to testify falsely against Fianza.21 On the other hand, it declared that Fianza's actions showed that he took advantage of AAA's naivete and innocence to satisfy his lewd designs.22 Aggrieved, Fianza elevated23 his conviction to the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 35293. The CA Ruling In a Decision24 dated November 24, 2014, the CA upheld Fianza's conviction for two (2) counts of violation of Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610. The CA observed that while Fianza was charged with violations of Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610 (sexual abuse), the proper appellation of the crimes should be violations of Article 336 of the RPC (Acts of Lasciviousness), in relation to Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610, and found that the prosecution was able to establish all the requisites for both Acts of Lasciviousness and sexual abuse. It declared that Fianza, a 35-year old adult, had moral ascendancy over 11-year-old AAA; hence, his act of coercing AAA to engage in lascivious conduct falls within the meaning of the term sexual abuse.25 However, the CA reduced the award of moral damages to P25,000.00, and further ordered Fianza to pay a fine in the amount of P15,000.00 for each count of sexual abuse, with legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum on the amounts due from the finality of judgment until full payment.26 Dissatisfied, Fianza moved for reconsideration,27 which was, however, denied in a Resolution28 dated May 29, 2015; hence, this petition. The Issue Before the Court The essential issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA correctly upheld Fianza's conviction.