The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of an accused convicted of raping his minor niece in two separate incidents, affirming the Court of Appeals decision with a modification of the damages awarded in one of the two cases.
The Court found the accused-appellant, identified only as XXX, guilty of qualified rape in one case and qualified rape of a minor in the other, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole in both.
The Case
XXX was charged with two counts of rape by private complainant AAA. According to the Informations, one incident occurred sometime in April 2003 in Magsaysay, Brgy. Catigan, Toril, in the City of Davao, where the accused had carnal knowledge of AAA, a minor described as 12 years of age, who is his own niece (daughter of his brother), in front of her cousin BBB. The second incident occurred on May 26, 2002, in the same location, where the accused had carnal knowledge of AAA, a minor described as 11 years of age.
XXX is AAA's paternal uncle, being her father's sibling. AAA testified that on May 26, 2002, her 11th birthday, XXX lay down beside her and threatened her with a knife. He undressed, inserted his finger inside AAA's vagina, then inserted his penis and thrusted three times, causing her pain. He masturbated and threatened AAA not to tell anyone. AAA testified that this happened again sometime in April 2003.
AAA filed a complaint-affidavit in 2008 narrating the two instances of rape. XXX offered the testimony of BBB, who narrated that she never witnessed XXX rape AAA. XXX also raised the defense of alibi, claiming he was with his wife when the instances occurred, and narrated that AAA only started accusing him after he had a quarrel with her father.
AAA explained the inconsistency, testifying that the police officer who took her statement must have misunderstood what she said, as she never claimed that BBB witnessed the rape. AAA's birth certificate was shown to prove she was 11 years old. Dr. Ingrid Sonido testified on her examination of AAA's vagina, conducted five years after the alleged rape, and found healed hymenal lacerations.
The Regional Trial Court convicted XXX of qualified rape for the April 2003 incident and qualified statutory rape for the May 2002 incident. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC ruling in toto.
The Issue
The accused-appellant raised the issue of AAA's complaint-affidavit being inconsistent with BBB's testimony, arguing that BBB's testimony should have negatively affected AAA's credibility, enough to cause his acquittal.
The Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The Court ruled that the April 2003 rape may only be designated as qualified rape instead of qualified rape of a minor, because the Information alleged that the private complainant was 12 years old at the time of the offense, and because Republic Act No. 11648, which increased the statutory age to 16, was not yet in effect.
The dispositive portion reads: "ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is DISMISSED. The August 24, 2023 Decision and February 22, 2024 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02860-MIN are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION" — finding XXX guilty of qualified rape in Criminal Case No. 65,765-09 with PHP 100,000.00 each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages; and guilty of qualified rape of a minor in Criminal Case No. 65,766-09 with PHP 150,000.00 each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages. All damages shall earn 6% legal interest per annum from finality until full payment.
By the Numbers
- May 26, 2002 — date of the first incident, AAA's 11th birthday
- April 2003 — date of the second incident
- 2008 — year AAA filed her complaint-affidavit
- PHP 100,000.00 each — civil indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages in Criminal Case No. 65,765-09
- PHP 150,000.00 each — civil indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages in Criminal Case No. 65,766-09
- 6% legal interest per annum from finality until full payment
- G.R. No. 274405
The Court's Reasoning
The Court noted that under Rule 124, Section 13(c) of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, where the CA imposes reclusion perpetua, the proper remedy was an appeal under Rule 124. Though the accused-appellant pursued a petition for review on certiorari, the Court treated it accordingly in the interest of justice.
Citing People v. Mascarinas, the Court explained that a qualifying circumstance of age cannot be considered if it was not alleged despite being proven in court. The Court also cited People v. XXX, holding that the allegation in the information should be precise as to the relationship, and applied the same reasoning to age: since the age of the victim of qualified rape of a minor qualifies the crime, the allegation should be precise as to the age; otherwise the accused would be deprived of the right to be informed of the nature of the charge against them.
The Court held that, following People v. Jugueta, the damages and penalty in the April 2003 case were correct as qualified rape with reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.
Source: Supreme Court decision in G.R. No. 274405, penned by Associate Justice Ricardo Rosario.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.