Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > February 2009 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 173100 : March 11, 2009] RENE CASTAÑOS V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES:

Quoted hereunder, for your information,is a resolution of this Court dated 11 March 2009:

G.R. No. 173100 (Rene Casta�os v. People of the Philippines). - The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City, Branch 36, in a Decision dated 19 June 2003,^[1] affirmed with modification the 4 December 2002 Joint Decision^[2] of the 10^th Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Calinog, Iloilo which found appellant Rene Casta�os guilty of the crimes of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 and other light threats under Article 285 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision as to the crime of acts of lasciviousness but acquitted appellant on the charge of other light threats.^[3]

The prosecution established that at around 10:30 p.m. of 15 August 1997, appellant went to the house of complainant Remedios Catamin asking for supper. Complainant allowed appellant inside the house as he was a close friend of the family and a relative of her husband. She was then with her house helper and four children as her husband was out attending a wake of a friend. At around 11:25 p.m. all of her companions were asleep. As it was getting late, complainant hinted that appellant should leave. As they were moving towards the door, appellant suddenly turned around and grabbed complainant by the arm, and uttered words such as "1 love you." and "You're special to me." Even though appellant was drunk at that time, he was able to overpower her. Complainant struggled, but appellant persisted in grabbing her shoulder and kissed her on the lips and face while mashing her breasts. As she fell down on her knees, appellant tried to pin her down. It was then that her husband arrived home and came to her rescue. Her husband picked up appellant's service shotgun and hit him twice. Appellant begged for forgiveness as he was drunk. She pacified her husband and told him of possible criminal actions if he hurt appellant. So complainant's husband gave back appellant's firearm. As appellant was about to leave, he allegedly uttered threats against them.

On the other hand, appellant merely denied the charges against him. He claimed that complainant was the one who seduced him when she invited him to have dinner in her house. It was because complainant's husband caught them in a compromising position that the criminal charges were lodged against him.

The Court finds no error in the manner the allegations were made in the information by the prosecution. The information sufficiently alleged that the acts complained of were committed with lewd designs. The statement of the crime was sufficiently made in the information when it was alleged that appellant "willfully and feloniously commit [sic] an act of lasciviousness." Such allegations already indicate with particularity the exact offense which appellant allegedly committed and thus enable him to intelligently prepare his defenses. It would be mere superfluousness to include the phrase "with lewd design." The courts a quo did not err in their appraisal of the manner, place, and time under which the acts were done and in their conclusion that these were attended by lewd designs. The existence of lewd designs is to be inferred from the nature of the acts themselves, as welt as from the environmental circumstances. Appellant took advantage of the situation when complainant was alone m her house with her children and house helper all asleep, he was moved by lasciviousness when he kissed and embraced her.^[4]

The Court does not find any reversible error in the assailed decision both in respect to the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Appellant cannot claim intoxication as an alternative mitigating circumstance as it was not proven that at the time of the commission of the criminal act, he had taken such quantity of alcoholic drinks as to blur his reason and deprive him of a certain degree of control, and that such intoxication was not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the felony.^[5]

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS in toto the 22 February 2005 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 27533 finding Rene Casta�os guilty of acts of Iasciviousness. Costs against appellant.

WITNESS the Honorable Leonardo A. Quisumbing.  Chairperson.  Honorable Conchita Carpio Morales. Dante O. Tinga. Presbitero J. Velasco. Jr. and Arturo D. Brion, Members, Second Division, this 11^th day of March. 2009.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] CA rollo, pp. 30-41. The 19 June 2003 Decision was penned by Judge Victor E. Gelveron. The dispositive portion reads as follows:
 

WHEREFORE, the joint decision of the trial court is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in Criminal Case No. C-1583 that accused Rene Casta�os y Valero is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of Four (4) Months of Arresto Mayor to Two (2) Years, Four (4) Months and One (1) Day of Prision Correccional and ordered to pay complainant Remedios Catamin moral damages in the amount of P10,000.00 and Attorney's fees of P10,000.00.

 The judgment in Criminal Case No. C- 1584 is hereby affirmed.

 SO ORDERED.

^[2] Id. at 42-48. The 4 December 2002 Joint Decision was penned by Judge Ronaldo P. Melliza, Jr. The dispositive portion reads as follows;

WHEREFORE, accused Rene Castanos Y Valero in herein Criminal Case No. C-1583 is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness defined and penalized under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, and there being three aggravating circumstances attending the crime, he is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from 6 months of arresto mayor as minimum to 6 years of prision correccional as maximum. Accused further is hereby ordered to pay complainant Remedios Catamin a moral damage of P10,000.00 and attorney's fees of P10,000.00
 
Accused Rene Casta�os Y Valero in herein Criminal Case No. C-1584 is likewise found guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of Other Light Threats defined and penalized under Article 285, Par. 2, Revised Penal Code, there being no modifying circumstance to consider, he is hereby sentenced to a straight penalty of 10 days of arresto menor. Accused further is hereby ordered to pay Joaqum Catamin, Jr. an Attorney's fee of P10,000.00.
 
 No costs.
 
 SO ORDERED.

�
^[3] Rollo, pp. 35-44. The 22 February 2005 Decision was penned by Associate Justice Arsenio N. Magpale, and concurred in by Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Vicente L. Yap. The dispositive portion of the decision reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, appellant's conviction of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in Criminal Case No. C-15S3 is hereby AFFIRMED. He is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from Four (4) Months of arresto mayor as minimum to Two (2) years, Four (4) Months and One (I) day of prision correccional as maximum. Appellant is hereby ordered to pay complainant Remedios Catamin moral damages of P10,000.00 and attorney's fees of P10,000.00.

As to the crime of Other Light Threats, appellant is ACQUITTED, his guilt had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

SO ORDERED.

^[4] See People v. Collado, 60 Phil. 610 (1934).

^[5] See People v. Boduso, G.R. Nos. L-30450-51, 30 September 1974, 60 SCRA 60, 70-71.