Case Summary (G.R. No. 178323)
Key Dates
- March 11, 2004: Alleged rape incident in Manila
- March 19, 2005: Filing of Information for rape
- April 29, 2005: RTC conviction for statutory rape
- December 29, 2006: CA conviction for statutory rape and rape through sexual assault
- March 16, 2011: Supreme Court decision
Applicable Law
- 1987 Philippine Constitution (due process, rights of the accused)
- Revised Penal Code, Art. 266-A(1)(d) (statutory rape) and Art. 266-A(2) (rape through sexual assault), as amended by R.A. 8353
- R.A. 7610, Sec. 5(b) (special protection of children)
- Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 110 §13; Rule 120 §3
- Indeterminate Sentence Law
Factual Background
VVV, then ten years old, was approached by Armando while buying food with playmates. He dragged her into a dark vacant lot beside a jeepney, threatened her into silence, first inserted his finger, then his penis into her vagina. She suffered acute pain and hemorrhage, later reported the assault to her father and the police.
Proceedings Below
The RTC found the evidence overwhelming and convicted Armando of statutory rape (Art. 266-A[1][d]), sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and damages. On appeal, the CA affirmed that conviction and additionally found him guilty of rape through sexual assault (Art. 266-A[2]), imposing reclusion perpetua for statutory rape, an indeterminate term for sexual assault, and increased damages.
Issues on Appeal
- Credibility of the victim’s testimony as “unnatural and unrealistic.”
- Sufficiency of evidence to overcome the presumption of innocence.
- Legality of dual convictions under one Information.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Credibility
Under the 1987 Constitution’s due-process framework, the Court deferred to the RTC’s assessment of the victim’s direct, consistent, detailed testimony. VVV never wavered despite cross-examination and positively identified Armando in a police lineup.
Medical Corroboration
Dr. Baluyot’s genital examination conducted within 24 hours revealed a fresh hymenal laceration with bleeding at the 6 o’clock position—clear evidence of recent penetrating trauma—corroborated by photographs.
Evaluation of Defense
Armando’s bare denial and alibi were unsupported by evidence. His argument that the victim should have resisted, cried out, or fled was dispelled by the credible testimony that he threatened her with death and maintained digital penetration, rendering resistance impossible.
Dual Rape Charges and Procedural Compliance
The Information charged two offenses—statutory rape under Art. 266-A(1)(d) and rape through sexual assault under Art. 266-A(2). Although Rule 110 §13 forbids multiple charges in one Information, Armando failed to move to quash under Rule 120 §3, permitting convictions on both counts as charged and proved.
Penalty Assessment: Statutory Rape
The Supreme Court affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua for statutory rape under Art. 266-A(1)(d).
Penalty Assessment: Rape Through Sexual Assault under R.A. 7610
Because VVV was under twelve, R.A. 7
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 178323)
Procedural History
- March 19, 2005: An Information for Rape was filed against Armando Chingh y Parcia (“Armando”) in the City of Manila, charging him with acts constituting Statutory Rape and Rape Through Sexual Assault.
- April 29, 2005: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 43 of Manila, convicted Armando of Statutory Rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code as amended, sentencing him to Reclusion Perpetua and awarding P50,000 compensatory and P50,000 moral damages.
- December 29, 2006: The Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01119 affirmed the RTC decision and further convicted Armando of Rape Through Sexual Assault, modifying the penalties to Reclusion Perpetua for statutory rape and an indeterminate term of 3 years, 3 months and 1 day to 8 years, 11 months and 1 day for sexual assault, and awarding additional civil and exemplary damages.
- September 26, 2007: The Supreme Court required supplemental briefs; parties instead adopted their CA briefs.
- March 16, 2011: The Supreme Court rendered its Decision on G.R. No. 178323.
Facts of the Case
- Victim (“VVV”) was born September 16, 1993, and was 10 years old on the night of March 11, 2004.
- Around 8:00 p.m. on March 11, 2004, VVV went to a neighborhood store with playmates to buy food.
- Armando approached, grabbed her hand, threatened her to keep silent, and led her to a vacant lot near Tindalo Street.
- While standing beside an unoccupied jeepney, Armando first fondled VVV’s breast and inserted his index finger into her vagina.
- Despite VVV’s pleas, Armando then unzipped his pants, lifted her, and forcibly had vaginal intercourse, causing excruciating pain.
- Threatened with death if she spoke, VVV did not immediately report the assault. Her father later observed her blood-stained underwear and elicited disclosure.
- VVV and her father reported the assault to police; Armando was arrested and later positively identified by VVV in a police lineup.
- March 12, 2004: Dr. Irene Baluyot examined VVV at PGH’s Child Protection Unit, finding a fresh laceration with bleeding at the hymenal 6 o’clock position, consistent with penetrating trauma within 24 hours. Photographs corroborated the report.
Accused’s Version and Defense
- Armando admitted encountering VVV on March 11, but denied any sexual act.
- He claimed he was en route to buy food after escorting