“The presence of moral ascendancy is sufficient cause for intimidation that would require the victim to resist or report the incident to others”
“[A]cts of embracing, kissing and touching a woman’s breasts are considered lascivious conduct…”
The presence of moral ascendancy is sufficient cause for intimidation that would require the victim to resist or report the incident to others. (Barona v. People, G.R. Dec. 6, 2021)
The crime of acts of lasciviousness makes lewdness an element of the crime.
“Lewd is defined as obscene, lustful, indecent or lecherous. It signifies that form of immorality which has relation to moral impurity or that which is carried on in a wanton manner.” (Op cit.)
“It includes acts of making physical contact with the body of another person for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification… without intention of [having] sexual intercourse. What constitutes lewdness is determined [by] the circumstances surrounding each case.” (Op cit.)
An act that is lewd or obscene “is characterized by or intended to excite crude sexual desire. That a [person] is entertaining a lewd or unchaste design is necessarily a mental process… which can be inferred [from the] overt acts carrying out such intention…” (Op cit. citing Amployo v. People)
In the case of Barona v. People and AAA, “the alleged… lascivious conduct committed by Barona against AAA include sending inappropriate text messages… such as ‘you’re beautiful,’ ‘miss na kita,’ and ‘mahal kita,’ attempting to kiss her, asking her to go with him inside a prayer cell, asking her for a massage, coming into contact with her breasts by embracing her, and touching and pressing her thigh.” (Op cit.)
Consider “the manner, place, and time under which the acts complained of were done, lewd designs can be attributed to Barona. Most of these lascivious acts imputed against him were committed while Barona and AAA were alone… [which] exhibit[ed] the sexual desire of Barona.”
“The element of lewd design [was] duly established… when Barona intentionally sat beside AAA while she was working and slyly slipped his hands to her legs and pressed her thighs. [In fact], AAA positively testified the several instances that Barona committed lascivious conduct against her.” (Op cit.)
“He took advantage of the fact that they were alone when he committed these acts. All these acts are indecent and immoral… [and being] the spiritual head and leader, he [should have] maintain[ed] and exude[d] a chaste and impeccable conduct towards his ministry members.”
“In a number of cases, the [Supreme] Court found the following acts to be… lascivious or lewd: embracing, kissing the lips and neck or other body parts, fondling or touching of breasts, touching of private parts such as vagina and other parts of the body, and laying on top of the victim.” (Op cit.)
It was further explained that the testimony of AAA was clear and straightforward.
“A victim of sexual abuse or molestation [the Supreme Court said] cannot easily concoct a story so detailed unless… actually committed against such person.” (Op cit.)
In finding that the element of intimidation was duly established, the Supreme Court explained “it is not necessary that the intimidation or physical force be irresistible, it being sufficient that some violence or moral compulsion, equivalent to intimidation, annuls or subdues the free exercise of the will of the offended party.” (Op cit.)
“Barona, as the leader and Pastor of their ministry, had moral ascendancy over AAA. This moral ascendancy was sufficient cause for AAA to feel intimidated by him” as narrated in her Judicial Affidavit. (Op cit.)
AAA “did not immediately report the untoward incidents for fear that she will be reprimanded by Barona and that she will be going against ‘God’s anointed one’. As she pointed out, the members of their ministry must ‘touch not the anointed of God’ as often preached by Barona.” (Op cit.)
With the existence of lewd designs and presence of intimidation employed by Barona on AAA, the crime of acts of lasciviousness was duly established beyond reasonable doubt.
Bare denials of Barona are not sufficient to overcome the positive testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses
