Fianza vs. People (2017)

CHRISTOPHER FIANZA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

GR No. 218592, Aug 02, 2017

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Facts: Sometime in July 2010, AAA, who was then 11 years old, was asked by appellant to wash his clothes. Thereafter, petitioner asked her to go with him to the kamalig. Thereat, they proceeded to the second floor where petitioner removed his pants and briefs, lied down, and ordered AAA to hold his penis and masturbate him. After ejaculating, he put on his clothes, and gave P20.00 to AAA who, thereafter, went home. Likewise, on November 30, 2010, while AAA was home, petitioner called her to his house, and asked her to clean the same. After she was done sweeping the floor, they proceeded to the second floor of the kamalig. Thereat, petitioner again removed his pants and briefs, lied down, and ordered AAA to fondle his penis. After the deed, he gave P20.00 to AAA who, thereafter, went home.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner is guilty with violations of Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610.

Ruling: At the outset, the Court deems it appropriate to correct the appellation of the crime with which petitioner was charged to Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC considering that the victim, AAA, was only 11 years old at the time of the incidents.

In instances where the child subjected to sexual abuse through lascivious conduct is below twelve (12) years of age, the offender should be prosecuted under Article 336 of the RPC, but suffer the higher penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period in accordance with Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610, which pertinently reads:

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.

In the present case, records disclose that on two (2) occasions in July 2010 and on November 30, 2010, appellant induced AAA, an 11-year-old minor, to hold his penis and masturbate him.

Ratio Decidendi: The presence or absence of lewd designs is inferred from the nature of the acts themselves and the environmental circumstances.

Gist: This is an appeal from the Decision of the CA which upheld the Decision of the RTC finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of violation of Section 5 (b),[5] Article III of Republic Act No. 7610.