People v. Ladra

Facts:

AAA was born on Sept 3, 1995. She was the eldest among 5 siblings. She lived with her family in a remote are in Dumarait, Balingasag, Misamis Oriental. Ladra was a relative of BBB, AAA’s mother, who allowed him to stay with their family out of pity. He ran errands for them and attended to the children when BBB was busy washing clothes and her husband, CCC, was tending to their farm.

It was between 2000 and 2001 when the incident happened. AAA was 5 years old. she and her siblings were left at home with Ladra. After their meal, he ordered them to sleep. Suddenly, AAA was awakened when she felt accused-appellant, who was already naked, on top of her, forced his penis into her vagina, and made push and pull movements, causing her pain. Accused-appellant threatened to kill her if she told anyone. Thereafter, he repeatedly molested her, each time bringing his bolo with him until 2002 when he left their house.

In 2008, AAA was already 12 years old. She was surprised when she saw Ladra in their kitchen. He squeezed her vagina and told her that they were going to visit his house. Scared, AAA cried and told her cousin, DDD, about the incident. She also told DDD about the the incidents committed by Ladra. AAA told BBB about her traumatic experiences when she was 5 years old. They reported the incident to the barangay and thereafter, had the incident recorded in the police blotter. Later, AAA filed criminal cases against Ladra who was subsequently arrested.

It was found in the physical examination that AAA that there was a presence of old healed lacerations in her genitalia.

Ladra was charged Sec 5(b) of RA 7610 for his acts on AAA was 5yo and Acts of Lasciviousness for his acts on AAA when she was 12yo.

RTC convicted Ladra with Rape and Unjust Vexation. CA affirmed the decision.

Issue:

Whether or not the CA erred in affirming accused-appellant’s conviction for Rape and Unjust Vexation

Held:

No.

"Rape can be committed even in places where people congregate, in parks, along the roadside, within school premises, inside a house where there are other occupants, and even in the same room where other members of the family are also sleeping. It is not impossible or incredible for the members of the victim's family to be in deep slumber and not to be awakened while a sexual assault is being committed. It is settled that lust is not a respecter of time or place and rape is known to happen in the most unlikely places."

For the unjust vexation, the Court finds that he should instead be convicted of Acts of Lasciviousness, as charged in the information, in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610. The requisites of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness as penalized under Article 336 of the RPC above-enumerated must be met in addition to the requisites for sexual abuse under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610, as follows: (1) the accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) the said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and (3) that the child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.

A judicious examination of the records reveals that all the elements of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness under the RPC and lascivious conduct under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 have been sufficiently established.

The mere fact of "squeezing" the private part of a child - a young girl 12 years of age - could not have signified any other intention but one having lewd or indecent design. It must not be forgotten that several years prior, accused-appellant had raped AAA in the same house, for which act he was appropriately convicted. Indeed, the law indicates that the mere touching - more so, "squeezing," in this case, which strongly suggests that the act was intentional - of AAA's genitalia clearly constitutes lascivious conduct. It could not have been done merely to annoy or vex her.