Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

National Capital Judicial Region
BRANCH 102- QUEZON CITY

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

-versus- CRIM. CASE NO. R-QZN-15-04316-CR

For: Violation of Sec. 5(b)
R.A. No. 7610
NORBERT BOY TREVOLES,
Accused.
x-----------------------------------------------x

JUDGMENT

Accused Norbert Boy Trevoles a.k.a Plong stands charged for the crime of Violation of Section 5 (b) of
Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse and Discrimination Act), under an
Information that reads:

“That on or about the first week of May, 2015, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above named
accused, with lewd designs and employing coercion and/or undue influence, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit the offense of sexual abuse against the person of one
VANNA MIKAELA MONTAOS Y DEL ROSARIO, a female minor 5 years of age (born October
22, 2009), by engaging in lascivious conduct towards the child by removing her panty and kissing
her vagina, which act debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of the said child
as human being, to the damage and prejudice of the offended party.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”

Upon arraignment on June 10, 2015, the above-named accused, duly assisted by Atty. Nerissa Rhona V.
Zamora-Amoroso of the Public Attorney’s Office, entered a plea of “not guilty” to the crime charged.

With the termination of the pre-trial conference on August 12, 2015, trial on the merits ensued.

Evidence for the Prosecution

1. RAQUEL DEL ROSARIO Y MARTIN, 38 years old, a gematologist and with residence at 112
Arcadia Village, Brgy. Ugong Norte, Quezon City. Herein witness states that private complainant Vanna Mikaela
Montalos y Del Rosario, her daughter was only five (5) years old and even identified the latter’s Certificate of Live
Birth1 showing the private complainant’s birth date. The witness confirmed that she knows Norbert Boy Trevoles
a.k.a Plong because the latter is the son of the witness’ former maid.

Subsequently, the witness testified that on May 6, 2015 at around 11 pm in their condominium, she and the
private complainant in this case were about to sleep when the latter asked her “Mommy can you taste my
pekpek?”. Shocked, she asked her daughter if there was someone who tasted her “pekpek” before. The private
complainant answered yes and revealed that it was a certain Jonathan “Tan-tan” dela Cruz, son of the witness’
present all-around maid Luzviminda dela Cruz, who did the such. After hearing what the private complainant said,
the witness took her cellphone to record their conversation in the presence of the private complainant’s nanny
named Bing. According to the herein witness, the private complainant told her that Tan-tan showed his penis, let
the private complainant held his penis and thereafter removed the private complainant’s panty. The private

1
Exhibit “F”
complainant then said the following, to wit: “Tan-tan tasted my pek-pek, he said my pek-pek is sweet.” The private
complainant also told the witness that Tan-tan also kissed her and tried to insert his penis to her vagina. The
witness to make sure the consistency of the private complainant’s statements asked again if Tan-tan really touched
her vagina, the private complainant answered yes. When asked if who removed her panty, the private complainant
answered that it was Tan-tan and accused Norbert Boy Trevoles. According to the witness, the accused ,known as
Plong, is an 18 year old son of their former maid Penny Trevoles. The herein witness let Plong stay in their house
to help run some errands since the latter was in vacation break.

Correlatively, the private complainant, when she was asked if accused Trevoles also kissed her, she told
the witness that the accused kissed her at their nanny’s room while the door was closed and the lights were out. The
herein witness asked the private complainant if the accused also kissed her vagina just like what Tan-tan did, the
private complainant replied yes and said the following, to wit: “When I asked her “Did you see Plong’s titi? And
her answer was Yes. I asked her again “which is bigger titi Plong or Tan-tan?” her answer was “Plong”. I asked her
again “What’s the color” and she said “Black but Tan-tan’s titi is brown” and then the private complainant
demonstrated the size of Plong’s and Tan-tan’s penis. Consequently, the private complainant according to the
witness answered in the affirmative when she asked the former if the accused penis touched and attempted to insert
the same to her vagina. When asked by the witness when the incident involving accused Trevoles happened the
private complainant answered “Yesterday”. However, the herein witness clarified in the cross-examination that the
private complainant even though an incident happened on a prior date, she tends to call it yesterday.

The following day, the witness texted Tan-tan’s sisters namely, Winnie and Jennylou and told them what
their brother did to the private complainant. Thereafter, the witness, together with the private complainant went to
Dr. Annalee Palima, the Police Chief Inspector and Medico Legal Officer of the Quezon City Police District Crime
Laboratory Office in Kamuning, Quezon City for medical examination.

Accordingly, herein witness testified that she reported the alleged incident Women and Children center at
San Juan to inform the person in charge what happened and from there she learned that Tan-tan who is 13 years old
should be brought be brought to DSWD and only Plong who is 18 years old may be arrested.

On cross-examination, herein witness testified that on the evening of the same day, the witness talked to
the family of Tan-tan and to the accused Plong at the house of her mother and the two admitted that they
committed the acts. Futhermore, on the re-direct examination, the witness stated that Tan-tan, in the presence of
the latter’s mother and his sisters, and accused admitted that they committed the act, on separate occasions, against
the private complainant and asked for forgiveness by writing a letter.

In a similar way, accused Trevoles, admitted to the witness that he kissed the private complainant’s vagina
for about ten (10) minutes. This admission was even recorded by the witness.

2. VANNA MIKAELA MONTAOS Y DEL ROSARIO, 5 years old and residing at 112 Arcadia
Village, Brgy. Ugong Norte, Quezon City. The private complainant testified before the police station that on May
9, 2015, she was only 5 years old. Likewise, she testified in a question-and-answer format given before PO2
Nennen T. Barnobal of Eastwood Police Station that on May 6, 2015 Tan-tan accused Norbert Boy Trevoles a.k.a
Plong kissed the private complainant’s vagina and let them touch their penis, on separate occasion.

On direct examination, the herein private complainant testified that she was alone with accused Trevoles
at the nanny’s room of their house one morning. The latter, according to the private complainant, locked the door
and turned off the lights then, he lie her down, removed her panty, and started kissing her vagina. The accused
Plong also kissed her on the lips and thereafter, the accused removed his brief then showed and let the private
complainant hold his penis.

On re-direct examination, the herein private complainant confirmed that the accused placed himself on top
of the private complainant and tried inserting his penis to the private complainant’s vagina.
 After the incident, the private complainant told her mother about the incident.

3. DR. ANALEE C. PALIMA, 41 years old, single with postal address at c/o Station 10, Edsa,
Kamuning, Quezon City.

She is presently the medico legal officer of qcpd Crime Laboratory. Her duties and responsibilities include
the conduct of examinations on the living and the non-living alleged victims of violent crimes like physical
examinations, genital examinations, autopsy, and exhumations. She also testifies on court and complies with other
duties directed by our chief of office.

She presented a request from the Quezon Police District Eastwood Police Station a Request for Physical
and Genital Examination for Vanna Mikaela Montaos Y Del Rosario, the same marked as Exhibit “I”. After
receiving the request, she testified that she immediately conducted the physical and dental examination by first
securing a Manifestation of Consent for Examination from the victim herself and her mother.

She, likewise, before conducting the physical anogenital examination, first directed a brief interview
regarding the alleged incident.

According to her findings in the physical examination, there was no external signs of application of any
trauma. There was also no external injury on the body at the time of the examination. For the hymen and anus,
there were no laceration at the time of the examination. These findings were reduced into writing on the Final
Medico Legal Report2.

4. SPO3 RODOLFO DEL ROSARIO. Both parties having stipulated that herein witness was the
Police Officer who apprehended the accused after the complaint of the complaining witness. However, counsel for
the accused made a counter stipulation that herein witness has no personal knowledge as to the complaint incident
for Violation of Sec. 5(B) of Republic Act 7610. Consequently, the Prosecution moves that the Joint Affidavit of
Arrest marked as Exhibit “C”. Meantime, the private prosecutor moved for the issuance of a subpoena to PO2
Nennen T. Barnobal of Eastwood Police Station 12, Quezon City Police District and to bring the police Report
Referral Letter and the Affidavit of Arrest.

5. PI NENNEN T. BARNOBAL. Both parties agreed to stipulate that the witness herein was the one
who prepared the criminal complaint of minor victim Vanna Mikaela Montaos Y Del Rosario and her mother
Raquel Del Rosario Y Martin. The herein witness was likewise the one who prepared the Joint Affidavit Of Arrest
of PO3 Joseph Sanico, PO1 Jayson Artista and SPO2 Rodolfo Del Rosario. The parties also stipulated that the
herein witness has no personal knowledge as to the alleged violation of the accused of Section 5(b) of RA 7610.

After the prosecution presented their abovementioned witnesses, on December 8, 2016, the former
filed their Formal Offer of Evidence and rested its case. The defense, on the other hand, did not present any
evidence. The accused likewise failed to testify before the court.

Disquisition

Section 5, paragraph 2 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, defines and penalizes acts of lasciviousness
committed against a child as follows:

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.

2
Exhibit “K”
 xxxx

(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse of lascivious conduct with a child exploited
in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the victims is under twelve
(12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and
Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct,
as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under
twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period.3

Paragraph (b) punishes sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct not only with a child exploited in
prostitution, but also with a child subjected to other sexual abuses. It covers not only a situation where one through
coercion, intimidation or influence engages in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child.4

However, pursuant to the foregoing provisions, before an accused can be convicted of child abuse through
lascivious conduct committed against a minor below 12 years of age, the requisites for the acts of lasciviousness
under Article 336 of the RPC must be met in addition to the requisites for the sexual abuse under Section 5 of R.A.
No. 7610.5

Acts of Lasciviousness, as defined in Article 336 of the RPC, has the following elements:

1) That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness;

2) That it is done under any of the following circumstances:
a. By using force or intimidation; or
b. When the offended party I deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or
c. When the offended party is under 12 years of age; and
3) That the offended party is another person of either sex.6

The term lewd is commonly defined as something indecent or obscene; it is characterized by or intended to
excite crude sexual desire. That an accused is entertaining a lewd or unchaste design is necessarily a mental
process the existence of which can be inferred by overt acts carrying out such intention, i.e., by conduct that can
only be interpreted as lewd or lascivious. The presence or absence of lewd designs is inferred from the nature of
the acts themselves and the environmental circumstances. What is or what is not lewd conduct, by its very nature,
cannot be pigeonholed into a precise definition. As early as U.S. v. Gomez we had already lamented that -- It
would be somewhat difficult to lay down any rule specifically establishing just what conduct makes one amenable
to the provisions of article 439 of the Penal Code. What constitutes lewd or lascivious conduct must be determined
from the circumstances of each case. It may be quite easy to determine in a particular case that certain acts are lewd
and lascivious, and it may be extremely difficult in another case to say just where the line of demarcation lies
between such conduct and the amorous advances of an ardent lover.7

In addition, the following elements of sexual abuse under Section 5, Article III of R.A. No. 7610 must be
established:

1) The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct.

2) The act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse.
3) The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.8

3
Emphasis supplied
4
Flordeliz v. People, supra note 19, at 240.
5
Navarrete v. People, G.R. No. 147913, January 31, 2007, 513 SCRA 509, 517.
6
Flordeliz v. People, supra note 19, at 240-241; Navarrete v. People, supra.
7
Sombilon, Jr. v. Peopleof the Philippines, G.R. No. 175528, September 20, 2009, citing the case f People of the Philippines vs. Victor, G.R.
NO. 127904, December 5, 2002 and Amployo vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 157718, April 26, 2005.
8
Malto v. People, G.R. No. 164733, September 21, 2007, 533 SCRA 643, 656; Navarrete v. People, supra note 40, at 521; Olivares v.
Court of Appeals, 503 Phil. 421, 431 (2005).
 Corollarily, Section 2 (h) of the rules and regulations of R.A. No. 7610 defines “Lascivious conduct” as:

[T]he 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 an 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.

After weighing the evidence presented, the Court find that the Prosecution was able to muster the quantum
of evidence to convict the accused for violation of Section 5 paragraph 2 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, that is,
proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Evidently, all the afore-stated elements are present in the instant case. Otherwise stated, the Prosecution was
able to prove all the elements of Acts of Lasciviousness as defined and penalized under the Revised Penal Code as
well as elements of sexual abuse under Section 5 paragraph 2 (b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610.

In the case at bar, accused Nobert Boy Trevoles committed lascivious acts against the herein private
complainant-victim Vanna Mikaela Montaos Y Del Rosario by kissing her vagina and the lascivious or lewd acts
were committed against private complainant-victim Vanna Mikaela Montaos Y Del Rosario, who was 5 years old
at that time as established by her Birth Certificate9.

The testimony of the private complainant-victim Vanna Mikaela Montaos Y Del Rosario is worthy of full
faith and credence. Her testimony reads:

Private complainant Vanna Mikaela Montaos Y Del Rosario:

Q: Okay. I am showing to you a picture Vanna, do you know the person in this picture?
A: (witness is nodding)
Q: Who is this?
A: Plong
Atty. Vicente C. Cruz: Plong, Okay.
The witness Your Honor identified the person depicted in the picture.
Court: Who is Plong?
Atty. Vicente C. Cruz: Who is Plong?
Court: Was he the one who kissed your pipi?
Q: (witness is nodding)10

Xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

Atty. Vicente C. Cruz: One (1) hour. How about Plong, did Plong kiss your pipi also?
Witness: Yes.
Atty. Vicente C. Cruz: And, How many times did Plong kiss you pipi?
A: Same
Q: Same. You mean one (1) hour also?
A: (witness is nodding)11

9
Exhibit “F”
10
TSN dated October 7, 2015, p. 8
11
TSN dated October 07, 2015, p. 13
 Xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

Atty. Vicente C. Cruz:

Q: Vanna, you said that when Plong kissed your pekpek, you were wearing a dress. My question to you is,
did Plong remove your dress or your panty?
A: Yes.
Q: You said Plong removed your panty or dress, after he removed your panty or dress, that was the time
that he kissed your pekpek or pipi?
A: Yes.12

No young and decent girl like the herein private complainant-victim would fabricate a story of sexual
abuse, subject herself to medical examination and undergo public trial, with concomitant ridicule and humiliation,
if she is not impelled by a sincere desire to put behind bars the person who assaulted her.13

There being no evidence presented and offered before the court during the proceedings by accused Trevoles
to prove his innocence, the facts remain undisputed.

WHEREFORE. in view of foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused Nobert Boy
Trevoles., GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the violation of Section 5 paragraph 2 (b), Article III of R.A.
No. 7610.

Accordingly, said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium
period of fourteen (14) year Eight (8) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to Fifteen (15) years Six (6) months
and Nineteen (19) days, as maximum and to pay Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) as moral damages. 14

SO ORDERED.

Promulgated this ________ of _____, Quezon City, Philippines.

MA. LOURDES A. GIRON

Presiding Judge

12
TSN dated October 07, 2015, p. 19
13
People v. Larin, G.R. No. 128777, 07 October 1998, 296 SCRA 309, 325-326
14