G.R. No. 249307 - BBB vs. People

On November 14, 2012, an incident occurred in a province of North Cotabato involving petitioner BBB and complainant AAA, an 11-year-old girl.
The offense charged was rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A (2) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in relation to Republic Act No. 7610.
The matter arose in a context where the complainant was a child in conflict with the law and where issues of sexual abuse against minors were paramount.

Complainant testified that during a school event, her classmate Generosa invited her to accompany petitioner and others to John Mark Socubos’ house.
Upon arriving at the house where no relatives were present and after other individuals left for a short while, petitioner persuaded Generosa to leave the complainant alone with him.
In the living room, petitioner inquired if the complainant had her monthly period, to which she responded in the negative.
He then proceeded to lower her pants and underwear, kiss her on the cheek, and inserted his forefinger into her vagina, causing her pain and shock.
Overwhelmed by the incident, the complainant fled the scene, and the subsequent chain of disclosure led to a police report and a medical examination.
Medical evidence provided by Dr. Phillen D. Ureta revealed the presence of an old hymenal abrasion at the 5 to 6 o’clock position, supporting the complainant’s account.

Petitioner testified that he was only fifteen (15) years old at the time and that he had been in a relationship with the complainant since February 2011.
According to his account, he was at Socubos’ house to compose a song for a school event and later took a nap when the others went out.
Upon awakening, he found the complainant and Generosa inside the house and maintained that his actions, which included consoling, hugging, and kissing the complainant, were not intended as criminal.
The defense contended that his actions were consistent with the conduct of a minor and argued that the complainant’s behavior during and after the incident was not in keeping with adult-like reactions expected in such circumstances.

The trial court (Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Kidapawan City) rendered a decision on July 6, 2018.
Although the court initially noted that due to the intact hymen the petitioner could not be convicted of rape by sexual assault but of acts of lasciviousness, the dispositive portion of the decision ultimately found petitioner guilty of the crime as charged.
The petitioner was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correctional to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, alongside orders to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages of P30,000.00 each.

On August 29, 2019, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s final order.
The appellate court underscored that the dispositive portion of the judicial decision controls over any statements made in the body of the decision.
It gave full credit to the complainant’s consistent and credible testimony, corroborated by medical findings.
The Court of Appeals reiterated the proper evaluation of evidence, particularly emphasizing that a child victim’s testimony merits inherent credibility.
Additionally, the appellate court held that petitioner acted with discernment despite being a minor and that the imposition of a heavier penalty under RA 7610 was proper.

Petitioner sought to reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision by challenging both the factual findings for the conviction of rape by sexual assault and the application of the heavier penalty under RA 7610.
Central to the petitioner’s argument was the contention that it was factually inconceivable for an 11-year-old to behave as alleged and that as a minor, he should not be subject to the stiffer penalty provided by RA 7610.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of petitioner BBB for rape by sexual assault.

Specifically, whether the assessment of the complainant’s credibility and the factual findings of the trial court, which were affirmed by the appellate court, were in accordance with sound judicial standards.

Whether the imposition of the heavier penalty under RA 7610 was proper, given that both the complainant and petitioner were minors at the time of the incident.

The petitioner argued that as a minor himself (fifteen years old), the application of RA 7610, which is aimed at protecting children from abuse by adults, was misplaced.
Whether the proper measure should have been the lighter penalty prescribed under the Revised Penal Code (prision mayor) in view of the mitigating circumstance of minority.