivious acts against private complainant when
1) accused-appellant took private complainant's hand and placed it

11
See Ramilo v. People, G.R. No. 234841, 3 June 2019.
CA-G.R. CR No. 42502
Decision 9

inside accused-appellant's shorts to caress his penis; 2) accused-

appellant kissed private complainant; and 3) accused-appellant
placed his hand inside the shorts of private complainant and
squeezed the latter's penis. As the trial court observed, the private
complainant was able to steadily recount the immodest acts
committed against him by his volleyball coach, to wit:

Q What did Noel Domigpe do, if any?

A He touched my private part and he got hold of my

hand and placed it on his private part, and he
kissed me, Ma'am.

The Court:
Just to place it on record, can you draw to us your
sleeping position and the sleeping position of the
accused?

Witness:
Yes, Your Honor.

The Court:
Is that a classroom?

Witness:
It is a conference room, Your Honor.

The Court:
Sige, I-drawing mo?

Witness:
Meron pong mga table dito na naka-paganun po,
tapos meron po ditong mga bed.

The Court:
Sa table?

Witness:
Hindi po, eto po yung table tapos dito po sa
ibaba. Tapos yung iba po, naka ganito, naka-
patayo po tapos yung dito po, paganoon. Nandito
po ako noon tapos si Sir Domigpe.

The Court:
Anong bed?

Witness:
Kutson lang po.
CA-G.R. CR No. 42502
Decision 10

The Court:
Mattress lang?

Witness:
Opo. Dito po si John Paul Benedict Padilla.

The Court:
Lagyan mo ng tanda.12

xxx

Pros. Buce:

Q When you said that he held your hand and placed

it in (sic) his penis, did he insert his hand in his
(sic) short pants?
A Yes, Ma'am.

Q Ipinasok niya?

A Opo.

The Court:
Were you already asleep at the time or gising pa
kayong lahat? Ikaw, si Sir at si John Paul?

Witness:
I was just awakened, Your Honor.

The Court:
So tulog ka na?

Witness:
Yes, Your Honor.

Pros. Buce:

Q What was your reaction when the accused did

that?

A I was surprised, Ma'am.

Q What did you tell him after you were surprised?

A None Ma'am, I did not open my eyes because I

was afraid that he might do something else to me.
12
TSN dated 16 May 2018, Rollo, pp. 83-84.
CA-G.R. CR No. 42502
Decision 11

The Court:
Natakot ka? Was the light on?

Witness:
There was a light outside, which illuminates the
interior of the conference room even if the lights
were off, Your Honor.

The Court:
May nakakapasok na sinag?

Witness:
Opo.13

xxx

The Court:
Before you answer that, earlier you said,
“hinawakan yung ari mo” and then ang sabi mo,
kinuha yung kamay mo at pina-hawak sa ari niya?

Witness:
“Opo, nilagay niya po.”

The Court:
Nilagay niya yung kamay mo sa ari niya?

Witness:
Opo.

The Court:
When did that happen, on the same night?

Witness:
Yes, Your Honor.

The Court:
Can you elaborate on that? Paano iyon?

Witness:
“Nang natutulog na po kami, nagulat ako bigla
pong may humahawak doon sa ari ko.”

The Court:
Yung sabi mo pumikit ka nalang?

13
TSN dated 16 May 2018, Rollo, 87-87-A.
CA-G.R. CR No. 42502
Decision 12

Witness:
“Opo. Nag-iisip po ako kung sino iyon tapos
naalala ko po na katabi ko pala si Sir. Pagkatapos
niya pong ginawa iyon, lumipat po ako ng ibang
pwesto ng pagtutulugan tapos kinabukasan, may
training po ulit kami.”

The Court:
Yung pag-kuha ng kamay mo, saang punto
nangyari iyon?

Witness:
“Noong mag-katabi pa po kami.”

The Court:
Iyon nga, nilagay niya yung kamay niya sa
ari mo, naka-pikit ka at sabi mo, inisip mo si
Sir ang katabi mo. Hindi mo ba siya nakita?

Witness:
“Nang bago pa po kami matulog.”

The Court:
Hindi, yung actual na may humhawak sa ari mo,
sino ang nakita mong gumagawa noon, nakita mo
ba o hindi?

Witness:
“Ano po, dumilat po ako ng konti tapos po nakita
ko po si Sir kasi nakita ko yung damit niya kulay
yellow, natatandaan ko pa po iyon nang gising pa
po kami.”

The Court:
Then, nang idinilat mo ng konti yung mata mo,
nakita mo si Sir, naka-dilaw na damit, paanong
napunta yung kamay mo sa ari niya?

Witness:
“Ano po. kinuha niya po.”

The Court:
Aling kamay mo, yung kanan o kaliwa?

Witness:
“Yung kaliwa po.”
CA-G.R. CR No. 42502
Decision 13

The Court:
Yung kaliwang kamay mo ang kinuha niya?

Witness:
Opo.

The Court:
Hindi ba nasa kanan mo siya?

Witness:
Opo.

The Court:
Nasa kanan mo siya at kinuha niya yung kaliwa
mong kamay?

Witness:
Opo.

The Court:
Naabot mo ba?

Witness:
“Opo, siya po ang nag-lagay, naabot po.”

The Court:
Proceed Fiscal14.

xxx

Pros. Bruce:
Q You also mentioned that the accused kissed your
lips?
A Yes Ma'am.

Q Which came first, yung pag-kiss o yung pagpapa-

hawak sa ari niya?
A The touching of the penis before the kissing
incident, Ma'am

The Court:
How long did it take, yung pag-hawak niya
sa ari mo, yung pag-lagay niya sa kamay mo
sa ari niya, mga ilang minuto iyon?

Witness:
About 1½ minutes, Your Honor.
14
TSN dated 16 May 2018, Rollo, pp. 97-100.
CA-G.R. CR No. 42502
Decision 14

The Court:
Paano ang ginagawa niya sa ari mo?

Witness:
”Ano po, pinapasok niya po yung kamay niya
tapos hinahawakan lang po.”

The Court:
Kung ito yung ari mo [the Court is referring to the
gavel] paano yung kamay niya?

Witness:
“Naka-ganun lang po” [witness is describing].

The Court:
Ginagalaw ba niya or hinihimas ba niya?

Witness:
“Ginaganun lang po.” [witness is describing]

The Court:
Ginaganyan, pinipisil-pisil?

Witness:
Opo.

The Court:
Then what happened to your penis when the
accused was doing that to you?

Witness:
“Wala lang po, hindi naman po ano...”

The Court:
Hindi naman tumayo yung ari mo?

Witness:
“Hindi po.”

Pros. Bruce:
Q Nang ang kamay mo naman ang dinala niya doon
sa loob ng shorts niya at pinahawak yung ari niya,
ano ang ginawa niya sa kamay mo?

A “Ano lang po, pinaghihimas-himas niya po.”

Q Matigas ba yung ari niya?

CA-G.R. CR No. 42502
Decision 15

A “Hindi po.”

Q So, siya ang gumagalaw sa kamay mo?

A Opo.

The Court:

What was his position? Supine or he was on his

side or what?

Witness:
He was lying on his side, Your Honor.

Pros. Bruce:

Q So you were facing each other?

A Yes, Ma'am.15

Second Element. The prosecution was likewise able to prove

private complainant's minority through the presentation of his
Certificate of Live Birth16 showing that at the time of the commission
of the lascivious acts, private complainant was only eleven (11) years
old.

Third Element. A child is deemed exploited in prostitution or

subjected to other sexual abuse when the child indulges in sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct (a) for money, profit or any other
consideration; or (b) under the coercion or any influence of any adult,
syndicate or group.17 Here, it cannot be denied from the facts of the
case that the private complainant was subjected to sexual abuse. He
is clearly a child who, due to the influence of accused-appellant,
indulged in lascivious conduct. As a matter of fact, it must be
stressed that private complainant was under the tutelage of accused-
appellant. As such, accused-appellant has moral ascendancy over
private complainant.

Fourth element. It is undisputed that the private complainant

was only 11 years old at the time of the commission of the offense.
Under Section 3(a) of R.A. 7610, the term “children” refers to persons
below 18 years of age or those over, but unable to fully take care of
themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty,
exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental
disability or condition.
15
TSN dated 16 May 2018, Rollo, pp. 102-104.
16
Records, p. 49.
17
People v. Macapagal, G.R. No. 218574, 22 November 2017.
CA-G.R. CR No. 42502
Decision 16

In a bid to exonerate himself, accused-appellant adamantly

insists that the RTC erred in convicting him solely on the basis of
private complainant's testimony. According to accused-appellant, the
trial court failed to even consider and appreciate the testimonies of
the witness for the defense.

These protestations fail to persuade.

It is apropos to underscore the firmly established jurisprudence

that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses is a task most
properly within the domain of trial courts. Factual findings of the trial
court carry great weight and respect due to the unique opportunity
afforded to them to observe the witnesses when placed on the stand.
Consequently, appellate courts will not overturn the factual findings of
the trial court in the absence of facts and circumstances of weight
and substance that would affect the result of the case. 18

Also, in People v. ZZZ,19 the Supreme Court stressed that:

“Settled is the rule that the trial court's evaluation

and conclusion on the credibility of
witnesses...xxx...are generally accorded great weight
and respect, and at times even finality, and that its
findings are binding and conclusive on the appellate
court, unless there is a clear showing that they were
reached arbitrarily or it appears from the records that
certain facts or circumstances of weight, substance or
value were overlooked, misapprehended or
misappreciated by the lower court and which, if
properly considered, would alter the result of the case.
Having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and
observed their behaviour and manner of testifying, the
trial courts stand in a much better position to decide
the question of credibility. Indeed, trial court judges are
in the best position to assess whether the witness is
telling a truth or a lie as they have the direct and
singular opportunity to observe the facial expression,
gesture, and tone of voice of the witness while
testifying.”

From the foregoing, this Court finds no cogent reason to deviate

from the trial court's ruling. Contrary to the assertions of accused-
appellant, there were no facts or circumstances of weight, substance

18
People v. Jagdon, Jr. G.R. No. 242882, 9 September 2020.
19
G.R. No. 232500, 28 July 2020.
CA-G.R. CR No. 42502
Decision 17

and value that were overlooked and misappreciated by the trial court.
Furthermore, in almost all cases of sexual abuse, the credibility of the
victim's testimony is crucial in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime
where only the persons involved can testify as to its occurrence. 20
Hence, even if the trial court did rely solely on the testimony of private
complainant, the same would not warrant accused-appellant's
acquittal.

Neither can this Court subscribe to accused-appellant's

contention that he could not have committed the said lascivious acts
against private complainant since he was not sleeping beside him. To
the mind of this Court, the idea that at any time within the night,
accused-appellant could have snuck beside private complainant to
commit the said lascivious acts is not incredulous.

Similar to that of rape cases wherein rapists are not deterred

from committing the odious act of sexual abuse by the mere presence
of people nearby or even family members, the crime of acts of
lasciviousness is likewise committed not exclusively in seclusion. Lust
is no respecter of time or place and defies constraint of time and
space.21 Hence, the fact that accused-appellant was not sleeping
beside private complainant is inconsequential.

The Defense of Denial and Alibi

We equally cannot give credence to accused-appellant's

contention that the RTC erred in disregarding its defense of denial.
Both denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and constitute
self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater
evidentiary weight than the positive declaration by a credible
witness.22

Indeed, the positive testimony of private complainant outweighs

the denial proffered by accused-appellant. Mere denial, without any
strong evidence to support it, can scarcely overcome the positive
declaration of the private complainant on the identity of the accused-
appellant and his involvement in the crime attributed to him.

Penalties

As for the penalties, since the elements of Article 336 of the

RPC as well as that of lascivious conduct under R.A. 7610 (given that

20
Fianza v. People, G.R. No. 218592, 02 August 2017.
21
See People v. Agudo, G.R. No. 219615, 07 June 2017.
22
See Garingarao v. People, G.R. No. 192760, 20 July 2011.
CA-G.R. CR No. 42502
Decision 18

the victim was below 12 years old) were clearly proven in this case,
the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period.23
Furthermore, as explained in People v. Eulalio,24 thus:

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL), and in

the absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances,
the minimum term shall be taken from the penalty next
lower to reclusion temporal medium, which is reclusion
temporal minimum, which ranges from twelve (12) years
and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8)
months. The maximum term shall be taken from the
medium period of the imposable penalty, i.e., reclusion
temporal in its medium period, which ranges from fifteen
(15) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days to
sixteen (16) years, five (5) months and nine (9) days.25

Accordingly, the RTC was correct in imposing the indeterminate

prison term of twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion
temporal in its minimum period, as the minimum, to 15 years of
reclusion temporal in its medium period, as the maximum. The award
of civil indemnity, as well as moral and exemplary damages in favor
of private complainant was also correctly imposed at PhP50,000.00
each, in view of the recent pronouncement in People v. Tulagan.26

ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 5

November 2018 by the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial
Region, Branch 270, Valenzuela City in Criminal Case No. 497-V-18,
is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
TITA MARILYN B. PAYOYO-VILLORDON
Associate Justice

23
People v. Eulalio, G.R. No. 214882, 16 October 2019.
24
Ibid.
25
Ibid.
26
G.R. No. 227363, 12 March 2019.
CA-G.R. CR No. 42502
Decision 19

WE CONCUR:

ORIGINAL SIGNED
EDUARDO B. PERALTA, JR.
Associate Justice

ORIGINAL SIGNED
ALFREDO D. AMPUAN
Associate Justice

C E R T I F I C AT I O N

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is

hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
EDUARDO B. PERALTA, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Fourteenth Division