Previous 8 / 17 Next

Decision -8- G.R. No. 234841 To achieve uniformity in designating the proper offense, moreover, the Court, in People v. Caoili, 21 prescribed the following guidelines in designating or charging the proper offense in case lascivious conduct is committed under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610, and in determining the imposable penalty: (1) The age of the victim is taken into consideration in designating or charging the offense, and in determining the imposable penalty; (2) If the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the nomenclature of the crime should be "Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610." Pursuant to the second proviso in Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7 610, the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period; and (3) If the victim is exactly twelve (12) years of age, or more than twelve (12) but below eighteen (18) years of age, or is eighteen (18) years old or older, but is unable to fully take care of herself/himself or protect herself/himself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition, the crime should be designated as "Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610," and the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. 22 In our recent pronouncement, People v. Salvador Tulagan, 23 the Court further held that based on the Caoili24 guidelines, it is only when the victim of the lascivious conduct is eighteen (18) years old and above that such crime would be designated as "Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC" with the imposable penalty of prision correccional. Thus, considering the development of the crime of sexual assault from a mere "crime against chastity" in the form of acts of lasciviousness to a "crime against persons" akin to rape, as well as the rulings in Dimakuta25 and Caoili, 26 it was ruled that on the one hand, if the acts constituting sexual assault are committed against a victim under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, the nomenclature of the offense should now be "Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC, in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610," and no longer "Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC, in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 761 0," because sexual assault as a form of acts of lasciviousness is no longer covered by Article 336, but by Article 266-A(2) of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 8353. Nevertheless, the imposable penalty is still reclusion temporal in its medium period, and not prision mayor. However, before an accused can be held criminally liable for lascivious conduct under Section 5(b ), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, the Court held in Quimvel v. People27 that the requisites of acts of lasciviousness 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 G.R. Nos. 196342 and 196848, August 8, 2017, 835 SCRA 107. Id. at 153-154. G.R. No. 227363, March 21, 2019. Supra note 21. Supra note 18. Supra note 21. G.R. No. 214497, April 18, 2017, 823 SCRA 192.

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Ramilo v. People

Jurisprudence

Case number: G.R. No. 234841

Division: PH Supreme Court Third Division

Date of decision: Hun 3, 2019

Year of decision: 2019

GBV Case Type

Acts of lasciviousness
Child Abuse (R.A. 7610)
Minor

Nature of the case: The accused, with lewd design and by means of force, threat and intimidation and/or with grave abuse of parental authority did then and there willfully, unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously commit sexual abuse and lascivious conduct upon her daughter a twelve (12) year old minor in the City of Marikina by lying beside her then embracing her and inserting his fingers inside the victim’s genitalia. The crime is attended with the aggravating circumstance of relationship. The accused argued that the victim was heavily influenced by her older sister who openly despised their father. This shows motive on the part of the victim to fabricate the charges against the accused. The Court is unconvinced. According to the Court, settled is the rule that ill motives become inconsequential if there is an affirmative and credible declaration from the rape victim, which clearly establishes the liability of the accused. Hence, the Court found the accused guilty of Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

Summary of outcome: The offender is sentenced to suffer penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P15,000.00. He is further ordered to pay the victim, civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages, each in the amount of P75,000.00. The fine, civil indemnity and damages so imposed are subject to interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of the Decision until fully paid.

Observatory: Gender-Based Violence

Ponente: PERALTA, J.:

Long title: MANUEL BARALLAS RAMILO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Geolocation 1

Latitude: 14.633163

Longitude: 121.098981

: Geolocation 1

Primary Documents

Manuel Barallas Ramilo.pdf
English
Download View

Commission on Human Rights

Select target paragraph3

Ramilo v. People

Primary Documents

Notifications