9/15/23, 1:41 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 834

G.R. No. 218592. August 2, 2017.*

CHRISTOPHER FIANZA a.k.a. “TOPEL,” petitioner, vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Criminal Law; Acts of Lasciviousness; 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 Revised Penal Code (RPC), but suffer the higher
penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period in accordance
with Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act (RA) No. 7610.—The
Court deems it appropriate to correct the appellation of the crime
with which Fianza 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.
Same; Same; Elements of.—Before an accused can be
convicted of child abuse through lascivious conduct on a minor
below 12 years of age, the requisites for Acts of Lasciviousness
under Article 336 of the RPC must be met in addition to the
requisites for sexual abuse thereunder. The elements of Acts of
Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC are: (a) the offender
commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (b) the
lascivious act is done under any of the following circumstances: (i)
by using force or intimidation; (ii) when the offended party is
deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or (iii) when the
offended party is under twelve (12) years of age; and (c) the
offended party is another person of either sex. On the other hand,
sexual abuse, as defined under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610
has three (3) elements: (a) the accused commits an act of sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct; (b) the said act is performed
with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other
sexual abuse; and (c) the child is below eighteen (18) years old.

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a94cc26e36d73a2fa000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/25
9/15/23, 1:41 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 834

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

255

VOL. 834, AUGUST 2, 2017 255

Fianza vs. People

Same; Lascivious Conduct; Words and Phrases; Lascivious

conduct is defined under Section 2(h) of the Rules and Regulations
on the Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases (Rules on
Child Abuse Cases).—Lascivious conduct, on the other hand, is
defined under Section 2(h) of the Rules and Regulations on the
Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases (Rules on Child
Abuse Cases) as: [T]he intentional touching, either directly or
through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh,
or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia,
anus, or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite
sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse
or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality,
masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area
of a person. In the present case, the existence of all the elements
of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC, as well as
the first and third elements of sexual abuse under Section 5(b),
Article III of RA 7610, remains undisputed. Records disclose that
on two (2) occasions in July 2010 and on November 30, 2010,
Fianza induced AAA, an 11-year-old minor, to hold his penis and
masturbate him. The only point of dispute is with regard to the
existence of the second element of sexual abuse, i.e., whether or
not the lascivious conduct was performed on a child subjected to
other sexual abuse.
Same; Other Sexual Abuse; A child is deemed subjected to
other sexual abuse when the child indulges in lascivious conduct
under the coercion or influence of any adult.—A child is deemed
subjected to other sexual abuse when the child indulges in
lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult.
Case law further clarifies that lascivious conduct under the
coercion or influence of any adult exists when there is some form
of compulsion equivalent to intimidation which subdues
the free exercise of the offended party’s free will. Corollary
thereto, Section 2(g) of the Rules on Child Abuse Cases conveys
that sexual abuse involves the element of influence which
manifests in a variety of forms. It is defined as: [T]he
employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a94cc26e36d73a2fa000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/25
9/15/23, 1:41 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 834

of a child to engage in, or assist another person to engage in,

sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct or the molestation,
prostitution, or incest with children.

256

256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Fianza vs. People

Same; Same; The Supreme Court (SC) finds that Fianza’s acts
were attended by coercion or influence within the contemplation of
Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act (RA) No. 7610.—With the
foregoing parameters considered, the Court finds that Fianza’s
acts were attended by coercion or influence within the
contemplation of Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610. It is
undisputed that AAA was only 11 years old at the time of the
incidents, hence, considered a child under the law. Section 3(a),
Article I of RA 7610 defines children in this wise: (a) “Children”
refers to person below eighteen (18) years of age or those over but
are 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[.] Case law
states that a child, such as AAA in this case, is presumed to be
incapable of giving rational consent to any lascivious act.
Same; Same; A child is deemed subjected to other sexual abuse
when the child indulges in lascivious conduct under the coercion
or intimidation, or influence of any adult.—It is likewise well-
settled that it is sufficient that the acts or omissions constituting
the offense be stated in the information in ordinary and concise
language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute,
albeit in terms sufficient to enable a person of common
understanding to know what offense is being charged and for the
court to pronounce judgment. In the instant case, the
Informations not only referred to the specific section of
RA 7610 that was violated, but also stated that: (a) AAA
was an 11-year-old minor at the time of the offense; and (b)
Fianza committed lascivious conduct by forcing AAA to
masturbate his penis. To reiterate, a child is deemed subjected
to other sexual abuse when the child indulges in lascivious
conduct under the coercion or intimidation, or influence of any
adult.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Credibility of Witnesses; 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

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a94cc26e36d73a2fa000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/25
9/15/23, 1:41 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 834

persons involved can testify as to its occurrence.—It is not hard to

imagine 11-year-old AAA being intimidated and cowed into
silence and submission by her neighbor, a full grown adult male
old enough to be her parent, with threat of humiliation, should
she not give in to his dastardly desires. She is still a child not
capable of fully understand-

257

VOL. 834, AUGUST 2, 2017 257

Fianza vs. People

ing or knowing the import of her actions. Verily, 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. Hence, the Court
accords a high degree of respect to the assessment of the trial
court which is in the best position to observe the declarations and
demeanor of the witnesses, and evaluate their credibility, even
more so when the same is affirmed by the CA, as in this case.

CAGUIOA, J., Dissenting Opinion:

Criminal Law; Other Sexual Abuse; View that I maintain my

position as elucidated in my Dissenting Opinion in Quimvel v.
People, 823 SCRA 192 (2017), that a person may only be convicted
of a violation of Article 336 in relation to Section 5(b), Article III of
Republic Act (RA) No. 7610 upon allegation and proof of the
unique circumstances of the child — that is, that the child is
“exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse.”—With
due respect, I maintain my position as elucidated in my
Dissenting Opinion in Quimvel v. People, 823 SCRA 192 (2017),
that a person may only be convicted of a violation of Article 336 in
relation to Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610 upon allegation
and proof of the unique circumstances of the child — that is, that
the child is “exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual
abuse.” Conversely, the higher penalty of reclusion temporal, in
the range that the ponencia holds to be applicable in this case, is
not automatically applicable and may only be justified if it is
alleged and proved that the child indulges in sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct, for money, profit, or any other consideration.
Same; Acts of Lasciviousness; View that a first sexual affront,
on its own, cannot be automatically considered a violation of
Section 5(b), absent a showing that the child is already a child
“exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse” at the
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a94cc26e36d73a2fa000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/25
9/15/23, 1:41 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 834

time the sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct was committed,

or that the circumstances prior to or during the act of complained
of already constitutes the first instance of sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct so as to convert the child into a child “exploited
in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse.”—It is my
position that insofar as the first Information (pertaining to the
July 2010 incident against AAA) is concerned, Petitioner cannot
be convicted for violation of Article 336

258

258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Fianza vs. People

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

and consequently suffer a penalty of reclusion temporal as
provided for in Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610, precisely
because, as illustrated in my Dissenting Opinion in Quimvel v.
People, 823 SCRA 192 (2017), a first sexual affront, on its own,
cannot be automatically considered a violation of Section 5(b),
absent a showing that the child is already a child “exploited in
prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse” at the time the
sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct was committed, or that
the circumstances prior to or during the act of complained of
already constitutes the first instance of sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct so as to convert the child into a child “exploited
in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse.” Here, the
record is bereft of any allegation or proof that when the July 2010
incident took place, AAA was already a child “exploited in
prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse”; neither is there
any fact from which inference can be made that the relationship
between the Petitioner and the victim amounts to coercion or
influence. Thus, I submit that the accused, in the first instance,
should only be held liable for acts of lasciviousness under Article
336 of the RPC.
Same; Other Sexual Abuse; View that petitioner, for the
second instance, was correctly charged and convicted for a
violation of Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) (Acts of
Lasciviousness), in relation to Section 5(b), Article III of Republic
Act (RA) No. 7610, because, this time, the child, at the time the act
complained of was committed, already qualifies as one subjected to
“other sexual abuse” — thereby furnishing the essential element for
a conviction under Article 336 of the RPC (Acts of Lasciviousness),
in relation to Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610.—Petitioner, for

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a94cc26e36d73a2fa000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/25
9/15/23, 1:41 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 834

the second instance, was correctly charged and convicted for a

violation of Article 336 of the RPC (Acts of Lasciviousness), in
relation to Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610, because, this
time, the child, at the time the act complained of was committed,
already qualifies as one subjected to “other sexual abuse” —
thereby furnishing the essential element for a conviction under
Article 336 of the RPC (Acts of Lasciviousness), in relation to
Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610. Considering that the specific
class of lascivious conduct in Section 5(b) of R.A. 7610 requires
allegation that the acts were performed with a child exploited in
prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse, I respectfully
submit that insofar as the first incident of July 2010 is concerned,

259

VOL. 834, AUGUST 2, 2017 259

Fianza vs. People

the facts of the case warrant Petitioner’s conviction only for

acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC. Inasmuch as
the child was already subjected to “other sexual abuse” at the
time the second sexual affront occurred on November 30, 2010, I
raise no objection to Petitioner’s conviction for violation of Article
336 of the RPC (Acts of Lasciviousness), in relation to Section
5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610, insofar as the second incident is
concerned.

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.
Public Attorney’s Office for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for respondent.

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the

Decision2 dated November 24, 2014 and the Resolution3
dated May 29, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-
G.R. CR No. 35293, which upheld the Decision4 dated
September 6, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court of Tayug,
Pangasinan, Branch 52 (RTC) in Criminal Case Nos. T-
5144 and T-5145, finding petitioner Christopher Fianza
a.k.a. “Topel” (Fianza) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
two (2) counts of violation of Section 5(b),5 Article III of
Republic Act No. (RA) 7610,6
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a94cc26e36d73a2fa000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/25
9/15/23, 1:41 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 834

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 12-31.

2 Id., at pp. 35-44. Penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-
Valenzuela, with Associate Justices Vicente S.E. Veloso and Jane Aurora
C. Lantion, concurring.
3 Id., at pp. 46-47. Penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-
Valenzuela, with Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Ramon
Paul L. Hernando, concurring.
4 Id., at pp. 64-72. Penned by Presiding Judge Emma S. Ines-Parajas.
5 Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse.— Children,
whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any

260

260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Fianza vs. People

otherwise known as the “Special Protection of Children

Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act.”

The Facts

Fianza was charged with two (2) counts of violation of

Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 under two (2)
Informations7 dated April 6, 2011 filed before the RTC.8
The prosecution’s version of the incidents are as follows:

_______________

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:
xxxx
(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 victims 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
[RPC], 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[.]

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a94cc26e36d73a2fa000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 7/25
9/15/23, 1:41 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 834

6 Entitled “An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special

Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination,
Providing Penalties for its Violation, and for Other Purposes” (approved
on June 17, 1992).
7 Not attached to the Rollo. See Rollo, p. 36.
8 Id., at pp. 64-65.

261

VOL. 834, AUGUST 2, 2017 261

Fianza vs. People

Sometime in July 2010,9 AAA,10 who was then 11 years

old, was called by Fianza to his house and thereupon, was
asked to wash his clothes. After AAA was finished with the
laundry, Fianza asked her to go with him to the kamalig.
Thereat, they proceeded to the second floor where Fianza
removed his pants and briefs, lied down, and ordered AAA
to hold his penis and masturbate him. After ejaculating,
Fianza put on his clothes, and gave P20.00 to AAA who,
thereafter, went home.11
On November 30, 2010, while AAA was home, Fianza
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, Fianza 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.12
After the second incident, AAA related the matter to her
cousin, CCC,13 who, in turn, told BBB,14 AAA’s mother,
who reported the matter to the police.15
For his part, Fianza interposed the defense of denial and
alibi. He claimed that he lived with his uncle in Andalasi,
Pangasinan (Andalasi), while the rest of his family resided
in Sapinit, Pangasinan (Sapinit), and were neighbors with
AAA. He averred that in July 2010, he went to Sapinit to
gamble all

_______________

9 Id., at p. 77.
10 The identity of the victim or any information which could establish
or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or
household members, shall be withheld pursuant to RA No. 7610, and
Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the “Rule on Violence

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a94cc26e36d73a2fa000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 8/25
9/15/23, 1:41 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 834

Against Women and Their Children” (November 5, 2004). (See footnote 5

in People v. Balcueva, G.R. No. 214466, July 1, 2015, 761 SCRA 489)
11 Rollo, pp. 77-78.
12 Id., at p. 78.
13 See footnote 10.
14 Id.
15 Rollo, p. 66.

262

262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Fianza vs. People

night, and went to his parents’ house the following morning

to sleep before going home to Andalasi.16 As for the
November 30, 2010 incident, he maintained that he was in
Andalasi drinking with his friends as he had just sold a
carabao. The next day, he went to get the carabao that he
sold, and bought more liquor. He proceeded to Sapinit to
have another drinking session that lasted until December
4, 2010.17

The RTC’s Ruling

In a Decision18 dated September 6, 2012, the RTC found

Fianza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of
violation of Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610, and
sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an
indeterminate period of twelve (12) years and one (1) day of
reclusion temporal minimum, as minimum, to fourteen (14)
years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion
temporal medium, as maximum, and ordered him to pay
AAA the amount of P30,000.00 as moral damages for each
count.
The RTC held that for an accused to be convicted of child
abuse through lascivious conduct on a minor below 12
years old, the requisites for acts of lasciviousness under
Article 33619 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) must be met
in addition to the requisites of sexual abuse under Section
5 of RA 7610,20 which the prosecution was able to establish.
It gave full faith and credence to the testimony of AAA who
remained

_______________

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a94cc26e36d73a2fa000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 9/25
9/15/23, 1:41 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 834

16 Id., at p. 37.
17 Id., at pp. 37-38.
18 Id., at pp. 64-72.
19 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 prisión correccional.
20 Rollo, p. 70, citing Cabila v. People, 563 Phil. 1020, 1027; 538 SCRA
695, 701 (2007), further citing Amployo v. People, 496 Phil. 747; 457 SCRA
282 (2005).

263

VOL. 834, AUGUST 2, 2017 263

Fianza vs. People

steadfast in her claim and who was not shown to have been
impelled by any ill-motive to testify falsely against Fianza.
21
On the other hand, it declared that Fianza’s actions
showed that he took advantage of AAA’s naiveté and
innocence to satisfy his lewd designs.22
Aggrieved, Fianza elevated23 his conviction to the CA,
docketed as C.A.-G.R. CR No. 35293.

The CA’s Ruling

In a Decision24 dated November 24, 2014, the CA upheld

Fianza’s conviction for two (2) counts of violation of Section
5(b), Article III of RA 7610.
The CA observed that while Fianza was charged with
violations of Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 (sexual
abuse), the proper appellation of the crimes should be
violations of Article 336 of the RPC (Acts of
Lasciviousness), in relation to Section 5(b), Article III of RA
7610, and found that the prosecution was able to establish
all the requisites for both Acts of Lasciviousness and sexual
abuse. It declared that Fianza, a 35-year-old adult, had
moral ascendancy over 11-year-old AAA; hence, his act of
coercing AAA to engage in lascivious conduct falls within
the meaning of the term sexual abuse.25
However, the CA reduced the award of moral damages
to P25,000.00, and further ordered Fianza to pay a fine in
the amount of P15,000.00 for each count of sexual abuse,
with legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a94cc26e36d73a2fa000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 10/25
9/15/23, 1:41 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 834

annum on the amounts due from the finality of judgment

until full payment.26

_______________

21 Id., at p. 68.
22 Id., at p. 71.
23 See Brief for the Accused-Appellant dated June 3, 2013; id., at pp.
48-63.
24 Id., at pp. 35-44.
25 Id., at pp. 40-42.
26 Id., at p. 43.

264

264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Fianza vs. People

Dissatisfied, Fianza moved for reconsideration,27 which

was, however, denied in a Resolution28 dated May 29, 2015;
hence, this petition.

The Issue before the Court

The essential issue for the Court’s resolution is whether

or not the CA correctly upheld Fianza’s conviction.

The Court’s Ruling

At the outset, the Court deems it appropriate to correct

the appellation of the crime with which Fianza 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

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a94cc26e36d73a2fa000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 11/25
9/15/23, 1:41 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 834

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:

_______________

27 See Motion for Reconsideration dated December 15, 2014; id., at pp.
96-99.
28 Id., at pp. 46-47.

265

VOL. 834, AUGUST 2, 2017 265

Fianza vs. People

xxxx
(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
victims [sic] 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 x x x. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Pursuant to the foregoing provision, before an accused

can be convicted of child abuse through lascivious conduct
on a minor below 12 years of age, the requisites for Acts of
Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC must be met
in addition to the requisites for sexual abuse thereunder.29
The elements of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336
of the RPC are: (a) the offender commits any act of
lasciviousness or lewdness; (b) the lascivious act is done
under any of the following circumstances: (i) by using force
or intimidation; (ii) when the offended party is deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious; or (iii) when the
offended party is under twelve (12) years of age; and (
c) the offended party is another person of either sex.30 On
the other hand, sexual abuse, as defined under Section
5(b), Article III of RA 7610 has three (3) elements: (a) the

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a94cc26e36d73a2fa000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 12/25
9/15/23, 1:41 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 834

accused commits an act of sexual intercourse or lascivious

conduct; (b) the said act is performed with a child
exploited in prostitution or subjected to other

_______________

29 Amployo v. People, supra note 20 at p. 755; p. 291. See also People v.

Lomaque, 710 Phil. 338, 357-358; 697 SCRA 383, 405 (2013).
30 People v. Lomaque, id.

266

266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Fianza vs. People

sexual abuse; afnd (c) the child is below eighteen (18)

years old.31
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. Hence, whether or not a particular
conduct is lewd, by its very nature, cannot be pigeonholed
into a precise definition.32
Lascivious conduct, on the other hand, is defined
under Section 2(h) of the Rules and Regulations on the
Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases (Rules
on Child Abuse Cases) as:

[T]he intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of

the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the
introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus, or mouth, of
any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to
abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual
desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious
exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person.

In the present case, the existence of all the elements of

Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC, as
well as the first and third elements of sexual abuse under
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a94cc26e36d73a2fa000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 13/25
9/15/23, 1:41 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 834

Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610, remains undisputed.

Records disclose that on two (2) occasions in July 2010 and
on Novem-

_______________

31 People v. Baraga, 735 Phil. 466, 473; 725 SCRA 293, 300 (2014).
32 Sombilon, Jr. v. People, 617 Phil. 187, 196; 601 SCRA 405, 414
(2009), citing Amployo v. People, supra note 20 at p. 756; p. 292.

267

VOL. 834, AUGUST 2, 2017 267

Fianza vs. People

ber 30, 2010, Fianza induced AAA, an 11-year-old minor, to

hold his penis and masturbate him. The only point of
dispute is with regard to the existence of the second
element of sexual abuse, i.e., whether or not the lascivious
conduct was performed on a child subjected to other sexual
abuse.
A child is deemed subjected to other sexual abuse when
the child indulges in lascivious conduct under the coercion
or influence of any adult. Case law further clarifies that
lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any
adult exists when there is some form of compulsion
equivalent to intimidation which subdues the free
exercise of the offended party’s free will.33 Corollary
thereto, Section 2(g) of the Rules on Child Abuse Cases
conveys that sexual abuse involves the element of
influence which manifests in a variety of forms. It is
defined as:

[T]he employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement or

coercion of a child to engage in, or assist another person to engage
in, sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct or the molestation,
prostitution, or incest with children. x x x

The term “influence” means the “improper use of power

or trust in any way that deprives a person of free will and
substitutes another’s objective.” On the other hand, “
coercion” is the “improper use of x x x power to compel
another to submit to the wishes of one who wields it.”34
With the foregoing parameters considered, the Court
finds that Fianza’s acts were attended by coercion or
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a94cc26e36d73a2fa000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 14/25
9/15/23, 1:41 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 834

influence within the contemplation of Section 5(b), Article

III of RA 7610.

_______________

33 Caballo v. People, G.R. No. 198732, June 10, 2013, 698 SCRA 227,
242-243.
34 Id., at p. 243.

268

268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Fianza vs. People

It is undisputed that AAA was only 11 years old at the

time of the incidents, hence, considered a child under the
law. Section 3(a), Article I of RA 7610 defines children in
this wise:

(a) “Children” refers to person below eighteen (18) years of age

or those over but are 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[.]

Case law states that a child, such as AAA in this case, is

presumed to be incapable of giving rational consent to any
lascivious act. In Malto v. People,35 the Court explained:

A child cannot give consent to a contract under our civil laws.

This is on the rationale that she can easily be the victim of fraud
as she is not capable of fully understanding or knowing the nature
or import of her actions. The State, as parens patriae, is under the
obligation to minimize the risk of harm to those who, because of
their minority, are as yet unable to take care of themselves fully.
Those of tender years deserve its protection.
The harm which results from a child’s bad decision in a sexual
encounter may be infinitely more damaging to her than a bad
business deal. Thus, the law should protect her from the harmful
consequences of her attempts at adult sexual behavior. For this
reason, a child should not be deemed to have validly consented to
adult sexual activity and to surrender herself in the act of
ultimate physical intimacy under a law which seeks to afford her
special protection against abuse, exploitation and discrimination.
(Otherwise, sexual predators like petitioner will be justified, or
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a94cc26e36d73a2fa000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 15/25
9/15/23, 1:41 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 834

even unwittingly tempted by the law, to view her as fair game and
vulnerable prey.) In other words, a child is presumed by law to
be incapable of

_______________

35 560 Phil. 119; 533 SCRA 643 (2007).

269

VOL. 834, AUGUST 2, 2017 269

Fianza vs. People

giving rational consent to any lascivious act or sexual

intercourse.36

Records likewise indicate that Fianza was about 35

years old at the time of the commission of the offense,37 or
24 years older than AAA, more or less. The age disparity
between them clearly placed Fianza in a stronger position
over AAA which enabled him to wield his will on the latter.
38
However, Fianza assails his conviction for the
prosecution’s failure: (a) to specify in the Information in
Criminal Case No. T-5144 the date of the commission of the
offense;39 and (b) to indicate in the information in both
cases that the complained acts were performed with a child
exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse
40
— in violation of his right to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusations against him.
In this relation, Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court
(Rules), which lays down the guidelines in determining the
sufficiency of a complaint or information, provides:

SEC. 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information.—A

complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the
accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute; the
acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the
name of the offended party; the approximate date of the
commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was
committed.
xxxx

_______________

36 Id., at pp. 139-141; pp. 662-663.

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a94cc26e36d73a2fa000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 16/25
9/15/23, 1:41 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 834

37 He was 37 years old when he testified on February 21, 2012; see

Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN), February 21, 2012, p. 38.
38 See supra note 33 at p. 245.
39 Rollo, p. 19.
40 Id., at p. 24.

270

270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Fianza vs. People

As to the sufficiency of the allegation on the date of the

commission of the offense, Section 11, Rule 110 of the Rules
adds:

SEC. 11. Date of commission of the offense.—It is not

necessary to state in the complaint or information the
precise date the offense was committed except when it is a
material ingredient of the offense. The offense may be alleged
to have been committed on a date as near as possible to the actual
date of its commission. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Conformably with these provisions, when the date given

in the complaint is not of the essence of the offense, it need
not be proven as alleged; thus, the complaint will be
sustained if the proof shows that the offense was
committed at any date within the period of the statute of
limitations and before the commencement of the action.41
In this case, Fianza had been fully apprised of the
charges against him since the Informations stated the
approximate date of the commission of the offense to be
“sometime during the month of July 2010.” Indeed, the
precise date and time of the incidents are not among the
elements of sexual abuse under Section 5(b), Article III of
RA 7610.42
It is likewise well-settled that it is sufficient that the
acts or omissions constituting the offense be stated in the
information in ordinary and concise language and not
necessarily in the language used in the statute, albeit in
terms sufficient to enable a person of common
understanding to know what offense is being charged and
for the court to pronounce judgment.43

_______________

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a94cc26e36d73a2fa000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 17/25
9/15/23, 1:41 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 834

41 Zapanta v. People, 707 Phil. 23, 30; 694 SCRA 25, 33 (2013).
42 See People v. Fragante, 657 Phil. 577, 597; 642 SCRA 566, 584
(2011).
43 Malto v. People, supra note 35 at pp. 132-133; p. 654.

271

VOL. 834, AUGUST 2, 2017 271

Fianza vs. People

In the instant case, the Informations not only

referred to the specific section of RA 7610 that was
violated, but also stated that: (a) AAA was an 11-
year-old minor at the time of the offense; and (b)
Fianza committed lascivious conduct by forcing AAA
to masturbate his penis.44
To reiterate, a child is deemed subjected to other sexual
abuse when the child indulges in lascivious conduct under
the
46
coercion or intimidation,45 or influence of any adult.
Force or intimidation in cases involving prosecutions
for Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness is defined as “power,
violence or constraint exerted upon or against a person.”47
In People v. Maceda,48 the Court explained the standards
for evaluating the force or intimidation employed in rape,
which equally applies to Acts of Lasciviousness49 as well as
violation of Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610:50

[I]t is not necessary that the force and intimidation employed in

accomplishing it be so great or of such character as could not be
resisted. It is only necessary that the force or intimidation
be sufficient to consummate the purpose which the
accused had in mind. The intimidation must be judged in
the light of the victim’s perception and judgment at the
time of the

_______________

44 Rollo, p. 36.
45 Amployo v. People, supra note 20 at p. 759; p. 295, citing People v.
Larin, 357 Phil. 987, 998; 297 SCRA 309, 319 (1998).
46 Supra note 33 at pp. 240-242.
47 See People v. Balquedra, 693 Phil. 125, 134; 678 SCRA 718, 726
(2012).
48 405 Phil. 698; 353 SCRA 228 (2001).

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a94cc26e36d73a2fa000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 18/25
9/15/23, 1:41 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 834

49 Under Article 336 of the RPC, the acts of lasciviousness must be

committed under any of the circumstances mentioned in the definition of
the crime of rape. See also Reyes, Luis B., The Revised Penal Code:
Criminal Law, Book Two, p. 919 (2012 Edition).
50 See People v. Abello, 601 Phil. 373, 393; 582 SCRA 378, 397-398
(2009).

272

272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Fianza vs. People

commission of the crime, and not by any hard and fast

rule.51 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

The allegation that Fianza committed lascivious conduct

by forcing AAA to masturbate his penis was sufficient to
apprise him of the nature of the criminal act with which he
was charged to enable him to prepare his defense. Contrary
to his protestations, the Informations sufficiently alleged
the second element of sexual abuse, albeit not employing
the exact language of the law, i.e., that the lewd acts being
complained of were performed with a child exploited in
prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse.
Notably, Fianza failed to refute AAA’s claim that she
was compelled to do as he instructed because he threatened
to humiliate her and her family.52 In Amployo v. People,53 a
case involving a similar prosecution for lascivious conduct
committed on an eight-year-old minor, the Court held that
intimidation need not necessarily be irresistible, especially
in the case of young girls, thus:

[I]ntimidation 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. Young girls cannot be
expected to act like adults under the same circumstances or

_______________

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a94cc26e36d73a2fa000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 19/25
9/15/23, 1:41 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 834

51 People v. Maceda, supra note 48 at p. 721; p. 245, citing People v.

Moreno, 356 Phil. 231; 294 SCRA 728 (1998).
52 See AAA’s Sworn Statement dated February 9, 2011 taken during
the investigation before the San Nicolas Police Station, San Nicolas,
Pangasinan (Records, Vol. I, pp. 4-5), the truth and veracity of which she
confirmed before the RTC (see TSN, November 8, 2011, p. 22).
53 Amployo v. People, supra note 20 at p. 759; pp. 295-296.

273

VOL. 834, AUGUST 2, 2017 273

Fianza vs. People

to have the courage and intelligence to disregard the

threat.54 (Emphasis supplied)

It is not hard to imagine 11-year-old AAA being

intimidated and cowed into silence and submission by her
neighbor, a full grown adult male old enough to be her
parent,55 with threat of humiliation, should she not give in
to his dastardly desires. She is still a child not capable of
fully understanding or knowing the import of her actions.
Verily, 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. Hence, the Court accords a high
degree of respect to the assessment of the trial court which
is in the best position to observe the declarations and
demeanor of the witnesses, and evaluate their credibility,
even more so when the same is affirmed by the CA,56 as in
this case.
Accordingly, the Court finds the prosecution to have
sufficiently established Fianza’s guilt beyond reasonable
doubt for Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the
RPC in relation to Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and absent any
mitigating or aggravating circumstances, he is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an
indeterminate period of twelve (12) years and one (1) day of
reclusion temporal in its minimum period, as minimum, to
fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of
reclusion temporal in its me-

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a94cc26e36d73a2fa000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 20/25
9/15/23, 1:41 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 834

_______________

54 Id.
55 There is a 24-year age gap between Fianza and AAA, more or less (
see footnote 37). Fianza was 37 years old when he testified on February
21, 2012 (see TSN, February 21, 2012, p. 38), while AAA’s mother was 38
when she testified on August 16, 2011 (see TSN, August 16, 2011, p. 4).
56 See People v. Subesa, 676 Phil. 403, 414; 660 SCRA 390, 401 (2011).

273

VOL. 834, AUGUST 2, 2017 273

Fianza vs. People

dium period, as maximum.57 However, in line with recent

jurisprudence, the Court modifies the awards of civil
indemnity and moral damages, and hereby orders Fianza
to pay the amounts of P15,000.00 as fine, P20,000.00 as
civil indemnity, and P15,000.00 as moral damages, for each
count, plus legal interest thereon at the rate of six percent
(6%) per annum from the finality of this judgment until full
payment.58
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision
dated November 24, 2014 and the Resolution dated May
29, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CR No. 35293
are hereby SET ASIDE and a new one is entered finding
petitioner Christopher Fianza a.k.a. “Topel” (Fianza)
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of Acts
of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal
Code in relation to Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act
No. 7610. Fianza is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day of
reclusion temporal in its minimum period, as minimum, to
fifteen (15) years, six (6)

_______________

57 The penalty for violation of Section 5(b), Article III of RA No. 7610
is reclusion temporal in its medium period which ranges from fourteen
(14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and
four (4) months. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum
of the penalty should be taken from reclusion temporal in its minimum
period, or anywhere from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen
(14) years and eight (8) months, and the maximum should be reclusion
temporal in its medium period. In relation thereto, Article 64 of the RPC

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a94cc26e36d73a2fa000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 21/25
9/15/23, 1:41 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 834

provides that when the penalty prescribed by law contains three periods
(such as reclusion temporal) and in the absence of aggravating or
mitigating circumstances, the penalty shall be imposed in its medium
period. See Quimvel v. People, G.R. No. 214497, April 18, 2017, 823 SCRA
192, citing People v. Santos, 753 Phil. 637; 750 SCRA 471 (2015).
58 See Imbo v. People, G.R. No. 197712, April 20, 2015, 756 SCRA 196,
citing People v. Baraga, supra note 31 at pp. 465-466; pp. 302-303; Roallos
v. People, 723 Phil. 655, 672-673; 712 SCRA 593, 608 (2013); Garingarao
v. People, 669 Phil. 512, 524-525; 654 SCRA 243, 255-256 (2011); People v.
Fragante, supra note 42 at p. 602; pp. 590-591.

275

VOL. 834, AUGUST 2, 2017 275

Fianza vs. People

months, and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal in its

medium period, as maximum, and is ordered to pay AAA
the amounts of P15,000.00 as fine, P20,000.00 as civil
indemnity, and P15,000.00 as moral damages, for each
count, plus legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per
annum from the finality of this judgment until full
payment.
SO ORDERED.

Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro and Del

Castillo, JJ., concur.
Caguioa, J., See Dissenting Opinion.

DISSENTING OPINION

CAGUIOA, J.:

The People’s evidence shows that one morning in July

2010, Petitioner called 11-year-old AAA and asked the
latter to wash his clothes in the bathroom of his house.
After AAA had done so, Petitioner invited her to go with
him to the kamalig, and at the second floor of the kamalig,
Petitioner removed his pants, lay down, and asked AAA to
hold his penis and “salsalen” (masturbate him). AAA did as
instructed. After Petitioner ejaculated, he put on his pants
and gave AAA P20.00. The same incident occurred on
November 30, 2010, when Petitioner asked AAA to clean
his house. After AAA cleaned Petitioner’s house, the latter
again asked AAA to go with him to the kamalig, where he
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a94cc26e36d73a2fa000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 22/25
9/15/23, 1:41 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 834

again asked AAA to fondle his penis. After ejaculating,

Petitioner again gave AAA P20.00. After the second
incident, AAA reported the matter to her cousin CCC, who
then told BBB, AAA’s mother, of the incident.
Acting on two (2) Informations, each charging Petitioner
with one violation of Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act
No. (R.A.) 7610, the RTC convicted Petitioner for two (2)

276

276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Fianza vs. People

counts of violation of Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610,

and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment
for an indeterminate period of 12 years and 1 day of
reclusion temporal minimum, as minimum, to 14 years, 8
months and 1 day of reclusion temporal medium, as
maximum, as well as to pay AAA the amount of P30,000.00
in damages for each count. On appeal, the CA affirmed the
conviction, albeit correcting the appellation of the crime to
“violations of Article 336 of the RPC (Acts of
Lasciviousness), in relation to Section 5(b), Article III of
R.A. 7610,” reduced the award of moral damages to
P25,000.00 and ordered Petitioner to pay a fine in the
amount of P15,000.00 for each count of sexual abuse.
With due respect, I maintain my position as elucidated
in my Dissenting Opinion in Quimvel v. People,1 that a
person may only be convicted of a violation of Article 336 in
relation to Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610 upon
allegation and proof of the unique circumstances of the
child — that is, that the child is “exploited in prostitution
or subject to other sexual abuse.” Conversely, the higher
penalty of reclusion temporal, in the range that the
ponencia holds to be applicable in this case, is not
automatically applicable and may only be justified if it is
alleged and proved that the child indulges in sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct, for money, profit, or any
other consideration.
Applying the foregoing standards, it is my position that
insofar as the first Information (pertaining to the July 2010
incident against AAA) is concerned, Petitioner cannot be
convicted for violation of Article 336 of the RPC in relation
to Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610 and consequently
suffer a penalty of reclusion temporal as provided for in
Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610, precisely because, as
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a94cc26e36d73a2fa000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 23/25
9/15/23, 1:41 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 834

illustrated in my Dissenting Opinion in Quimvel,2 a first

sexual affront, on its own, cannot be automatically
considered a violation of Section

_______________

1 G.R. No. 214497, April 18, 2017, ­823 SCRA 192.

2 Id.

277

VOL. 834, AUGUST 2, 2017 277

Fianza vs. People

5(b), absent a showing that the child is already a child

“exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual
abuse” at the time the sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct was committed, or that the circumstances prior to
or during the act of complained of already constitutes the
first instance of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct so
as to convert the child into a child “exploited in prostitution
or subjected to other sexual abuse.”
Here, the record is bereft of any allegation or proof that
when the July 2010 incident took place, AAA was already a
child “exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual
abuse”; neither is there any fact from which inference can
be made that the relationship between the Petitioner and
the victim amounts to coercion or influence. Thus, I submit
that the accused, in the first instance, should only be held
liable for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the
RPC.
Prescinding from the above considerations, Petitioner,
for the second instance, was correctly charged and
convicted for a violation of Article 336 of the RPC (Acts of
Lasciviousness), in relation to Section 5(b), Article III of
R.A. 7610, because, this time, the child, at the time the act
complained of was committed, already qualifies as one
subjected to “other sexual abuse” — thereby furnishing the
essential element for a conviction under Article 336 of the
RPC (Acts of Lasciviousness), in relation to Section 5(b),
Article III of R.A. 7610.
Considering that the specific class of lascivious conduct
in Section 5(b) of R.A. 7610 requires allegation that the
acts were performed with a child exploited in prostitution
or subjected to other sexual abuse, I respectfully submit
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a94cc26e36d73a2fa000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 24/25
9/15/23, 1:41 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 834

that insofar as the first incident of July 2010 is concerned,

the facts of the case warrant Petitioner’s conviction only for
acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC.
Inasmuch as the child was already subjected to “other
sexual abuse” at the time the second sexual affront
occurred on November 30, 2010, I raise no objection to
Petitioner’s conviction for violation of Article 336 of the
RPC (Acts of Lasciviousness), in relation to Section

278

278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Fianza vs. People

5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610, insofar as the second incident

is concerned.

Petition denied, judgment and resolution set aside.

The elements of sexual abuse under the Acts of

Lasciviousness committed against a child under Section
5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610 are as follows: 1. The
accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct; 2. The said act is performed with a child exploited
in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and 3.
The child whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.
(People vs. Barcela, 723 SCRA 647 [2014])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2023 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a94cc26e36d73a2fa000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 25/25