Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Manila

THIRTEENTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE CA-G.R. CR No. 44768

PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Members:

ANTONIO-VALENZUELA, N.G.,
Chairperson,
- versus - ALIÑO-GELUZ, E.R., and
DELA ROSA, J.L.R., JJ

Promulgated:
MARIO TAGLE y ANICIA,
Accused-Appellant. 27 July 2022
_____________________________________________________________

DECISION

ANTONIO-VALENZUELA, J.:

This is the appeal assailing the Decision1 dated 10 January 2020

(“assailed Decision”) of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Trece Martires
City (“RTC”), in Criminal Case No. TMCR-239-17, entitled “People of the
Philippines v. Mario Tagle y Anicia,” which found Mario Tagle y Anicia
(“appellant Mario”) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Article
VI, Section 10 (a), Republic Act No. 7610 (“R.A. No. 7610”), committed
against the victim AAA (“victim AAA”).2

1 Records, pp. 183-191, penned by Judge Floredeliz Cabanlit Fargas.

2 The real name of the victim and her relatives were withheld, and fictitious initials were used throughout
the Decision to represent the victim, pursuant to the ruling in People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693,
19 September 2006.
CA-G.R. CR No. 44768 2
DECISION

THE FACTS

The Information3 charged appellant Mario of violating Article VI,

Section 10 (a), R.A. No. 7610. The Information stated:

The undersigned Assistant Provincial Prosecutor for

the Province of Cavite, accuses MARIO TAGLE y ANICIA of
the crime of VIOLATION OF SEC. 10(a) OF RA 7610,
committed as follows:

That on or about the 21st day of February 2014, in the

Municipaliy of Tanza, Province of Cavite, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously commit acts prejudicial to the child's development
upon the person of one AAA an eleven (11) year old minor
born on November 17, 2002, by forcing her to get inside the
tricycle, touched her from her foot to her head thereafter
tweaked her hair, an act which debases, degrades or demeans
the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being, to
her damage and prejudice.

CONTRARY TO LAW.
Imus, Cavite, November 28, 2016.

At the arraignment, the appellant Mario, assisted by counsel, pleaded

not guilty to the crime as charged in the Information.4

The RTC conducted and terminated pre-trial.5 Then, the RTC

conducted the trial.

The Prosecution presented the following persons as witnesses: the

victim AAA; and BBB6 (“BBB,” mother of the victim AAA).

The evidence of the Prosecution is summarized thus: on the date of

the commission of the crime (21 February 2014), the victim AAA was 11
years old, having been born on 17 November 2002, as evidenced by the
Certificate of Live Birth7 issued by the National Statistics Office.

On 21 February 2014, at around 5:00 p.m., the victim AAA met her
3 Records, p. 1.
4 Records, p. 40.
5 Ibid.
6 The real name of the victim and her relatives were withheld, and fictitious initials were used throughout
the Decision to represent the victim, pursuant to the ruling in People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, 19
September 2006.
7 Exhibit “B,” Records, p. 9.
CA-G.R. CR No. 44768 3
DECISION

former nanny along Soriano Highway, Barangay Daang Amaya, Tanza,

Cavite; after their conversation, the victim AAA and her nanny parted ways,
and the victim AAA proceeded to walk home; while walking, the victim
AAA saw the appellant Mario on board his tricycle, staring at the victim
AAA; when the victim AAA crossed the road, the appellant Mario drove
towards the victim AAA, and stopped ahead of the path that the victim AAA
was traversing, and waited for the victim AAA; when the victim AAA
reached the spot where the appellant Mario's tricycle was waiting, the
appellant Mario grabbed the victim AAA, and pulled the victim AAA inside
the tricycle; while the appellant Mario and the victim AAA were inside the
tricycle, the appellant Mario held the victim AAA by the hair, and knocked
the victim AAA's head against the metal wall of the tricycle; the appellant
Mario using one hand, touched the victim AAA's entire body (starting from
the head, face, breasts, and down towards the victim AAA's legs); 8 the
appellant Mario forcibly pulled the victim AAA to the inner part of the
sidecar of the tricycle, while the appellant Mario positioned himself near the
exit/entrance of the sidecar; while the appellant Mario did the acts
complained of, the victim AAA struggled and punched the appellant Mario's
stomach, and when the appellant Mario lost strength, the victim AAA was
able to jump out of the tricycle; however, before the victim AAA could
finally run free, the appellant Mario grabbed the victim AAA's I.D. and read
the information indicated in the I.D.; the appellant Mario threatened the
victim AAA not to tell anyone about the incident, or her family will be in
danger;9 the victim AAA narrated the incident to her mother Liezel, and the
victim AAA and Liezel immediately went to the Barangay Hall of Daang
Amaya II, Tanza, Cavite to record the incident in the barangay blotter, 10 and
then to the Police Station to record the incident in the Incident Record
Form11 (both public reports however did not provide for the identity of the
appellant Mario, because on the date that the reports were made, the victim
AAA knew only physical appearance of the assailant, and did not know the
name of the appellant Mario); when the victim AAA described the physical
appearance of the appellant Mario to her mother BBB, BBB had an idea
who her daughter's assailant was; BBB took pictures of every tricycle
driver plying the area where the incident took place; BBB showed the
pictures to the victim AAA, and the victim AAA recognized the face of the
appellant Mario; the victim AAA and BBB then went to the Barangay Hall
of Daang Amaya II, Tanza, Cavite, to report the identity of the appellant
Mario; the Barangay Officials summoned the appellant Mario to the
Barangay Hall to shed light on the accusations made by the victim AAA
against him, but the appellant Mario denied the accusation.

8 T.S.N. dated 3 September 2018, p. 11.

9 T.S.N. dated 3 September 2018, pp. 12-13.
10 Blotter ng Barangay, Exhibit “D,” Records, p. 14.
11 Exhibit “C,” Records, p. 12.
CA-G.R. CR No. 44768 4
DECISION

The Defense presented as its lone witness the appellant Mario.

The evidence of the Defense is summarized thus: on 21 February

2014 (the date of the incident in question), the appellant Mario was 60 years
old; on 29 March 2014, one Barangay Tanod invited the appellant Mario to
go to the Barangay Hall of Daang Amaya II, Tanza, Cavite to answer the
complaint for alleged acts of lasciviousness done against the victim AAA on
21 February 2014; the appellant Mario and the victim AAA met at the
Barangay Hall, and the victim AAA claimed that the drunk appellant Mario
maliciously touched the victim AAA, and banged the victim AAA's head
against the tricycle; the appellant Mario vehemently denied the charges, and
claimed that he (appellant Mario) was working as a tricycle driver on the
date of the incident in question; the appellant Mario questioned the veracity
of the Incident Record Form, and the Barangay Blotter, citing the fact that
the two documents did not state the alleged assailant's name, and did not
state the appellant Mario's name as the assailant, and did not state the plate
number of the tricycle (the appellant Mario pointed that the name of the
appellant Mario was indicated only in the Sinumpaang Salaysay executed on
22 February 2014); the victim AAA did not undergo a medical examination
when the victim AAA reported the incident to the police authoritites.

On 10 January 2020, the RTC issued the assailed Decision,12 and

convicted the appellant Mario.

The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision stated:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court

finds the accused MARIO TAGLE y ANICIA guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 10
paragraph (a) of Republic Act No. 7610. He is hereby
sentenced to suffer IMPRISONMENT of four (4) years, nine
(9) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional, as
minimum, to six (6) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of
prision mayor, as maximum, there being neither a mitigating
nor aggravating circumstance. The period of his preventive
imprisonment shall be credited in his favor if he has given
written conformity to abide by the disciplinary rules imposed
upon convicted prisoners in accordance with Article 29 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended.

He is further adjudged to PAY private complainant

moral damages in the amount of FIFTEEN THOUSAND
PESOS (P15,000.00).

SO ORDERED.

12 Supra, note 1.
CA-G.R. CR No. 44768 5
DECISION

Thus this appeal, with the appellant Mario filing the Brief for the
Accused-Appellant,13 and making the following assignment of errors:

I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING
THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF
VIOLATION OF SECTION 10 (a) OF R.A. NO. 7610
BASED ON THE PROSECUTION WITNESS'
IMPROBABLE TESTIMONY AND ON THE
IDENTIFICATION OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
AS THE PERPETRATOR OF THE CRIME.

II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING
THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE
CRIME CHARGED BASED ON THE FLIMSY
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION.

The issue is whether the RTC erred in convicting the appellant Mario
of Violation of Section 10 (a), R.A. No. 7610.

The Brief for the Accused-Appellant Brief answers in the affirmative.

The RTC erred in convicting the appellant Mario of Violation of Section 10
(a), R.A. No. 7610.

The Brief for the Accused-Appellant thrusts: the RTC erred when it
gave exclusive credence to the testimony of the victim AAA in identifying
the appellant Mario as the assailant (i.e.: the victim AAA's testimony
describing the assailant as drunk, old, and with white hair, was so general
and vague that it could very well have applied to a number of “John Does”
lurking around the area; the testimony of the victim AAA identifying the
appellant Mario as her assailant was not corroborated by other evidence; the
Prosecution did not present BBB or the alleged pictures, to corroborate the
testimony of the victim AAA as to how the victim AAA identified the
appellant Mario as her assailant); the Prosecution did not present any
medico-legal certificate to prove any injury sustained by the victim AAA;
the victim AAA merely alleged that while she was inside the tricycle, the
appellant Mario touched her from head to toe, thus this generalized
statement alone, without concrete proof, should not be taken against the
appellant Mario; on 21 February 2014, the appellant Mario was busy
driving his tricycle, thus it was impossible for the appellant Mario to
commit the crime in question; the claim of the victim AAA was
unbelievable, because people would have seen the alleged acts done
13 C.A. Rollo, p. 29.
CA-G.R. CR No. 44768 6
DECISION

allegedly inside the tricycle; the victim AAA made a vague description of
the culprit, and the Incident Record Form, and the Blotter sa Barangay, were
not factual, because the two documents did not identify the appellant
Mario's name and tricycle; although the appellant Mario had no other
defense except for the denial and alibi, there are situations were an accused
may really have no other defenses which, if established to be the truth, may
tilt the scales of justice in his favor, especially when the prosecution
evidence itself is weak.

The Appellee's Brief14 answers in the negative. The RTC did not err
in convicting the appellant Mario of Violation of Section 10 (a), R.A. No.
7610.

The Appellee's Brief parries: the Prosecution proved that the appellant
Mario attacked the victim AAA by grabbing the victim AAA, forcibly
pulling the victim AAA into his tricyle, hitting the victim AAA's head
against the tricycle wall, and touching the victim AAA from head to legs;
the Prosecution proved the identity of the appellant Mario as the perpetrator
of the crime (i.e.: the victim AAA positively and repeatedly identified the
appellant Mario as the assailant during her direct testimony; the victim
AAA had long been familiar with the physical appearance of the appellant
Mario, because the victim AAA used to see the appellant Mario in the
tricycle terminal).

COURT’S RULING

The Court rules in the negative. The RTC did not err in convicting
the appellant Mario of Violation of Section 10 (a), R.A. No. 7610.

R.A. No. 7610 is a measure geared towards the implementation of a

national comprehensive program for the survival of the most vulnerable
members of the population, the Filipino children, in keeping with the
Constitutional mandate under Article XV, Section 3, paragraph 2, that the
State shall defend the right of the children to assistance, including proper
care and nutrition, and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse,
cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to their development.15

Article VI, Section 10 (a) of R.A. No. 7610, as amended, is relevant.

It states:

14 C.A. Rollo, p. 72.

15 Patulot v. People, G.R. No. 235071, 07 January 2019; Araneta v. People, G.R. No. 174205, 27 June
2008.
CA-G.R. CR No. 44768 7
DECISION

Section 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or

Exploitation and Other Conditions Prejudicial to the Child’s
Development. -

(a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse,
cruelty or exploitation or be responsible for other conditions
prejudicial to the child's development including those covered
by Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, but
not covered by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall suffer
the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period.

The above-provision punishes not only those enumerated under

Article 5916 of Presidential Decree No. 603, but also four distinct acts, i.e.,
(a) child abuse; (b) child cruelty; (c) child exploitation; and (d) being
responsible for conditions prejudicial to the child’s development.

“Child Abuse” is defined by Section 3 (b) of R.A. No. 7610, which

refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the child which
includes any of the following: (1) Psychological and physical abuse,
neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional maltreatment; (2) Any act by
deeds or words which debases, degrades, or demeans the intrinsic worth and
dignity of a child as a human being; (3) Unreasonable deprivation of his
basic needs for survival such as food and shelter; or (4) Failure to
immediately give medical treatment to an injured child resulting in serious
impairment of his growth and development or in his permanent incapacity or
death.

Also pertinent is Section 2 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations

of R.A. No. 7610, which states:

a) Child shall refer to a person below eighteen (18)

years of age or one over said age and who, upon
evaluation or a qualified physician, psychologist or

16 Article 59. Crimes. – Criminal liability shall attach to any parent who: (1) Conceals or abandons the
child with intent to make such child lose his civil status; (2) Abandons the child under such circumstances
as to deprive him of the love, care and protection he needs; (3) Sells or abandons the child to another
person for valuable consideration; (4) neglects the child by not giving him the education which the
family’s station in life and financial conditions permit; (5) Fails or refuses, without justifiable grounds, to
enroll the child as required by Article 72; (6) Causes, abates, or permits the truancy of the child from the
school where he is enrolled. “Truancy” as here used means absence without cause for more than twenty
schooldays, not necessarily consecutive. It shall be the duty of the teacher in charge to report to the parents
the absences of the child the moment these exceed five schooldays; (7) Improperly exploits the child by
using him, directly or indirectly, such as for purposes of begging and other acts which are inimical to his
interest and welfare; (8) Inflicts cruel and unusual punishment upon the child or deliberately subjects him
to indignitions and other excessive chastisement that embarrass or humiliate him; (9) Causes or encourages
the child to lead an immoral or dissolute life; (10) Permits the child to possess, handle or carry a deadly
weapon, regardless of its ownership; (11) Allows or requires the child to drive without a license or with a
license which the parent knows to have been illegally procured. If the motor vehicle driven by the child
belongs to the parent, it shall be presumed that her permitted or ordered the child to drive.
CA-G.R. CR No. 44768 8
DECISION

psychiatrist, is found to be incapable of taking care

of himself fully because of a physical or mental
disability or condition or of protecting himself from
abuse;

b) Child abuse refers to the infliction of physical or

psychological injury, cruelty to, or neglect, sexual
abuse, or exploitation of a child;

xxx

Section 2 above-quoted defines children as persons below 18 years of

age; or those over that age but are unable to fully take care of themselves or
protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or
discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition.

In this case, it is undisputed that the victim AAA was still a child
during the incident. The victim AAA was born on 17 November 2002, as
evidenced by the Certificate of Live Birth 17 issued by the National Statisics
Office. The victim AAA was 11 years old when the child abuse was
committed on 21 February 2014.

The evidence of the Prosecution proved that appellant Mario attacked

the victim AAA by grabbing and forcibly pulling the victim AAA into his
tricycle. While inside the tricycle, the appellant Mario hit the victim AAA's
head against the tricycle wall, forcibly touched the victim AAA's entire
body (starting from the head, face, breasts, and down towards her legs) with
the use of his one hand, and threatened the victim AAA not to tell to anyone
of the incident, or the victim AAA's family would be in danger.

Devious acts like the appellant Mario's, shatter a child's (like the
victim AAA) self-esteem and womanhood and virtually debase, degrade, or
demean a child's intrinsic worth and dignity. A young and helpless lass (like
the victim AAA) would feel desecrated and sexually transgressed. The
appellant Mario who is old enough to be the victim AAA's grandfather,
traumatized and gravely threatened the normal development of the innocent
victim AAA. The appellant Mario also betrayed the trust that young girls
place in the adult members of the community who are expected to guide and
nurture the well-being of these fragile members of the society. 18
Undoubtedly, such insensible act of the appellant Mario constituted child
abuse.

17 Supra, note 7.
18 Araneta v. People, G.R. No. 174205, 27 June 2008.
CA-G.R. CR No. 44768 9
DECISION

The appellant Mario contends that the testimony of the victim AAA
identifying the appellant Mario as her assailant was not corroborated by
other evidence.

We do not agree.

Contrary to the appellant Mario's argument, the Prosecution proved

that the appellant Mario (and not anyone else), had done the acts
complained of, to the victim AAA.

The fact that the appellant Mario was not known to the victim AAA
prior to the commission of the crime, and that the victim AAA did not know
the name of the appellant Mario, was of no moment. Prior knowledge of the
identity and name of the assailant are not essential elements in proving the
commission of the subject crime. The victim AAA had described the
physical appearance of her assailant, and had later on identified the appellant
Mario out-of-court, and also at the trial. It was therefore clear that the
appellant Mario was the perpetrator of the crime.

Moreover, this Court takes judicial notice that it is natural for persons
to remember many of the important details of extraordinary circumstances
that have been taken place. The most natural reactions of victims of
criminal violence is to strive to see the features and faces of their assailants
and observe the manner in which the crime is committed. Often, the face of
the assailant and his body movements create a lasting impression on the
victim's mind and cannot thus be easily erased from memory.19

On the other hand, the defense of mere denial and alibi propounded by
the appellant Mario deserve scant consideration.

Both denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses, and constitute
self-serving negative defenses which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary
weight than the positive declaration of a credible witness.20

Denial, essentially a negation of fact, does not prevail over an

affirmative assertion of the fact. Thus, the defense of denial in criminal
cases is generally viewed with considerable caution, if not with outright
rejection. Denial is an unreliable defense for being an excuse too easy and
too convenient for the guilty to make. To be worthy of consideration at all,
denial should be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. 21 The

19 People v. Lugnasin, G.R. No. 208404, 24 February 2016.

20 People v. Chavez, G.R. No. 235783, 25 September 2019.
21 Medina v. People, G.R. No. 182648, 17 June 2015.
CA-G.R. CR No. 44768 10
DECISION

appellant Mario, in this case, failed to provide any evidence to prove his
defense of denial.

For alibi to prosper, it is not enough for the accused to prove that he
was in another place when the crime was committed as he must likewise
prove that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the crime
scene or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission. 22 In this case,
the appellant Mario was working as a tricycle driver plying the area where
the crime was committed. As such, it is not physically impossible for the
appellant Mario to be present at the place of the commission of the crime.

Thus, as between the positive identification and direct testimony

given by the victim AAA, and the unsubstantiated denial and alibi of the
appellant Mario, we give credence to the victim AAA's version. The mere
denial of the appellant Mario cannot overturn the conclusiveness of the
evidence presented by the Prosecution.

The penalty for Other Acts of Child Abuse is prision mayor in its
minimum period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and in the
absence of any modifying circumstances, we find the penalty of four years,
nine months, and eleven days of prision correccional, as minimum, to six
years, eight months, and one day of prision mayor, as maximum, proper.
Thus, the RTC correctly imposed the penalty of imprisonment of four years,
nine months, and eleven days of prision correccional (as minimum), to six
years, eight months, and one day of prision mayor (as maximum).

For the civil liability, we modify the award of moral damages in the
amount of P10,000.00, in line with the current jurisprudence.23

In addition, consistent with recent jurisprudence on damages, interest

on all damages at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of
judgment until fully paid is likewise hereby imposed.24

Accordingly, we MODIFY the Decision dated 10 January 2020, of

the RTC, Branch 5, Trece Martires City, in Criminal Case No. TMCR-239-
17. We find the appellant Mario Tagle y Anicia GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of violation of Article VI, Section 10 (a), R.A. No. 9610, and sentence
the appellant Mario Tagle y Anicia to imprisonment of four years, nine
months, and eleven days of prision correccional (as minimum), to six years,
eight months, and one day of prision mayor (as maximum), and order the
appellant Mario Tagle y Anicia to pay the victim AAA the amount of
22 People v. Abayon, G.R. No. 142874, 31 July 2002.
23 Patulot v. People, supra note 15.
24 Ibid.
CA-G.R. CR No. 44768 11
DECISION

₱10,000.00 (as moral damages), subject to 6% legal interest from the finality
of this Decision until full payment.

SO ORDERED.
Original Signed
NINA G. ANTONIO-VALENZUELA
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

Original Signed
EMILY R. ALIÑO-GELUZ
Associate Justice

Original Signed
JOSE LORENZO R. DELA ROSA
Associate Justice

C E RT I F I C AT I O N

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby

certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court.

Original Signed
NINA G. ANTONIO-VALENZUELA
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Thirteenth Division