QUIMVEL v. PEOPLE

EDUARDO QUIMVEL y BRAGA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 214497

April 18, 2017

Facts:

AAA, who was seven years old at the time of the incident, is the oldest among the children of XXX and YYY. XXX worked as a household helper in Batangas while YYY was a Barangay Tanod who derived income from selling vegetables. AAA and her siblings, BBB and CCC, were then staying with YYY in Palapas, Ligao City.

At around 8 o'clock in the evening of [July 18,] 2007, YYY went out of the house to buy kerosene since there was no electricity. While YYY was away, 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 Quimuel'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 arrived from Batangas. Later in the evening while XXX was lying down with her children, she asked them what they were doing while she was away. BBB 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.

As expected, Quimvel denied the imputation hurled against him. He maintained that he brought the ducks of AAA' s grandmother to the river at 7 o'clock in the morning, fetched it and brought it back at AAA's grandmother's place at 4 o'clock in the afternoon of [July 18,] 2007. After that, he rested. He said that he never went to AAA's house that evening. When YYY confronted and accused him of touching AAA, he was totally surprised. Even if he denied committing the crime, he was still detained at the Barangay Hall. He was then brought to the police station for interrogation. Eventually, he was allowed to go home. He did not return to the house of AAA's grandmother to avoid any untoward incidents.

Lending credence to AAA' s straightforward and categorical testimony, the Regional Trial Court rendered its Judgment  finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness. The CA rendered its assailed Decision affirming, with modification, the Judgment of the trial court.

Issue:

Whether or not assuming without admitting that he is guilty hereof, he may be convicted only of acts of lasciviousness under Art. 336 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and in relation to Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610.

 Held:

Yes. Under Article 336 of the RPC, the accused performs the acts of lasciviousness on a child who is neither exploited in prostitution nor subjected to "other sexual abuse." In contrast, under Section 5 of RA 7610, the accused performs the acts of lasciviousness on a child who is either exploited in prostitution or subjected to "other sexual abuse."

Section 5 of RA 7610 deals with a situation where the acts of lasciviousness are committed on a child already either exploited in prostitution or subjected to "other sexual abuse." Clearly, the acts of lasciviousness committed on the child are separate and distinct from the other circumstance that the child is either exploited in prostitution or subjected to "other sexual abuse." (emphasis supplied)

Contrary to the exposition, the very definition of "child abuse" under Sec. 3(b) of RA 7610 does not require that the victim suffer a separate and distinct act of sexual abuse aside from the act complained of. For it refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the child. Thus, a violation of Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610 occurs even though the accused committed sexual abuse against the child victim only once, even without a prior sexual affront.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CR No. 35509 finding petitioner Eduardo Quimvel y Braga also known as Eduardo/Edward Quimuel y Braga guilty beyond reasonable doubt of acts of lasciviousness is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.