The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the two life imprisonments imposed by the trial court and upheld by the Court of Appeals (CA) on a father for acts of lasciviousness against his 14-year-old daughter in Cavite.

Based on a certification required by the SC, the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) confirmed that the father has been detained at the New Bilibid Prison (NBP) in Muntinlupa City since April 26, 2019 or three months after the trial court handed down the guilty verdict on Jan. 25, 2019.

The trial court’s judgment of conviction was affirmed with modification by the CA on Nov. 10, 2020. The father elevated his case before the SC.

The names of the father, his daughter, and the mother, and the actual place where the crimes were committed were redacted in the SC’s resolution that was made public last Feb. 6.

The father was charged with two counts of violations of Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610, the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act.

In the first case, the daughter testified that on Dec. 11, 2011`when she was 14 years old, she was roused from her sleep when she felt someone was touching her nipple. She said that through the light coming from the window, she recognized that it was her father who was touching her breast.

She said she did not know what to do so she turned her back on him and just went downstairs.

Since that night, she said her father had been molesting her and she could no longer recall all the exact times and dates. She said there were times when her father would touch her private part. She added she did not shout for help because she was afraid since he had a history of violent behavior.

She testified that the last time she was abused by her father was on May 25, 2012 when he touched both her breasts. A few days later, she said she confided all the incidents to her mother because the abuses have become more frequent and she had grown more frightened.

After a heated confrontation with the father, the mother decided to leave their house with all her children.

Two counts of violations of RA 7610 were filed against the father who denied the charges. The daughter testified during the trial.

The trial court convicted the father of two counts of violations of RA 7610. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for each count and ordered to pay P20,000 for civil indemnity and P30,000 for moral damages, also for each count.

On the father’s appeal, the CA upheld the trial court on the jail terms. But the CA modified the monetary judgments. Instead, it directed the father to pay P75,000 for civil indemnity, P75,000 for moral damages, P75,000.00 for exemplary damages, and P15,000.00 as fine for each of the two cases. A six per cent interest annually was also imposed until the monetary judgments are full paid.

In affirming the CA, the SC said:

“To sustain a verdict of conviction for lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of RA 7610, the following elements must be proved: (1) the accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) the said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and (3) the child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.

"’Lascivious conduct’ means the intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, 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.

“Here, all the elements of lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 were clearly established. The prosecution was able to prove that (the daughter), having been born on July 7, 1997 as evidenced by her Certificate of Live Birth, was below 18 years old during the material times alleged in the Informations, i.e. December 11, 2011 and May 25, 2012.

“Appellant used his moral influence and ascendancy as a father to perpetuate lascivious conduct on his daughter, who was only a minor.

“Notably, though there is no showing that he employed persuasion, inducement, enticement, or coercion to make (his daughter) engage in lascivious conduct, his moral influence or ascendancy as her biological father takes the place of violence or intimidation.

“Notably, (the daughter) was only 14 years old when her own father molested her. It is settled that youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. It is highly improbable that a young girl such as (the daughter) would concoct such a horrid story against her own father, accuse him of a crime, and subject herself and her family to the humiliation and ordeal of a public trial unless she is impelled by a genuine desire to expose the truth and seek the justice she so greatly deserves.

“Against (the daughter’s) positive testimony, appellant (father) only offered denial. We have pronounced time and again that denial is an inherently weak defense which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime. Thus, between a categorical testimony which has a ring of truth on one hand, and a mere denial on the other, the former is generally held to prevail.

“FOR THESE REASONS, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated November 10, 2020 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12938 is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED."

TAGS: #SC #Lascivious acts #Father guilty of lascivious acts against daughter