In People of the Philippines v. Edwin Dagsa, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision finding the accused guilty of acts of lasciviousness, not rape, against a four-year-old child. The ruling hinged on the testimonies of child witnesses who saw the accused fondling the victim’s private parts. This case underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting children from sexual abuse under Republic Act No. 7610, also known as the “Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act,” while clarifying the application of the variance doctrine in criminal procedure. The Court also addressed the disparity in penalties for similar offenses against children of different age groups, advocating for legislative review to ensure equitable justice.

When a Candy Offer Leads to Lascivious Acts: Protecting Children Through Eyewitness Testimony

The case began on October 11, 2004, when four-year-old AAA was walking home from school with her classmates in Kapangan, Benguet. Edwin Dagsa, the cousin of AAA’s father, intercepted them, sending AAA’s classmates ahead with the pretext of giving her candy. The classmates later recounted witnessing Dagsa removing AAA’s panty and fondling her vagina. Upon returning home, AAA expressed discomfort, leading her mother to discover the abuse. A criminal complaint for rape was filed against Dagsa, setting in motion a legal battle that reached the Supreme Court.

At trial, the prosecution presented AAA’s mother, classmates, the investigating police officer, and a psychologist. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Dagsa of rape, relying heavily on the witnesses’ testimonies. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) modified the ruling, finding insufficient evidence of carnal knowledge but convicting Dagsa of acts of lasciviousness, a lesser included offense. The CA emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove penetration, a necessary element for rape, based on eyewitness accounts.

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision, focusing on the validity of the acts of lasciviousness conviction under the variance doctrine. The variance doctrine, as outlined in Section 4, Rule 120 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, allows a defendant charged with one crime to be convicted of another if the latter is included in the former. Specifically, Section 4 states:

SEC. 4. Judgment in case of variance between allegation and proof. – When there is a variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information and that proved, and the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or of the offense charged which is included in the offense proved.

In this context, while Dagsa was initially charged with rape, the evidence presented at trial supported a conviction for acts of lasciviousness, which is inherently included in a rape charge. This principle ensures that justice is served even when the exact nature of the crime differs slightly from the initial accusation, provided the elements of the lesser offense are proven.

The Court placed significant weight on the testimonies of AAA’s classmates, Michael and Jomie. Michael’s testimony, in particular, provided a clear account of Dagsa’s actions:

Q: What did this Wingwing do to [AAA] that you saw?

A: “Kinawet na ti pipit ni [AAA]”

Q: He used his hands in doing that?

A: Yes sir.

Jomie corroborated this account, further solidifying the evidence against Dagsa. The RTC found both testimonies credible, a determination upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court reiterated the principle that the assessment of witness credibility is primarily the responsibility of the trial court, which has the unique opportunity to observe the witnesses’ demeanor and assess their truthfulness. The Supreme Court generally defers to these findings unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise.

Furthermore, the Court addressed the admissibility of the testimonies, emphasizing the reliability of child witnesses. Jurisprudence supports the idea that children’s testimonies are often sincere due to their youth and lack of sophistication. In this case, the Court found no evidence of ill motive or bias on the part of Michael and Jomie, further bolstering their credibility.

The crime of acts of lasciviousness is defined under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), in relation to Section 5 (b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610. Section 5 of RA 7610 states:

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.

The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:

x x x         x x x        x x x

(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; x x x

x x x         x x x        x x x

The essential elements of this provision are that the accused commits an act of lascivious conduct with a child, and the child is below 18 years of age. Lascivious conduct is defined as intentional touching of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks with the intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse sexual desire. In this case, the Court found that Dagsa’s fondling of AAA’s vagina clearly met this definition.

The Court also addressed a potential disparity in penalties under the law. While RA 7610 aims to provide stronger protection against child abuse, it paradoxically imposes a lower penalty for acts of lasciviousness against victims under 12 years old compared to those between 12 and 18 years old. The Court acknowledged this incongruity, suggesting that legislative action is needed to rectify this discrepancy and ensure equitable penalties for offenders, irrespective of the victim’s age.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the accused, initially charged with rape, could be convicted of acts of lasciviousness based on the evidence presented, and whether the penalties for such acts were appropriately applied under existing laws.
What is the variance doctrine?	The variance doctrine allows a defendant to be convicted of a lesser included offense if the evidence supports that conviction, even if the initial charge was for a different crime. This ensures that justice is served based on the facts proven at trial.
Why was the accused not convicted of rape?	The Court found insufficient evidence of carnal knowledge, a necessary element for rape. The eyewitness testimonies described fondling but did not establish penetration.
What is considered lascivious conduct under RA 7610?	Lascivious conduct includes intentional touching of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks with the intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse sexual desire.
What role did the child witnesses play in the case?	The testimonies of the child witnesses were critical in establishing the acts of lasciviousness. The Court found their accounts credible and reliable, given their straightforward manner and lack of apparent bias.
What is the penalty for acts of lasciviousness against a child under 12?	The penalty for acts of lasciviousness against a child under 12 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.
Did the Supreme Court address any issues with the law itself?	Yes, the Court noted a potential disparity in penalties under RA 7610, where acts of lasciviousness against children under 12 receive a lower penalty than those against children between 12 and 18, calling for legislative review.
What was the final decision of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision finding the accused guilty of acts of lasciviousness, sentencing him to an indeterminate 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) months and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as maximum.

The Dagsa case serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s role in safeguarding children from sexual abuse. The Court’s decision emphasizes the importance of eyewitness testimony, especially from children, and highlights the application of the variance doctrine in ensuring justice. It also calls attention to potential legislative improvements to ensure equitable penalties for crimes against children. The ruling also underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting children from sexual abuse under Republic Act No. 7610.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People of the Philippines, vs. Edwin Dagsa y Bantas @ “Wing Wing,” G.R. No. 219889, January 29, 2018