This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2005-04-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| 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 o'clock 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] | |||||