View full case

CHRISTOPHER FIANZA v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

Christopher Fianza was convicted of two counts of violation of Section 5 (b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610 (RA 7610), also known as the "Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act." The prosecution's version of events claimed that Fianza called AAA, an 11-year-old girl, to his house in July 2010 and asked her to wash his clothes. After she finished, Fianza took her to the second floor, undressed himself, and ordered AAA to hold his penis and masturbate him. He then gave her P20.00. In November 2010, Fianza called AAA again to his house and asked her to clean. After she finished sweeping, they went to the second floor where Fianza again ordered AAA to fondle his penis. He gave her another P20.00 after the act. AAA reported the incidents to her mother, and the matter was reported to the police. Fianza denied the allegations, claiming to have been in a different location during the times of the incidents. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Fianza guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment. The Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the conviction, albeit reducing the amount of moral damages and imposing a fine. Fianza filed a petition for review on certiorari assailing the CA's decision. The issue before the Supreme Court is whether or not the CA correctly upheld Fianza's conviction.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the accused should be charged with Acts of Lasciviousness or Sexual Abuse

  2. Whether the elements of Acts of Lasciviousness and Sexual Abuse are present in the case

  3. Whether coercion or influence was present in the commission of the acts

  4. Whether a child, such as AAA, is capable of giving rational consent to any lascivious act.

  5. Whether the Informations in both cases sufficiently alleged the offenses committed.

  6. Whether the Informations sufficiently alleged the second element of sexual abuse.

  7. Whether intimidation was present in the commission of the lascivious acts.

RULING:

  1. The accused should be charged with Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code.

  2. The elements of Acts of Lasciviousness and Sexual Abuse are present in the case.

  3. Coercion or influence was present in the commission of the acts.

  4. It is established in case law that a child is presumed to be incapable of giving rational consent to any lascivious act. The law seeks to afford children special protection against abuse, exploitation, and discrimination. Therefore, a child should not be deemed to have validly consented to adult sexual activity. In this case, AAA was only 11 years old at the time of the incidents, which clearly establishes her incapacity to give rational consent.

  5. The Informations in both cases were deemed sufficient. It is not necessary to state the precise date of the offense, as long as it is alleged to have been committed at a date as near as possible to the actual commission of the offense. In this case, the Informations stated the approximate date of the offense to be "sometime during the month of July 2010". The specific section of RA 7610 that was violated and the acts committed by the accused were also clearly stated, enabling a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged.

  6. The allegation that the accused committed lascivious conduct by forcing the victim to masturbate his penis was sufficient to apprise him of the nature of the criminal act with which he was charged. The Informations sufficiently alleged the second element of sexual abuse, albeit not using the exact language of the law.

  7. The Court held that intimidation need not necessarily be irresistible. It is sufficient that some compulsion equivalent to intimidation annuls or subdues the free exercise of the will of the offended party, particularly in the case of young girls who could not be expected to act with the same level of courage and intelligence as adults. In this case, considering the age difference between the accused and the victim, the threat of humiliation was enough to intimidate and compel the victim to comply with the accused's desires.

PRINCIPLES:

  • In instances where a child subjected to sexual abuse through lascivious conduct is below twelve years of age, the offender should be prosecuted under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code.

  • Before an accused can be convicted of child abuse through lascivious conduct on a minor below 12 years of age, the requisites for Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code must be met in addition to the requisites for sexual abuse under Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610.

  • The elements of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code are the commission of any act of lasciviousness or lewdness, done under certain circumstances, and the offended party being another person of either sex. Sexual abuse, as defined under Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610, has three elements: the accused commits an act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, the said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse, and the child is below eighteen years old.

  • The term "lewd" refers to something indecent or obscene, intended to excite crude sexual desire. The term "lascivious conduct" involves intentional touching, introduction of an object into certain body parts, or other acts with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify sexual desire.

  • Lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult involves some form of compulsion or intimidation that subdues the free exercise of the offended party's free will. Sexual abuse involves the employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement, or coercion of a child to engage in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct.

  • A child is presumed to be incapable of giving rational consent to any lascivious act or sexual intercourse.

  • The law seeks to protect children from the harmful consequences of their attempts at adult sexual behavior.

  • The age disparity between an adult and a child places the adult in a stronger position and enables them to wield their will over the child.

  • The date of the commission of the offense is not necessary to be stated in the complaint or information, unless it is a material ingredient of the offense.

  • The acts or omissions constituting the offense can be stated in ordinary and concise language, as long as it is sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged.

  • The Informations must sufficiently allege the elements of the crime charged to enable the accused to prepare his defense.

  • Intimidation need not be irresistible, especially in cases involving young, innocent, and immature victims. The level of compulsion equivalent to intimidation that annuls or subdues the free exercise of the will of the offended party is sufficient.