The Supreme Court denied a Petition for Review on Certiorari and affirmed, with modifications, a Court of Appeals ruling finding the petitioner guilty of Rape by Sexual Assault under Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, in Criminal Case No. L-13307. The Court modified the crime of which the petitioner was convicted from the offense in relation to Republic Act No. 7610 to Rape by Sexual Assault under the Revised Penal Code.
The Case
In an Information, the petitioner was charged with Rape by Sexual Assault. The crime was allegedly committed against AAA269009, who was 5 years old at the time of the incident. According to the prosecution, the petitioner is the live-in-partner of AAA269009's aunt. Living in the same house were AAA269009's mother, her grandmother, her aunt, the petitioner, and her cousin who is the son of her aunt and the petitioner.
Sometime in 2013, the petitioner called the then 5-year-old AAA269009 into his room, where his toddler son was also present. He gave her his cellphone to play with, carried her and his son onto the bed, pulled down her undergarments, licked her vagina, and then inserted his finger in her vagina. She felt pain but continued playing with the cellphone. The prosecution stated the incident was not the only occasion; another time the petitioner inserted his finger inside her vagina when he gave her a bath.
AAA269009 did not report the assaults for fear that the petitioner would harm her. She experienced trauma shown through recurring nightmares, absentmindedness, and difficulty in sleeping. Eventually she stayed with her estranged father, and sometime in 2020, when she was 12 years old, she disclosed to her older sister, in the presence of her father and older brother, that the petitioner sexually assaulted her when she was 5 years old. Her mother reported the incident to the police.
Dr. Aquino, a pediatric resident, examined AAA269009 and found that her hymen displayed an incomplete laceration at the 5 and 7 o'clock positions, indicating the width was partially torn a long time ago. The petitioner denied sexually abusing AAA269009. He confirmed he lived in the family home and had bathed her along with his toddler son, but alleged he never inserted his finger inside her vagina. He said he was busy tending to their sari-sari store and that her grandmother and cousin were always present.
The Issue
The Court addressed which law properly applies to the acts committed against a minor, distinguishing between charges under Republic Act No. 7610 and those under the Revised Penal Code, and determined the correct crime and penalty for the acts proven.
The Ruling
The Court held that the Revised Penal Code and Republic Act No. 7610 serve different purposes; the former focuses on acts carried out through force or intimidation, while the latter addresses exploitative situations where coercive social and personal factors undermine the child's consent. Thus, if a case does not fall under the specific conditions of Section 5(b), it should be prosecuted as either Rape or Acts of Lasciviousness under the Revised Penal Code. Applying this, the Court modified the crime to Rape by Sexual Assault under Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code, finding that the petitioner sexually assaulted the then 5-year-old AAA269009 when he inserted his finger inside her vagina.
The dispositive portion states: "ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review on Certiorari are DENIED. The Decision dated April 28, 2023, and the Resolution dated August 4, 2023, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 46261 are hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS." The petitioner was found GUILTY of Rape by Sexual Assault under Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353.
By the Numbers
- G.R. No. 269009
- RTC Decision dated May 14, 2021 in Criminal Case No. L-13307
- Victim was 5 years old at the time of the incident (2013); 12 years old at disclosure (2020)
- Hymen laceration found at the 5 and 7 o'clock positions
- Sentence: 10 years, as minimum, to 17 years and four months, as maximum
- PHP 50,000.00 as civil indemnity
- PHP 50,000.00 as moral damages
- PHP 50,000.00 as exemplary damages
- Interest of 6% per annum from finality until fully paid
- PHP 15,000.00 fine deleted
- CA Decision dated April 28, 2023; Resolution dated August 4, 2023, CA-G.R. CR No. 46261
The Court's Reasoning
The Court noted that in the recent en banc case of Gramatica v. People, it highlighted that Tulagan blurred the line of distinction between charges under Republic Act No. 7610 and those under the Revised Penal Code. Gramatica clarified that the term sexual abuse under Republic Act No. 7610 contemplates abuses wherein a minor indulges—or consents, albeit defectively—to engage in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct resulting from a perpetrator's coercion or undue influence. The word engage suggests active participation of the child and not merely a passive victim.
Rape by Sexual Assault under Article 266-A(2) is punishable by prision mayor, but under Article 266-B, when committed with a qualifying circumstance—here, that AAA269009 was a child below 7 years old—reclusion temporal shall be imposed. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court imposed the indeterminate penalty of 10 years of prision mayor, as minimum, to 17 years and four months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The Court awarded civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages of PHP 50,000.00 each, with legal interest, and deleted the PHP 15,000.00 fine because reference to Republic Act No. 7610 was removed. The Department of Social Welfare and Development was directed to refer AAA269009 to the appropriate rape crisis center under Republic Act No. 8505.
Source: Supreme Court Decision, G.R. No. 269009, penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.