Appeals court affirms conviction of dentist
The Court of Appeals (CA) has affirmed the conviction of a Makati-based dentist who molested his teenage patient, saying that the victims’ tendency to isolate and keep problems to themselves does not undermine their credibility in such cases.
In a 24-page decision promulgated on March 30, the appellate court’s First Division agreed with the 2023 ruling of the Makati Regional Trial Court Branch 3 in finding dentist Sigfred Se-it guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of sexual abuse, particularly violation of Sec. 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610, or the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act.
“Private complainant’s lack of resistance and quietness cannot be used against her. It is well-settled that victims’ ‘failure … to shout for help or escape during the incidents does not undermine their credibility’ and it is ‘not … fatal to the prosecution’s case,” read part of the CA’s ruling, citing a similar child sexual abuse case in 2025.
The complainant, who was 16 years old at the time of the incidents, originally filed four cases, representing each encounter with the dentist to have her orthodontic braces adjusted from May to August 2021, but the CA dismissed one of the charges.
Gaslighting the victim
Se-it, 41, worked at Se-it & Penaflor-Lopez Dental Center & Wellness Spa in Makati City, and served as the complainant’s family dentist, court records showed.
Upon learning that the complainant’s mother was battling breast cancer, the dentist asked about the mother’s condition and whether she was checking her own breasts for lumps.
In appealing his conviction before the CA, the accused argued that the complainant herself belied her claims because “she went back after the alleged May incident three times.” He even argued that the defense’s witnesses supposedly heard no “unusual sound or commotion” during the incident.
But the appellate court pointed out: “Private complainant cannot be discredited by the mere fact that she continued going to accused-appellant’s dental clinic after the first incident.”
Citing findings of the separate reports of psychologist and social welfare officer assigned in the case, the court noted that the victim was “deeply affected emotionally and mentally due to the incident” and that she was not used to communicating her struggles to other people, including family members.
