Post

Sombilon v. People of the Philippines

Posted
By Anonymous
6 min read
Sombilon v. People of the Philippines

Case Title and Citation

PO3 Benito Sombilon, Jr., petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.
G.R. No. 175528, 2009-09-30
Supreme Court - First Division
Ponente: Justice Leonardo-De Castro

Facts

  • On 1998-08-14 to 1998-08-15, AAA, a 15-year-old female, was investigated at the Calinan Police Station, Davao City in connection with a theft complaint.
  • AAA alleged that while being interrogated, she was confined in a windowless room with a cot and table; Appellant pointed a gun at her forehead, pressed the weapon to her head, and pushed her, causing her head to strike the wall. He electrocuted her by inserting an electric wire into a socket, ordered her to place her hands on a table, and electrocuted her fingers; he touched her body, including breasts, belly, and private parts, and kissed her cheek. She resisted but the acts continued for over an hour.
  • Afterward, AAA and her mother were allowed to go home on condition that they would pay the value of the necklace; AAA was later taken to a medical clinic due to trembling and incoherence.
  • Dr. Manuel Garcia, Sr. examined AAA and prepared a Medical Certificate noting contusions on the occiput and forehead, contusions on fingers and breasts, slight body tremors, and a diagnosis of slight physical injuries.
  • An Information dated 1999-08-23 charged petitioner with Acts of Lasciviousness under Art. 336 in relation to Art. 344 of the Revised Penal Code, alleging that on 1998-08-14 in Davao City he, motivated by lewd design, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously embraced AAA, touched her breasts and private parts, against her will.
  • Arraignment: petitioner pleaded not guilty.
  • RTC Decision (2003-05-13): petitioner found guilty of acts of lasciviousness under Art. 336, with aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of his public position; sentenced to six months arresto mayor (minimum) to five years, four months, and twenty-one days prision correccional (maximum); awarded ₱10,000 moral damages and ₱10,000 exemplary damages.
  • CA Decision (2005-07-28): affirmed the RTC conviction with modification; increased the maximum penalty to six years prision correccional. Also upheld damages of ₱10,000 moral and ₱10,000 exemplary.
  • Petitioner’s petition to this Court challenged the conviction, aggravating-solely-pleaded issue, and damages.

Issues

  1. Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the conviction for acts of lasciviousness beyond reasonable doubt?
  2. Was the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of petitioner’s public position properly alleged in the information and, if so, properly considered?
  3. Were the damages awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the CA proper?

Ruling

  1. Yes — The evidence supports a finding of acts of lasciviousness beyond reasonable doubt. The acts (embracing, mashing the breasts, touching private parts, kissing the victim) coupled with force/intimidation (gun-point) and the victim’s age (15) satisfy Art. 336.
  2. No — The aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of a public position was not alleged in the information and cannot be considered for enhancement of penalty.
  3. Yes — The award was properly adjusted: moral damages increased to ₱30,000 and exemplary damages awarded at ₱10,000; the penalty was set within the Indeterminate Sentence Law framework (six months arresto mayor minimum to four years two months prision correccional maximum).

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

  • Elements of Acts of Lasciviousness under Art. 336 require (1) commission of an act of lasciviousness and (2) commission under specific circumstances (e.g., force/intimidation, or offender’s leverage over a minor). Here, the officer’s use of a gun, confinement in a windowless room, and the victim’s age establish the circumstances, and the touching of breasts and private parts, kissing, and the overall nature of the acts constitute lasciviousness. See Amployo v. People (definition of lewd conduct) and People v. Victor (compulsion need not be irresistible; intimidation suffices). The environment (police station room) does not negate the offense; lust is not constrained by time/place.
  • The aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of a public position must be alleged in the information under Sec. 8–9, Rule 110; absence of such allegation precludes its consideration for penalty enhancement; authorities like Buayaban and Casitas guide this interpretation.
  • The court’s penalty framework adheres to the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL): for offenses punished by the Revised Penal Code, the maximum should align with the next higher degree’s range absent aggravating/mitigating factors; where aggravation is not alleged, penalties fall within the standard scope (here, mid-range for Art. 336 after ISL adjustment).
  • On damages, exemplary damages may be awarded for acts with aggravating circumstances; retroactivity considerations under the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure were addressed, with Catubig rejecting retroactive application of those procedural changes to civil liability in pre-effectivity offenses, while Solmoro supports enhanced moral damages for serious moral injury in acts of lasciviousness. The Court thus adjusted moral damages to ₱30,000 while keeping exemplary damages at ₱10,000.

Cited authorities include: Art. 336 and 344 RPC; Amployo v. People; People v. Victor; U.S. v. Gomez; People v. Candaza; People v. Casitas, Jr.; Buayaban (G.R. No. 112459); People v. Castillo; Catubig (G.R. No. 137842); Solmoro (G.R. Nos. 139187-94, 140427-34); 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure (Sec. 8–9); Act No. 4103 (as amended).

Doctrine / Legal Principle

  • Lewdness is determined by the nature of acts and surrounding circumstances; intent can be inferred from actions such as prelude questions and the sequence of acts.
  • Intimidation or force can substitute for irresistible compulsion in acts of lasciviousness.
  • Allegation of aggravating circumstances in the information is mandatory under the 2000 Rules; if not alleged, such circumstances cannot be invoked for enhanced penalties.
  • The Indeterminate Sentence Law requires sentencing within ranges based on the offense and attendant circumstances; without admitted aggravation, penalties fall within intermediate ranges.
  • Moral damages in acts of lasciviousness may be set at ₱30,000 (considering the trauma and social stigma), with exemplary damages up to ₱10,000 when appropriate, with retroactivity considerations varying by the nature of the damages and applicable rules of procedure.

Disposition

  • The petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals, affirming with modification the RTC judgment, is AFFIRMED with the modification that petitioner is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as maximum, and to pay AAA ₱30,000 as moral damages and ₱10,000 as exemplary damages. Costs against petitioner.

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

  • Concurring opinions: None stated as separate opinions; allJustices concur in the judgment as indicated by the “We concur” lines for the majority.

Significance / Notes

  • Reaffirms that acts of lasciviousness can be committed in controlled settings (e.g., police stations) and remain punishable if the offender’s actions meet the statutory elements.
  • Clarifies that aggravating circumstances must be expressly pleaded in the information to be considered for penalty enhancement.
  • Addresses retroactivity concerns in civil damages stemming from criminal acts, clarifying that certain civil liability aspects may be treated according to prior or intervening rules depending on retroactivity analyses.
  • Sets a domestic precedent for the assessment of moral damages in cases involving juvenile victims and police officers as perpetrators, reinforcing the need for substantial moral injury evidence in crafting damages.
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure
This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.