EDUARDO QUIMVEL Y BRAGA VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

EDUARDO QUIMVEL Y BRAGA VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 214497        April 18, 2017

 

VELASCO JR., J.

FACTS:

AAA, who was seven years old at the time of the incident. Quimvel, at that time, was the caretaker of the ducks of AAA's grandfather and lived near AAA’s house. While YYY (AAA’s father) was away to buy kerosene, Quimvel arrived bringing a vegetable viand from AAA's grandfather. AAA requested Quimvel to stay with them as she and her siblings were afraid. He agreed and accompanied them. AAA and her siblings then went to sleep. However, she was awakened when she felt Quimvel's right leg on top of her body. She likewise sensed Quimvel inserting his right hand inside her panty. In a trice, she felt Quimvel caressing her private part. She removed his hand. Quimvel was about to leave when YYY arrived. She asked him what he was doing in his house. Quimvel replied that he was just accompanying the children. After he left, YYY and his children went back to sleep.

On July 29, 2007, XXX (AAA’s mother) arrived from Batangas. BBB (AAA’s sibling) told her that Quimvel touched her Ate. When XXX asked AAA what Quimvel did to her, she recounted that Quimvel laid down beside her and touched her vagina. Upon hearing this, XXX and YYY went to the Office of the Barangay Tanod and thereafter to the police station to report the incident. Afterwards, they brought AAA to a doctor for medical examination. The Regional Trial Court in Ligao City, Albay rendered its Judgment finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.

ISSUE:

Whether the accused may be convicted only of acts of lasciviousness under Art. 336 of the Revised Penal Code and not in relation to Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610.

RULING:

Yes. Before an accused can be held criminally liable for lascivious conduct under Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610, the requisites of Acts of Lasciviousness as penalized under Art. 336 of the RPC earlier enumerated must be met in addition to the requisites for sexual abuse under Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610, which are as follows:

X X X

2. The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse

X X X

The fault in petitioner's logic lies in his misapprehension of how the element that the victim is "exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse" should be alleged in the Information.

To the mind of the Court, the allegations are sufficient to classify the victim as one "exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse." This is anchored on the very definition of the phrase in Sec. 5 of RA 7610, which encompasses children who indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct (a) for money, profit, or any other consideration; or (b) under the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group.

Correlatively, Sec. 5(a) of RA 7610 punishes acts pertaining to or connected with child prostitution wherein the child is abused primarily for profit. On the other hand, paragraph (b) punishes sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct committed on a child subjected to other sexual abuse. It covers not only a situation where a child is abused for profit but also one in which a child, through coercion, intimidation or influence, engages in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct. Hence, the law punishes not only child prostitution but also other forms of sexual abuse against children.

             Clear from the records of the deliberation is that the original wording of Sec. 5 of RA 7610 has been expanded so as to cover abuses that are not characterized by gain, monetary or otherwise. In the case at bar, the abuse suffered by AAA squarely falls under this expanded scope as there was no allegation of consideration or profit in exchange for sexual favor. As stated in the Information, petitioner committed lascivious conduct through the use of "force" and "intimidation."

The Senate deliberations made clear, though, that other forms of sexual abuse, not just prostitution, are within the extended coverage of RA 7610. It is immaterial whether or not the accused himself employed the coercion or influence to subdue the will of the child for the latter to submit to his sexual advances for him to be convicted under paragraph (b). Sec. 5 of RA 7610 even provides that the offense can be committed by "any adult, syndicate or group," without qualification. The clear language of the special law, therefore, does not preclude the prosecution of lascivious conduct performed by the same person who subdued the child through coercion or influence. This is, in fact, the more common scenario of abuse that reaches this Court and it would be an embarrassment for us to rule that such instances are outside the ambit Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610.