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."20
In this case, the conduct of accused-appellant in intentionally touching and caressing
the genitals of AAA constituted an act of lasciviousness. He must be punished under the
prescribed penalty of R.A. No. 7610 as AAA was below 12 years of age at the time of
the incident. The aggravating circumstance of relationship must also be taken into
consideration.
Denial is a weak defense
Accused-appellant interposed a defense of denial by vehemently denying the
accusations against him. It is an established rule, however, that denial is an inherently
weak defense and constitutes self-serving negative evidence, which cannot be accorded
greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration by a credible witness.21
Indeed, the positive testimony of AAA outweighs the denial proffered by accusedappellant. Mere denial, without any strong evidence to support it, can scarcely
overcome the positive declaration by the child-victim of the identity of the accused and
his involvement in the crime attributed to him.22
Moreover, accused-appellant's assertion that the charges were merely instituted by BBB
because she was mad or angry with DDD, his brother, was utterly unsubstantiated.
Motives such as resentment, hatred or revenge have never swayed this Court from
giving full credence to the testimony of a minor rape victim.23 Evidently, no woman,
least of all a child, would concoct a story of defloration, allow examination of her private
parts and subject herself to public trial or ridicule if she has not, in truth, been a victim
of rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her being.24
Penalties
In Criminal Case No. 146314, the crime committed was qualified rape under Paragraph
6(1), Article 266-B of the RPC and the imposable penalty is death. With the enactment
of R.A. No. 9346, however, the imposition of the death penalty is prohibited and the
proper penalty would be reclusion perpetua without the benefit of parole.
In Criminal Case No. 146315, the crime committed was acts of lasciviousness. As the
victim was below 12 years of age, the penalty provided under Section 5 (b) of R.A. No.
7610, reclusion temporal in its medium period, must be imposed. Further, the
aggravating circumstance of relationship between the accused-appellant and AAA is
present. Thus, the Court finds that the proper imposable penalty is 12 years and 1 day
of reclusion temporal in its minimum period, as minimum, to 16 years, 5 months and
10 days of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as maximum.25
As to the awards of damages in qualified rape, People v. Jugueta26 provides the
following awards of damages: P100,000.00 as civil indemnity; P100,000.00 as moral
damages; and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. In acts of lasciviousness, People v.
Aycardo27 enumerates the following awards of damages: P20,000.00 as civil indemnity;