Case Digest (G.R. No. 258694)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. YYY258694 and XXX258694, G.R. No. 258694, August 09, 2023, the Supreme Court Second Division, Lopez, J., writing for the Court.The prosecution (plaintiff-appellee) charged YYY258694 and XXX258694 (accused-appellants) in an Information alleging sexual abuse under Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610 for acts committed on August 20, 2016 against AAA258694, then 15 years old. The Information alleged that XXX258694 (the victim’s older sister) took advantage of her moral authority to call the victim into the bedroom where YYY258694 had sexual intercourse with her while XXX258694 watched and shone a flashlight, conspiring to commit sexual abuse.
At arraignment the accused pleaded not guilty. During pre-trial the parties stipulated to jurisdiction and identities; trial then proceeded. The victim testified in detail that XXX258694 called her, forced her onto the bed, held her hands, and that YYY258694 removed her shorts, inserted his penis into her vagina and made pumping motions while XXX258694 shone a flashlight on the victim’s genitals; the victim said she cried and could not shout because her mouth was covered and her mother was incapacitated. The victim sought medical examination on August 15, 2017; the medico-legal report showed healed lacerations in the hymenal area consistent with blunt force or penetrating trauma.
The accused denied the charge. XXX258694 said she was asleep and blamed another sibling, CCC258694; YYY258694 claimed an alibi that he was working a night shift at Racks Mall of Asia and produced no employer certification. Two sisters initially gave an affidavit of desistance in January 2018; the prosecution and courts later found those affidavits were executed out of pity, undue influence, or duress.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 144, xxxxxxxx City, on September 13, 2018 found the accused guilty of violating Article III, Section 5(b) of RA 7610 and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua with awards of civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (Ninth Division) in a March 18, 2021 Decision in CA‑G.R. CR HC No. 12283 held that Section 5(b) of RA 7610 was not the proper provision but nonetheless affirmed guilt by modifying the conviction to rape under paragraph 1, Article 266‑A in relation to Article 266‑B of the Revised Penal Code and adjusted damages (appellants jointly and severally liable for PHP 75,000.00 each).
The accused a...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Should the accused have been prosecuted under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610, or under paragraph 1, Article 266‑A in relation to Article 266‑B of the Revised Penal Code (as amended by RA 8353) for sexual intercourse committed against a minor?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in finding YYY258694 and XXX258694 guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape under paragraph 1, Article 266‑A, in relation to...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)