Case Digest (G.R. No. 183619)
Facts:
The case at hand is People of the Philippines vs. Salvino Sumingwa, G.R. No. 183619, decided on October 13, 2009, by the Third Division of the Supreme Court of the Philippines. The appellant, Salvino Sumingwa, was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for multiple counts of sexual offenses against his minor daughter, referred to as AAA, during the years 1999 to 2001. Initially, the prosecution filed a total of twelve Informations against Sumingwa, charging him with two counts of Acts of Lasciviousness, four counts of Rape, three counts of Unjust Vexation, among other charges. Sumingwa pleaded "not guilty" to all allegations.
The RTC ruled on the case after hearing testimonies, including those of AAA, who described various instances of sexual abuse. The court found significant credibility in AAA’s account, with irrefutable details of her father forcing her into various sexual acts, including fondling and attempted penetration. On September 24, 2004, the RTC d
Case Digest (G.R. No. 183619)
Facts:
- Case Background and Charges
- The case involves the People of the Philippines versus Salvino Sumingwa, where the appellant is charged with multiple sexual and related offenses committed against his minor daughter (AAA) between 1999 and 2001.
- In twelve separate Informations, the prosecution charged the appellant with:
- Two counts of Acts of Lasciviousness
- Four counts of Rape
- Three counts of Unjust Vexation
- One count of Other Light Threats
- One count of Maltreatment
- One count of Attempted Rape
- Some charges were dismissed on the basis of a Demurrer to Evidence, while others proceeded to trial and appeal.
- Alleged Incidents and Chronology of Abuse
- August 1999 Incident
- While AAA, her brothers, and the appellant were at their residence in Mountain Province, the appellant called AAA, ordered her to sit before him, and commented on her small breasts.
- He then inserted his hands into her shirt and fondled her breast, which she attempted to resist by retreating her hands.
- September 1999 Incident
- While AAA’s mother and brothers were out, the appellant confined AAA in the master’s bedroom.
- There, he removed his undergarments and forced her to grasp and fondle his penis until he ejaculated, later advising her not to be malicious about the incident.
- August 2000 Incident
- The appellant forced AAA to lie on a bed, removed her short pants and panty, and attempted partial penile penetration by lifting her leg.
- Despite her resistance, he managed a partial insertion and eventually ejaculated; during the act, AAA experienced numbness on her buttocks.
- Repeated Incidents in September and November 2000
- The appellant repeatedly engaged in acts where he rubbed his penis against AAA’s vagina without attempting full penetration.
- After satisfying himself, he used her short pants to wipe away his mess.
- At least one incident involved AAA narrating the abuse to her best friend.
- November 24, 2000 Incident
- The appellant approached AAA claiming a desire for sex; when she refused, he forcibly removed her pants and boxed her right buttock.
- Upon further refusal, he resorted to threatening her with a bolo until AAA’s grandmother intervened, which made him desist.
- December 20, 2000 Incident
- While AAA and her best friend were doing school work, the appellant embraced AAA, pulled her inside the house, and kissed her on the lips.
- May 27, 2001 Incident
- Inside the comfort room, the appellant pulled down AAA’s short pants and panty, unzipped his trousers, and repeatedly rubbed his penis on her vagina in a standing position.
- Evidence and Testimonies
- AAA provided detailed testimonies regarding the timeline and nature of the abuses; her narrative, although later partially recanted, was deemed credible.
- Medical evidence from a medico-legal examination revealed old, healed, and incomplete hymenal lacerations, supporting the occurrence of non-consensual acts.
- A teacher’s testimony regarding school attendance was introduced to counter the appellant’s assertion that the abuses occurred during school hours.
- AAA executed an Affidavit of Recantation on November 24, 2004, wherein she admitted to exaggerating certain charges while still acknowledging that some lascivious acts occurred.
- Appellant’s Defense and Alibi
- The appellant consistently denied the sexual charges and provided alibis for the incidents, asserting his presence in other locations (such as his mistress’s house, Baguio City, and Quirino, Ilocos Sur) at the times the abuses were said to have occurred.
- He further claimed that subsequent family conflicts—particularly with his wife and mother-in-law—were misinterpreted as aspects of the criminal acts.
- His defense also focused on the lack of overt, conclusive evidence of penetration (in some instances) and questioned the credibility of AAA’s testimonies given her later retraction.
- Procedural History and Judicial Decisions
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a Consolidated Judgment convicting the appellant for:
- Six counts of Acts of Lasciviousness
- One count of Attempted Rape
- One count of Unjust Vexation
- It sustained the innocence of the appellant on the rape charges initially, attributing the crimes to acts of lasciviousness due to the victim’s retraction regarding penetration.
- The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision with modifications:
- In Criminal Case No. 1646, the conviction was modified to Qualified Rape based on evidence of penetration and qualifying circumstances (minor and relationship).
- The CA maintained convictions on the counts for Acts of Lasciviousness and Unjust Vexation.
- The CA dismissed the attempted rape conviction after concluding that the evidence did not establish all the necessary elements for an attempted felony.
- The appellate court upheld the penalties and awards for civil indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages, modifying them in certain counts to conform with prevailing jurisprudence and the aggravating circumstances of familial relationship.
Issues:
- Credibility of the Victim’s Testimony
- Whether AAA’s subsequent retraction of part of her testimony diminishes the credibility of her original and consistent account of the sexual abuses.
- The role of corroborative medical evidence and independent witness testimonies in affirming the reliability of her account.
- Nature and Classification of the Crime Committed
- Whether the acts committed by the appellant constitute rape (with full elements of penetration) or should be classified as acts of lasciviousness.
- The impact of the victim’s recantation on determining the exact nature of the offense.
- Sufficiency of Evidence for Attempted Rape
- Whether the appellant’s act of removing AAA’s pants and other preparatory actions amount to an overt act that, if completed, would have resulted in rape.
- The legal requirements for establishing an attempted felony, particularly in relation to overt acts and spontaneous desistance.
- Multiple Charges and Protection Against Double Jeopardy
- Whether convicting the appellant on multiple charges, including overlapping offenses (e.g., rape, acts of lasciviousness, attempted rape), violates constitutional protections against double jeopardy.
- How the variance doctrine applies when there is a discrepancy between the alleged and proven offense.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)