FACTS:

Appellant Jose Abadies was charged with four counts of violation of Republic Act No. 7610 for allegedly committing acts of lasciviousness against his 17-year old daughter. The incidents occurred between July 1 to July 7, 1997, wherein Abadies would touch his daughter's breasts and other private parts without her consent. The complainant stated that she was prohibited from fighting back or shouting due to fear and that each instance would stop when her mother arrived. On July 26, 1997, Abadies threatened to kill both himself and the complainant, but she managed to escape and report the incidents to her mother and the barangay office. Accused-appellant denied the charges, claiming denial and alibi. He argued that the complainant's allegations were unfounded and that he was strict with his children. The trial court found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and a fine of P30,000. Accused-appellant appealed the decision, challenging the credibility of the prosecution's version and the court's consideration of his letter as an implied admission of guilt.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the testimony of the complainant is sufficient to prove the act of lasciviousness committed by the accused-appellant.

2. Whether the plea for forgiveness contained in the accused-appellant's letter can be considered as an implied admission of guilt.

3. Whether the failure of the complainant to immediately report the acts of lasciviousness constitutes an implied pardon.

4. Whether the trial court erred in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of lascivious conduct committed by accused-appellant against his daughter.

5. Whether the trial court erred in imposing a fine for each count of lascivious conduct committed by accused-appellant.

RULING:

1. The testimony of the complainant is sufficient to prove the act of lasciviousness committed by the accused-appellant. The acts alleged by the complainant, in which the accused-appellant touched and mashed her breasts and other private parts against her will, constitute acts of lasciviousness. The moral ascendancy of the accused-appellant over the complainant is a sufficient substitute for the use of force or intimidation.

2. The plea for forgiveness contained in the accused-appellant's letter can be considered as an implied admission of guilt. The letter clearly shows that the accused-appellant was seeking pardon for his actions, and the plea for forgiveness may be considered analogous to an attempt to compromise. In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses or those allowed by law to be settled through mutual concessions, an offer of compromise may be received as an implied admission of guilt.

3. The failure of the complainant to immediately report the acts of lasciviousness does not constitute an implied pardon. The fear of the accused-appellant was the reason why the complainant did not report the incidents to her mother. Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code and Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure require an express pardon, and it cannot be based on hazy deductions.

4. The trial court did not err in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of lascivious conduct committed by accused-appellant against his daughter. The relationship between the complainant and the accused-appellant as established by the birth certificate and testimonies falls within the coverage of Section 31 (c), Article XII of Republic Act No. 7610, which provides for the imposition of the penalty in its maximum period when the perpetrator is an ascendant, parent, guardian, stepparent, or collateral relative within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity.

5. The trial court correctly imposed a fine of P30,000.00 for each count of lascivious conduct committed by accused-appellant. Section 31 (f), Article XII of Republic Act No. 7610 allows the imposition of a fine subject to the discretion of the court, provided that the same is to be administered as a cash fund by the Department of Social Welfare and Development and disbursed for the rehabilitation of each child victim, or any immediate member of his family if the latter is the perpetrator of the offense.

PRINCIPLES:

• The testimony of a credible witness, free from contradiction as to any material point, deserves full faith and credit.

• The fear of the accused can be a valid reason for the complainant's failure to immediately report the acts of lasciviousness.

• In criminal cases, an offer of compromise may be received as an implied admission of guilt, except in cases involving quasi-offenses or those allowed by law to be settled through mutual concessions.

• An express pardon is required under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code and the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, and it cannot be based on hazy deductions.

• The penalty for violation of Republic Act No. 7610 is reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua, with the imposition of the penalty in its maximum period when the perpetrator is an ascendant, parent, guardian, stepparent, or collateral relative within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity.

• A fine may be imposed for violation of Republic Act No. 7610, subject to the court's discretion and to be administered as a cash fund by the Department of Social Welfare and Development for the rehabilitation of the child victim or any immediate member of his family if the latter is the perpetrator of the offense.

• The protection of the rights of the child is of paramount importance, and the state has a duty to ensure their physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration in an environment that fosters their self-respect and human dignity.

• The principles of international instruments and national legislation on child welfare and rights should guide the interpretation and application of the law in cases involving children.

• The Supreme Court has issued administrative circulars and approved procedural rules specific to cases involving children to ensure their expedited resolution and protection.