In Virgilio Labandria Awas v. People of the Philippines, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the petitioner for acts of lasciviousness against a minor. The Court reiterated that in cases involving crimes against chastity, especially when the victim is a child, the lone testimony of the offended party, if credible, is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. This decision reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding children from sexual abuse and exploitation, emphasizing the weight given to a minor’s testimony in such sensitive cases.

When Silence Speaks Volumes: Examining Child Victim Testimony in Sexual Abuse Cases

This case revolves around Virgilio Labandria Awas, who was accused of rape through sexual abuse for allegedly inserting his finger into the vagina of AAA, a 10-year-old girl. While the initial charge was rape, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Awas guilty 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. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this conviction. Awas appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly questioning the credibility of the victim’s testimony.

The Supreme Court, however, found no merit in Awas’s appeal. The Court emphasized the established legal principle that the testimony of a child victim is given significant weight in cases involving sexual abuse. The Court highlighted that the absence of force or intimidation is immaterial when the victim is below 12 years of age, underscoring the special protection afforded to children in such cases. This principle acknowledges the vulnerability and potential for manipulation of young children, ensuring that their voices are heard and protected within the justice system.

A central point of contention raised by Awas was the victim’s failure to shout for help or resist during the alleged incident. The Supreme Court addressed this concern by stating that there is no standard behavior for victims of crimes against chastity, especially children. The Court recognized that a child’s reaction to such a traumatic event may vary, and that silence or submission does not necessarily indicate consent or lack of abuse. Behavioral psychology suggests varied responses to trauma, and the court acknowledged the possibility of AAA’s submissive reaction due to her young age and the circumstances of the assault.

The Court also noted the importance of the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility. Trial judges have the unique opportunity to observe witnesses firsthand, allowing them to assess their demeanor and truthfulness. The Supreme Court generally defers to the trial court’s findings on credibility, recognizing the trial court’s superior position in evaluating the evidence presented. In this case, the trial court found AAA’s testimony to be credible, and the Supreme Court saw no reason to overturn that finding.

Furthermore, the Court dismissed Awas’s claim that the charges were fabricated by the victim’s mother due to a grudge. The Court deemed this argument a desperate attempt to evade responsibility, asserting that no mother would subject her young daughter to the trauma and scrutiny of a public trial without genuine cause. The Court also cited People v. Ortoa, stating:

No mother would contemplate subjecting her very young daughter to the humiliation, disgrace, exposure, anxiety and tribulation attendant to a public trial for a crime against chastity that in all likelihood would result in the incarceration of the accused unless she was motivated solely by the honest and sincere desire to have the person responsible apprehended and punished.

The elements of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) the act is done under any of the following circumstances: (a) by using force or intimidation, or (b) when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious or (c) when the offended party is under 12 years of age; and (3) the offended party is another person of either sex. The acts are punished as sexual abuse under Republic Act No. 7610, specifically Section 5, which requires: (1) the accused commits acts of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) the act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and (3) the child is below 18 years of age.

Section 2(h) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 7610 defines lascivious conduct as:

The 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.

The Supreme Court then addressed the penalty imposed by the lower courts. While it affirmed the conviction, the Court found errors in the indeterminate sentence and the imposition of a fine. As the victim was under 12, the law mandates a penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period. The Court corrected the indeterminate sentence to a minimum of 12 years and one day of reclusion temporal to a maximum of 15 years, six months, and 21 days of reclusion temporal. Furthermore, the Court deleted the fine imposed by the lower courts, stating that neither Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code nor Section 5 of Republic Act No. 7610 prescribes any fine for acts of lasciviousness.

The Court also ordered the petitioner to pay interest of 6% per annum on the civil indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages, reckoned from the finality of the decision until full payment. This serves as an additional measure of justice for the victim, compensating for the delay in receiving the awarded damages.

FAQs

What was the central issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Virgilio Awas committed acts of lasciviousness against a minor, and whether the victim’s testimony was credible enough to support a conviction.
Why was the victim’s failure to shout for help not considered a sign of innocence?	The Court recognized that there is no standard reaction for victims of sexual abuse, especially children. Silence or submission can be a result of fear, shock, or the victim’s young age, and does not necessarily indicate consent.
What is the legal basis for considering the testimony of a child victim as credible?	The youth and immaturity of the victim are generally badges of truth that the courts cannot justly ignore. The law recognizes the vulnerability of children and affords them special protection, giving weight to their testimony in cases of sexual abuse.
What are the elements of acts of lasciviousness under the Revised Penal Code?	The elements are: (1) the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) the act is done under specific circumstances, such as using force, or when the victim is under 12; and (3) the offended party is another person.
What is the penalty for acts of lasciviousness when the victim is under 12 years of age?	The penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period, which ranges from 14 years, eight months and one day to 17 years and four months, as per Republic Act No. 7610.
Why was the fine imposed by the lower courts deleted by the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court deleted the fine because neither Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code nor Section 5 of Republic Act No. 7610 prescribes any fine for acts of lasciviousness. The court cited the principle of nullum poenum sine lege (there is no penalty without a law imposing it).
What civil liabilities were imposed on the petitioner?	The petitioner was ordered to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to the victim. Additionally, the Supreme Court imposed an interest of 6% per annum on these damages from the finality of the decision until full payment.
What does Republic Act No. 7610 aim to protect?	Republic Act No. 7610, also known as the Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, aims to provide special protection to children from all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, and discrimination.

This case serves as a reminder of the paramount importance of protecting children and giving weight to their testimonies in cases of sexual abuse. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that perpetrators of such heinous crimes are brought to justice. It also reinforces the principle that a child’s silence or lack of resistance does not equate to consent, recognizing the unique vulnerabilities and potential for trauma in child victims.

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: Virgilio Labandria Awas v. People, G.R. No. 203114, June 28, 2017