Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Manila

SIXTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CA – G.R. CR No. 44104

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Members:

Bruselas, Jr., Chairman

– versus – Azcarraga-Jacob, and
Quimpo-Sale, JJ.

REYMOND MANZANO y Promulgated:

DELA CRUZ, 15 Feb 2021
Accused-Appellant. ___________________
xx============================================xx
DECISION

Bruselas, Jr., J.:

Accused-appellant Reymond Manzano y Dela Cruz

(appellant hereafter) appeals from the Decision1 rendered on 03
September 2019 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), that found
him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Sexual Assault under
Article 266-A paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as
amended. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, accused REYMOND

MANZANO y DELA CRUZ is found GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT of sexual assault, as defined in Article 266-A,
paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, and is sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1)
day of prision correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years and one (1)
day of prision mayor, as maximum.

Accused is also ORDERED TO PAY private complainant

AAA the amount of P30,000.00 as civil indemnity and P30,000.00 as
moral damages.

SO ORDERED.”2
1 Penned by Presiding Judge Liza Marie R. Picardal-Tecson, RTC, Branch 144, Makati City,
record, pp. 106-116.
2 Record, p. 116.
 CA – G.R. CR No. 44104
Decision
Page 2
=================

Accusation, Arraignment and Pre-trial

The accusatory portion of the Information dated 31 October

2018 reads:

“On the 28th day of October 2018, in the city of Makati,

the Philippines, accused, by means of force and intimidation,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously
commit an act of sexual assault against complainant, AAA 3, 17
years old minor, by then and there inserting his finger inside
complainant's vagina, against the will and without the consent
of the latter.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”4

With the assistance of counsel, the appellant pleaded not

guilty to the offense with which he was charged upon his
arraignment on 09 November 2018.5 During the pre-trial, the
parties entered into stipulation of facts which consisted of the
following: (1) jurisdiction of the court to try and hear the case; and
(b) identity of the accused. Thereafter, the trial proceeded with the
sole issue of whether or not the appellant was guilty of the crime
charged. Meanwhile, the appellant posted bail in the reduced
amount of P60,000.00 for his temporary liberty.

People's Version of the Facts

The People presented its witnesses, private complainant

AAA, Dr. Raleigh Herbert G. Ampuan and Bantay Bayan member
3 Pursuant to the ruling of the Supreme Court in People v. Cabalquinto, G. R. No. 167693,
September 19, 2006, fictitious initials shall be used to respect the dignity and protect the
privacy of the rape victim and that of her family. Any information which tend to
establish or compromise the identity of the victim shall be blotted out. Refer also to the
Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 issued on 05 September 2017, “Protocols
and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication and Posting on The Websites of
Decisions, Final Resolutions and Final Orders Using Fictitious Names/Personal
Circumstances.”
4 Record, p. 1.
5 Certificate of Arraignment, record, p. 20.
 CA – G.R. CR No. 44104
Decision
Page 3
=================
Ricky Pampanga-Valencia. Their testimonies narrate the
following version of the facts:

In the evening of 27 October 2018, private complainant AAA

(private complainant hereafter), then seventeen (17) years of age 6,
attended a birthday party of her friend whose house was located
in a compound where appellant and his girlfriend, Patricia also
lived. Private complainant and her friends had a drinking spree
that lasted until 3:00 o'clock in the morning. Because private
complainant was already drunk, she was told by Patricia to rest
for a while in the latter's house before going home. Private
complainant personally knew Patricia because private
complainant's boyfriend and Patricia were cousins.

Private complainant settled herself on a sofa located in the

living room and slept there. After some time, she felt something
that roused her from her sleep and realized that the appellant was
kissing her and fondling her breast. She resisted and tried to push
him away but private complainant was seized by a sudden
weakness at that moment. Appellant then inserted his finger into
private complainant's vagina. This time, private complainant
regained her strength and was able to push the appellant away.
She immediately got up and went out of the house. The moment
she got out, private complainant found Patricia in the company of
her friends. When asked what was wrong, all that the private
complainant could utter was, “Yung boyfriend mo!” “Yung
boyfriend mo!” Patricia became hysterical and started screaming
while the private complainant was crying beside her. Patricia was
furious and could not believe private complainant's accusations
against the appellant. Meanwhile, private complainant's friends
learned about the incident and immediately took her to their
6 Record, pp. 29-30.
 CA – G.R. CR No. 44104
Decision
Page 4
=================
friend's house where she recounted to them what had happened.
She was then brought to the barangay hall where her statement
was taken by a barangay official. Then, private complainant
proceeded to the police station which was just beside the
barangay hall and she was interviewed again. Accompanied by
Bantay Bayan member Valencia and the police officers, private
complainant went back to the compound where the incident
happened. Upon their arrival, private complainant was asked to
identify the perpetrator and the place where he was staying. After
the arresting officers talked to him and confirmed his identity, the
appellant was arrested. Private complainant then went home and
informed her grandmother about the incident. Even though
private complainant has known the appellant prior to the
incident, she could not recall any misunderstanding or altercation
between them.

Dr. Raleigh Herbert G. Ampuan (Dr. Ampuan hereafter)

testified that on 28 October 2018, he received a request 7 from the
Makati City Police Station to initiate a physical and genital
examination of the private complainant. After obtaining a written
consent from the private complainant and her grandmother, Dr.
Ampuan conducted the examinations on the same day and he
found that the private complainant had chest injury described as:
“ecchymosis, sternal region, measuring 1 cm x 0.8 cm, along the anterior
midline.” Dr. Ampuan further found the presence of “deep healed
lacerations at 9 and 3 o'clock positions and shallow healed laceration at
7 o'clock position” in the hymen. The result of the examination was
reduced into writing in Medico-Legal Report No. R18-07208. Dr.
Ampuan concluded that his evaluation showed “clear evidence of
previous blunt penetrating genital trauma.” On cross-examination, he

7 Record, p. 15.
8 Record, p. 67.
 CA – G.R. CR No. 44104
Decision
Page 5
=================
explained that the deep healed lacerations indicated that more
than 50% of the width of the hymenal tissue has healed and that
the injury was inflicted more than seven days prior to the
examination. A shallow healed laceration, on the other hand, has
not reached 50% of the width of the hymenal tissue. Dr. Ampuan
further testified that per his interview of the private complainant,
the latter revealed that she and her boyfriend had already
engaged in sexual relations. Under such circumstance, Dr.
Ampuan declared that if any foreign object was inserted in
private complainant's genitals, the hymenal tissue would no
longer sustain any laceration.9

A member of the Bantay Bayan, Ricky Pampanga Valencia

(Valencia hereafter) testified that on 28 October 2018, private
complainant arrived in their office to file a complaint against the
appellant who sexually molested her. Valencia and the police
officers accompanied the private complainant who led them to
the appellant's house. The appellant, who was with his girlfriend
at that time, opened the door. When the private complainant
identified the appellant as the assailant, the police officers
arrested him and brought him to the barangay hall. Thereafter,
they brought him to Ospital ng Makati where he was physically
examined, and then to the police station where he was detained
until a case against him was filed. Valencia declared that he had
no prior encounter with the appellant.

Defense's Version of the Facts

After the People rested its case, the appellant and his
girlfriend, Patricia took the witness stand. Their testimonies
disclosed the following version of the events:
9 TSN, Dr. Raleigh Herbert G. Ampuan, 07 March 2019, pp. 24-26.
 CA – G.R. CR No. 44104
Decision
Page 6
=================

In the evening of 27 October 2018, appellant and Patricia

attended a birthday party of a friend wherein private complainant
was also present. Appellant personally knew the private
complainant because the latter's boyfriend and Patricia were
cousins. The drinking spree started at about 9:00 o'clock in the
evening. While private complainant and her friends were
drinking outside the house, appellant and Patricia stayed inside.
At around 3:00 o'clock in the morning, the private complainant
told them that she was going home. Since private complainant
was already drunk, Patricia advised her to stay and rest for a
while. The private complainant did as she was told and reclined
on the sofa.

The appellant testified that the private complainant rested

for about fifteen (15) minutes then suddenly got up and went out
of the house. He did not notice that the private complainant was
crying because he was busy cleaning the house while Patricia's
friends were asleep. The appellant then heard his girlfriend asked
the private complainant why she was crying but he was not able
to hear private complainant's response. He merely learned from
Patricia's friends that the private complainant accused him of
sexually molesting her. The appellant chose to stay in his house
and awaited a complaint that may be filed against him. The
thought of going out of his house frightened him knowing that
there were several drug addicts in their place who might harm
him.

Patricia testified that she joined her friends in their drinking

spree between 9:00 o'clock and 10:00 o'clock in the evening of 27
October 2018 to celebrate the birthday of her childhood friend.
 CA – G.R. CR No. 44104
Decision
Page 7
=================
The private complainant, who was also present in the same party,
started drinking at around 7:00 o'clock that evening. While the
private complainant and her friends were drinking outside the
house, Patricia and her friends were drinking inside the house. By
midnight, the private complainant and two of her friends entered
the house and continued their drinking. They went back outside
at 1:30 o'clock in the morning of 28 October 2018. At about 3:00
o'clock in the morning, the private complainant informed Patricia
that she was going home. Because the private complainant was
already drunk, Patricia told her, “Dito ka muna be. Ano pahinga ka
muna.” The private complainant heeded Patricia and reclined on
the sofa to rest. Patricia recalled having gone out of the house
while the private complainant was asleep. About 15 to 30 minutes
thereafter, the private complainant came out of the house crying.
She asked her what the matter was, but the latter did not answer
her and, instead, told her friends that the appellant had done
something bad to her. Upon hearing this, Patricia confronted the
appellant but he denied that something happened between him
and the private complainant. Patricia believed that the appellant
did nothing wrong because she saw him cleaning the house that
time. Later that day, the private complainant, accompanied by
police officers, pointed to the appellant as the one who sexually
assaulted her. The appellant was consequently arrested and
brought to the barangay office.

Trial Court's Dispositions

On 03 September 2019, the trial court rendered judgment

finding the appellant guilty of Sexual Assault. The trial court
ratiocinated as follows:

“Rape through sexual assault, thus requires that the assault be

 CA – G.R. CR No. 44104
Decision
Page 8
=================
specifically done through insertion into the genital or anal orifices of
the victim, a circumstance absent in this case, or at least not
established by the required quantum of evidence. It has also been
held that the insertion of one's finger into the genital of another
constitutes rape through sexual assault. While the medico-legal
report yielded negative results, the testimony of the expert witness
for the prosecution remains unrebutted: that it is possibile for the
absence of subsequent lacerations or injury if the complainant had
sexual contact prior to the incident.

Moreover, the chest injury suffered by the private

complainant is consistent with her narration that accused had kissed
her and put his hand on her breast.

Xxx xxx xxx

The credibility given to the rape victim is an important aspect

of evidence and it has been established that the testimony of a rape
victim is generally given full weight and credit, more so, if she is a
child, as in this case. The revelation of a child whose chastity has
been abused deserves full credit, as her willingness to undergo the
trouble and the humiliation of a public trial is an eloquent testament
to the truth of her complaint.”10

Appellant's Contentions

The appellant appeals to us the trial court's finding of guilt

against him and assigns the sole error:

“THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING

THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF RAPE THROUGH SEXUAL
ASSAULT, DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE
THE ELEMENTS THEREOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.”

In support of the assigned error, the appellant contends that

the incredible testimony of the private complainant readily points
to his innocence and that the trial court overlooked and
misapprehended facts and circumstances that would overturn the
judgment of conviction. First, the private complainant's
perception of what had taken place must have been clouded by
her heavy intoxication. Second, private complainant had

10 Record, pp. 114-115.

 CA – G.R. CR No. 44104
Decision
Page 9
=================
conflicting statements in her testimony and sworn statement as to
what time she went to sleep. Third, private complainant initially
alleged that she agreed to sleep in appellant's house because all
her friends had gone home but she later claimed that her friends
were still drinking outside the house at about 5:00 o'clock in the
morning. Fourth, while the private complainant claimed that she
was very drunk when she was brought to appellant's house, she
later claimed that she was not drunk when the appellant sexually
assaulted her. Fifth, the private complainant alleged in her sworn
statement that the appellant inserted his finger into her vagina,
but she stated in her direct examination that the appellant
inserted his hand into her private part. Sixth, the private
complainant's testimony is bereft of any details that she made any
effort to resist the advances of the appellant who neither held a
deadly weapon nor had threatened, forced or intimidated her to
engage in a sexual activity. Seventh, despite being accused of a
serious crime, the appellant stayed in his house until the private
complainant arrived in the company of the police officers. Lastly,
the medico-legal findings showed that it cannot be reasonably
concluded that the private complainant was indeed sexually
assaulted.

The Court's Opinion

Republic Act No. 8353 (RA No. 8353) or “The Anti-Rape Law
of 1997”11 amended Article 335, the provision on rape in the RPC,
by reclassifying rape as a crime against persons and introducing
rape by “sexual assault,” as differentiated from rape through
“carnal knowledge” or rape through “sexual intercourse.”
Incorporated into the RPC by RA No. 8353, Article 266-A reads:

11 Approved on 30 September 1997.

 CA – G.R. CR No. 44104
Decision
Page 10
=================
“Article 266-A.Rape, When and How Committed. Rape is
committed-

1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any

of the following circumstances:
(a) Through force, threat or intimidation;
(b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or is 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.

2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in

paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting
his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any
instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another
person.”

Thus, rape under the RPC, as amended, can be committed in

two ways:

(1) Article 266-A paragraph 1 refers to rape through sexual

intercourse, also known as “penile rape.” The central element in rape
through sexual intercourse is carnal knowledge, which must be
proven beyond reasonable doubt.

(2) Article 266-A paragraph 2 refers to rape by sexual assault, also

called “instrument or object rape,” or “gender-free rape.” It must be
attended by any of the circumstances enumerated in sub-paragraphs
(a) to (d) of paragraph 1.12

The private complainant clearly and unequivocably

declared in her sworn statement and testimony that she was
roused from her sleep by the appellant kissing her, fondling her
breast and touching her private part. Upon realizing that
appellant was molesting her, she tried to push him away but, he
was able, nonetheless, to insert his finger into her vagina. Such
testimonial evidence characterizes the act perpetrated by the
appellant as one of rape by sexual assault under paragraph 2,

12 People v. Caoili, GR No. 196342, 08 August 2017, 815 Phil 839.

 CA – G.R. CR No. 44104
Decision
Page 11
=================
Article 266-A of the RPC. Her sworn statement and testimony
deserve full faith and credit. Further, her declarations concerning
her sexual ordeal, which were given in a straightforward,
convincing, credible and satisfactory manner, show no other
intention than to obtain justice for the wrong committed by the
appellant against her. It is worth noting that private complainant
also clearly stated that she stopped drinking by 3:00 o'clock in the
morning and at about 5:00 o'clock that morning, she was roused
from her sleep by the appellant whom she positively identified as
the person who molested and sexually assaulted her. Granting
that the private complainant was brought to the appellant's house
heavily drunk or intoxicated, the fact that she was able to rest and
sleep for a couple of hours enabled her to regain a grasp of her
surroundings, particularly her ability to see and be aware of the
situation during the moment that the appellant molested her.

Whether or not private complainant's friends had gone

home or were still drinking outside the house when private
complainant agreed to rest in appellant's house, is a matter that is
immaterial to the case. It does not pertain to any of the essential
elements of the crime charged. The alleged inconsistency in the
private complainant's testimony as to the presence of her friends
is a trivial matter which cannot be a basis for acquittal. This is
because the inconsistency does not relate to any essential element
of the crime.

To narrate her experience in the hands of the appellant,

private complainant testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY PROSECUTOR ODRONIA:

“Q: Please look around and tell this Honorable Court

 CA – G.R. CR No. 44104
Decision
Page 12
=================
if he is present in the courtroom?

A: He's here po.

Q: And if he is present, please point out to him?

A: Siya po.

INTERPRETER:
Anong pangalan mo?

ACCUSED
Reymond Manzano.

INTERPRETER
Witness pointing to a man wearing red shirt.
Thank you po.

Q: Okay. So, you mentioned that while you were

sleeping in the house of the girlfriend of the
accused, something happened, is that correct?

A: Opo.

Q: What is that, that happened?

A: Ayun po, una hinalikan niya ako tapos nanghihina

po ako nun pero pinupush away ko po siya tapos
hanggang sa hinawakan niya na po ako sa dito tapos
baba...

Q: Wait. You mentioned that accused kissed you?

A: Opo.

Q: And he held you where?

A: Breast.

Q: Sa breast?

A: Opo.

Q: Okay. And while he was doing this to you, were

you already awake?

A: Opo. Pero nanghihina po.

Q: Okay. So, you saw that it was accused who did

this to you?
 CA – G.R. CR No. 44104
Decision
Page 13
=================

A: Opo.

Q: Okay. So, after holding you and mashing your

breast, what else did accused do, if any?

A: Yun po, yung kamay niya pinasok po sa private part

ko.

Q: Okay. And when accused inserted his finger to

your private part, what did you do?

A: Yun po, finoforce ko po talaga siya itulak tapos

hanggang sa nakatayo ako.

Q: So, you were able to pushed [sic] him?

A: Opo. Tapos tumayo na po ako noon at humingi ng

tulong.

Q: So, when you were able to pushed [sic] him and

you stood up, where did you go?

A: Sa labas po ng bahay.”13

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ATTY. BANSUELO:

Q: Okay. You only drink a little. And while you

were sleeping, you suddenly felt somebody
kissed you?

A: Yes po.

Q: You really felt that?

A: Yes.

Q: And you opened your eyes?

A: Yes.

Q: What was your first reaction?

A: Ayun po, parang nilalayo ko po siya tapos

nanghihina po talaga ako hanggang sa, ayun po,
tinuloy-tuloy niya na po.

Q: He kissed you on the cheeks?

13 TSN, AAA, 10 January 2019, pp. 11-13.

 CA – G.R. CR No. 44104
Decision
Page 14
=================
A: Lips.

Q: And you recognized who he was?

A: Yes.

Q: So, you were pushing him?

A: Yes.

Q: And he did not stop?

A: No.

Q: So, you were already pushing him?

A: Yes.

Q: What else did you do aside from pushing him?

A: Pinupush lang, malakas po siya ako nanghihina po

talaga, kaya ayun nagawa niya po yun.

Q: Did you shout?

A: No.

Q: Why not?

A: Nanghihina po talaga ako that time.

Q: But you can push him?

A: Slight

Q: So, did that take long? What was being done to

you?

A: Hindi ko maalala kung gaano katagal, pero alam ko

po yung ginawa niya sa akin.

Q: And you mentioned, he inserted his finger inside

your vagina and what did you feel?

A: Nasaktan po.

Q: What did you do?

A: Yun po, doon ko na po nalakasan yung pagtulak

hanggang sa nakatayo na po ako, doon na po ako
nanghingi ng tulong.
 CA – G.R. CR No. 44104
Decision
Page 15
=================

Q: You were able to get out of the house?

A: Yes.

Q: And when you got out of the house, who was

the first person you saw?

A: Patricia po.

Q: But Patricia was right outside the house?

A: Ayun po kasi nakikita na po nila akong umiiyak,

tapos siya po yung unang naapproach ko at
naapproach niya ako.”14

Questions about the credibility of witnesses should best be

addressed to the trial court because of its unique position to
observe the elusive and incommunicable evidence of witnesses'
deportment on the stand while testifying which is denied to the
appellate courts.15 Hence, the trial judge's assessment of the
witnesses' testimonies and findings of fact are accorded great
respect on appeal. In the absence of substantial reason to justify
the reversal of the trial court's assessment and conclusion, as
when no significant facts and circumstances are shown to have
been overlooked or disregarded, the reviewing court is generally
bound by the former's findings.

The private complainant, a 17-year old minor under our

laws, was consistent in her sworn statement given on the same
day of the incident, as well as in her testimony given during
direct examination and even during cross-examination, that the
appellant inserted his finger into her vagina while she struggled
to push him away. We are, thus, one with the trial court in
applying the jurisprudential principle that testimonies of
minority age victims are given full weight and credit, for when a

14 TSN, AAA, 10 January 2019, pp. 32-35.

15 People v. Roy, GR No. 225604, 23 July 2018.
 CA – G.R. CR No. 44104
Decision
Page 16
=================
woman or a girl-child says that she has been raped, she says in
effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed
committed.16 Indeed, no woman, much less a child, would
willingly submit herself to the rigors, the humiliation and the
stigma attendant upon the prosecution of rape, if she was not
motivated by an earnest desire to put the culprit behind bars. 17
Hence, private complainant's testimony is entitled to full faith and
credit.

The victim's failure to shout or lack of

resistance cannot be taken against her.

The appellant's assertion that it was dubious and perplexing

for private complainant not to shout or ask help from her friends
who were merely outside the house is not totally against
experience and human nature. It has been established that
appellant's girlfriend advised private complainant to rest for a
while before going home since she was already intoxicated; thus,
she slept in appellant's house. Private complainant's failure to
shout and resist the sexual advances of the appellant was due to
the fact that she was unconscious and was merely roused from
her sleep when she felt somebody kissing and touching her.
Because of her state of being roused from sleep, physical position
and weakened condition, she was not able to resist the appellant's
molestation. It was only after she summoned enough strength
that she was able to push the appellant away, get up from the sofa
and run out of the house. In this particular case, the private
complainant's lack of strength or weakened condition can be
explained by the fact that she had engaged in a drinking spree
and was intoxicated some hours before the sexual assault
happened.
16 Id.
17 People v. Macapagal, GR No. 218574, 22 November 2017.
 CA – G.R. CR No. 44104
Decision
Page 17
=================

We must bear in mind that vigorous physical resistance

need not be established in rape when force, intimidation, or
surprise are employed. There is no standard form of behavior
when one is confronted by a shocking incident, such as, sexual
molestation or sexual assault. A victim should never be faulted
for her lack of resistance to any form of crime particularly sexual
assault. Failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance does not
make voluntary the victim's submission to the appellant's lust.
Besides, physical resistance is not an essential element of rape. 18 A
rape victim has no burden to prove that she did all within her
power to resist the force or intimidation employed upon her.
People v. Dimanawa19 declares that force contemplated by law in
the commission of rape is relative, depending on the age, size, or
strength of the parties. It is not necessary that the force and
intimidation employed in accomplishing it be so great and 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. In this particular case, what is
important is that private complainant did not consent to the
sexual assault.

The medico-legal evaluation

as well as the medico-legal report
are merely corroborative in character.

Insofar as the evidentiary value of a medical examination is

concerned, People v. Amarela20 stressed that a medico-legal report
is not indispensable to the prosecution of a rape case, it being
merely corroborative in nature. In convicting rapists based

18 People v. Barberan, GR No. 208759, 22 June 2016, 794 SCRA 348.

19 GR No. 184600, 09 March 2010.
20 GR No. 225642-43, 17 January 2018.
 CA – G.R. CR No. 44104
Decision
Page 18
=================
entirely on the testimony of their victim, a medico-legal report is
by no means controlling. Medico-legal findings are at most
corroborative because they are mere opinions that can only infer
possibilities and not absolute certainties. A medico-legal officer,
who did not witness the actual incident, cannot testify on what
exactly happened as his testimony would not be based on
personal knowledge or derived from his own perception.
Consequently, a medico-legal officer's testimony can only suggest
what most likely happened.21

Denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and must be

brushed aside when the prosecution has sufficiently and
positively ascertained the identity of the accused.22 As often
stressed, a categorical and positive identification of an accused,
without any showing of ill-motive on the part of the witness
testifying on the matter, prevails over denial, which is a negative
and self-serving evidence undeserving of real weight in law
unless substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. 23 The
presentation of the testimony of appellant's girlfriend failed to
substantiate appellant's defense because she was not there in the
living room nor inside the house, where the incident happened
and her testimony only pertained to the facts and circumstances
after the incident.

Lascivious conduct under

Section 5(b) of RA No. 7610

People v. Nocido24, adopting the en banc ruling in People v.

Tulagan25, however, elucidates that it is proper to convict the
21 Id.
22 People v. Dione Barberan and Dione Delos Santos, GR No. 208759, 22 June 2016.
23 Id.
24 GR No. 240229, 17 June 2020.
25 GR No. 227363, 12 March 2019.
 CA – G.R. CR No. 44104
Decision
Page 19
=================
accused for Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of RA No.
761026, even if the designation of the crime alleged in the
Information is Rape by Sexual Assault, thus:

“xxx the proper designation of the crime of rape by sexual assault

committed against a victim who is twelve (12) years old or below
eighteen (18) or eighteen (18) under special circumstances, is
lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. 7610, to wit:
xxxx
(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 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, 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.”

The prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that

the appellant sexually molested the private complainant and
inserted his finger into her vagina. Private complainant's
testimony established that the appellant committed lascivious
conduct under Section 5(b) of RA No. 7610. She clearly and
candidly narrated to the court how the appellant forcibly
inserted his finger into her vagina.

Penalty and Indemnity

The penalty for Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of RA

No. 7610 is reclusion temporal medium to reclusion perpetua, which
is higher than the prescribed penalty of prision mayor as provided
under Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended, for the crime of Rape
by Sexual Assault. This is consistent with the declared policy of the
State to provide special protection to children from all forms of
26 “Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act” approved
on 17 June 1992.
 CA – G.R. CR No. 44104
Decision
Page 20
=================
abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation and discrimination, and other
conditions prejudicial to their development.

The Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL) is applicable because

reclusion perpetua is merely used as the maximum period
consisting of a range starting from reclusion temporal medium, a
divisible penalty. Further, since none of the circumstances under
Section 31 of RA No. 7610 are attendant, and applying the ISL, the
minimum term shall be taken from the penalty next lower in
degree which is prision mayor medium to reclusion temporal
minimum, and the maximum term to be taken from reclusion
temporal medium, in view of the mitigating circumstance of
appellant's voluntary surrender to the police authorities.
Pursuant to Ladines v. People,27 the maximum penalty should be
fixed at the lowest range of reclusion temporal medium.

Further, we modify the monetary awards given to private

complainant based on current jurisprudence28. The award of civil
indemnity and moral damages are both increased to P50,000.00
plus exemplary damages also in the amount of P50,000.00. We
impose on all the monetary awards straight interest of six percent
(6%) from the date of finality of the decision until the sums be
fully paid.

WHEREFORE, we DENY the appeal. The Decision appealed

from is AFFIRMED with modification in that the appellant
Reymond Manzano y Dela Cruz, having committed beyond
reasonable doubt, Rape by Sexual Assault which is also Lascivious
Conduct under Section 5(b) of RA No. 7610, he shall suffer the
indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision

27 GR No. 167333, 11 January 2016.

28 See People v. Tulagan, GR No. 227363, 12 March 2019.
 CA – G.R. CR No. 44104
Decision
Page 21
=================
mayor as minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and
one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum. Further, the
appellant shall indemnify the private complainant in the sum of
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; P50,000.00 as moral damages and
P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, plus straight or simple interest
of 6% on all the monetary awards from the date of finality of
judgment until the sums be fully paid.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Original Signed
APOLINARIO D. BRUSELAS, JR.
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

Original Signed
MARIE CHRISTINE AZCARRAGA-JACOB
Associate Justice

Original Signed
ANGELENE MARY W. QUIMPO-SALE
Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

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 opinion of the Court was written.

Original Signed
APOLINARIO D. BRUSELAS, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairman, Sixth Division