TL;DR

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of the Philippines upheld the conviction of Shariff Uddin for Lascivious Conduct under Republic Act 7610 and Attempted Homicide under the Revised Penal Code. The Court affirmed that touching a child’s private parts and throwing her into a ravine constitutes lascivious conduct and attempted homicide, respectively. This decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting children from sexual abuse and violence, clarifying that even a single instance of sexual abuse against a child is punishable under RA 7610. The ruling emphasizes that the intent to kill can be inferred from actions like throwing a victim into a ravine, reinforcing the serious consequences for perpetrators of child abuse and violence.

Ravine of Fear: Seeking Justice for Child Victims of Abuse

This case, Shariff Uddin y Sali v. People of the Philippines, revolves around the harrowing experience of a 13-year-old girl, AAA, who was subjected to lascivious acts and a near-fatal attempt on her life. The central legal question is whether the accused, Shariff Uddin, is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Lascivious Conduct under Republic Act (RA) 7610 and Attempted Murder under the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The Supreme Court meticulously examined the evidence and legal arguments to determine the culpability of the accused and to ensure the protection of children under Philippine law.

The incident occurred when AAA was on her way to buy food. Shariff Uddin blocked her path, forcibly pulled her to a secluded area, and committed lascivious acts by touching her breasts and private parts. To conceal his crime, he then threw AAA into a ravine approximately 25 meters deep. Miraculously, vines broke her fall, and she survived. Alvin Santos, a witness, saw Uddin throw AAA and helped her after the incident. AAA reported the crime, and after medical examination and police investigation, Uddin was charged with violation of RA 7610 and Attempted Murder. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Uddin on both counts, a decision affirmed with modifications by the Court of Appeals (CA). Uddin then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging his conviction.

The Supreme Court began its analysis by clarifying the proper nomenclature of the offense under RA 7610. Citing precedent, the Court emphasized that when the victim is aged 12 years or over but under 18 years, the charge should be Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of RA 7610, not simply lascivious conduct under the RPC. The Court highlighted the definition of Lascivious Conduct as the intentional touching of intimate body parts with the intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or gratify sexual desire. This definition is crucial in understanding the scope of RA 7610 in protecting children from sexual abuse.

A key point of contention was whether the prosecution sufficiently proved that AAA was a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse, as required by Section 5(b) of RA 7610. Uddin argued that there was no evidence of prior exploitation or abuse. However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, citing Olivarez v. Court of Appeals, which clarified that “other sexual abuse” encompasses coercion or intimidation by an adult. The Court emphasized that child abuse under RA 7610, as defined in Section 3(b), does not require habitual maltreatment or prior sexual offenses; a single act can constitute a violation. In this case, the Court found that Uddin’s act of blocking AAA’s way, pulling her to a secluded area, and performing lascivious acts, coupled with intimidation and coercion, satisfied the elements of Lascivious Conduct under RA 7610.

Regarding the Attempted Murder charge, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ finding of intent to kill. The Court reiterated that intent to kill is the essential element of Attempted Murder, which must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Intent is discerned through external manifestations, including the means used, the nature of wounds, the conduct of the accused, and the circumstances of the crime. Here, Uddin’s act of throwing a 13-year-old girl into a 25-meter ravine after sexually abusing her clearly demonstrated an intent to cause her death, especially to conceal the initial crime. The Court noted that AAA’s survival was fortuitous, prevented only by vines that broke her fall.

However, the Supreme Court differed from the lower courts on the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength. While acknowledging the disparity in age and strength between Uddin and the 13-year-old AAA, the Court clarified that abuse of superior strength requires a deliberate intent to take advantage of that superiority to facilitate the crime. The Court found no evidence that Uddin consciously chose to exploit his superior strength in throwing AAA into the ravine. The act, while undoubtedly violent and life-threatening, did not demonstrate a purposely excessive use of force beyond the act of throwing itself. Consequently, the Court downgraded the conviction from Attempted Murder to Attempted Homicide, as Homicide lacks the qualifying circumstances of Murder.

The Court addressed Uddin’s attempts to discredit AAA’s testimony by pointing out minor inconsistencies. The Court dismissed these as inconsequential, emphasizing that minor inconsistencies are common in testimonies, especially from young victims recounting traumatic events. The Court reaffirmed the trial court’s assessment of AAA’s credibility, highlighting that trial courts are in the best position to evaluate witness demeanor. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the weakness of Uddin’s defense of denial and alibi, which were unsubstantiated and easily fabricated.

Finally, the Supreme Court adjusted the penalties and damages. For Lascivious Conduct under RA 7610, the Court imposed an indeterminate sentence of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor medium to 20 years of reclusion temporal maximum, along with civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, each at P50,000.00. The fine imposed by the RTC was deleted for lack of legal basis. For Attempted Homicide, the Court imposed an indeterminate sentence of 6 months of arresto mayor to 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, with civil indemnity and moral damages of P20,000.00 each. Exemplary damages for Attempted Homicide were removed due to the absence of aggravating circumstances. All monetary awards were subjected to a 6% annual interest from the finality of the decision.

FAQs

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Shariff Uddin v. People, G.R. No. 249588, November 23, 2020