The Supreme Court has denied the appeal of a father, identified only as YYY262360, and affirmed with modifications his conviction for crimes committed against his minor daughter, AAA262360. The Court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified Rape and, modifying one charge, of Sexual Assault under the Revised Penal Code.
The ruling affirmed with modifications the Decision, dated December 14, 2021, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 14883, which had earlier reviewed the Joint Decision, dated February 11, 2020, of Branch II, Regional Trial Court (RTC), of Cavite.
The Case
Before the RTC, YYY262360 was charged with four criminal indictments. In Criminal Case Nos. 10501-12 and 10803-12, he was charged with two counts of Rape committed against his minor daughter, AAA262360. In Criminal Case Nos. 10801-12 and 10802-12, he was charged with two counts of Violation of Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610.
Upon his arraignment, YYY262360 pleaded "not guilty" to the charges. During pre-trial, the prosecution and defense stipulated on the jurisdiction of the RTC, YYY262360's identity, and that AAA262360 was only 14 years old at the time the incidents occurred.
The prosecution presented the victim AAA262360; BBB262360, YYY262360's son and brother of AAA262360; Barangay Kagawad CCC262360; and Barangay Captain DDD262360. The defense presented the testimony of YYY262360.
The testimonies of GGG262360, AAA262360's grandmother, and Dr. Merle Tan were stipulated and dispensed with. Dr. Tan examined AAA262360 on April 10, 2012. Her Final Medico Legal Report No. 2012-10281 found that AAA262360 had a yellowish brown bruise on her right forearm, an absent hymen, and anogenital findings diagnostic of blunt force or penetrating trauma.
AAA262360, the eldest child of YYY262360, recounted that her ordeal began when she was eight years old. She testified that YYY262360 would have sexual intercourse with her, sometimes forcing her to sniff shabu beforehand. She did not tell her mother because YYY262360 threatened to take her away. On April 2, 2012, YYY262360 demanded that AAA262360 give him a blow job and threatened to file a child abuse case against her boyfriend if she refused. Intimidated, she was forced to comply.
The Issue
Among the matters before the Court was whether the act committed on April 2, 2012 constituted Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 or Sexual Assault under Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code.
The Ruling
The Court found that there was indisputable coercion or influence exerted by YYY262360 on AAA262360, by virtue of the father's moral ascendency over her. It held that AAA262360 did not consent to the sexual act and was compelled through her father's moral ascendency. Under the Gramatica guidelines, the Court ruled that YYY262360 committed Sexual Assault under Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code, and not Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610.
The Court disposed: "ACCORDINGLY, the Appeal is DENIED. The Decision, dated December 14, 2021, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 14883, is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS." In Criminal Case No. 10501-12, YYY262360 was found guilty of Qualified Rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. In Criminal Case No. 10802-12, he was found guilty of Sexual Assault, qualified by minority and relationship, and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of eight years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 17 years and four months of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
By the Numbers
- G.R. No. 262360
- RTC Joint Decision: February 11, 2020
- Court of Appeals Decision: December 14, 2021 (CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 14883)
- Victim's age at the time: 14 years old
- Medical examination: April 10, 2012
- Qualified Rape damages: PHP 150,000.00 each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages
- Sexual Assault damages: PHP 50,000.00 each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages
- Interest: 6% per annum from finality until full payment
The Court's Reasoning
The Court explained that under Section 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for Qualified Rape is death, but the death penalty has been suspended and reduced to reclusion perpetua under Republic Act No. 9346. The phrase "without eligibility for parole" is appended to emphasize that the accused would have been sentenced to death had it not been for that law. The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable since the original penalty was death.
For Sexual Assault, the penalty is prision mayor, but the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship, which were duly proven, raise it to reclusion temporal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court imposed the indeterminate penalty stated in its disposition.
The Court increased the monetary awards in the Qualified Rape case in accordance with People v. XXX258054, for the purpose of deterring parents with perverse or aberrant sexual behavior from sexually abusing their children. It awarded the Sexual Assault damages in line with People v. Tulagan. The Department of Social Welfare and Development was directed to refer AAA262360 to an appropriate rape crisis center, in line with Republic Act No. 8505, the Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act of 1998.
Source: Supreme Court Decision, G.R. No. 262360.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.