Case Summary (G.R. No. 248049)
Procedural History
• Two Informations (Crim. Case Nos. 1453-V-14 and 1454-V-14) for statutory rape filed October 27, 2014.
• Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty at arraignment.
• RTC Branch 172, Valenzuela City, found him guilty of two counts of statutory rape (March 15, 2017 Decision).
• Court of Appeals affirmed conviction but modified damages (January 15, 2019 Decision).
• Accused-appellant elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
Facts
• AAA’s mother lived with accused-appellant, whom AAA regarded as her stepfather.
• AAA first alleged abuse in 2009, when aged ten, during bathing.
• July 2010 incident: AAA woke to accused touching her breasts and vulva; he removed both their garments, mounted her, and pressed his erect penis against her labia majora but did not fully penetrate due to her resistance.
• January 2012 incident: similar fact pattern; accused again pressed his erect penis against her vulva without full penetration.
• AAA delayed reporting until June 2014 out of fear of disbelief and retaliation.
• Physical/genital examination in 2014 revealed no injury; medico-legal testimony explained that healed hymenal lacerations may no longer be evident.
Trial Court Ruling
• Guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on AAA’s categorical, consistent, and straightforward testimony.
• Consummation found despite absence of full penetration or hymenal tear, citing precedent that “mere touching of labia” suffices.
• Qualified circumstance (stepfather-stepdaughter relationship) not appreciated due to lack of proof of marriage.
• Sentenced to reclusion perpetua per count; damages awarded (P50,000 moral, P50,000 civil indemnity, P25,000 exemplary per count).
Court of Appeals Ruling
• Affirmed RTC conviction for simple rape by sexual intercourse.
• Increased damages to P75,000 each for moral and civil indemnity, and exemplary damages per prevailing jurisprudence.
• Upheld finding that absence of vaginal laceration is immaterial if penis capable of penetration touched the labia.
• Rejected delay-in-reporting argument as reasonably explained by victim’s circumstances.
Issue
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed conviction for consummated rape where only slight genital contact (erect penis touching victim’s labia majora) occurred without full penetration.
Supreme Court Ruling and Reasoning
• Appeal lacks merit; convictions for rape upheld but classification modified:
– Count I (July 2010): Statutory rape (victim under twelve)
– Count II (January 2012): Simple rape (victim over twelve)
• Victim’s positive, consistent testimony held sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Reaffirmed constitutional presumption of innocence but stressed that credible victim testimony can satisfy prosecutorial burden in sexual crimes.
• Medico-legal absence of injury at examination does not negate occurrence of penetration or slight contact.
Anatomical Clarification on Rape Threshold
• Jurisprudence defines consummated rape by penile penetration as “the slightest penetration of labia or lips of vagina.”
• To dispel semantic uncertainty, Court clarifies that “mere touching” means introduction—even slight—of an erect penis into the pudendal cleft (cleft between the labia majora), not mere grazing of the outer vulvar surface.
• Any lesser contact may constitute attempted rape or acts of lasciviousness, depending on the accused’s intent manifested by force, erection, or preparatory acts.
Guidance on Child-Victim Testimony
• Courts must exercise circumspection when evaluating child witnesses, recognizing:
– Children’s limited anatomical and linguistic knowledge
– Hostile courtroom’s adverse impact on recall and testimony
– Rape myths that may skew evidentiary expectations
• In pre-pubescent victims (under age ten), repeated attempts or touching of
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 248049)
Parties and Representation
- Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines
- Accused-Appellant: Efren Agao y Aaonuevo
- Victim (protected by pseudonym): AAA
Procedural History
- Two Informations (Oct. 27, 2014) filed in RTC Branch 172, Valenzuela City (Crim. Case Nos. 1453-V-14 and 1454-V-14) charging statutory rape under Art. 266-A (1), Art. 266-B, RPC (as amended by R.A. 8353) in conjunction with R.A. 7610
- Arraignment: accused pleaded not guilty
- Trial: RTC Joint Decision (Mar. 15, 2017) found appellant guilty of two counts of statutory rape; imposed reclusion perpetua (each count) and ordered damages
- Appeal to Court of Appeals: Decision (Jan. 15, 2019) affirmed conviction, modified damages awards
- Appeal to the Supreme Court: G.R. No. 248049, argued on Aug. 19 and Oct. 23, 2019; decided en banc on Oct. 4, 2022
Factual Background
- Victim AAA born Dec. 6, 1999; parents separated; mother later co-habited with appellant, whom AAA identified as stepfather
- First non-penetrative abuse c. 2009 (age 10): appellant touched AAA’s private parts during bathing
- First rape c. July 2010 (age 10): while sleeping AAA awoke to appellant touching her breasts and vagina, undressing her, mounting her, and attempting to insert his erect penis into her vagina; managed only to introduce it into the labia majora as AAA fought back
- Second rape c. Jan. 2012 (age 13): similar scenario—AAA woke to appellant touching her breasts and vagina, trying but failing to fully penetrate due to her resistance
- AAA did not report until mid-2014, after leaving appellant’s home and confiding in her aunt; father accompanied her to police
- Medical exam: no visible genital injury; expert opined that mere labial contact by an erect penis may leave no laceration or that healed injuries may no longer be evident
Charges
- Crim. Case No. 1453-V-14: statutory rape, victim under age 12 (Art. 266-A (1)(d), Art. 266-B, RPC as amended; R.A. 7610)
- Crim. Case No. 1454-V-14: statutory rape, victim age 13 (same statutory provisions)
RTC Decision (Mar. 15, 2017)
- Convicted appellant of two counts of statutory rape; sentenced to reclusion perpetua per count
- Awarded AAA P50,000 moral, P50,000 civil indemnity, P25,000 exemplary damages (6% interest from finality)
- Credited AAA’s categorical, consistent, straightforward testimony
- Held that hymenal laceration not required: any erection-capable penis touching labia or pudendum consummates rape (citing People v. Besmonte)
- Declined to apply stepfather-stepdaughter qualifying circumstance (no proof of legal marriage)
CA Decision (Jan. 15, 2019)
- Affirmed appellant’s conviction for two counts of rape
- Increased damages to P75,000 for moral damages, P75,000 civil indemnity, P75,000 exemplary damages per count (6% interest)
- Respected RTC’s credibility findings; observed AAA’s positive and credible testimony
- Held absence of vaginal laceration immaterial; mere labial contact by an erect penis suffices for consummation
- Ruled AAA’s reporting delay reasonable and explained by fear and separation from appellant
- Declined to apply stepfather-stepdaughter circumstance (no evidence of marriage)
Issue on Appeal
Whether the Supreme Court should affirm the CA’s affirmation of RTC’s finding appellant guilty of two counts of rape through sexual intercourse under Art. 266-A (1) and Art. 266-B of the RPC (as amended by R.A. 8353) in conjunction with R.A. 7610.
Supreme Court’s Ruling—Standards and Principles
- Appeal is meritless; conviction affirmed with modification
- Criminal appeals open the entire case for review; SC duty to correct errors
- Rape jurisprudence principles:
- Accusation easy to make, hard to prove; even harder for the accused to disprove
- Rape usually involves only two persons; complainant’s testimony must be scrutinized with great caution
- Prosecution evidence must stand on its own merits; cannot borrow strength from defense weaknesses
- Complainant’s credibility paramount—credible testimony suffices for conviction
Evolution of Rape Jurisprudence in the Philippines
- Origins: Código Penal (1870), RPC (1932) defined rape as “carnal knowledge” of a woman by a man
- Art. 266-A, RPC (as amended by R.A. 8353; further by R.A. 11648):
- Para. 1: “by a person who shall have carnal knowledge of another person” in enumerated circumstances
- Para. 2: “inserting penis into mouth/anus or instrument/object into genital/anus”
- Key cases refining “carnal knowledge” threshold:
- People v. Orita (1990): frustrated rape impossible; any penetration (labia entry) consummates rape; no penetration = attempted rape
- People v. Dela Peňa (1994): mere touching of external genitalia by an erect penis capable of penetration consummates rape
- People v. Escober (1997): introduction of male organ to labia sufficient
- People v. Castromero (1997), Quiñanola (1999), Oliver (1999), Puertollano (1999): reaffirmed slightest penetration of labia or pudendum completes rape
- People v. Campuhan (2000): “touching” means sliding past the skin—penis must reach labia majora; mere grazing of mons pubis insufficient
- People v. Ombreso (2001), Comanda (2007): similar labial threshold; rape consummated if erect penis reaches vaginal opening though full penetration prevented by small anatomy
- People v. Francisco (2001), Mariano (2001): courts must show sufficient proof of labial contact; absence of slightest penetration reduces crime to attempted rape or lasciviousness
Divergent Cases and the Need for Anatomical Clarity
- Subsequent cases (Tolentino, Arce Jr., Dimapilis, Quarre, Brioso) downgraded rapes to attempts due to “paucity of evidence” of penetration despite victim testimony of “trying to force,” “touching,” “idinikit,” or “felt pain”
- Inconsistent application of “slightest penetration” standard necessitated clear anatomical parameters