G.R. No. L-54901 - People vs. Abueg

In or around January 2006 in Taguig City, the accused, Raul Yamon Tuando, is alleged to have committed repeated acts of sexual intercourse with AAA, a 13-year-old minor and daughter of his common-law wife, BBB.
The initial incident involved Tuando inviting AAA for softdrinks after school; after which, AAA consumed the beverage and felt dizzy. Tuando then proceeded to pull her into a bedroom, removed her school uniform and undergarments, and initiated unwanted sexual contact by kissing and forcibly positioning himself on her.
During the act, despite AAA’s attempts to resist, Tuando used physical force (boxing her hand) and issued death threats against her family to compel submission.
It was alleged that after the first incident, Tuando continued to rape AAA on subsequent occasions when she came home from school, maintaining the pattern of abuse through intimidation and the threat of violence.

Months after the initial assault, BBB, AAA’s mother, observed abnormalities in AAA’s physical condition (specifically, the absence of menstrual period).
Acting on advice, BBB took AAA to a local health center, which then referred them to the Child Protection Unit of Philippine General Hospital (PGH).
Dr. Irene Baluyot, during a medical examination on 11 July 2006, confirmed that AAA was approximately 20 to 22 weeks pregnant—a finding that later contributed to the evidentiary record of the abuse.
Following this confirmation, AAA disclosed to BBB that Tuando had raped her, prompting BBB to take further steps to secure protection and justice for her daughter.

On 7 October 2006, while AAA was visiting her brothers at BBB’s employer’s house, Tuando allegedly assaulted her again that night, this time employing a knife to intimidate the victim.
The next day, AAA informed BBB of the renewed assault, reinforcing the pattern of repeated abuse.
Following these incidents, BBB filed a complaint with local barangay officials who, after questioning Tuando, transferred the case to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for further investigation.
Both AAA and BBB executed sworn statements detailing the commission of the offenses, which became part of the evidentiary record.

Tuando denied raping AAA, contending that their relationship had evolved into a consensual, “secret” relationship akin to that of husband and wife, which he claimed had commenced in 2005 but only became physically intimate in January 2006.
He advanced the so-called “sweetheart defense,” arguing that the sexual encounter was consensual and initiated out of love, despite the victim’s minority and his status as the common-law spouse of BBB.
Tuando further suggested that the complaint was motivated by personal animosity, alleging that AAA’s brother, CCC, had filed the case out of revenge for prior scolding.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC), in its Decision dated 26 August 2010 in Criminal Case No. 134740-H, after a trial in which AAA’s testimony was found to be credible and consistent, convicted Tuando of qualified rape.
The RTC rejected the “sweetheart defense” on the basis that the accused failed to produce affirmative evidence (e.g., love letters, mementos) to substantiate claims of consensual intimacy.
The RTC sentenced Tuando to reclusion perpetua (without eligibility for parole) and imposed civil indemnity and damages on account of the psychological and physical harm inflicted upon AAA.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s conviction with modifications, increasing the exemplary damages and ordering the accused to provide support for the child born as a consequence of the rape.
Upon appeal, Tuando raised issues regarding the violation of due process and the sufficiency of evidence, but the Supreme Court ultimately dismissed his appeal for lack of merit.

Tuando contended that his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation was violated, arguing that he was charged under a crime different from that which he pleaded to and that the information was not sufficiently specific.
The accused cited People v. Valdesancho as precedent, asserting that the discrepancy between the information and the conviction amounted to a denial of due process.

Tuando argued that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The accused challenged the credibility of AAA’s testimony, asserting that her continued engagement in normal household duties after the rape was inconsistent with that of a rape victim.

Tuando maintained that the consensual nature of the relationship with AAA should be considered as a justification, contending that the relationship was akin to that of husband and wife despite the age gap and the inherent power dynamics involved.
The issue thus arose whether the “sweetheart defense” could exonerate him given the statutory provisions regarding qualified rape, particularly when the victim is a minor and the accused is in a position of authority or trust.