ELEMENTS OF ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS

In Amployo v. People,42 the Court expounded on the definition of the word "lewd," to

wit:

The term "lewd" is commonly defined as something indecent or obscene; it is

characterized by or intended to excite crude sexual desire. That an accused is
entertaining a lewd or unchaste design is necessarily a mental process the existence of
which can be inferred by overt acts carrying out such intention, i.e.,  by conduct that
can only be interpreted as lewd or lascivious. The presence or absence of lewd designs
is inferred from the nature of the acts themselves and the environmental
circumstances. What is or what is not lewd conduct, by its very nature, cannot be
pigeonholed into a precise definition. As early as US. v. Gomez  we had already
lamented that -

It would be somewhat difficult to lay down any rule specifically establishing just
what conduct makes one amenable to the provisions of article 439 of the Penal
Code. What constitutes lewd or lascivious conduct must be determined from the
circumstances of each case. It may be quite easy to determine in a particular
case that certain acts are lewd and lascivious, and it may be extremely difficult in
another case to say just where the line of demarcation lies between such
conduct and the amorous advances of an ardent lover.43

a careful evaluation, the Court finds that the mere fact of "squeezing" the private part
of a child - a young girl 12 years of age  - could not have signified any other intention
but one having lewd or indecent design. It must not be forgotten that several years
prior, accused-appellant had raped AAA in the same house, for which act he was
appropriately convicted. Indeed, the law indicates that the mere touching  - more so,
"squeezing," in this case, which strongly suggests that the act was intentional - of AAA's
genitalia clearly constitutes lascivious conduct. It could not have been done merely to
annoy or vex her, as opined by the courts a quo.  That AAA was fully clothed at that
time, which led the courts a quo  to believe that accused-appellant could not have
intended to lie with her, is inconsequential. "'Lewd' is defined as obscene, lustful,
indecent, and lecherous. It signifies that form of immorality which has relation to moral
impurity; or that which is carried on a wanton manner."44 As such, accused-appellant's
act of squeezing AAA's vagina was a lewd and lascivious act within the definitions set by
law and jurisprudence.

July 17, 2017

G.R. No. 221443

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee
vs.
DOMINADOR LADRA,

also

G.R. No. 157718               April 26, 2005

ALVIN AMPLOYO y EBALADA, Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

-------

"Lewd" is defined as obscene, lustful, indecent, and lecherous. It signifies that form of
immorality which has relation to moral impurity; or that which is carried on a wanton
manner.

G.R. No. 175528               September 30, 2009

PO3 BENITO SOMBILON, JR., Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

----

November 20, 2017 G.R. No. 214673

RIZALDO L. ORSOS vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Acts of lasciviousness is defined and penalized under Article 336 of the RPC, which
reads:

Article 336. Acts of Lasciviousness. - Any person who shall commit any act of
lasciviousness upon other persons of either sex, under any of the circumstances
mentioned in the preceding article, shall be punished by prision correccional.

There must be a confluence of the following elements before conviction can be had for
such crime: (1) that the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2)
that it is done under any of the following circumstances: (a) through force, threat, or
intimidation; (b) when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious; (c) by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
(d) when the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even
though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present; and (3) that the
offended party is another person of either sex.4

G.R. No. 166441 October 8, 2014

NORBERTO CRUZ y BARTOLOME vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Based on Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, the felony of acts of lasciviousness is
consummated when the following essential elements concur, namely: (a) the offender
commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness upon another person of either sex; and
(b) the act of lasciviousness or lewdness is committed either (i) by using force or
intimidation; or (ii) when the offended party is deprived ofreason or is otherwise
unconscious; or (iii) when the offended party is under 12 years of age.32 In that
regard, lewd is defined as obscene, lustful, indecent, lecherous; it signifies
that form of immorality that has relation to moral impurity; or that which is
carried on a wanton manner.

July 17, 2017 G.R. No. 221443

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DOMINADOR LADRA

In Amployo v. People, the Court expounded on the definition of the word "lewd," to wit:

The term "lewd" is commonly defined as something indecent or obscene; it is

characterized by or intended to excite crude sexual desire. That an accused is
entertaining a lewd or unchaste design is necessarily a mental process the
existence of which can be inferred by overt acts carrying out such
intention, i.e., by conduct that can only be interpreted as lewd or lascivious.
The presence or absence of lewd designs is inferred from the nature of the
acts themselves and the environmental circumstances. What is or what is not
lewd conduct, by its very nature, cannot be pigeonholed into a precise definition. As
early as US. v. Gomez  we had already lamented that -
It would be somewhat difficult to lay down any rule specifically establishing just what
conduct makes one amenable to the provisions of article 439 of the Penal Code. What
constitutes lewd or lascivious conduct must be determined from the circumstances of
each case. It may be quite easy to determine in a particular case that certain acts are
lewd and lascivious, and it may be extremely difficult in another case to say just where
the line of demarcation lies between such conduct and the amorous advances of an
ardent lover.

G.R. No. 175528 September 30, 2009

PO3 BENITO SOMBILON, JR. vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Petitioner’s contention deserves scant consideration.

The crime of acts of lasciviousness as punished under Article 336 of the Revised Penal
Code provides:

ART. 336. Acts of lasciviousness.- Any person who shall commit any act of
lasciviousness upon other persons of either sex, under any of the
circumstances mentioned in the preceding article, shall be punished by
prision correccional.

For an accused to be convicted of acts of lasciviousness under the foregoing provision,

the prosecution is burdened to prove the confluence of the following essential
elements: (1) that the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; and (2)
that it is done under any of the following circumstances: (a) by using force or
intimidation; (b) when the offended woman is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious; or (c) when the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age.12

In the case of Amployo v. People,13 the Court expounded on the definition of the term
lewd, thus:

The term "lewd" is commonly defined as something indecent or obscene; it is

characterized by or intended to excite crude sexual desire. That an accused is
entertaining a lewd or unchaste design is necessarily a mental process the existence of
which can be inferred by overt acts carrying out such intention , i.e., by conduct that
can only be interpreted as lewd or lascivious. The presence or absence of lewd designs
is inferred from the nature of the acts themselves and the environmental
circumstances. What is or what is not lewd conduct, by its very nature, cannot be
pigeonholed into a precise definition. As early as U.S. v. Gomez we had already
lamented that –

It would be somewhat difficult to lay down any rule specifically establishing just what
conduct makes one amenable to the provisions of article 439 of the Penal Code. What
constitutes lewd or lascivious conduct must be determined from the circumstances of
each case. It may be quite easy to determine in a particular case that certain acts are
lewd and lascivious, and it may be extremely difficult in another case to say just where
the line of demarcation lies between such conduct and the amorous advances of an
ardent lover.

Undoubtedly, petitioner committed acts which fall within the above

described lascivious conduct. It cannot be viewed as mere unjust vexation as
petitioner would have the Court do. The intention of petitioner was intended
neither to merely annoy or irritate the victim nor to force her to confess the
theft. He could have easily achieved that when he electrocuted the latter. Petitioner
intended to gratify his sexual desires.

G.R. No. L-47646 September 19, 1988

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.HON. CESAR R. MARAVILLA and MANUEL B.

GADON alias "EDRING"

The crime of unjust vexation, while concededly different from the crime of acts of
lasciviousness, is embraced by the latter and prosecution for this crime will suspend the
period of prescription for the former crime. A common characteristic of the two
offenses is molestation of the offended party. Where it is not shown that this
was accompanied by lewd designs, the accused may not be convicted of acts
of lasciviousness but may nevertheless be held guilty of unjust vexation, as
the lesser offense. In fact, conviction or acquittal of either offense should bar
prosecution for the other offense under the rule on double jeopardy.

G.R. No. 127904 December 5, 2002

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ESTEBAN VICTOR y PENIS

The felony of acts of lasciviousness is defined and penalized by Article 336 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, thus:

ART. 336. Acts of lasciviousness.- Any person who shall commit any act of
lasciviousness upon other persons of either sex, under any of the
circumstances mentioned in the preceding article, shall be punished by
prision correccional.

The elements of acts of lasciviousness are: (1) that the offender commits any act of
lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) that it is done under any of the following circumstances:
(a) by using force or intimidation; (b) when the offended woman is deprived of reason
or otherwise unconscious; or (c) when the offended party is under twelve (12) years of
age.39
In People vs. Tiburcio Balbar, we held that what constitutes lewd or
lascivious conduct must be determined from the circumstances of each case.
The presence or absence of the lewd designs is inferred from the nature of
the acts themselves and the environmental circumstances.

It would be somewhat difficult to lay down any rule specifically establishing just what
conduct makes one amendable to the provisions of article 439 (now article 336) of the
Penal Code. What constitutes lewd or lascivious conduct must be determined from the
circumstances of each case.1âwphi1 It may be quite easy to determine in a particular
case that certain acts are lewd and lascivious, and it may be extremely difficult in
another case to say where the line of demarcation lies between such conduct and the
amorous advances of an ardent lover. (U.S. v. Gomez, 30 Phil. 22, 25)

The presence or absence of lewd designs is inferred from the nature of the
acts themselves and the environmental circumstances. xxx.

G.R. No. 157718 April 26, 2005

ALVIN AMPLOYO y EBALADA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES ,

First Issue:

Article 336 of the RPC on Acts of Lasciviousness has for its elements the following:

(1) That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness;

(2) That it is done under any of the following circumstances:

a. By using force or intimidation; or

b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise

unconscious; or

c. When the offended party is under 12 years of age; and

(3) That the offended party is another person of either sex. 11

The presence of the second element is not in dispute, that is, Kristine Joy was below 12
years old on the material date set in the information. It is the presence of the first
element which petitioner challenges, claiming that lewd design has not been proved
beyond reasonable doubt.
The term 'lewd is commonly defined as something indecent or obscene;  12  it is
characterized by or intended to excite crude sexual desire. 13  That an accused is
entertaining a lewd or unchaste design is necessarily a mental process the existence of
which can be inferred by overt acts carrying out such intention, i.e., by conduct that
can only be interpreted as lewd or lascivious. The presence or absence of lewd designs
is inferred from the nature of the acts themselves and the environmental
circumstances.  14  What is or what is not lewd conduct, by its very nature, cannot be
pigeonholed into a precise definition. As early as U.S. v. Gomez 15 we had already
lamented that '

It would be somewhat difficult to lay down any rule specifically establishing just what
conduct makes one amenable to the provisions of article 439  16  of the Penal Code.
What constitutes lewd or lascivious conduct must be determined from the
circumstances of each case. It may be quite easy to determine in a particular case that
certain acts are lewd and lascivious, and it may be extremely difficult in another case to
say just where the line of demarcation lies between such conduct and the amorous
advances of an ardent lover.

In herein case, petitioner argues that lewd design cannot be inferred from his conduct
firstly because the alleged act occurred at around seven oclock in the morning, in a
street very near the school where people abound, thus, he could not have been
prompted by lewd design as his hand merely slipped and accidentally touched Kristine
Joy's breast. Furthermore, he could not have been motivated by lewd design as the
breast of an eight year old is still very much undeveloped, which means to say there
was nothing to entice him in the first place. Finally, assuming that he indeed
intentionally touch Kristine Joy's breast, it was merely to satisfy a silly whim following a
Court of Appeals ruling. 17

Petitioner's arguments crumble under the weight of overwhelming evidence against

him. Well-settled is the rule that factual findings of the trial court, particularly when
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding on this Court barring arbitrariness and
oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and substance 18 for which there are
none in this case. Besides, Kristine Joy's testimony is indeed worthy of full faith and
credence as there is no proof that she was motivated to falsely accuse petitioner. Thus,
we stress anew that no young and decent girl like Kristine Joy would
fabricate a story of sexual abuse, subject herself to medical examination and
undergo public trial, with concomitant ridicule and humiliation, if she is not
impelled by a sincere desire to put behind bars the person who assaulted
her.

G.R. No. L-18202 April 30, 1964

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.PERCIVAL GILO

The complaint filed before the Justice of the Peace Court of Guimbal, Iloilo, by the
offended party, which was labelled as "Acts of Lasciviousness", reads as follows:

That on or about December 11, 1957, in the Municipality of Guimbal, Province of

Iloilo, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused Percival Gilo taking advantage of his being drank with force and
intimidation did then and there intentionally, maliciously, feloniously, and
criminally touch the breast and face of Verna Genzola against her will and
consent and as a result of which Verna Genzola suffered shame, embarrassment,
and lost her self-respect.

Considering that in order that a crime constitution acts of lasciviousness may

be committed it is necessary that it be alleged that it was committed with
lewd design, the latter being an indispensable element of all crimes against
chastity, such as abduction, seduction and rape, including acts of
lasciviousness, the complaint copied above cannot really be considered as
charging a crime of acts of lasciviousness because of the absence of such
element, event if the complaint is labelled as "Acts of Lasciviousness."1 What
characterizes a criminal charge is not the title but the body of the complaint or
information. In this sense, the lower court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case,
even if the information filed by the provincial fiscal be one of acts of lasciviousness,
because the complaint that gave initial life to the case is merely one of unjust vexation.
This fatal defect can only be cured by making the proper correction in the complaint
filed by the offended party, which here was not done. Verily, the lower court acted
without jurisdiction, thereby rendering all its proceedings null and void.

The contention of the government that the complaint filed by the offended party before
the Justice of the Peace Court of Guimbal, Iloilo, is sufficient even if it does not allege
that the act was committed with lewd design is untenable, because the words
"feloniously and criminally" that are alleged in the complaint are mere general terms
which denote the criminal intent of the accused but which do not necessarily connote
the idea of lust needed in the act. Lust or lewd design is an element that
characterizes all crimes against chastity, apart from the felonious or criminal
intent of the offender, and such element must be always present in order
that they may be considered in contemplation of law. The absence of
element converts the act into another crime, which this case is unjust
vexation.

G.R. No. L-23289 February 28, 1969

JOVENCIO LUANSING vs.THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, and THE
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

It is further contended that the amended information was legally defective for failure to
allege lewd design. Reliance is placed on the case of People vs. Gilo, G.R. No. L-18202,
April 30, 1964, wherein it was held:

Considering that in order that a crime constituting acts of lasciviousness may be

committed, it is necessary that it be alleged that it was committed with lewd
design, the latter being an indispensable element of all crimes against chastity,
such as abduction, seduction and rape, including acts of lasciviousness ... the
words "feloniously and criminally" that are alleged in the complaint are mere
general terms which denote the criminal intent of the accused but which do not
necessarily connote the idea of lust needed in the commission of the act. Lust or
lewd design is an element that characterizes all crimes against chastity, apart
from the felonious or criminal intent of the offender, and such element must be
always present in order that they may be so considered in contemplation of law.

In People vs. Obsania, G.R. No. L-24447, June 29, 1968, which involved a case of rape,
we had occasion to pass upon the above-quoted decision in this wise:

Nothing in the foregoing statement can be reasonably interpreted as requiring an

explicit allegation of "lewd design" in a complaint for rape. We hold in no
uncertain terms that in a complaint for rape it is not necessary to allege "lewd
design" or "unchaste motive," for to require such averment is to demand a
patent superfluity. Lascivious intent inheres in rape and the unchaste design is
manifest in the very act itself — the carnal knowledge of a woman through force
or intimidation, or when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious, or when the woman is under twelve years of age.

By the same token, "lewd design" is inherent in the very act itself of having sexual
intercourse with a chaste woman over 12 and under 18 years of age under a false
promise of marriage, which act constitutes the crime of seduction. Besides, the Gilo
case involved acts of lasciviousness, and the element of "lewd design" must
necessarily be alleged in the information, because without it the offense
would be merely unjust vexation.

For "lewd designs" is a state of the mind not discernible by a simple reading of the dry,
lifeless pages of [petitioner's] complaint affidavit or [respondent's] counter-affidavit: it
is a creature whose being, or lack thereof, must be threshed out in a full-blown trial
wherein parties are given the opportunity to give their testimony in open court and the
opponent given the chance to cross-examine, under the watchful eye of the trial judge
who observes with an adept eye the truthfulness of the witness' avowals. x x x (Words
in brackets supplied).

G.R. No. 161179             August 7, 2007

NACE SUE P. BUAN, petitioner,

vs.
FRANCISCO T. MATUGAS

---

WITH MORAL DAMAGES

In People v. Solmoro24 we declared that upon a finding of guilt of the accused for acts
of lasciviousness, the amount of ₱30,000.00 as moral damages may be further
awarded to the victim in the same way that moral damages are awarded to victims of
rape even without need of proof because it is assumed that they suffered moral injury.
Considering the immeasurable pain and anguish that the victim had to suffer in the
hands of the petitioner; the trauma that she had to endure even after the incident; and
the sexual perversity of petitioner, who is a police officer, the award of moral damages
in the amount of ₱30,000.00 is proper.

--

2. In Criminal Case No. Q-96-67233, accused-appellant is hereby found GUILTY beyond

reasonable doubt of the felony of acts of lasciviousness defined and penalized in Article
366 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and is hereby sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty of five (5) months and ten (10) days of arresto mayor in its
medium period, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
correccional, in its medium period, as maximum. He is hereby ORDERED to pay Marilyn
Villanueva the amount of P25,000.00 by way of moral damages; and costs.