View full case

PEOPLE v. ERNESTO LARIN Y BONDAD

FACTS:

Ernesto Larin was accused of violating Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610, which penalizes child prostitution and other sexual abuses. The victim in this case is a 14-year-old girl named XXX YYY. The victim's parents, Rene and Susan YYY, filed the complaint against Larin. The incident allegedly occurred on April 17, 1996, inside the ladies' shower room located at the Baker's Hall in UP Los Baños, Laguna. Larin, who was a public employee of U.P. Los Baños, took advantage of his authority as a trainor/swimming instructor of the victim and committed lascivious acts on her. He allegedly shaved her pubic hair, performed cunnilingus on her, licked her breasts, forced her to hold and squeeze his penis, and forcibly kissed her on the cheeks and lips the day after. The victim and her parents filed a complaint, and Larin was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna. He appealed the decision, seeking its reversal.

The case involves the appellant who was charged with the violation of Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 for allegedly committing sexual abuse against a minor. The prosecution presented the testimony of the victim, XXX YYY, who claimed that the appellant, Ernesto Larin, who was a lifeguard at the University of the Philippines, Los Baños (UPLB), sexually abused her inside the UPLB pool bathhouse. The defense, on the other hand, presented several witnesses to refute the allegations, including Patricio Laurel, Veneranda Genio, Elmer Suñaz, and the appellant himself. These witnesses provided testimonies disputing the victim's claims and stating that the appellant was only a lifeguard and not a swimming instructor. The trial court found the testimony of the victim credible and convicted the appellant, imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay moral damages. The appellant appealed the decision, arguing, among others, the sufficiency of the evidence against him.

The case at hand involves the interpretation and application of Republic Act (RA) No. 7610, also known as the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act. The law defines children as individuals below eighteen years old or those unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination due to their age or mental disability. It covers situations where a child is abused for profit or when a child is coerced or influenced into engaging in any lascivious conduct.

The Senate deliberations reveal that the law aims to address both child prostitution for profit and other forms of sexual abuse of children. Senator Angara proposed an amendment to the provision to include situations in which a minor may have been coerced or intimidated into engaging in lascivious conduct, not necessarily for money or profit. The amendment sought to cover all forms of sexual exploitation of children, whether for monetary gain or due to coercion or influence from adults, syndicates, or groups. Senator Angara clarified that the amendment does not change the subtitle of Section 4, which still focuses on child prostitution, but rather expands the scope to include other forms of sexual misuse of children for various considerations.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the accused's actions constitute a violation of RA 7610.

  2. Whether or not there is sufficient proof that the accused coerced or influenced the victim to engage in lascivious conduct.

  3. Whether the victim's testimony is credible

  4. Whether the actions of the appellant constitute lascivious conduct

  5. Whether there was coercion or influence exerted by the appellant upon the victim.

  6. Whether the penalty for the offense committed is prision correccional or reclusion perpetua.

  7. Whether the award of moral damages is justified.

  8. Whether the amount of moral damages awarded should be reduced.

RULING:

  1. The accused's actions of shaving the victim's pubic hair, performing cunnilingus on her, licking her breasts, forcing her to hold and squeeze his penis, and forcibly kissing her on the cheeks and lips constitute lascivious conduct and a violation of RA 7610.

  2. There is sufficient proof that the accused took advantage of his authority, influence, and moral ascendancy as the victim's swimming instructor to commit the acts of lascivious conduct. This shows the coercion and influence of the accused over the victim.

  3. The court gives highest degree of respect to the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of a witness. Since the victim's testimony was given in a straightforward and spontaneous manner, the court finds it worthy of faith and belief. Furthermore, no proof of ill motive on the victim's part to falsely accuse the appellant has been presented. Thus, the court affirms the victim's credibility.

  4. The actions of the appellant, such as shaving the victim's pubic hair, performing cunnilingus on her, licking her breast, touching her genitalia, and forcing her to hold his sexual organ, constitute lascivious conduct. These actions are defined under Section 32, Article XIII of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 7610. The court finds no justification for the appellant's conduct, especially considering his position as the victim's swimming instructor.

  5. The prosecution successfully established that the appellant employed moral and psychological coercion on the victim. The victim's psychologist testified that the appellant had established a trusting relationship with the victim and manipulated her through attacks on her self-esteem. The victim displayed symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and experienced fear, anger, and feelings of vulnerability towards the appellant. The court held that moral coercion or ascendancy is sufficient to establish criminal liability, even without physical violence.

  6. The court imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua on the appellant. The law (RA 7610) imposes the penalty of reclusion temporal, in its medium period, to reclusion perpetua on those who commit sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct on a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to any other form of sexual abuse. The victim, who was 14 years old at the time of the offense, falls within the definition of a child under RA 7610. Additionally, since the appellant was a public officer, the law mandates the imposition of the maximum penalty. Thus, the court affirmed the imposition of reclusion perpetua on the appellant.

  7. The award of moral damages is justified.

  8. The amount of moral damages awarded should be reduced to P50,000.

PRINCIPLES:

  • RA 7610 penalizes not only child prostitution but also other forms of sexual abuse of children, including situations where a child engages in lascivious conduct through coercion or intimidation, regardless of whether it is for money, profit, or any other consideration.

  • The trial court's evaluation of the credibility of a witness and his or her testimony is entitled to the highest degree of respect.

  • No young and decent person would fabricate a story of sexual abuse if not motivated by a sincere desire for justice.

  • Lascivious conduct is defined as intentional touching or introduction of objects into the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of a person, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify sexual desire.

  • Actions that manifest sexual perversity and lewd intentions cannot be brushed aside as innocent, especially when committed by someone in a position of authority.

  • Moral and psychological coercion or influence can be sufficient to establish criminal liability for acts of lasciviousness, even without physical violence.

  • The penalty for sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct on a child under RA 7610 is reclusion temporal, in its medium period, to reclusion perpetua.

  • The penalty provided in RA 7610 shall be imposed in its maximum period if the offender is a public officer.

  • Moral damages may be awarded in cases of sexual abuse or exploitation, based on the emotional distress suffered by the victim.

  • Moral damages may be awarded when a person commits an act that results in physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, wounded feelings, moral shock, or similar injury.

  • The amount of moral damages awarded may be reduced based on prevailing jurisprudence.