Facts
Ernesto Fragante was charged with nine (9) counts of acts of lasciviousness and one (1) count of rape all committed against his own minor daughter AAA. The trial court rendered a decision convicting appellant for the crimes charged. The Court of Appeals also found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crimes charged. Appellant contends that the Court of Appeals erred in convicting him for the crime of rape since the prosecution failed to overthrow the presumption of innocence. Appellant alleges that (1) AAA’s testimony was full of inconsistencies and improbabilities which cast serious doubts on the truthfulness of her account; (2) the medical findings do not support the charge of rape; (3) AAA’s delayed reporting of the incident renders the charges dubious; and (4) AAA and her mother harbored a grudge against appellant.
Issue
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s conviction for nine (9) counts of acts of lasciviousness and one (1) count of rape.
HELD
No. The prosecution sufficiently established appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of rape. Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
“Art. 335. When and how rape is committed. —Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
1. By using force or intimidation.
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.”
As correctly found by the Court of Appeals, all the essential elements of rape are present in this case. The evidence on record
clearly proves that appellant had carnal knowledge of his own minor daughter AAA. Appellant argues that the Court of Appeals erred in convicting him for nine counts of acts of lasciviousness since the prosecution failed to establish with particularity the
date of the commission of the offense.
The elements of sexual abuse under Section 5, Article III of Republic Act No. 7610 are as follows:
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 sexual abuse.
3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age
As correctly found by the Court of Appeals, all the elements of sexual abuse under Section 5, Article III of RA 7610 are present here. First, appellant's repeated touching, fondling, and sucking of AAA's breasts and inserting his finger into AAA's vagina with lewd designs undoubtedly constitute lascivious conduct. Second, appellant, as a father having moral ascendancy over his daughter, coerced AAA to engage in lascivious conduct, which is within the purview of sexual abuse. Third, AAA is below 18 years old at the time of the commission of the offense, based on her testimony which was corroborated by her Birth Certificate presented during
the trial.
Since all three elements of the crime were present, the conviction of appellant for acts of lasciviousness was proper.
