The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of an accused convicted of crimes against his common-law wife's daughter, but modified the ruling. It affirmed his conviction for rape while downgrading his conviction for violation of Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 to acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code.
The Case
The accused, identified only as XXX to protect the victim's identity, was indicted in two separate Informations: one for violation of Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 (Criminal Case No. 15983-14) and one for qualified rape under the Revised Penal Code (Criminal Case No. 17352-16). He pleaded not guilty, and trial on the merits ensued.
According to the decision, private complainant AAA is the daughter of BBB, the partner of XXX. XXX and BBB had been living together since 2005 or 2006 and had two children of their own. AAA testified that XXX started molesting and sexually abusing her in 2013, when she was a Grade 6 student and 12 years old, having been born on February 21, 2001. She said that when her mother was outside doing laundry or busy with household chores, XXX touched her private parts, undressed her, and inserted his penis into her vagina, happening about three times a week.
On October 30, 2014, XXX again sexually abused AAA by touching her private parts and inserting his penis into her vagina. The following day, October 31, 2014, AAA lost consciousness while in school and told the school guidance counselor about the abuses. The DSWD assisted AAA in contacting her biological father CCC and reporting the incident to the police. On November 3, 2014, a medico-legal examination revealed a "deep healed laceration at 3, 6 and 9 o'clock positions" of the hymen, with the Medico-Legal Officer concluding there was "clear evidence of application of blunt trauma to the hymen."
XXX denied having sexual intercourse with AAA, claiming another person named DDD raped her and that he was never left alone in the house with AAA. He surmised the complaints were filed as retaliation because he was strict in disciplining her.
The Issue
The Court examined whether XXX was properly convicted of the crimes charged, and specifically whether his conduct amounted to sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610.
The Ruling
The Court ruled that since there was no proof that AAA actively participated, and in fact she was unwilling from the outset, it could not be said that she engaged in lascivious conduct, which negates a finding of sexual abuse as defined under Republic Act No. 7610. Thus, the accused could only be held liable for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code.
The dispositive portion states: "FOR THESE REASONS, the appeal is DISMISSED. The December 14, 2021 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 14552 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION." In Criminal Case No. 15983-14, XXX was found guilty of acts of lasciviousness and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four years and two months of prision correccional, as maximum, and ordered to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages each in the amount of PHP 150,000.00. In Criminal Case No. 17352-16, he was found guilty of rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, ordered to pay PHP 75,000.00 each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages.
By the Numbers
- AAA's date of birth: February 21, 2001
- AAA's age at the first incident in 2013: 12 years old
- Rape sentence: reclusion perpetua
- Acts of lasciviousness sentence: six months of arresto mayor to four years and two months of prision correccional
- Damages in Criminal Case No. 15983-14: PHP 150,000.00 each (civil indemnity, moral, exemplary)
- Damages in Criminal Case No. 17352-16: PHP 75,000.00 each (civil indemnity, moral, exemplary)
- Legal interest: 6% per annum from finality until fully paid
The Court's Reasoning
The Court found AAA's testimony candid and straightforward, noting she risked exposing herself to public trial or ridicule and even risked estranging her own mother by testifying against her common-law father. The Court stated the penalty for rape is reclusion perpetua, and in the absence of any modifying circumstance, the sentence was correct. However, the Court deleted the phrase "without eligibility [for] parole," explaining that the phrase is only employed when emphasizing that the accused should have been sentenced to death were it not for Republic Act No. 9346, which was not the case here.
On the Republic Act No. 7610 charge, the Court cited its recent decision in Gramatica v. People, holding that the term "sexual abuse" encompasses situations where a minor indulges or consents, albeit defectively, to sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct as a result of coercion or undue influence exerted by an adult. The Court explained that the word "engage" suggests active participation by the child and is not designed to cover acts where the minor is completely unconscious, overpowered, or unwilling from the outset. Since AAA was unwilling from the outset, the accused could only be held liable for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code.
Source: Supreme Court Decision in G.R. No. 268163, penned by Justice Rosario.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.