Case Digest (G.R. No. 227363)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Salvador Tulagan, G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019, the Supreme Court En Banc, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.The prosecution charged Salvador Tulagan (accused-appellant) in two informations filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), San Carlos City: Criminal Case No. SCC‑6210 for sexual assault (Article 266‑A(2) RPC in relation to R.A. 7610) for allegedly inserting a finger into the vagina of AAA, a nine‑year‑old girl; and Criminal Case No. SCC‑6211 for statutory rape (Article 266‑A(1)(d) RPC in relation to R.A. 7610) for alleged penile intercourse with the same child. Tulagan pleaded not guilty.
At trial the victim AAA testified to two separate incidents (September 2011 and October 8, 2011) describing forcible insertion of a finger and later penile intercourse; AAA’s aunt BBB corroborated seeing AAA upset, examining AAA’s genitalia and noting swelling; Dr. Brenda Tumacder found a healed hymenal laceration and dilated vaginal opening consistent with sexual abuse. Tulagan denied the charges, offered an alibi and claimed rumors were spread because of a family misunderstanding.
The RTC convicted Tulagan in a Joint Decision dated February 10, 2014, finding the victim credible and establishing all elements of sexual assault (SCC‑6210) and statutory rape (SCC‑6211); it sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for statutory rape and an indeterminate term for sexual assault, and awarded damages (RTC WHEREFORE block quoted below in Ruling). The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with modifications by Decision dated August 17, 2015 (CA‑G.R. CR‑HC No. 06679), increasing some damages and adjusting penalties.
Tulagan appealed to the Supreme Court. He argued that AAA’s testimony contained inconsistencies affecting credibility and that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court heard the appeal (En Banc) and resolved both the sufficiency‑of‑evidence/credibi...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the prosecution prove Tulagan’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt so that the trial court’s factual findings and convictions should be sustained?
- Which law and nomenclature apply to the acts charged — Article 266‑A (rape by sexual assault) of the Revised Penal Code (as amended by R.A. No. 8353) or Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610 — and what are the proper penalties and sentence computation given the victim’s age?
- What amounts of civil indemnity, moral and exemp...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)