Case Digest (G.R. No. 226467)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. XXX, G.R. No. 226467, October 17, 2018, the Supreme Court Second Division, Caguioa, J., writing for the Court.The Information charged accused-appellant XXX with Statutory Rape for allegedly having carnal knowledge of his daughter AAA, a 10‑year‑old, “sometime in July 2003” at a residence in Caloocan. The information alleged penetration and that the acts adversely affected the minor’s normal growth and development; it cited Article 266‑A, paragraph 1(a) and (d) of Republic Act No. 8353 in relation to Republic Act No. 7610.
At trial the prosecution presented AAA and Police Senior Inspector Marianne Ebdane, the medico‑legal officer, among others. AAA testified that in July 2003, while lying on a bed, her father embraced her, pulled her hand to his penis and stopped when her mother returned; she later told a teacher in 2007, which led to police involvement. P/Sr. Insp. Ebdane testified to healed lacerations of the hymen consistent with blunt force or penetrating trauma. On cross‑examination AAA’s testimony revealed timing inconsistencies and, at certain points, she indicated that in July 2003 only the accused placed her hand on his penis and that nothing more occurred that day.
The defense rested mainly on XXX’s testimony: he admitted having sexual congress with AAA but insisted it occurred in 2007 and was consensual; he denied the 2003 date in the Information and questioned the long delay in reporting. After trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), in a Decision dated April 2, 2014, convicted XXX of Statutory Rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, awarding civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages (Php 75,000 each for indemnity and moral damages, Php 30,000 exemplary).
XXX appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed in a Decision dated March 1, 2016 (CA‑G.R. CR‑HC No. 06918...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the RTC and the Court of Appeals violate XXX’s right to due process by convicting him of Statutory Rape when the Information charged acts “sometime in July 2003” but the accused admitted to sexual intercourse occurring in 2007?
- Was the prosecution’s evidence sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that XXX committed ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)