PP vs. Villacampa

3/7/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 850 3/7/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 850
in the second paragraph of Article 266-A because Villacampa

inserted his finger into the vagina of his victims. It has long been
established that the insertion of the finger into another person’s
genital or anal orifice constitutes rape through sexual assault. On
the other hand, FC Criminal Case No. 1369 charges Villacampa
with acts of lasciviousness or sexual abuse as he is accused of
kissing the lips, face, and neck of the victim. It is important to
note that the victims in these cases were all minors at the time of
the commission of the crimes. Thus, the provisions of RA 7610 are
relevant, specifically those on sexual abuse.

Same; Lascivious Conduct; Words and Phrases; Lascivious
conduct is defined in Section 2(h) of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act (RA) No. 7610 as “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 an intent to
abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual
desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition
G.R. No. 216057. January 8, 2018.* of the genitals or pubic area of a person.”—The first element is the
act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct. Lascivious conduct
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. is defined in Section 2(h) of the Implementing Rules and
CEFERINO VILLACAMPA y CADIENTE @ “DADDY Regulations of RA 7610 as “the intentional touching, either
GAGA,” appellant. directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast,
inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into
Criminal Law; Rape; Rape Through Sexual Assault; It has the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the
long been established that the insertion of the finger into another same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass,
person’s degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person,
bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or
pubic area of a person.” As found by the lower courts, Villacampa
_______________
inserted his finger into the vagina of his minor victims in FC
* SECOND DIVISION. Criminal Case Nos. 1359-1367. In FC Criminal Case No. 1369,
Villacampa kissed CCC on the lips, face, and neck against her
will. Villacampa even inserted his finger into CCC’s vagina, even
though this was not included in the Information against him.
Thus,
76

76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Villacampa 77
genital or anal orifice constitutes rape through sexual assault. VOL. 850, JANUARY 8, 2018 77
—In FC Criminal Case No. 1368, the crime involved is that of People vs. Villacampa
simple rape as defined in the first paragraph of the
aforementioned article. Villacampa had carnal knowledge of CCC,
who bore his child as a result thereof. Further, FC Criminal Case it is evident that Villacampa committed an act of lascivious
Nos. 1359-1367 involved rape through sexual assault as described conduct against each of his victims.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170b349c0d92fc1cabb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/25 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170b349c0d92fc1cabb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/25

Same; Child Abuse Law; Sexual Abuse; In Quimvel v. People,

823 SCRA 192 (2017), the Supreme Court (SC) held that the fact does not require that the victim suffer a separate and distinct
that a child is under the coercion and influence of an adult is act of sexual abuse aside from the act complained of. For it refers
sufficient to satisfy this second element and will classify the child to the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the child. Thus, a
victim as one subjected to other sexual abuse.—The second violation of Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610 occurs even though the accused
element is that the act is performed with a child exploited in committed sexual abuse against the child victim only once, even
prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. To meet this without a prior sexual affront. In this case, Villacampa, the
element, the child victim must either be exploited in prostitution common-law husband of their mother, repeated the lascivious
or subjected to other sexual abuse. In Quimvel v. People, 823 conduct against his victims, who were all under his coercion and
SCRA 192 (2017), the Court held that the fact that a child is influence. Clearly, the second element is present and all the child
under the coercion and influence of an adult is sufficient to satisfy victims are considered to be subjected to other sexual abuse.
this second element and will classify the child victim as one
Same; Same; Same; Moral ascendancy takes the place of the
subjected to other sexual abuse. The Court held: To the mind of
force and intimidation that is required in rape cases.—In sum, we
the Court, the allegations are sufficient to classify the victim as
find that all the elements were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
one “exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse.”
Villacampa inserted his finger into the vagina of his minor
This is anchored on the very definition of the phrase in Sec. 5 of
victims, and in the case of DDD, he inserted his penis,
RA 7610, which encompasses children who indulge in sexual
threatening them by using force and intimidation. Moreover,
intercourse or lascivious conduct (a) for money, profit, or any
Villacampa was the common-law husband of the mother of the
other consideration; or (b) under the coercion or influence of any
victims and thus, he exerted moral ascendancy over them. Moral
adult, syndicate or group. Correlatively, Sec. 5(a) of RA 7610
ascendancy takes the place of the force and intimidation that is
punishes acts pertaining to or connected with child prostitution
required in rape cases. The minority of the victims was all proven
wherein the child is abused primarily for profit. On the other
during the course of the trial and also admitted by Villacampa.
hand, paragraph (b) punishes sexual intercourse or lascivious
The victims were all subjected to sexual abuse by Villacampa as
conduct committed on a child subjected to other sexual abuse. It
he engaged in lascivious conduct with them.
covers not only a situation where a child is abused for profit but
also one in which a child, through coercion, intimidation or Same; Same; Same; Penalties; The proper penalty to be
influence, engages in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct. applied in cases where the victims are under twelve (12) years of
Hence, the law punishes not only child prostitution but also other age is reclusion temporal in its medium period, as specifically
forms of sexual abuse against children. provided in Republic Act (RA) No. 7610.—The proper penalty to
be applied in cases where the victims are under 12 years of age is
Same; Same; Same; The sexual abuse can happen only once,
reclusion temporal in its medium period, as specifically provided
and still the victim would be considered a child subjected to other
in RA 7610. Section 5(b) provides: Section 5. Child Prostitution
sexual abuse, because what the law punishes is the maltreatment
and Other Sexual Abuse.—Children, whether male or female, who
of the child, without regard to whether or not this maltreatment is
for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion
habitual.—The Court further clarified that the sexual abuse can
or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual
happen only once, and still the victim would be considered a child
intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children
subjected to other sexual abuse, because what the law punishes is
exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse. x x x x (b) Those
the maltreatment of the child, without regard to whether or not
who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct
this maltreatment is habitual. The Court held: Contrary to the
with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual
exposition, the very definition of “child abuse” under Sec. 3(b) of
abuse; Provided, That when the victim is under twelve (12) years
RA 7610
of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335,
paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act

78
79
People vs. Villacampa
VOL. 850, JANUARY 8, 2018 79 CARPIO, J.:

The Case

No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or On appeal is the 13 March 2014 Decision1 of the Court of
lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04970.
penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under This arose from 12 consolidated criminal cases against
twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its appellant Ceferino Villacampa y Cadiente @ “Daddy Gaga”
medium period. (Villacampa) where he was accused of eleven counts of
Same; Same; While the accused will be prosecuted for rape Rape2 and one count of Acts of Lasciviousness3 in relation
under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended, the penalty to Republic Act No. 7610 (RA 7610).4
imposed should be that prescribed by Republic Act (RA) No. 7610 The CA affirmed the 28 March 2011 Decision5 of the
which is reclusion temporal in its medium period.—While the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pampanga, convicting
accused will be prosecuted for rape under the RPC, as amended, Villacampa for nine counts of rape through sexual assault,
the penalty imposed should be that prescribed by RA 7610 which one count of simple rape, and one count of acts of
is reclusion temporal in its medium period. Moreover, lasciviousness in relation to RA 7610. He was acquitted in
notwithstanding that RA 7610 is a special law, Villacampa is FC Criminal Case No. 1370 for one count of rape.
entitled to the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum should The Facts
be the penalty next lower in degree or reclusion temporal in its
minimum period. We have addressed this matter squarely in Sometime in March 2006, four minor siblings — AAA,
People v. Chingh, 645 SCRA 573 (2011), where we held: In this BBB, CCC, and DDD,6 then 11, 6, 14, and 13 years old, re-
case, the offended party was ten years old at the time of the
commission of the offense. Pursuant to the above quoted provision _______________
of law, Armando was aptly prosecuted under paragraph 2, Article
1 Rollo, pp. 2-26. Penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr.,
266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353,
with Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Stephen C. Cruz,
for Rape Through Sexual Assault. However, instead of applying
concurring.
the penalty prescribed therein, which is prisión mayor,
2 FC Criminal Case Nos. 1359-1368, 1370.
considering that VVV was below 12 years of age, and considering
3 FC Criminal Case No. 1369.
further that Armando’s act of inserting his finger in VVV’s private
4 Otherwise known as “SPECIAL PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AGAINST ABUSE,
part undeniably amounted to lascivious conduct, the appropriate
EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION ACT.” Approved on 17 June 1992.
imposable penalty should be that provided in Section 5(b), Article
5 CA Rollo, pp. 73-104. Penned by Judge Adelaida Ala-Medina.
III of R.A. No. 7610, which is reclusion temporal in its medium
period. 6 In accordance with Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015
issued on 5 September 2017, the identities of the parties, records and
APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals. court proceedings are kept confidential by replacing their names and other
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. personal circumstances with fictitious initials, and by blotting out the
Office of the Solicitor General for appellee. specific geographical location that may disclose the identities of the
Public Attorney’s Office for appellant. victims.

80 81
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 850, JANUARY 8, 2018 81
People vs. Villacampa People vs. Villacampa

spectively, all had incidents with Villacampa, the common- her mother and siblings were away. BBB was sitting alone
law husband of their mother. at home when Villacampa approached her and inserted his
The findings of fact of the RTC for each of the minors, finger into her vagina. BBB cried out in pain. When her
which were affirmed by the CA, are as follows: mother came home, Villacampa removed his fingers from
BBB’s vagina. Villacampa told BBB not to report the
FC Criminal Case Nos. 1359-1361 incident to her mother. Another time BBB was molested
was when she was eating alone with Villacampa in their
At around 6:30 in the evening of 21 March 2006, while house. Villacampa repeated these acts numerous times —
AAA, then 11 years old, was making her way to the when she was playing with her siblings and Villacampa
kitchen, she heard Villacampa call her. When she instructed her siblings to leave the house, when she was
approached him, he removed her shorts, laid her down near sleeping, when she was watching television, and when she
the kitchen, and inserted his finger into her vagina. was playing outside their house and Villacampa instructed
Villacampa attempted to penetrate AAA with his penis but BBB to return to the house. The last time the abuse
this did not materialize as her mother and sister timely happened, Villacampa threatened BBB that he would kill
knocked on the door. Villacampa then instructed AAA to go her mother if she reported the incident. BBB still narrated
to the comfort room where her mother followed her. AAA the incident to her older sister, AAA. At the time she
disclosed what Villacampa did to her. However, AAA’s testified before the trial court, BBB stated that she was
revelations fell on deaf ears. We note that while there were eight years old.7
two acts involved — the act of inserting the finger and the
attempted act of inserting the penis, the Information only FC Criminal Case Nos. 1368 and 1369
alleged the insertion of the finger into the vagina of AAA.
On 23 March 2006, AAA was about to go to school when On 21 March 2006, CCC, then 14 years old, was on the
Villacampa told her that it was still too early to leave. He papag of her room when Villacampa entered her room.
then made her lie on the papag, where he removed her After threatening that he would kill her father, Villacampa
shorts and underwear. He inserted his finger into her kissed CCC on her lips and inserted his finger into her
vagina and licked her vagina. vagina. CCC could not shout as Villacampa’s tongue was
On 25 March 2006, when AAA was left by her mother to inside her mouth. While her testimony revealed that
care for her siblings, Villacampa ordered her other siblings Villacampa inserted his finger into her vagina, the
to play outside. Then, he removed AAA’s shorts and Information for FC Criminal Case No. 1369 merely stated
underwear, inserted his finger into her genital area, and that Villacampa touched her vagina and kissed her lips,
licked her vagina. AAA felt pain. Thereafter, Villacampa face, and neck, against her will and without her consent.
instructed AAA to put on her clothes and to go out and
play. _______________
AAA reported the incidents to her mother who ignored
her. AAA confided with her father who was very furious 7 Rollo, p. 5.
with Villacampa’s sexual abuse of AAA.

83
82
VOL. 850, JANUARY 8, 2018 83

FC Criminal Case Nos. 1362-1367 On 25 March 2006, Villacampa and CCC’s mother had a
drinking spree where they forced CCC to consume a glass
BBB testified that Villacampa inserted his finger into of Red Horse beer. Not used to drinking, CCC felt dizzy and
retired to her room where she slept alone. At around 10:00
her vagina on several occasions. The first time was when
p.m., CCC was roused from her sleep by Villacampa who Chincuangco (Dr. Chincuangco).8 Per her findings on AAA,
instructed her to remove her shorts and underwear. When Dr. Chincuangco found that AAA’s hymen had shallow
CCC did not budge, Villacampa undressed her and kissed healed lacerations at 1 o’clock and 9 o’clock positions. For
her on the lips, and forcibly inserted his penis into her CCC, Dr. Chincuangco found that CCC’s hymen had deep
vagina. CCC could only cry as she was unable to shout healed lacerations at 3 o’clock and 10 o’clock positions. As
because Villacampa’s tongue was inside her mouth. After to her pelvic examination, CCC’s introitus admits one
the incident, Villacampa threatened CCC that if she fingertip with ease. Her external examination was
reported what had happened, he would kill her father. CCC described as unremarkable — her uterus is small, no
still reported the incident to her mother who refused to adrenal tenderness, bleeding or injuries.9 Both AAA and
believe her. On 6 April 2006, while visiting her father with CCC were not found to be pregnant at the time of the
DDD, CCC divulged the incident to her father. They examination.10 BBB and DDD were examined by Dr.
proceeded to the Municipal Hall where she executed a Lorelei Guevarra (Dr. Guevarra).11 The medical records
sworn statement. CCC also underwent medico-legal issued by Dr. Guevarra were identified before the trial
examination. court by Ronelie Regala, the Administrative Officer III of
In May 2006, CCC found out that she was pregnant. In the Records Section of JBL Hospital.
2006, she gave birth to a daughter, XXX, who, upon For his defense, Villacampa argues that the victims’
Villacampa’s own application for her birth certificate, testimonies were not credible and thus not enough to
followed his surname. CCC denied having any romantic warrant his conviction. He posits that the victims were
relationship with Villacampa. instructed by their father and Aunt MMM to file the cases
against him. For CCC, he claims that he courted her and
FC Criminal Case No. 1370 had a daughter with her. In this appeal, Villacampa argues
that the lower courts erred in finding him guilty of the
On 25 March 2006, at around midnight, DDD, then 13 crimes charged as the prosecution failed to establish his
years old, was asleep in the living room of their house with guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
her sister, BBB. While their mother was in the kitchen,
Villacampa roused DDD from her sleep, covered her mouth _______________
and warned her not to report to her Mama and Tatay.
Villacampa then removed her shorts and underwear and
spread her legs. He inserted his penis into her vagina. DDD 8 Id., at p. 7.
could not do anything but cry as she felt pain. As she was 9 Id.
caught off guard, she was unable to wake up her sister who 10 Id.
was sleeping not far from her. After the incident, 11 Id.
Villacampa again warned DDD not to report the incident;
otherwise, he would make good his threat to kill her father.
The following morning, after
85

84 VOL. 850, JANUARY 8, 2018 85

People vs. Villacampa The Ruling of the RTC

Villacampa left for work, DDD reported the incident to her In a Decision dated 28 March 2011, the RTC found
mother who did not believe her. Villacampa guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating
AAA, BBB, CCC, and DDD all underwent medical Section 5(b) of RA 7610 in FC Criminal Case Nos. 1359-
examination with the assistance of their father and aunt, 1367 (rape through sexual assault) and FC Criminal Case
MMM. AAA and CCC were examined by Dr. Mariglo Grace No. 1369 (acts of lasciviousness or sexual abuse). He was
likewise found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of simple The Jailer is hereby ordered to make the proper
rape in FC Criminal Case No. 1368. He was acquitted in reduction of the period during which the accused was under
FC Criminal Case No. 1370 as the trial court found that preventive custody by reason of this case in accordance with
the testimony of DDD was doubtful as her description of law.
the incident, particularly the position of Villacampa’s SO ORDERED.13
hands, was contrary to human experience and thus not
enough to overcome the presumption of innocence.12 The
RTC held: The Ruling of the CA

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the In a Decision dated 13 March 2014, the CA affirmed,
accused CEFERINO VILLACAMPA y CADIENTE @ with modification as to the penalty, the Decision of the
“Daddy Gaga” GUILTY Beyond Reasonable Doubt of RTC. The dispositive portion of the Decision of the CA
Violating Sec. 5(b) of R.A. 7610 in FC Crim. Case Nos. 1359- reads:
1367, hereby imposing the penalty of imprisonment of
fourteen (14) years and one (1) day of Reclusion Temporal WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Consolidated
as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of Decision dated March 28, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court
Reclusion Temporal as maximum, the victims being under (RTC), Third Judicial Region, Branch 45 of San Fernando,
twelve (12) years of age and the payment of fine in the Pampanga in FC Criminal Cases No[s]. 1359-1367, 1368
amount of fifteen thousand pesos (Php15,000.00) and moral and 1369 is hereby MODIFIED as follows:
damages in the amount of twenty thousand pesos (1) In FC Criminal Case No[s]. 1359 to 1367, We
(Php20,000.00) for each count[.] Insofar as FC Crim. Case find appellant Ceferino Villacampa y Cadiente
No. 1369 is concerned, he is likewise found GUILTY Beyond GUILTY of rape through sexual assault in relation to
Reasonable Doubt of Violating Sec. 5(b) of R.A. 7610 with R.A. No. 7610. He is ordered to suffer an
the penalty of imprisonment of fourteen (14) years and one indeterminate prison term of [ten] (10) years of
(1) day of Reclusion Temporal as minimum to Reclusion prisión mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years,
Perpetua as maximum as well as to pay moral damages and four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal
fine in the same amounts of fifteen thousand [pesos] as maximum and to pay P20,000.00 as civil
(Php15,000.00). In FC Crim. Case No. 1368, he is found indemnity, P30,000.00 as moral damages and
GUILTY Beyond Reasonable Doubt of Simple Rape with the P30,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count. As
penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay fifty thousand a matter of clarification, contrary to the RTC findings,
pesos (Php50,000.00) FC Criminal Case No. 1361 pertained to the rape of
victim AAA and not to BBB;
_______________
_______________
12 CA Rollo, p. 98.
13 Id., at pp. 103-104.

86
87

VOL. 850, JANUARY 8, 2018 87
as civil indemnity, fifty thousand pesos [Php50,000.00] as
moral damages and exemplary damages in the amount of (2) In FC Criminal Case No. 1368, We find appellant
thirty thousand pesos (Php30,000[.00]). He is however Ceferino Villacampa y Cadiente GUILTY of simple
Acquitted in FC Crim. Case No. 1370. rape and is ordered to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and to pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity,
P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as 1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman
exemplary damages; under any of the following circumstances:
(3) In FC Criminal Case No. 1369, We find appellant a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
Ceferino Villacampa y Cadiente GUILTY of sexual b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or
abuse under Section 5(b) of R.A. 7610 and is ordered otherwise unconscious;
to suffer an indeterminate prison term of ten (10) c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave
years of prisión mayor, as minimum, to sixteen (16) abuse of authority; and
years, five (5) months and ten (10) days of reclusion d) When the offended party is under twelve (12)
temporal as maximum and to pay P20,000.00 as civil years of age or is demented, even though none of the
indemnity, P30,000.00 as moral damages, and a fine circumstances mentioned above be present.
amounting to P15,000.00. 2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances
SO ORDERED.14 mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of
sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person’s
mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the
Villacampa filed his Notice of Appeal dated 8 April 2014 genital or anal orifice of another person.
with the CA.15

The Issue In FC Criminal Case No. 1368, the crime involved is
that of simple rape as defined in the first paragraph of the
The issue to be resolved in this appeal is whether or not aforementioned article. Villacampa had carnal knowledge
the CA gravely erred in finding Villacampa guilty of nine of CCC, who bore his child as a result thereof. Further, FC
counts of rape through sexual assault in relation to Section Criminal Case Nos. 1359-1367 involved rape through
5(b) of RA 7610, one count of simple rape under the Revised sexual assault as described in the second paragraph of
Penal Code (RPC), and one count of sexual abuse under Article 266-A because Villacampa inserted his finger into
Section 5(b) of RA 7610. the vagina of his victims. It has long been established that
the insertion of the finger into another person’s genital or
The Ruling of the Court anal orifice constitutes rape through sexual assault.17 On
the other hand, FC Criminal Case No. 1369 charges
The appeal is without merit. We affirm the findings of Villacampa with acts of lasciviousness or sexual abuse as
the CA with modification as to the penalty. he is accused of kissing the lips, face, and
_______________ _______________
14 Rollo, pp. 24-25. 16 RA No. 8353.

15 Id., at p. 27. 17 People v. Magbanua, 576 Phil. 642; 553 SCRA 698 (2008), citing
People v. Senieres, 547 Phil. 674; 519 SCRA 13 (2007).

88
89

People vs. Villacampa VOL. 850, JANUARY 8, 2018 89
Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
the Anti-Rape Law of 1997,16 provides: neck of the victim. It is important to note that the victims
in these cases were all minors at the time of the
Article 266-A. Rape: When and How Committed.—Rape is
committed:
commission of the crimes. Thus, the provisions of RA 7610 In the present cases, all the elements of sexual abuse
are relevant, specifically those on sexual abuse: under RA 7610 have been met.
The first element is the act of sexual intercourse or
Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse.— lascivious conduct. Lascivious conduct is defined in Section
Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or 2(h) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 7610
any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence as “the intentional touching, either directly or through
of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh,
intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the
exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse. genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the
x x x x same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate,
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of
or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition
prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse; of the genitals or pubic area of a person.”19 As found by the
Provided, That when the victim is under twelve (12) years lower courts, Villacampa inserted his finger into the vagina
of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article of his minor victims in FC Criminal Case Nos. 1359-1367.
335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, In FC Criminal Case No. 1369, Villacampa kissed CCC on
as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious the lips, face, and neck against her will. Villacampa even
conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for inserted his finger into CCC’s vagina, even though this was
lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) not included in the Information against him. Thus, it is
years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium evident that Villacampa committed an act of lascivious
period; conduct against each of his victims.
x x x x (Emphasis supplied) Next, the second element is that the act is performed
with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other

sexual abuse. To meet this element, the child victim must
The following elements of sexual abuse under Section 5,
either be exploited in prostitution or subjected to other
Article III of RA 7610 must be established:
sexual abuse. In Quimvel v. People,20 the Court held that
1. The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or the fact that a child is under the coercion and influence of
lascivious conduct. an adult is sufficient to satisfy this second element and will
2. The said act is performed with a child exploited in classify the child victim as one subjected to other sexual
prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. abuse. The Court held:
3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of
To the mind of the Court, the allegations are sufficient to
age.18
classify the victim as one “exploited in prostitu-
_______________
_______________

v. People, 542 Phil. 496; 513 SCRA 509 (2007); Olivarez v. Court of
18 People v. Bonaagua, 665 Phil. 750; 650 SCRA 620 (2011), citing
Appeals, 503 Phil. 421, 431; 465 SCRA 465, 473 (2005).
Malto v. People, 560 Phil. 119; 533 SCRA 643 (2007); Navarrete
19 Emphasis supplied.
20 G.R. No. 214497, 18 April 2017, 823 SCRA 192.

90
91
People vs. Villacampa VOL. 850, JANUARY 8, 2018 91

tion or subject to other sexual abuse.” This is anchored on 92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
the very definition of the phrase in Sec. 5 of RA 7610, which
encompasses children who indulge in sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct (a) for money, profit, or any other
consideration; or (b) under the coercion or influence of any who were all under his coercion and influence. Clearly, the
adult, syndicate or group. second element is present and all the child victims are
Correlatively, Sec. 5(a) of RA 7610 punishes acts considered to be subjected to other sexual abuse.
pertaining to or connected with child prostitution wherein Finally, the third element, that the child is below 18
the child is abused primarily for profit. On the other hand, years of age, has been sufficiently proven during the trial of
paragraph (b) punishes sexual intercourse or lascivious the case for all of the victims.
conduct committed on a child subjected to other sexual In sum, we find that all the elements were proven
abuse. It covers not only a situation where a child is abused beyond reasonable doubt. Villacampa inserted his finger
for profit but also one in which a child, through coercion, into the vagina of his minor victims, and in the case of
intimidation or influence, engages in sexual intercourse or DDD, he inserted his penis, threatening them by using
lascivious conduct. Hence, the law punishes not only child force and intimidation. Moreover, Villacampa was the
prostitution but also other forms of sexual abuse against common-law husband of the mother of the victims and
children. x x x.21 thus, he exerted moral ascendancy over them. Moral
ascendancy takes the place of the force and intimidation
that is required in rape cases.23 The minority of the victims
The Court further clarified that the sexual abuse can was all proven during the course of the trial and also
happen only once, and still the victim would be considered admitted by Villacampa. The victims were all subjected to
a child subjected to other sexual abuse, because what the sexual abuse by Villacampa as he engaged in lascivious
law punishes is the maltreatment of the child, without conduct with them.
regard to whether or not this maltreatment is habitual.
The Court held: Proper Nomenclature and Penalties

Contrary to the exposition, the very definition of “child We take this opportunity to reiterate our
abuse” under Sec. 3(b) of RA 7610 does not require that the pronouncement in People v. Caoili24 regarding the proper
victim suffer a separate and distinct act of sexual abuse nomenclature of the crime and penalties for lascivious
aside from the act complained of. For it refers to the conduct under Section 5(b) of RA 7610. We provided the
maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the child. Thus, a necessary guidelines for designating the proper offense,
violation of Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610 occurs even though the viz.:
accused committed sexual abuse against the child victim
only once, even without a prior sexual affront.22 Accordingly, for the guidance of public prosecutors and
the courts, the Court takes this opportunity to prescribe the
following guidelines in designating or charging the proper
In this case, Villacampa, the common-law husband of their offense in case lascivious conduct is committed under
mother, repeated the lascivious conduct against his Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610, and in determining the
victims, imposable penalty:
_______________ _______________
23 People v. Antonio, 739 Phil. 686; 731 SCRA 83 (2014).

21 Id. 24 G.R. Nos. 196342 and 196848, 8 August 2017, 835 SCRA 107.
22 Id.

93
92

VOL. 850, JANUARY 8, 2018 93 94

1. The age of the victim is taken into consideration in People vs. Villacampa
designating or charging the offense, and in determining the
imposable penalty.
The CA modified the penalty imposed by the RTC for FC
2. If the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the
Criminal Case Nos. 1359-1367, and in its stead applied the
nomenclature of the crime should be “Acts of Lasciviousness
penalty prescribed under the RPC. The CA interpreted RA
under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to
7610 to mean that crimes against victims under 12 years of
Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610.” Pursuant to the second
age are prosecuted under the RPC and therefore the
proviso in Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610, the imposable
penalty under the RPC — reclusion temporal — is
penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period.
applicable. The CA continued to apply the Indeterminate
3. If the victim is exactly twelve (12) years of age, or
Sentence Law, stating that the minimum period is prisión
more than twelve (12) but below eighteen (18) years of age,
mayor. It considered the minority of the victims only as an
or is eighteen (18) years old or older but is unable to fully
aggravating circumstance. This is an erroneous
take care of herself/himself or protect herself/himself from
interpretation.
abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination
The proper penalty to be applied in cases where the
because of a physical or mental disability or condition, the
victims are under 12 years of age is reclusion temporal in
crime should be designated as “Lascivious Conduct under
its medium period, as specifically provided in RA 7610.
Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610,” and the imposable penalty is
Section 5(b) provides:
reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion
perpetua. 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
AAA and BBB were both under twelve (12) years of age
of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual
while CCC was then fourteen (14) years old when the
intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children
incidents occurred. Accordingly, Villacampa should be held
exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.
guilty for the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article
x x x x
336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of RA 7610 for FC
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or
Criminal Case Nos. 1359-1367, instead of rape through
lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or
sexual assault in relation to RA 7610, as designated by the
subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the
lower courts. For FC Criminal Case No. 1369, instead of
victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators
acts of lasciviousness or sexual abuse in relation to RA
shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape
7610, Villacampa should be held guilty for the crime of
and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised
Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of RA 7610. In FC
Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may
Criminal Case No. 1368, as there was actual penal
be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct
penetration, Villacampa was correctly held guilty for the
when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age
crime of simple rape under the RPC.
shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period.
Further, we modify the penalty imposed by the CA,
(Boldfacing and underscoring supplied)
pursuant to the guidelines set forth in People v. Caoili.25

_______________
95
25 Id.
VOL. 850, JANUARY 8, 2018 95


Thus, while the accused will be prosecuted for rape under People vs. Villacampa
the RPC, as amended, the penalty imposed should be that
prescribed by RA 7610 which is reclusion temporal in its law, which must be applied when the victims are children or
medium period. Moreover, notwithstanding that RA 7610 is those “persons below eighteen (18) years of age or those over
a special law, Villacampa is entitled to the application of but are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect
the Indeterminate Sentence Law.26 Applying the themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum should be the discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or
penalty next lower in degree or reclusion temporal in its condition.”
minimum period. We have addressed this matter squarely Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
in People v. Chingh,27 where we held: maximum term of the indeterminate penalty shall be that
which could be properly imposed under the law, which is
In this case, the offended party was ten years old at the
fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of
time of the commission of the offense. Pursuant to the above
reclusion temporal. On the other hand, the minimum term
quoted provision of law, Armando was aptly prosecuted
shall be within the range of the penalty next lower in
under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the Revised Penal
degree, which is reclusion temporal in its minimum period,
Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, for Rape Through
or twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years
Sexual Assault. However, instead of applying the penalty
and eight (8) months.28
prescribed therein, which is prisión mayor, considering that
VVV was below 12 years of age, and considering further Thus, we find that the proper penalty for each count of Acts
that Armando’s act of inserting his finger in VVV’s private of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation
part undeniably amounted to lascivious conduct, the to Section 5(b) of RA 7610 in FC Criminal Case Nos. 1359-
appropriate imposable penalty should be that provided in 1367 is the indeterminate sentence of twelve (12) years, ten
Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, which is reclusion (10) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal as
temporal in its medium period. minimum to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty
The Court is not unmindful [of] the fact that the accused (20) days of reclusion temporal as maximum. With respect
who commits acts of lasciviousness under Article 366, in to civil liabilities, in accordance with prevailing
relation to Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, suffers jurisprudence, Villacampa should pay the victims the
the more severe penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium amounts of P20,000 as civil indemnity, P15,000 as moral
period than the one who commits Rape Through Sexual damages, and P15,000 as exemplary damages for each
Assault, which is merely punishable by prisión mayor. This count of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the
is undeniably unfair to the child victim. To be sure, it was RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of RA 7610.29
not the intention of the framers of R.A. No. 8353 to have On the other hand, as CCC was more than 12 years old
disallowed the applicability of R.A. No. 7610 to sexual at the time of the incidents, we find that the penalty
abuses committed to children. Despite the passage of R.A. imposed by the CA for FC Criminal Case Nos. 1368 and
No. 8353, R.A. No. 7610 is still good 1369 is correct. For the finding of simple rape in FC
Criminal Case No. 1368, we find the penalty of reclusion
_______________ perpetua and the civil liabili-

_______________
26 See People v. Leonardo, 638 Phil. 161, 198; 624 SCRA 166, 203
(2010). 28 Id., at pp. 222-223; pp. 587-588.
27 661 Phil. 208; 645 SCRA 573 (2011). 29 See People v. Udtohan, G.R. No. 228887, 2 August 2017, 834 SCRA
330, citing People v. Aycardo, G.R. No. 218114, 5 June 2017, 826 SCRA 1.

96
97
VOL. 850, JANUARY 8, 2018 97 98

ties of P75,000 as civil indemnity, P75,000 as moral People vs. Villacampa
damages, and P75,000 as exemplary damages proper in
accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.30 For the finding
Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal
of Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 in FC
Code in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act No.
Criminal Case No. 1369, we affirm the indeterminate
7610. He is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate
prison term of ten (10) years of prisión mayor as minimum
prison term of twelve (12) years, ten (10) months and
to sixteen (16) years, five (5) months and ten (10) days of
twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal as minimum to
reclusion temporal as maximum imposed by the CA
fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days
because the penalty prescribed by RA 7610 is reclusion
of reclusion temporal as maximum and is ordered to
temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua.31
pay P15,000.00 as fine, P20,000.00 as civil indemnity,
However, in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, we
P15,000.00 as moral damages, and P15,000.00 as
modify the civil liabilities — Villacampa is ordered to pay
exemplary damages for each count;
P20,000 as civil indemnity, P15,000 as moral damages, and
(2) In FC Criminal Case No. 1368, we find appellant
P15,000 as exemplary damages.32
Ceferino Villacampa y Cadiente @ “Daddy Gaga”
Moreover, as Section 31(f) of RA 7610 imposes a fine
GUILTY of simple rape and he is sentenced to suffer
upon the offender, Villacampa is ordered to pay a fine of
the penalty of reclusion perpetua and is ordered to pay
P15,000 for each violation of RA 7610, in accordance with
P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral
prevailing jurisprudence.33
damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages;
Villacampa is further ordered to pay interest at the rate
(3) In FC Criminal Case No. 1369, we find appellant
of six percent (6%) per annum on all damages awarded
Ceferino Villacampa y Cadiente @ “Daddy Gaga”
from the date of finality of this Decision until such
GUILTY of Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of
damages are fully paid, in accordance with prevailing
Republic Act No. 7610. He is sentenced to suffer an
jurisprudence.34
indeterminate prison term of ten (10) years of prisión
WHEREFORE, the assailed 13 March 2014 Decision of
mayor as minimum to sixteen (16) years, five (5)
the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04970 is
months and ten (10) days of reclusion temporal as
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS:
maximum and is ordered to pay P15,000.00 as fine,
(1) In FC Criminal Case Nos. 1359 to 1367, we find
P20,000.00 as civil indemnity, P15,000.00 as moral
appellant Ceferino Villacampa y Cadiente @ “Daddy
damages, and P15,000 as exemplary damages; and
Gaga” GUILTY of nine counts of Acts of
(4) Appellant Ceferino Villacampay Cadiente @
“Daddy Gaga” is further ordered to pay interest at the
_______________ rate of six percent (6%) per annum on all damages

awarded from the date of finality of this Decision
30 People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, 5 April 2016, 788 SCRA 331.
until such damages are fully paid.

31 Section 5, Article III, RA 7610.

32 See Escalante v. People, G.R. No. 218970, 28 June 2017, 828 SCRA
379. See also Pinlac v. People, 773 Phil. 49, 58-59; 774 SCRA 627, 635-636 99
(2015).
33 People v. Caoili, supra note 24, citing People v. Bacus, 767 Phil. 824;
VOL. 850, JANUARY 8, 2018 99
768 SCRA 318 (2015).
34 Escalante v. People and Pinlac v. People, supra. People vs. Villacampa
SO ORDERED.


3/7/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 850
*
Velasco, Jr., * Peralta, Caguioa and Reyes, Jr., JJ.,
concur.
Judgment affirmed with modifications.
Notes.—The gravamen of the crime of rape by sexual

assault is the insertion of the penis into another person’s
mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into
another person’s genital or anal orifice. (People vs.
Crisostomo, 715 SCRA 99 [2014])
It is deemed that a child is sexually abused under
Section 5(b) of Republic Act (RA) No. 7610, when he or she
is subjected to other lascivious conduct under the coercion
or influence of any adult. (People vs. Gerandoy, 735 SCRA
520 [2014])

——o0o——
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170b349c0d92fc1cabb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/25

PP vs. Villacampa

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PP vs. Villacampa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3/7/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 850 3/7/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 850

in the second paragraph of Article 266-A because Villacampa

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170b349c0d92fc1cabb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/25 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170b349c0d92fc1cabb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/25

Same; Child Abuse Law; Sexual Abuse; In Quimvel v. People,

VOL. 850, JANUARY 8, 2018 79 CARPIO, J.:

80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 850, JANUARY 8, 2018 81

People vs. Villacampa People vs. Villacampa

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170b349c0d92fc1cabb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/25 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170b349c0d92fc1cabb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/25

VOL. 850, JANUARY 8, 2018 83

84 VOL. 850, JANUARY 8, 2018 85

86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

14 Rollo, pp. 24-25. 16 RA No. 8353.

88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170b349c0d92fc1cabb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/25 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170b349c0d92fc1cabb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/25

23 People v. Antonio, 739 Phil. 686; 731 SCRA 83 (2014).

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170b349c0d92fc1cabb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/25 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170b349c0d92fc1cabb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/25

VOL. 850, JANUARY 8, 2018 93 94

People vs. Villacampa

VOL. 850, JANUARY 8, 2018 95

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170b349c0d92fc1cabb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/25 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170b349c0d92fc1cabb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/25

VOL. 850, JANUARY 8, 2018 97 98

People vs. Villacampa

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170b349c0d92fc1cabb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/25 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170b349c0d92fc1cabb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/25

Judgment affirmed with modifications.

Notes.—The gravamen of the crime of rape by sexual

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like