April 22, 2024

RTC 3 PSJLC-2024-01
FOXTROT COMPANY
PSSG ALCANTARA, MARK CYRUS G.

CASE REVIEW: GR # 246231

ALLAN DE VERA y ANTE VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, October 9, 2023

I. Facts of the Case

What: Violation of Section 5(b) or RA 7610
Where: inside a library of XXX University, Quezon City
When: July 7, 2012
Who: (victim) AAA, a minor, 16 years of age, first year college student of the
XXX University, both a Philippine and an American citizen, who was born and
raised in the United States
(suspect) Allan de Vera y Ante
How:

AAA testified that at around 8:30a.m. of July 7, 2012, she went to the Filipino
Department of the school to ask for her class section under the Special Filipino
Program. Alone in the office was petitioner, who asked her if she wanted to take
the Filipino for Foreigners Diagnostic Exam. AAA then agreed to take the exam
since it is a requirement for the Special Filipino Program.6

Petitioner then made her take the diagnostic exam inside the MiniLibrary of the
Filipino Department. AAA sat on the couch and answered the exam on the coffee
table inside the Mini-Library. Petitioner was standing approximately less than a
meter away to the left of AAA and was facing a bookshelf.7

While taking the exam, AAA heard a tapping sound, which she initially
ignored. The tapping sound sounded like clapping or like skin slapping
against skin. When the sound got louder, she looked to where the sound
was coming from and saw the petitioner masturbating. AAA testified that
she saw the petitioner holding a binder on the left hand while his right
hand was masturbating his penis.
Afraid, AAA calmly packed her things, got up from the couch and told petitioner that she
would.continue her exam at the reception area of the Filipino Department. When AAA
finished the exam, she handed her completed exam to petitioner who has come out to
the reception area from the Mini-Library.9

AAA immediately ran out of the office and told her classmate CCC what she saw in the
Mini-Library. Upon the advice of CCC, AAA called her mother, BBB, who instructed her
daughter to report the matter to the University Security Office. When BBB arrived at the
university, she was told that the petitioner was already brought to the police station.
BBB and AAA then went to the police station to file a formal complaint against the
petitioner

II. Court Decision:

Faced with two conflicting versions, the Court is guided by the equipoise rule. This rule
states that when the evidence is consistent with a finding of innocence but also
compatible with a finding of guilt, then the evidence is at equipoise and does not fulfill
the test of moral certainty sufficient to support a conviction. 129 The rule is rooted on
the well-settled principle that every criminal conviction must draw its strength from the
prosecution's evidence, which must be of such degree that the constitutional
presumption of innocence is overthrown and guilt is established beyond reasonable
doubt. 130 This burden of the prosecution is not met when the circumstances can yield
to different inferences, as such equivocation betrays a lack of moral ce1iainty sufficient
to support a judgment of conviction
The equipoise rule finds relevance in cases where the prosecution attempts to prove the
criminal culpability of the accused on the lone testimony of a single witness but there
are reasons to warrant the suspicion that the witness's observation had been
inaccurate, yet no corroborative evidence was proffered by the prosecution. 132 This is
especially true when the private complainant's testimony is met by an equally credible
evidence of the defense
the prosecution relies on the sole testimony of AAA to establish petitioner's supposed
act of fondling or masturbating his penis in the presence of the latter. However, the
Court finds that AA.A's version is not impeccable and does not ring true
throughout, given the several inconsistencies in AAA's testimony earlier pointed
out. Meanwhile, petitioner's version is equally credible, as his testimony is
corroborated not only by photographs of his pants and the zipper thereof, but
also by the testimony of Agbayani-Estrelles. The evidence is therefore in
equipoise, warranting petitioner's acquittal.
Wherefore, the Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. The Court’s Decision
dated January 20, 2021 affirming the Decision dated September 27, 2018 and
Resolution dated March 27, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR CR No. 39723
is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Petitioner Allan De Vera y Ante is hereby ACQUITED in Criminal Case No. Q-12-
177236 filed with Branch 94, RTC, Quezon City for failure of the prosecution to
prove his guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

III. Discussion: Does Masturbating in front of a minor can constitute in the filling of
Violation of RA 7610?
YES. The law specifically classifies masturbation as a lascivious conduct, which
basically aims to satiate the sexual desire of the doer. The effect of masturbation on the
minor victim or the "audience" is far from only evoking emotions of irritation or
annoyance.
Crime of violation of Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610. The RTC heId.that under Section
2(h) of the Rules and Regulations on Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases,
masturbating is considered a lascivious conduct. Considering that petitioner
committed a lascivious act in front of the child victim who was only 16 years old
and the latter was deemed to have been subjected to other sexual abuse,
petitioner must be convicted of the crime charged.

However, for this case, the petitioner was acquitted of Violation of Section 10(a) of
RA 7610, given that his supposed act of fondling or masturbating his penis in the
presence of AAA was not proven beyond reasonable doubt; second the alleged
injury to AAA’s intellectual or psychological functioning caused by petitioner’s
conduct has not been demonstrated to be serious or severe as to constitute child
abuse; and third, petitioner’s intent to debase, degrade or demean the instinct
worth and dignity of AAA as a human being was not satisfactorily established.