In the Philippines, Republic Act No. 7610, also known as the “Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act,” safeguards children from various forms of abuse. This case, Dr. Ulysses Trocio y Mendoza v. People of the Philippines, clarifies what constitutes “lascivious conduct” under this law. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Dr. Trocio, who was found guilty of committing acts of lasciviousness against a minor patient. This ruling underscores the importance of protecting children from sexual abuse and clarifies the responsibilities of professionals in positions of trust.

When Trust is Broken: A Doctor’s Abuse of Power and a Minor’s Trauma

Dr. Ulysses Trocio, an EENT (Eyes, Ears, Nose, and Throat) doctor, faced accusations of child abuse through lascivious conduct. The complainant, AAA, a 15-year-old minor, sought medical consultation at Dr. Trocio’s clinic. During the consultation, Dr. Trocio allegedly fondled her breasts, touched her private parts, and kissed her neck. AAA reported the incident a year later, leading to Dr. Trocio’s prosecution. The central legal question revolves around whether Dr. Trocio’s actions constitute a violation of Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610, and whether the prosecution successfully proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially convicted Dr. Trocio, a decision that the Court of Appeals (CA) later affirmed with modifications. Both courts emphasized the credibility of AAA’s testimony, finding it clear, consistent, and straightforward. The CA highlighted the absence of evidence suggesting that AAA had any improper motive to falsely accuse Dr. Trocio. Dr. Trocio, however, appealed, arguing that the lower courts erred in disregarding inconsistencies in AAA’s testimony and in overlooking evidence that he claimed disproved her accusations.

The Supreme Court, in its analysis, reiterated the established principle that trial courts’ factual findings regarding the credibility of witnesses are given significant weight and respect. The Court explained that trial courts have the unique opportunity to observe the witnesses’ demeanor and manner of testifying, providing them with a superior vantage point for assessing credibility. The Supreme Court stated:

Settled is the rule that the trial court’s factual findings on the credibility of witnesses are accorded the highest weight and respect by this Court. Accordingly, it is given the best opportunity to observe up close the manner by which these witnesses testified and their demeanor while testifying.

The Court further noted that appellate courts generally refrain from disturbing such factual findings unless there is a clear showing that the trial court overlooked material facts or committed grave abuse of discretion. This principle becomes even more compelling when the CA concurs with the RTC’s findings, as was the case here. The Supreme Court then delved into the elements necessary for a conviction under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610. The Court emphasized that the victim must be a child below 18 years of age, and the accused must have committed an act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct.

To provide clarity, the Court cited the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 7610, which define “lascivious conduct” as:

the intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with the intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, among others.

Furthermore, the Court explained that “other sexual abuse” encompasses situations where a child engages in lascivious conduct due to coercion or intimidation by an adult. It is important to note that acts of lasciviousness are also penalized under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Therefore, to convict an accused of lascivious conduct under RA 7610, the elements of the crime under Article 336 of the RPC must also be established. The Supreme Court further elucidated that to be found criminally liable for Lascivious Conduct, the requisites of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness penalized under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) must be established in addition to the requisites of Sexual Abuse under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610.

In this case, the Court found that all the elements of lascivious conduct were present. Dr. Trocio’s actions, including fondling and kissing AAA’s breasts, clearly demonstrated a lewd and indecent intent. The fact that AAA was only 15 years old at the time of the incident further solidified the case against Dr. Trocio. The Court pointed out that AAA’s testimony was consistent, detailed, and credible. The court has in several instances recognized a child’s testimony to hold more weight due to the inherent truthfulness and sincerity. The Supreme Court referenced the Court of Appeals’ discussion.

Given the clear, consistent and straightforward testimony of AAA, the trial court was correct and cannot be faulted for giving her credence and full faith. At this point, it must be underscored that the credibility of witnesses and the veracity of their testimonies are best determined by the trial courts. This is founded by the trial court’s opportunity to observe the witnesses, and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude. Thus, their findings on such matters are binding and conclusive on appellate courts, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted. Here, there is no reason to warrant a departure from this well entrenched principle in the law of evidence. Furthermore, AAA’s credibility is strengthened by the absence of any evidence indicating that she harbored improper motive to falsely testify against Trocio.

The Court also found that Dr. Trocio used his position of authority and the medical setting to coerce and intimidate AAA. By administering “agua” on her ear, which caused numbness, he further incapacitated her and facilitated his lascivious acts. Intimidation does not require irresistibility but merely some compulsion which subdues the free will of the offended party. The High Court emphasizes the vulnerability of young girls under such circumstances. The High Court reasoned, “It is sufficient that some compulsion equivalent to intimidation annuls or subdues the free exercise of the will of the offended party. This is especially true in the case of young, innocent, and immature girls who could not be expected to act with equanimity of disposition and with nerves of steel. Young girls cannot be expected to act like adults under the same circumstances to have the courage and intelligence to disregard the threat.”

The Supreme Court rejected Dr. Trocio’s defense of denial, emphasizing that it could not outweigh the positive and credible testimony of the victim. The Court reiterated that denial is an inherently weak defense, especially when faced with a clear and convincing identification by the complainant. The RTC highlighted: “On the other hand, accused anchors his defense on denial albeit he admitted that AAA was in his clinic on June 12, 2015. It is well settled that denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is to be regarded as a weak defense, hence deserves no credence at all. Nothing is more settled in criminal law jurisprudence than that denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony and identification given by the complainant. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.”

Considering that there were no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the penalty imposed was within the bounds of law. In line with existing jurisprudence, the court modified the damages awarded to AAA. In People v. Tulagan, the Court held that in Lascivious Conduct cases under Section 5(b) of RA 7610, where the victim is a child below 18 years of age and the penalty imposed falls within the range of reclusion temporal medium, the award of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages is P50,000.00 each. This decision reinforces the legal protection afforded to children in the Philippines and underscores the serious consequences for those who violate this protection.

FAQs

What is Republic Act No. 7610?	Republic Act No. 7610, also known as the “Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act,” is a Philippine law designed to protect children from various forms of abuse, exploitation, and discrimination.
What is considered “lascivious conduct” under RA 7610?	“Lascivious conduct” includes intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks with the intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse sexual desire.
What are the elements needed for a conviction under Section 5(b) of RA 7610?	The elements are: (1) the accused commits an act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) the act involves a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and (3) the child is below 18 years of age.
What is the significance of the victim’s age in cases of lascivious conduct?	If the victim is under 18 years of age, the law provides special protection. If the victim is under 12, the penalties are even more severe, potentially including prosecution for rape or lascivious conduct under the Revised Penal Code.
Why is the credibility of the victim’s testimony so important in these cases?	The credibility of the victim’s testimony is crucial because, in many cases, there are no other direct witnesses. Courts often give significant weight to the testimony of a child victim, especially when it is consistent and detailed.
What is the role of the trial court in determining the facts of the case?	The trial court has the primary responsibility of assessing the credibility of witnesses. Appellate courts typically defer to the trial court’s findings unless there is a clear error or abuse of discretion.
What is the penalty for violating Section 5(b) of RA 7610?	The penalty for violating Section 5(b) of RA 7610 is reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. The specific sentence depends on the presence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
What civil liabilities can be imposed on someone convicted of violating Section 5(b) of RA 7610?	A person convicted of violating Section 5(b) of RA 7610 may be ordered to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to the victim, as well as a fine payable to the Department of Social Welfare and Development for the rehabilitation of the child victim.
How does the Indeterminate Sentence Law apply in cases under RA 7610?	Even though RA 7610 is a special law, the Indeterminate Sentence Law may still apply. This means the court will impose a minimum and maximum term of imprisonment, allowing for parole eligibility.

This case serves as a crucial reminder of the legal protections afforded to children in the Philippines. It clarifies the definition of lascivious conduct and emphasizes the importance of holding perpetrators accountable for their actions. It also highlights the responsibility of professionals, such as doctors, to maintain the highest standards of ethical conduct and to protect the well-being of their patients, especially minors.

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: DR. ULYSSES TROCIO Y MENDOZA, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 252791, August 23, 2022