In the case of XXX vs. People of the Philippines, the Supreme Court clarified the standard of evidence required to prove the age of a minor victim in acts of lasciviousness cases. While the accused was found guilty of acts of lasciviousness, the Court modified the conviction, emphasizing that without proper proof of the victim’s age, the crime cannot be linked to Republic Act No. 7610, which provides for harsher penalties when the victim is a minor. This decision highlights the importance of adhering to specific evidentiary rules, particularly the guidelines set in People v. Pruna, when establishing a critical element of a crime.

Unproven Youth: When Lack of Evidence Alters the Course of Justice

The case originated from an accusation against XXX for committing lascivious acts against AAA, who was allegedly eight years old at the time of the incident. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted XXX of violating Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 (R.A. 7610), or the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, based on the premise that AAA was a minor. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision, leading to XXX’s appeal to the Supreme Court.

The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the RTC and CA erred in convicting XXX, particularly concerning the evidence presented to establish AAA’s age. The prosecution presented AAA’s testimony, her sister BBB’s testimony, and a photocopy of AAA’s baptismal certificate. However, XXX argued that these pieces of evidence did not comply with the guidelines set forth in People v. Pruna, which outlines the specific requirements for proving a minor’s age in court.

The Supreme Court agreed with XXX’s contention, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the Pruna guidelines. These guidelines prioritize the presentation of an original or certified true copy of the birth certificate as the best evidence of age. In the absence of a birth certificate, similar authentic documents such as baptismal certificates and school records may suffice, provided they are properly authenticated. Testimonial evidence from family members is admissible only if the birth certificate or other authentic documents are proven to be lost, destroyed, or otherwise unavailable.

In this case, the prosecution failed to present AAA’s birth certificate and instead offered a photocopy of her baptismal certificate without proper authentication. While AAA’s sister, BBB, testified as to AAA’s age, the Court found this insufficient because the prosecution did not demonstrate that the birth certificate was lost or unavailable. In fact, BBB even stated that AAA’s birth certificate was located in Cubao, implying that it could have been retrieved with reasonable effort. This non-compliance with the Pruna guidelines led the Supreme Court to conclude that AAA’s age was not adequately proven.

The Supreme Court cited People v. Belen, where a similar failure to sufficiently establish the victim’s age resulted in a conviction for simple rape instead of statutory rape. Applying the same principle, the Court modified XXX’s conviction to acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), without reference to Section 5(b) of R.A. 7610. R.A. 7610 applies specifically when the victim is below 18 years old, and without proof of AAA’s age, this law could not be invoked.

Despite the modification, the Court upheld XXX’s conviction for acts of lasciviousness under the RPC. The elements of this crime, as outlined in Perez v. Court of Appeals, include: (1) the offender commits an act of lasciviousness; (2) the act is done with force or intimidation, or when the offended party is deprived of reason or is under 12 years of age; and (3) the offended party is another person. The Court found that AAA’s testimony sufficiently established the act of lasciviousness, and the element of force or intimidation was inferred from XXX’s relationship with AAA as the common-law spouse of her mother.

As the Court held in People v. Corpuz, in cases of sexual offenses committed by close kin, “moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence or intimidation.” This principle acknowledges the inherent power imbalance and vulnerability of the victim in such situations. Thus, even without physical force, the Court considered XXX’s position of authority within the household as sufficient to establish the element of force or intimidation.

The Supreme Court also adjusted the amount of damages awarded to AAA, aligning it with the precedent set in People v. Tulagan. XXX was ordered to pay AAA P20,000.00 as civil indemnity, P20,000.00 as moral damages, and P20,000.00 as exemplary damages. Additionally, an interest rate of 6% per annum was imposed on these monetary awards from the date of the decision’s finality.

This case serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to established rules of evidence, particularly when proving critical elements of a crime. The Pruna guidelines provide a clear framework for establishing the age of a minor victim, and failure to comply with these guidelines can have significant consequences for the outcome of a case. The ruling also underscores the principle that in cases of sexual offenses committed by close kin, the element of force or intimidation can be inferred from the inherent power imbalance between the offender and the victim.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the age of the victim, AAA, in order to convict the accused, XXX, of violating Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610. The Supreme Court found the evidence insufficient, leading to a modification of the conviction.
What are the Pruna guidelines?	The Pruna guidelines, established in People v. Pruna, outline the specific requirements for proving a minor’s age in court. They prioritize the presentation of a birth certificate and specify when alternative evidence, such as baptismal certificates or testimonial evidence, may be admissible.
Why was the photocopy of the baptismal certificate not sufficient?	The photocopy of the baptismal certificate was deemed insufficient because it was not properly authenticated. The Pruna guidelines require that alternative documents be authentic, and the prosecution did not present anyone to verify the authenticity of the photocopy.
Why was BBB’s testimony not sufficient to prove AAA’s age?	BBB’s testimony was deemed insufficient because the prosecution did not demonstrate that AAA’s birth certificate was lost, destroyed, or otherwise unavailable. The Pruna guidelines state that testimonial evidence is admissible only if the primary documents are proven to be unavailable.
What is the significance of R.A. 7610 in this case?	R.A. 7610, the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, provides for harsher penalties when the victim of acts of lasciviousness is a minor. Without proof of AAA’s age, the Court could not apply R.A. 7610.
What is the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness under the Revised Penal Code?	Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code involves committing lewd or indecent acts against another person. The elements include the act itself, the use of force or intimidation (or the victim being a minor), and that the act involves another person.
How did the Court establish force or intimidation in this case?	The Court inferred force or intimidation from XXX’s relationship with AAA as the common-law spouse of her mother. In cases of sexual offenses committed by close kin, moral influence or ascendancy can substitute for actual physical force or intimidation.
What damages were awarded to AAA?	XXX was ordered to pay AAA P20,000.00 as civil indemnity, P20,000.00 as moral damages, and P20,000.00 as exemplary damages, with an interest rate of 6% per annum from the date of the decision’s finality.

This case reinforces the importance of adhering to evidentiary standards, particularly in cases involving vulnerable victims. The Pruna guidelines provide a clear roadmap for proving a minor’s age, and the Court’s decision underscores the need for prosecutors to diligently follow these guidelines to ensure justice is served. While the accused was still convicted of acts of lasciviousness, the modification of the conviction highlights the significant impact that a failure of proof can have on the outcome of a case.

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: XXX vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 243151, September 02, 2019