The second element requires that the lascivious conduct be committed on a child
who is either exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse.[33] This
second element requires evidence proving that: (a) AAA was either exploited in
prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse; and (b) she is a child as defined under
RA 7610.[34]
In the case of Olivarez v. Court of Appeals,[35] this Court explained that the phrase,
"other sexual abuse" in the above provision covers not only a child who is abused
for profit, but also one who engages in lascivious conduct through the coercion or
intimidation by an adult. In the latter case, there must be some form of compulsion
equivalent to intimidation which subdues the free exercise of the offended party's
will.[36] Intimidation need not necessarily be irresistible.[37] As in the present case, it
is sufficient that some compulsion equivalent to intimidation annuls or subdues the
free exercise of the will of the offended party.[38] This is especially true in the case
of young, innocent and immature girls, like AAA, who could not be expected to act
with equanimity of disposition and with nerves of steel.[39] Young girls cannot be
expected to act like adults under the same circumstances or to have the courage
and intelligence to disregard the threat.[40]
Anent the third element, there is no dispute that AAA was four years old at the time
of the commission of the crime. Thus, on the basis of the foregoing, the Court finds
that the CA correctly found accused-appellant guilty of the crime of acts of
lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b), Article III of
RA 7610
With respect to the proper penalty to be imposed, Section 5(b) of RA 7610 provides
that the penalty for lascivious conduct, when the victim is under twelve (12) years
of age, shall be 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. Citing the cases of People v. Simon[41] and People v. Santos,[42]
this Court, in the case of Quimvel v. People,[43] deemed it proper to apply the
provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law in imposing the penalty upon the
accused who was similarly charged with the crime of acts of lasciviousness under
Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of RA 7610.
Thus, in the present case, in the absence of any mitigating or aggravating
circumstance, the maximum term of the sentence to be imposed shall be taken
from the medium period of reclusion temporal in its medium period, which ranges
from fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty-one (21) days to sixteen (16)
years, five (5) months and nine (9) days. On the other hand, the minimum term
shall be taken from the penalty next lower to reclusion temporal medium, that is
reclusion temporal minimum, which ranges from twelve (12) years and one (1) day