The Supreme Court has denied a petition for review and upgraded the conviction of a man—identified only as XXX to protect the victim's identity—from acts of lasciviousness to qualified rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.
The Court affirmed with modification the Court of Appeals Decision dated April 26, 2024 and Resolution dated January 8, 2025 in CA-G.R. CR No. 47680.
The Case
XXX was charged with acts of lasciviousness and statutory rape under two separate Informations, both dated December 16, 2021. He was the common-law husband of the mother of the victim, referred to in the decision as AAA.
According to the prosecution, AAA had known XXX, the common-law partner of her mother BBB, since she was two years old. She was left in the care of her godmother, CCC, but spent weekends, holidays, and school vacations with her mother and XXX.
In September 2015, when she was 11 years old, AAA was roused from sleep when she felt XXX lying beside her. He touched her breast and vagina, kissed her lips down to her neck, lowered his shorts, pulled down her shorts and underwear, touched her vagina, and tried to insert his penis. He only stopped when BBB entered the house. On another occasion that same year, XXX entered AAA's room, laid beside her, caressed her breast and vagina, and pressed his penis against her buttocks. The decision states he did this to her several times.
In April 2021, AAA confided the abuse to her half-sister, who relayed it to AAA's biological father. On May 21, 2021, AAA underwent a physical examination at the Philippine General Hospital. The medico-legal report issued by Dr. Marianne Joy Naria-Maritana showed a hymenal laceration at the 7 o'clock position, suggesting previous trauma. A later psychological evaluation by Psychologist Analyn Lindo found that AAA had signs and symptoms of major depressive disorder, moderate.
XXX denied the charges. BBB testified that AAA never confided any incident involving XXX and that she noticed no changes in AAA's behavior. XXX, BBB, and JJJ imputed ill motive on AAA, allegedly rooted in a grudge after she was reprimanded.
In its Joint Decision dated August 17, 2022, the Regional Trial Court acquitted XXX of acts of lasciviousness in Criminal Case No. 22-167-MAL and acquitted him of statutory rape, but found him guilty of acts of lasciviousness in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 in Criminal Case No. 22-168-MAL. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction for acts of lasciviousness.
The Issue
The question before the Supreme Court was whether XXX was guilty of the crime, and whether the offense was correctly characterized—given that XXX himself appealed, opening the entire case for review.
The Ruling
The Court found that all the elements of qualified rape were present. It held that XXX employed undue influence, grave abuse of authority, or moral ascendancy arising from his parental role, which may substitute for actual force, threat, intimidation, or coercion when those are absent.
On the victim's age, the Court noted that because AAA testified the rape occurred in September 2015 without specifying whether it happened before or after her twelfth birthday, the uncertainty was resolved in favor of XXX under the principle of in dubio pro reo, and she was deemed to have been 12 years old at the time.
The Court ruled that modifying the conviction from acts of lasciviousness to qualified rape did not violate XXX's right against double jeopardy, because when an accused appeals, the entire case is open for review and may result in a heavier penalty.
In its disposition, the Court declared: "the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED." In Criminal Case No. 22-168-MAL, XXX was found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of qualified rape under Article 266-A(1) in relation to Article 266-B(1) of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.
By the Numbers
- G.R. No. 278098
- CA Decision: April 26, 2024; Resolution: January 8, 2025
- Informations dated December 16, 2021
- RTC Joint Decision: August 17, 2022
- Victim was 11 years old in September 2015
- Civil indemnity: PHP 150,000.00
- Moral damages: PHP 150,000.00
- Exemplary damages: PHP 150,000.00
- Interest: 6% per annum from finality until fully paid
The Court's Reasoning
The Court explained that XXX approached AAA from behind and touched her without her knowledge or consent, and that this surreptitious approach, combined with his position of authority and the child's vulnerability, demonstrated the deceit and manipulation that facilitated the sexual intercourse. As the common-law partner of her mother and the father figure who raised her, he occupied a position that commanded obedience and trust.
Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, qualified rape carries the death penalty, but because Republic Act No. 9346 prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, the Court imposed reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, with the qualifying phrase attached pursuant to A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC.
The Court increased the civil indemnity and damages due to the heinous nature of the crime, noting that XXX had already been sexually abusing AAA many times over even before the cases were filed. It also directed the Regional Trial Court to refer AAA to the Department of Social Welfare and Development for therapy and counselling pursuant to Republic Act No. 8505, the Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act of 1998.
Source: Supreme Court Decision in G.R. No. 278098, penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.