Garingarao v. People

G.R. No. 192760 (July 20, 2011)

Jojit Garingarao's conviction for lascivious acts against a minor upheld, emphasizing victim credibility.

Facts:

On October 28, 2003, AAA, a 16-year-old girl, was admitted to Virgen Milagrosa Medical Center due to fever and abdominal pain. Her parents, BBB and CCC, were present during her confinement. On October 29, 2003, both parents left the hospital for a short period, leaving AAA alone in her room. During this time, Jojit Garingarao, a nurse on duty, entered AAA's room under the pretense of checking her condition.

AAA testified that Garingarao lifted her bra and touched her left breast, claiming he was examining her. He later returned with a stethoscope, lifted her shirt, and pressed the stethoscope to her stomach while also touching her breasts again. Garingarao then lifted AAA's pajama and underwear, inserting his finger into her vagina despite her objections and claims that she was menstruating. After the incident, AAA did not immediately report the abuse but later disclosed it to her parents when they returned home. They subsequently reported the incident to Dr. Morante, the attending physician.

On January 20, 2004, the City Prosecutor filed an Information against Garingarao for acts of lasciviousness in relation to Republic Act No. 7610 (RA 7610). The prosecution presented various pieces of evidence, including AAA's birth certificate, medical records, and the schedule of nurses on duty, which confirmed Garingarao's presence during the incident.

In his defense, Garingarao denied the allegations, claiming that he was merely administering medication and that the accusations arose from a heated argument with AAA's father regarding the administration of care. His nursing aide, Edmundo Tamayo, corroborated his account, stating that he was present during the incident and that there was no inappropriate conduct.

Legal Issues:

The primary legal issue was whether Garingarao was guilty of acts of lasciviousness in relation to RA 7610, considering the evidence presented and the credibility of the witnesses.

Arguments:

  • Prosecution's Argument: The prosecution argued that AAA's testimony was credible and sufficient to establish Garingarao's guilt. They contended that Garingarao's actions constituted acts of lasciviousness as defined under RA 7610, given that AAA was a minor and the acts were performed under the guise of medical examination.

  • Defense's Argument: Garingarao's defense relied on denial and alibi, asserting that he could not have committed the acts due to the presence of other patients and staff. He claimed that the accusations were fabricated as a result of a prior argument with AAA's father.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The trial court found Garingarao guilty beyond reasonable doubt, giving credence to AAA's testimony over Garingarao's denial. The court ruled that the prosecution had established that Garingarao was the individual who committed the lascivious acts against AAA. The trial court also dismissed Garingarao's defense as implausible, noting that it was illogical for AAA's parents to fabricate such serious allegations.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision but modified the penalty, ruling that Garingarao should be convicted under RA 7610 due to AAA's age. The appellate court emphasized that the introduction of any object into the genitalia and the intentional touching of breasts constituted lascivious conduct under the law. The court also noted that the single incident of abuse was sufficient for conviction under RA 7610, as the law does not require habitual abuse for liability.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  1. Credibility of Witnesses: The testimony of the offended party, if credible, is sufficient to establish guilt in cases of acts of lasciviousness.
  2. Definition of Lascivious Conduct: The intentional touching of a minor's genitalia or breasts with the intent to sexually gratify constitutes lascivious conduct under RA 7610.
  3. Single Incident Sufficiency: A single incident of sexual abuse is sufficient for conviction under RA 7610, and habitual abuse is not a requirement for liability.