Anda di halaman 1dari 2

EDUARDO QUIMVEL vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES


G.R. No. 214497 April 18, 2017

Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the May 29, 2014 Decision
and September 15, 2014 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 35509. The challenged
rulings sustained the petitioner's conviction of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness in relation to Sec.
5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. (RA) 7610.

VELASCO, J. : Decision

The Information charged the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness under Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610

Justice Velasco ruled that the petitioners argument failed to persuade.


The acts constituting the offense must be alleged in the information before an accused can be convicted
of the crime charged to enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense because he is presumed to
have no independent knowledge of the facts constituting the offense.
The elements of the offense penalized under Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610 were sufficiently alleged in the
information
Force and intimidation is subsumed under coercion and influence
There need not to be a third person subjecting the exploited child to other abuse

The RTC and CA did not err in finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt

The petitioner's proposition-that there is not even an iota of proof of force or intimidation as AAA was
asleep when the offense was committed and, hence, he cannot be prosecuted under RA 7610-is bereft
of merit. When the victim of the crime is a child under twelve (12) years old, mere moral ascendancy
will suffice.

LEONEN, J. : Separate Opinion

The accused has been properly charged and convicted for violation of Article III, Section 5
of Republic Act No. 7610.

Justice Leonen adds however, that he entertains serious doubts as to whether Quimvel could have been
convicted o f violation o f Article 336 o f the Revised Penal Code (Acts of Lasciviousness) due to a lacuna
in Republic Act No. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law. That law properly reclassified rape as a crime against
persons, thereby leaving Article 336 in a different title without the provisions it used to refer to.
However, in view of the resolution of this case, this issue need not be considered. It should however, be
the subject of a more serious deliberation in the proper case, where it becomes salient and is fully argued
by the parties.

PERLAS-BERNABE, J. : Separate Concurring Opinion

Quimvel should be convicted under Section 5 (b), Article III of Republic Act No. (RA) 7610,1
otherwise known as the "Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act," in relation to Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code.

The said provision covers a situation wherein a child engages in any lascivious conduct through
coercion or intimidation, even if such sexual abuse occurred only once, as in Quimvel's case.
In Justice Bernabes mind, the law does not contemplate a situation where the acts of lasciviousness
are committed on a child priorly exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. This latter
position effectively requires allegation and proof of a first act of abuse committed against the same child
victim for a sex offender to be convicted.
Justice Bernabe deems it enough that a singular act of sexual abuse be committed against a
minor in order to qualify under the law's protection

Hence, if RA 7610 was directly meant to reinforce the legal framework against the sexual abuse of
minors, it would not make any sense to first require a preliminary act of sexual abuse against a child
before a sex offender could be punished under the same.

CARPIO, J. : Separate Dissenting Opinion

Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 (RA 7610)1 or Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC) clarified and distinguished

Justice Carpio agrees with the majority opinion when it states that Article 336 of the RPC was never
repealed by Republic Act No. 8353. While the latter law expressly repealed Art. 335, this does not render
Art. 336 incomplete or ineffective. As the majority opinion explains, it simply means that the "preceding
article" referred to in Art. 336 would now refer to Article 266-A, which replaced Art. 335.
The difference is clear: under Article 336 of the RPC, the accused performs the act of lasciviousness
with a child who is neither exploited in prostitution nor subjected to "other sexual abuse" while under
Section S(b) of RA 7610 the act is performed with a child who is either exploited in prostitution or
subjected to "other sexual abuse."
The main issue is whether or not the second element of Section 5(b) of RA 7610 was correctly alleged
in the Information and whether it was sufficiently proven by the prosecution during the trial. Justice
Carpio submits that the second element - that the child is "exploited in prostitution or subjected to
other sexual abuse" - was neither correctly alleged nor proven beyond reasonable doubt.