Facts:
Accused-appellant Rolando Bagsic y Valenzuela was charged by Informations filed on 21 July 2009 in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, San Jose City, Nueva Ecija, with one count of statutory rape (Criminal Case No. 1516-09-SJC), one count of rape by sexual assault (Criminal Case No. 1515-09-SJC), and one count of violation of Section 5(b) of
R.A. No. 7610 (Criminal Case No. 1514-09-SJC). The prosecution presented the minors identified as
AAA and
BBB and their mother
CCC who testified that AAA (born 2 August 1996) alleged an incident on 15 March 2009 in which someone she recognized by a rough hand and odor touched her breast, and that BBB (born 18 June 2000) narrated repeated assaults beginning in 2007 at a hut in Zone 7, Sto. Nino 3rd, San Jose City, including an occasion in 2007 of attempted penile penetration and another on 18 April 2009 when the accused allegedly inserted a finger into her vagina; the Medico-Legal Report dated 5 May 2009 noted an incomplete laceration of BBB’s hymen suggestive of blunt or penetrating trauma. During trial, an
affidavit of desistance dated 15 May 2012 executed by AAA, BBB, and CCC was introduced, and the defense called the maternal grandmother who testified that familial resentment over the grandmother’s common-law partnership with accused-appellant after 2010 motivated fabricated charges. The RTC, in a Joint Decision dated 30 January 2013, acquitted the accused of the R.A. No. 7610 charge for failure to prove identity but found him guilty of statutory rape and rape by sexual assault, imposing, inter alia, reclusion perpetua for statutory rape and an indeterminate term for sexual assault, and awarding damages; the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification on 30 June 2014, and the present appeal to the Supreme Court followed, resolved by decision dated 13 December 2017.
Issues:
Was the conviction of
Accused-appellant Rolando Bagsic y Valenzuela for statutory rape and for rape by sexual assault supported by evidence beyond reasonable doubt despite the execution of an affidavit of desistance; and what penalties and damages should properly be imposed?
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: