G.R. No. 192760 Garingarao v.

People July 20, 2011

Jojit Garingarao, People of the Philippines,

petitioner respondent
Carpio, J.

DOCTRINE:
In case of acts of lasciviousness, the lone testimony of the offended party, if credible, is sufficient to
establish the guilt of the accused. A child is deemed subject to other sexual abuse when the child is the
victim of lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult. It is inconsequential that sexual
abuse under RA 7610 occurred only once. Section 3 (b) of RA 7610 provides that the abuse may be habitual
or not. Hence, the fact that the offense occurred only once is enough to hold the accused liable for acts of
lasciviousness under RA 7610.

FACTS:
AAA, 16 years of age, was brought to the Virgen Milagrosa Medical Center by her father BBB and mother
CCC due to fever and abdominal pain. AAA was admitted at the hospital for further observation. The next
day, her father and mother left the hospital to process AAAs Medicare papers and to attend to their store,
respectively, leaving AAA alone in her room. When her father returned to the hospital, AAA told him that
she wanted to go home. The doctor allowed them due to AAAs insistence but instructed her that she
should continue her medications. At home, AAA told her parents that Garingarao sexually abused her.
They went back to the hospital and reported the incident to Dr. Morante. They inquired from the nurses
station and learned that Garingarao was the nurse on duty on that day.
An Information was filed against Garingarao for acts of lasciviousness in relation to RA 7610. During the
trial, AAA testified that, Garingarao, entered her room to check her medications and if she was still
experiencing pains. Garingarao lifted AAAs bra and touched her left breast and insisted that he was only
examining her. Garingarao also slid his finger inside AAAs private part and only stopped when he saw that
AAA really had her monthly period.
In his defense, the accused testified that he went inside AAAs room to administer her medicines and check
her vital signs. Garingarao alleged that the filing of the case was motivated by the argument he had with
AAAs father about the administering of medicines. He was supported by the testimony of the nursing
aide, Tamayo. Garingarao further alleged that, assuming the charges were correct, there was only one
incident when he allegedly touched AAA and as such, he should have been convicted only of acts of
lasciviousness and not of violation of RA 7610. The RTC found Garingarao guilty as charged and gave
credence to the testimony of AAA over Garingaraos denial, which was affirmed by the CA.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the single incident of act of lasciviousness would suffice to hold the accused liable under RA
7610,

HELD:
YES. The Court has ruled that in case of acts of lasciviousness, the lone testimony of the offended party,
if credible, is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. It is a settled rule that denial is a weak defense
as against the positive identification by the victim. Both denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and
constitute self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the
positive declaration by a credible witness.
Section 5, Article III of RA 7610 provides:
G.R. No. 192760 Garingarao v. People July 20, 2011

o Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. - Children, whether male or female, who for
money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate
or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in
prostitution and other sexual abuse.
The elements of sexual abuse under Section 5, Article III of RA 7610 are the following:
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 other sexual abuse; and
3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.
Under Section 32, Article XIII of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 7610, lascivious conduct
is defined as follows:
o The intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner
thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person,
whether of the same or opposite sex, with the intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or
gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or
pubic area of a person.
In this case, the prosecution established that Garingarao touched AAAs breasts and inserted his finger
into her private part for his sexual gratification. Garingarao used his influence as a nurse by pretending that
his actions were part of the physical examination he was doing. Garingarao persisted on what he was doing
despite AAAs objections. AAA twice asked Garingarao what he was doing and he answered that he was
just examining her.
The Court has ruled that a child is deemed subject to other sexual abuse when the child is the victim of
lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult. In lascivious conduct under the coercion
or influence of any adult, there must be some form of compulsion equivalent to intimidation which subdues
the free exercise of the offended partys free will. In this case, Garingarao coerced AAA into submitting to
his lascivious acts by pretending that he was examining her.
Garingarao insists that, assuming that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were true, he should
not be convicted of violation of RA 7610 because the incident happened only once. Garingarao alleges that
the single incident would not suffice to hold him liable under RA 7610. This argument has no legal basis.
The Court has already ruled that it is inconsequential that sexual abuse under RA 7610 occurred only once.
Section 3(b) of RA 7610 provides that the abuse may be habitual or not. Hence, the fact that the offense
occurred only once is enough to hold Garingarao liable for acts of lasciviousness under RA 7610. The
Court finds Jojit Garingarao guilty beyond reasonable doubt of acts of lasciviousness in relation to Republic
Act No. 7610.