Title
People vs. Cadano, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 207819
Decision Date
Mar 12, 2014
Cadano convicted of three counts of statutory rape against minor AAA; Supreme Court upheld conviction, adjusted damages, and affirmed penalties.
statutory rape
reclusion perpetua
adjusted damages
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 252720)

Factual Background

On February 26, 2001, the prosecution filed three Informations before the RTC charging Cadano with rape of his common-law spouse’s daughter AAA, who was allegedly below twelve years of age at the time of the first two incidents and below the age threshold under the amended law at the time of the third incident. In the first incident (Criminal Case No. 120494-H), AAA was around eight years and five months old (born July 25, 1988) when, on or about December 26, 1996, Cadano allegedly lured her to go with him from the Philippine General Hospital to their home in Pasig City. The narrative described that at around noon, Cadano asked AAA to lie down, removed her shorts and underwear, instructed her to spread her legs, and inserted his penis into her vagina. AAA testified she felt pain and exclaimed “Aray,” but Cadano allegedly silenced her. After the sexual act, he allegedly brandished a knife and threatened her not to tell her mother.

In the second incident (Criminal Case No. 120495-H), on or about December 27, 1996, while AAA slept beside her siblings and BBB remained at the hospital, Cadano allegedly awakened AAA, spread her legs, inserted his penis into her vagina, and made “pumping movements.” Afterward, he allegedly warned AAA not to speak of what had occurred.

In the third incident (Criminal Case No. 120496-H), in June 2000, when AAA was around eleven years and eleven months old, Cadano allegedly called AAA while she played with her siblings outside their house and asked her to buy food and get money from his pants inside the house. After she complied and returned inside the house, Cadano allegedly followed her, instructed her to lie down, and when she refused, he allegedly pulled her down and compelled her to remove her shorts and panty. Cadano then allegedly inserted his penis into her vagina. AAA later revealed the incident to her mother on October 22, 2000. The following day, BBB and AAA proceeded to Camp Crame for a medical examination which yielded positive results of penetration.

Trial Court Proceedings

Cadano denied the allegations and maintained that he never raped or sexually abused AAA. He also claimed that BBB filed the charges on AAA’s behalf due to family problems, attributing it to BBB’s nocturnal work and the alleged neglect of their children. Upon arraignment, Cadano pleaded not guilty to all three counts of statutory rape.

In its July 14, 2010 decision, the RTC convicted Cadano of three counts of statutory rape and imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count. It also awarded civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and costs of suit, with legal interest from the filing of the Informations until fully paid. The RTC found that the prosecution proved, beyond reasonable doubt, carnal knowledge and lack of consent by virtue of the victim’s age, since AAA was below twelve years old at the time the crimes were committed. It likewise rejected Cadano’s denial, citing AAAs positive identification and testimony, which the trial court found credible and reliable. The RTC further ruled on the effect of the time of commission: it declined to appreciate the qualifying circumstance of relationship (Cadano as common-law spouse of BBB, the mother of AAA) for the first two incidents because they occurred prior to Republic Act No. 8353 (the Anti-Rape Law of 1997), but it treated that circumstance as applicable for the third incident.

Appellate Review in the Court of Appeals

Aggrieved, Cadano appealed to the Court of Appeals. In its November 27, 2012 decision, the CA affirmed the RTC in toto. The CA accorded weight to the RTC’s assessment of AAAs credibility, observing that alleged inconsistencies in AAAs narration were trivial and forgivable. It explained that a rape victim, especially a minor, cannot be expected to provide exact details of separate incidents occurring in the past, and such variations could be understood as fragmented recollections of a prolonged traumatic experience. The CA likewise sustained the RTC’s conclusion that AAAs testimony, together with the medico-legal evidence, established Cadano’s guilt.

The Parties’ Contentions

On appeal to this Court, the controlling question was whether Cadano’s conviction should be upheld. Cadano continued to deny the charges, while the prosecution relied on the testimonies of the victim AAA and the medico-legal report to establish the essential requisites for statutory rape. The case required evaluation not only of credibility but also of the applicable statutory regime, given that the first two incidents predated RA 8353 and the third incident occurred after its effectivity.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court sustained the conviction and first delineated the legal framework by time of commission. The first and second incidents occurred during the effectivity of the old rape provision, specifically Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. That provision treated rape as committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under twelve years of age, even without any of the other circumstances then enumerated, and it punished the crime by reclusion perpetua. The third incident, however, occurred during the advent of RA 8353, bringing into play Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code as amended, particularly Article 266-A(d), which classified rape committed when the offended party was under twelve years of age as statutory rape. Under Article 266-B, the penalty for rape under Article 266-A(1) was reclusion perpetua.

In this statutory-rape context, the Court reiterated the doctrine that statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below twelve years of age regardless of consent. Proof of force, intimidation, or consent was thus unnecessary because lack of free consent was conclusively presumed once the victim was below the age threshold. The Court held that conviction required proof of three elements: (a) the age of the complainant, (b) the identity of the accused, and (c) the fact of sexual intercourse between the accused and the complainant.

The Court found these elements present. For age, AAA’s Certificate of Live Birth showing she was born on July 25, 1998 established that she was below twelve years old at the time of the December 26 and 27, 1996 incidents and at the time of the June 2000 incident. For identity and carnal knowledge, the Court relied on AAAs positive, categorical, and spontaneous testimony, corroborated by the medico-legal report indicating penetration. The Court found no cogent reason to overturn the lower courts’ credibility findings. It emphasized that, absent arbitrariness or oversight of a fact of consequence—especially when the Court of Appeals had affirmed the RTC assessment—those credibility determinations deserved great weight, if not binding effect. The Court further observed that testimony of child-victims generally received full weight because, when a minor says she was raped, the statement may already establish the commission of the crime, and youth and immaturity operated as badges of truth and sincerity. The Court considered AAAs revelation of the assault, her submission to medical examination, and her willingness to undergo public trial as factors that could not be lightly dismissed as concoction.

Penalty and Qualifying Circumstance

The Court also sustained the imposition of reclusion perpetua for each count of statutory rape. It explained that RA 8353 introduced qualifying circumstances that could increase penalties, including when the offended party was under eighteen and the offender was a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. The Court agreed that such relationship could not qualify the first two incidents because they occurred prior to RA 8353, but it could be appreciated as to the third incident in light of its June 2000 occurrence.

At the same time, the Court recognized that RA 9346, which prohibited the imposition of the death penalty, prevented the penalty that would have resulted from qualifying circumstances from being imposed. Thus, even for the third incident, the Court required the penalty to be reclusion perpetua and treated the offender as not eligible for parole in accordance with the statutory consequences discussed in the decision.

Civil Damages and Their Adjustment

While the Court affirmed the convictions and penalties, it modified the award of damages because the RTC and CA had erred in the amounts granted for each count. The Court reviewed jurisprudential standards and held that, for each count of statutory rape punishable under Article 335 (the old provision), the amounts should be P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. For each count of statutory rape punishable under Article 266-A in connection with Article 266-B (as amended), the amounts should be P75,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, given that the circumstances would otherwise have justified the imposition of death but for the enactment of RA 9346. Applying these standards to the timeline of offenses, the Court reduced or recalibrated the damages as follows: the first two incidents—punishable under Article 335—attracted the P50,000.00 civil indemnity and moral damages scheme; the third incident—punishable under Article 266-A—required the P75,000.00 civil indemnity and moral damage

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms