G.R. No. 225605 - People vs. Gozo y Velasquez

The case involves People of the Philippines vs. Venerando Gozo y Velasquez, an appeal from the RTC decision convicting Gozo for statutory rape.
The Information dated 2 November 2011 charged Gozo with the crime of statutory rape committed against a minor, AAA, who was stated to be 6 years old.
The accusatory portion alleged that on or about 27 October 2011, in a specified location within the Philippines, Gozo, with “lewd designs and intent,” unlawfully had carnal knowledge of AAA against her will, with the qualifying circumstance of minority.

AAA was staying in the restaurant where her father, BBB, was employed as a stay-in cook.
When it was time for her to sleep, AAA went up to the second-floor room.
Gozo, working as the stay-in janitor in the same restaurant, followed her into the room, where he initiated unwanted advances.
The prosecution testified that Gozo began by inserting his fingers into AAA’s vagina and, unsatisfied, eventually inserted his penis, thereby molesting and raping her.
After the abuse, Gozo allegedly instructed AAA not to disclose the incident to prevent a conflict with BBB.
AAA, however, immediately reported the incident to BBB, who then went to the police station and later accompanied her for a hospital examination where physical findings (fresh shallow lacerations on the hymen at the 3, 6, and 9 o’clock positions) corroborated her account.

Gozo maintained he was working as a janitor at the restaurant and was surprised by the charges, contesting the rape allegation.
The defense noted that through a prior association, BBB at times entrusted AAA to Gozo’s care and that there had been instances when they slept in proximity.
Gozo suggested that the filing of the rape case might be linked to a personal dispute with BBB under a former employment relationship, implying potential bias or ulterior motive in the accusation.

On 29 November 2013, the RTC convicted Gozo of statutory rape based on the victim’s vivid and convincing testimony, which detailed how Gozo inserted both his fingers and penis into her vagina.
The trial court rejected Gozo’s contention regarding the influence of BBB on AAA’s testimony, finding it unsubstantiated.
Despite the prosecution’s failure to present documentary evidence regarding AAA’s age, the RTC opined that AAA, in person, could not have been more than 12 years old.
Consequently, Gozo was sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua and was ordered to pay damages (civil indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages) to AAA.

In the 18 June 2015 decision, the CA affirmed the RTC’s ruling with modifications.
The appellate court found that while the prosecution did not provide documentary evidence of AAA’s age, Gozo never disputed the RTC’s finding that the victim could not have been more than 12 years old, thereby giving weight to the court’s observation.
AAA’s identification of Gozo and the corroboration by physical evidence (i.e., findings from the medical examination) reinforced her testimony.
The CA modified the damages awarded by imposing legal interest and clarifying that Gozo was not entitled to parole, consistent with guidelines on reclusion perpetua and the non-eligibility for parole.

While the Information alleged AAA was 6 years old, no documentary evidence (such as a birth certificate or authentic documents) was introduced to conclusively prove her age.
The RTC based its finding solely on observation, opining that AAA could not have been older than 12 years, a point not substantiated with eligible evidence per established guidelines (as seen in People v. Pruna).
The failure to prove the exact age raised the issue of whether the crime should be classified as statutory rape or, alternatively, as simple rape given the absence of sufficient evidence to confirm statutory elements based on age.

Whether the lower court (RTC) gravely erred in convicting Gozo despite the prosecution’s failure to prove beyond reasonable doubt all elements of statutory rape, particularly the victim’s age.
Whether the RTC erred in disregarding the defense’s version of events and in relying predominantly on the prosecution’s version and the victim’s sole testimony.