Case Digest (G.R. No. 236544)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Efren Loma y Obsequio alyas "Putol," G.R. No. 236544, October 05, 2020, the Supreme Court Third Division, Gaerlan, J., writing for the Court.The respondent-accused is Efren Loma y Obsequio (accused-appellant); the complainant is identified in the record as AAA, and her mother as BBB; the State prosecuted the case as The People of the Philippines (plaintiff-appellee). An Information was filed on January 9, 2007 charging the accused with statutory rape under Article 266‑A(1)(d) in relation to Article 266‑B of the Revised Penal Code, alleging that on October 21, 2006 AAA, then ten years old, was raped by the accused at a banana plantation in Albay.
At arraignment the accused pleaded not guilty. At trial, BBB testified that AAA arrived home on October 21, 2006 and immediately declared she had been sexually abused by the accused; BBB observed a swollen vagina, a wound on the inner thigh and blood stains, changed AAA’s clothing and brought her to a clinic. Dr. James Margallo Belgira testified that his genital examination disclosed a dilated and lacerated hymen (5 and 7 o’clock) and a sharp posterior fourchette, which he interpreted as blunt vaginal penetrating trauma. The accused testified to an alibi that he was in Tiaong, Quezon on the date in question; Faustino Alcovendas corroborated that the accused went to Tiaong to attend to a pamamanhikan and later to Cavite.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Ligao City, Branch 12, rendered a Decision dated May 3, 2016: it found that the prosecution failed to prove AAA’s age by independent evidence (no Certificate of Live Birth was produced) and therefore could not sustain statutory rape, but nonetheless convicted the accused of rape under Article 266‑A(1)(a) (rape by force, threat or intimidation) and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua with awarded damages. The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑G.R. CR HC No. 08351.
The Court of Appeal...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether BBB’s testimony recounting AAA’s out‑of‑court declaration was inadmissible hearsay or admissible as part of the res gestae.
- Whether the prosecution proved the complainant’s age, an essential element of statutory rape.
- Whether, despite failure to prove age, the accused could properly be convicted of simple rape and whether the evidence established identity, carnal knowledge ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)