Case Digest (G.R. No. 208625)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Ramon Francica y Navalta, G.R. No. 208625, September 06, 2017, Supreme Court Third Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellee is the People of the Philippines; the accused-appellant is Ramon Francica y Navalta.On February 3, 2005 an Information was filed in the Regional Trial Court (Branch 209, Mandaluyong City) charging Francica with rape; two additional Informations were filed on September 20, 2005. The three Informations accused Francica of having carnal knowledge of AAA, then eleven years old, on different dates (March 2004, January 19, 2005, and February 2, 2005). The trial court ordered consolidation of the three cases and Francica pleaded not guilty.
At trial the prosecution presented AAA, then a Grade 6 pupil, who testified she lived with her parents and siblings near the accused; she recounted that Francica repeatedly sexually abused her beginning about March 2004, sometimes giving her P50 after the acts, including an incident at about 1:30 p.m. on February 2, 2005 in a bathroom. AAA described digital/manual stimulation of her breasts and insertion of the accused’s penis into her vagina. Her grandmother, BBB, testified she heard noises from an adjacent lavatory on February 2, 2005, saw AAA inside the bathroom and pursued a man who ran out; a cousin saw AAA pulling up her underwear. BBB said she confronted Francica at the barangay, where he allegedly admitted the act and was mauled; AAA and relatives later executed affidavits and lodged a complaint with police.
The police arrested Francica without a warrant the same day; he was Mirandized. The medico-legal officer (PSI Pierre Paul Carpio), who examined AAA, repeatedly failed to attend hearings and the trial court ruled the prosecution had waived presenting him. The prosecution nevertheless introduced AAA’s sworn statement and a Social Case Study by a court social worker, and the CA records contain an initial medico-legal report indicating healed hymenal lacerations noted at certain clock positions although the physician did not testify.
Francica testified in his defense, denying intercourse and claiming he was set up to hide AAA’s alleged relationship with her uncle; he admitted being in the common bathroom and said he was urinating when AAA entered. On March 3, 2009 the trial court convicted Francica of three counts of statutory rape under Article 266-A, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, in relation to Republic Act No. 7610, sentencing him to three successive terms of reclusion perpetua and awarding P50,000 civil indemnity, P25,000 exemplary damages and P50,000 moral damages for each count.
Francica appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03929). On February 22, 2013 the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that AAA’s testimony and sworn statement were credible and that medical examination is not indispensable to convict for rape. Francica then pursued further recourse to the Supreme Court by appealing the CA decision. The parties waived supplemental briefs before the S...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was it erroneous to treat the Informations as charging statutory rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) when one Information recited Article 266-A(2)?
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant Ramon Francica committed three counts of statutory rape under Article 266-A(1)(d), in relation to Republic Act No. 7610, particularly in view of the nonpresentation of the medico-legal officer and the medico-...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)