G.R. No. 267315 - JAMES DUAVIT Y VILLACARLOS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows: In Criminal Case No. MC15-4678-FC, the Court finds accused JAMES DUAVIT Y VILLACARLOS GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of violation of Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610. Accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of TEN (10) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS and TWENTY ONE (21) DAYS of prision mayor , as minimum to SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS of reclusion temporal , as maximum and to pay AAA the amount of THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php30,000.00) as moral damages, subject to an interest of 6% per annum from finality of this decision until fully paid. In Criminal Case No. MC15-4679-FC, the Court finds accused JAMES DUAVIT Y VILLACARLOS GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of violation of Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610. Accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of TEN (10) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS and TWENTY ONE (21) DAYS of prision mayor , as minimum to SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS of reclusion temporal , as maximum and to pay AAA the amount of THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php30,000.00) as moral damages, subject to an interest of 6% per annum from finality of this decision until fully paid. SO ORDERED . [94] (Emphasis in the original) On appeal, Duavit sought acquittal, mainly by questioning the Regional Trial Court's accordance of full credence to AAA's testimony. [95] He argued that AAA's testimony was incredible chiefly due to the following points: (1) "it is hard to believe that [he] would abuse [AAA] in broad daylight...in a place where people would usually pass by"; (2) since AAA was already 15 years old during the incidents, he had "enough presence of mind, strength, and wisdom to call someone for help" and "people passing by would definitely notice"; and (3) "after the first incident, it is incredible for [AAA] to allow himself to [again] be alone with [Duavit]." [96] In its assailed September 23, 2022 Decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed Duavit's conviction, [97] with modifications to the penalties and damages. [98] It upheld the Regional Trial Court's evaluation of AAA's testimony as being detailed, consistent, and spontaneous. [99] It likewise affirmed the trial court's findings on the presence of the three elements of the offense. [100] Conversely, it found Duavit's arguments to be unmeritorious. [101] The Court of Appeals then awarded PHP 50,000.00 in civil indemnity and increased the award of moral damages to PHP 50,000.00, for each of the two counts of lascivious conduct. It also recomputed the imposable penalty under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610. [102] It arrived at the penalty of 10 years, two months, and 21 days of prision mayor , as minimum, to 17 years, four months, and one day of reclusion temporal , as maximum, for each count of the subject offense. [103] The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals' Decision reads: WHEREFORE , the appeal is DISMISSE