G.R. No. 261571 - People vs. Paul Joven y Senenche

Paul Joven y Senenche (accused-appellant) was charged in three separate Informations for three counts of other sexual abuse, punishable under Article III, Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610, involving sexual intercourse with AAA, a 17-year-old minor with mild intellectual disability.
The offenses allegedly occurred between January and March 2016 in xxxxxxxxxxx, Pangasinan.
The accusations detailed that Joven induced AAA to have sexual intercourse with him by coercion and undue influence.
Joven pleaded not guilty and a trial ensued.

AAA was 17 years old at the time, confirmed by her birth certificate.
AAA received text messages from Joven urging her to meet him at an abandoned building near her home.
On two occasions, Joven forcibly engaged AAA in sexual intercourse against her will.
Joven used threats, including threatening to throw stones at AAA's house, to compel her to meet him.
AAA did not initially report the incidents out of fear but disclosed them to her mother when her pregnancy became evident.

AAA and her mother reported the crimes to the police, followed by AAA's sworn statement.
Medical examination by Dr. Luna confirmed signs of sexual abuse and that AAA was 24 weeks pregnant.
Joven was arrested following the report.

Joven denied the allegations, claiming alibi, stating he was at work during the alleged incidents.
He attested that he did not know AAA and had no contact with her besides seeing her at a nearby store.
The defense admitted some evidence and testimonies but challenged the prosecution's case.

Found Joven guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610 for other sexual abuse.
He was acquitted of the third charge due to insufficient evidence.
The defense of denial and alibi was rejected based on Joven's admission of familiarity with AAA's locality and inconsistencies.
Penalties included imprisonment of 12 years, 5 months, and 11 days to 17 years and 4 months, and damages totaling PHP 225,000 plus fines.

Affirmed the conviction but modified it to two counts of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1, in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code.
Found that AAA did not consent to the sexual intercourse; thus, the crime was rape, not other sexual abuse.
Noted the absence of elements required under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 for other sexual abuse.
Deleted the imposed fines and upheld the penalties of reclusion perpetua for the two counts.

Whether the accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of committing two counts of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1, in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
Whether the crime committed should be classified as rape or other sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610.
The sufficiency and credibility of the evidence, particularly the victim’s testimony and the effect of the accused’s defense of alibi and denial.
Proper penalties and damages to be imposed in the case.