G.R. No. 208009 - People vs. Pusing y Tamor

AAA, a female minor, is the foster daughter of accused-appellant Edilberto Tamor Pusing.
AAA, her mother (the former live-in partner of Pusing), and Pusing resided together in his house.
After the death of AAA’s mother, Pusing assumed custody of AAA.
Soon after, Pusing took CCC, the sister of AAA’s mother, as his common-law spouse and CCC became a maternal figure in the household.

The alleged crimes occurred at the family residence in the Municipality of (PPP), Philippines.
Pusing was accused of committing several acts of sexual abuse against AAA:

He allegedly went on top of AAA, and inserted his penis into her vagina (rape through carnal knowledge).
He put his penis in her mouth (rape through sexual assault).
He mashed her breasts and kissed her lips and vagina (lascivious conduct constituting child abuse).

Pusing is further charged with a separate act—causing the victim to masturbate his penis—which was ultimately dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.

On the day following the incident, AAA’s cousin, BBB, attended a wake and was alerted by a neighbor about the alleged incident.
BBB took AAA to his residence in Manila where she disclosed the abuse to him and his wife.
BBB assisted AAA in filing a complaint with the police.
AAA underwent a medico-legal examination on April 7, 2004, which documented physical evidence supportive of the alleged assault (including a deep healed laceration).

Four separate Informations were filed against Pusing in Criminal Case Nos. 127823-H, 127824-H, 127825-H, and 127826-H:

Criminal Case No. 127823-H charged rape through carnal knowledge of a victim under 12 years old or demented, with the qualifying circumstance that the offender knew of the victim’s intellectual disability (as AAA had the mental capacity of a nine-year-old).
Criminal Case No. 127824-H charged rape through sexual assault (inserting the penis into the mouth) under similar qualifying circumstances.
Criminal Case No. 127825-H charged the act of lascivious conduct involving forced masturbation of the offender’s penis upon AAA; this charge was eventually dismissed due to insufficiency of evidence.
Criminal Case No. 127826-H charged lascivious conduct by mashing the victim’s breasts and licking her vagina, constituting child abuse.

AAA testified in detail about the incident, describing each act committed by Pusing.
BBB corroborated the victim’s account by describing his discovery and rescue of AAA, including details about her intellectual challenges that existed even before the incident.
Medical experts, including Dr. Joseph Palermo and Dr. Elma Tolentino, provided testimony and evidence (such as dental examination records and medico-legal reports) establishing AAA’s age and physical injuries.
The Sexual Crime Protocol further documented that although AAA’s biological age was 12, her cognitive capacity was that of a child in Grade 2 or a nine-year-old.

Pusing claimed that he had treated AAA as an adopted daughter and denied any sexual abuse.
Pusing stated that he was unaware of any mental disability concerning AAA.
CCC testified that she and Pusing were preoccupied with attending the wake of her deceased son during the time of the alleged incident and maintained that personal animosities between BBB and Pusing might have influenced the filing of the case.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a decision finding Pusing guilty beyond reasonable doubt on two counts of qualified rape and one count of child abuse, while acquitting him of one charge due to insufficient evidence.
The RTC imposed the following penalties:

For qualified rape (carnal knowledge): Reclusion Perpetua without eligibility for parole and monetary awards for civil indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages.
For qualified rape (sexual assault): An indeterminate penalty ranging from six years and one day of prision mayor to seventeen years and ten months of reclusion temporal, with corresponding damage awards.
For child abuse (lascivious conduct through mashing and licking): An indeterminate penalty of reclusion temporal with a specified range and damage compensations.

The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the RTC decision on August 24, 2012.
On appeal before the Supreme Court, both the Office of the Solicitor General and Pusing adopted the briefs of the respective parties.

Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution, including the victim’s consistent testimony and physical evidence, was sufficient to sustain a conviction for two counts of qualified rape and one count of child abuse.
Whether the qualifying circumstances were properly established, specifically:

The victim’s status as a 12-year-old minor with a mental capacity equivalent to a nine-year-old.
The relationship between Pusing and the victim, given his role as her foster father and common-law spouse of her maternal relative.
The relevance and impact of the victim’s intellectual disability in qualifying the crimes under Article 266-A(l)(d) and Article 266-B(6)(10) of the Revised Penal Code.

Whether the defenses and alibis presented by Pusing, which largely comprised denials and claims of improper motive by BBB, were sufficient to create reasonable doubt.