THE Supreme Court has ruled that the credibility of a 14-year-old victim of molestation was not affected by her youth and immaturity, rejecting the denials of her assailant.
The High Court’s Third Division upheld the conviction of Resty Laconsay for lascivious conduct as it held that a victim’s youth and immaturity are strong indicators of the truthfulness and sincerity of the unlawful acts done against them.
The 14-page decision promulgated on October 21, 2024 but only made public yesterday sentenced Laconsay to up to 17 years and four months imprisonment and ordered him to pay the victim AAA P165, 000 as civil indemnity, fine, and damages.
Records of the case showed that AAA was sleeping at home with her siblings on the night of August 28, 2011 when she woke up to find a person standing at her feet, holding a cell phone.
The person pulled down her blanket, touched her foot, and caressed her leg up to her groin. AAA then shouted for help, causing the man to flee.
During the trial before the Olongapo City Regional Trial Court, AAA testified that the light from the cell phone allowed her to see the man’s face. With the help of her sister, who also saw the incident, AAA later identified the man as Laconsay, their neighbor.
Laconsay denied the allegations, asserting that he was elsewhere at the time.
He also argued that AAA’s testimony was inconsistent because she initially told her father that it was not Laconsay who molested her.
Both the RTC and the Court of Appeals found Laconsay guilty of acts of lasciviousness under the Revised Penal Code in relation to Republic Act 7610, or the Violence Against Women and Children’s Act.
Laconsay then elevated the case to the SC, seeking to overturn his conviction.
But the SC affirmed his conviction, emphasizing that AAA’s testimony was clear, credible, and supported by her sister’s statement.
“After a judicious perusal of the records of the instant petition, the Court finds no compelling reason to depart from the uniform factual findings of the RTC and the CA. The Court affirms petitioner’s conviction,” the SC decision penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting said.
Concurring with the decision were Associate Justices Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, Amy Lazaro-Javier, Maria Filomena Singh, and Samuel Gaerlan.
It added that AAA was not only able to identify Laconsay but also say how the acts of lasciviousness were committed against her.
“During cross-examination, AAA disclosed again that she was able to see the face of petitioner,” the SC said, adding that her sister was also able to point to Laconsay as the person who molested her.
The SC also dismissed Laconsay’s argument that at one point AAA denied to her father that it was him who entered their house and molested her.
“The contention holds no water,” the SC held, saying the alleged inconsistency was already discussed by the CA and RTC in their respective rulings.
“AAA explained that the reason why she did not immediately reveal the identity of the petitioner to her father is that she did not want her father to suffer from a heart attack, considering that in the past, she witnessed her father convulse when angered. Still, AAA told him it was the petitioner who entered the house and molested her,” the SC added.
The SC found AAA’s testimony credible in describing the lascivious acts committed against her and in positively identifying Laconsay as her assailant.
It emphasized that her youth and immaturity are badges of truth and sincerity “because of her relative vulnerability and the shame and embarrassment that would arise if the matter about which she testified were not true.”
