Scribd
Upload
90 views1 page

Pinlac VS People

Nicanor Pinlac was accused of violating the Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act for committing lascivious acts against a 14-year old boy. Pinlac denied the allegations. The trial court found Pinlac guilty based on the testimony of the victim. Pinlac appealed, challenging inconsistencies in the victim's testimony. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with a modified sentence. The Supreme Court also found Pinlac guilty, as the state had established that Pinlac performed lascivious acts on the 14-year old victim on two occasions, satisfying the elements of exploiting a child through sexual abuse.

Uploaded by

Kling King
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
90 views1 page

Pinlac VS People

Nicanor Pinlac was accused of violating the Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act for committing lascivious acts against a 14-year old boy. Pinlac denied the allegations. The trial court found Pinlac guilty based on the testimony of the victim. Pinlac appealed, challenging inconsistencies in the victim's testimony. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with a modified sentence. The Supreme Court also found Pinlac guilty, as the state had established that Pinlac performed lascivious acts on the 14-year old victim on two occasions, satisfying the elements of exploiting a child through sexual abuse.

Uploaded by

Kling King
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

(Lascivious conduct)

NICANOR PINLAC Y RESOLME vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES


G.R. No. 197458, November 11, 2015 -

FACTS:
On the evening of March 9, 1997, "AAA," a 14-year old boy, went with petitioner to the
Kale Beach Resort in Subic, Olongapo City for initiation rites in a fraternity founded by the latter.
After succumbing to petitioner's "persuasion" to drink alcohol and smoke marijuana, "AAA" lost
control of himself ("nawala ako sa sarili"). While in a daze, stupor, or near total
unconsciousness, petitioner isolated "AAA" from his companions and other fraternity recruits,
forcibly disrobed "AAA", and performed oral sex on him by sucking his penis until he ejaculated.
The following day or on March 10, 1997, petitioner again performed oral sex on "AAA" after
convincing him anew to ingest alcohol and to smoke marijuana. An information was filed against
him for violation of Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act (RA) No. 7610 (otherwise known as
the Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act)
Pinlac denied the allegations against him. He claimed that he was a candidate for
barangay kagawad at the time and he could find no time at all for some other activities,
including the commission of the alleged acts of lasciviousness imputed to him. He insisted that
this case was instigated by "BBB," "AAA's" mother, who was also running for the position of
barangay kagawad.
The RTC did not lend credence to the version of petitioner. In a Decision dated January
6, 2010, it found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of having violated Section 5(b),
Article III of RA 7610. n appeal, petitioner challenged "AAA's" credibility by citing alleged
inconsistencies in his testimony vis-a-vis the testimony of his mother, "BBB. The CA affirmed
the decision of RTC with modification in the sentence.

ISSUE: WON Pinlac is guilty of child abuse.

HELD: YES, a child is deemed exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse,
when the child indulges in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct (a) for money, profit, or any
other consideration; or (b) under the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group. The
law covers not only a situation in which a child, through coercion or intimidation, engages in any
lascivious conduct. The very title of Section 5, Article III (Child prostitution and Other Sexual
Abuse) of RA 7610 shows that it applies not only to a child subjected to prostitution but also to a
child subjected to other sexual abuse. A child is deemed subjected to "other sexual abuse"
when he or she indulges in lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult.

The SC find that both the RTC and the CA reached the correct conclusion that petitioner
was indeed guilty beyond reasonable doubt of having violated Section 5(b), Article in of RA
7610. The State had satisfactorily established the following elements constitutive of the offense
charged: "(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; and (3)
the child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age." In this case, when the said
lascivious conduct was performed on 09 and 10 March 1997 by accused-appellant on AAA, the
latter was fourteen years old. As indicated in his Certificate of Live Birth (Exhibit "A"), AAA was
born on 21 August 1982. During the pre-trial, the defense stipulated on AAA's birth certificate
(Exhibit "A"). BBB, the mother of AAA, also testified that AAA was born on 21 August 1982. AAA
further testified that he was born on 21 August 1982.

You might also like