The Supreme Court denied with finality the Motion for Reconsideration of Allan Baclean y Chavez, also known as "Allan Chavez y Bacliyan," affirming his conviction for rape while modifying his second conviction from Lascivious Conduct under Republic Act No. 7610 to Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code.
The Court affirmed its earlier Resolution dated December 2, 2021, with modification, and imposed increased damages.
The Case
Allan was charged in two separate Informations. In Criminal Case No. 20540 for Rape, the prosecution alleged that on or about November 4, 2015, at around 6:30 in the morning, Allan, while armed with a kitchen knife (kutsilyo) and through force and intimidation, had carnal knowledge of AAA, a 15-year-old minor, against her will and consent.
In Criminal Case No. 20443 for Lascivious Conduct, the prosecution alleged that on the same date, at around 8:30 in the morning, Allan committed lascivious conduct on AAA by intentionally and directly kissing her lips and embracing her, against her will.
The prosecution's evidence showed that AAA, then 15 years old, was on her way to a neighbor's house when Allan dragged her into his residence, threatened her with a knife, forcibly removed her clothes, restrained her, and had carnal knowledge of her against her will. Later that morning, Allan went to their house under the pretense of borrowing tweezers, forcibly pulled her toward a bedroom, laid her down, embraced her, and kissed her lips despite her resistance. AAA disclosed the incidents to her mother, BBB, and a medical examination revealed fresh genital injuries consistent with recent sexual intercourse.
Allan denied the accusations and claimed he was at home during the alleged rape. He admitted going to AAA's house to borrow tweezers but denied embracing or kissing her, and asserted the charges were fabricated due to BBB's alleged grudge over unpaid water bills. Allan's mother corroborated his claim.
The Regional Trial Court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, found Allan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both offenses, giving full credence to AAA's positive identification over his defense of denial.
The Issue
Allan principally argued that AAA's testimony was riddled with material inconsistencies and was contrary to common human experience. He pointed to alleged discrepancies between AAA's affidavit and her testimony, her narration of where she went after the rape, her behavior after the assault, and alleged incompatibility with medico-legal findings. He insisted the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Ruling
The Court held that the Motion lacks merit, finding the arguments mere reiterations of issues already resolved. The alleged inconsistencies pertained only to collateral matters and did not impair AAA's credibility.
However, the Court modified Allan's conviction for the second offense. It explained that Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610 applies when the child's participation is brought about by coercion, influence, or moral ascendancy resulting in vitiated consent. Conversely, when the lascivious conduct is committed through force or intimidation, the proper offense is Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code.
In its disposition, the Court ruled: "the Motion for Reconsideration dated June 13, 2022 is DENIED with FINALITY. The Resolution dated December 2, 2021 of this Court is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION." Allan was found guilty of Rape under Article 266-A, in relation to Article 266-B, of the Revised Penal Code, and sentenced to reclusion perpetua; and of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four years and two months of prision correccional, as maximum.
By the Numbers
- G.R. No. 252455
- Incident date: November 4, 2015 (rape at around 6:30 a.m.; lascivious conduct at around 8:30 a.m.)
- AAA's age at the time: 15 years old
- Motion for Reconsideration dated June 13, 2022
- Resolution affirmed: December 2, 2021
- Rape: reclusion perpetua; PHP 100,000.00 each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages
- Acts of Lasciviousness: six months of arresto mayor to four years and two months of prision correccional; PHP 100,000.00 each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages
- Legal interest: 6% per annum from finality until fully paid
The Court's Reasoning
The Court explained that discrepancies between an affidavit and testimony in open court do not necessarily discredit a witness, as what is controlling is the testimony given during trial. AAA candidly admitted she became confused while narrating the sequence of events on the second incident, which negated any suspicion that her testimony was rehearsed. Minor inconsistencies are badges of truth rather than indicia of falsehood.
On AAA's conduct after the incident, the Court held there is no standard form of behavior expected from rape victims, and courts cannot calibrate human behavior according to preconceived notions.
The Court found that both the allegations in the Information and the evidence established that the acts were committed through force and intimidation, removing the case from the ambit of Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610. Since the elements of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 were present, it modified the conviction accordingly.
For rape qualified by use of a deadly weapon, the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death; with no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed. The Court also directed the Department of Social Welfare and Development to refer the victim to the appropriate rape crisis center under Republic Act No. 8505.
Source: Supreme Court Resolution in G.R. No. 252455, penned by Associate Justice Caguioa.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.