Title
Supreme Court
People vs. Fetalco y Sablay
Case
G.R. No. 241249
Decision Date
Jul 28, 2020
A 4-year-old girl accused appellant of rape; despite inconsistencies in her testimony, the Supreme Court upheld his conviction, emphasizing the credibility of child witnesses and sufficiency of her account over medical evidence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 241249)

Summary of Events

The information filed on February 24, 2006, against the appellant accuses him of raping AAA on July 17, 2005, in the City of xxxxxxx. The charge alleges that he had carnal knowledge of the victim through force and intimidation, violating her rights and degrading her dignity as a child. Initially pleading not guilty during the arraignment, the prosecution presented three key witnesses: AAA, her mother BBB, and the Medico-Legal Officer, Dr. Ruby Grace Sabino-Dingson.

Testimonies of Victim and Witnesses

AAA, backed by her testimony and a sworn statement made shortly after the incident, described how the appellant assaulted her. During her examination in court, AAA stated that the appellant inserted his penis, which she described as a "daga" (meaning "rat" in English), into her vagina. Over a series of court appearances, AAA's recollections shifted slightly, with references to various objects, including a "stick," leading to a pivotal examination of the consistency of her statements.

Medical Evidence

Dr. Sabino-Dingson testified that a medical examination shortly after the incident showed signs of penetrating trauma, corroborating the claims made by AAA. This evidence played a significant role in the prosecution’s case, as it reinforced the victim's accounting of events.

Defense's Position

In contrast, the appellant denied all allegations, claiming he was occupied with chores at a relative’s house during the timeframe in question. He argued that the allegations were fabricated due to a dispute over rental payments owed to him by AAA's family. The defense also noted discrepancies in AAA's statements during different testimonies, asserting that her evolving recounting raised reasonable doubts about her credibility.

Lower Court Rulings

On May 18, 2016, the RTC found the appellant guilty of statutory rape, emphasizing that despite discrepancies in AAA's statements, her age—only four years old at the time—added to her credibility. The RTC acknowledged the emotional and psychological challenges faced by young victims like AAA, supporting the acceptance of her testimony. The court sentenced the appellant to reclusion perpetua and imposed civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages.

Appeal and Higher Court's Analysis

The appellant challenged the RTC's decision before the Court of Appeals (CA), which upheld his conviction on February 28, 2018, while modifying the amounts awarded for damages. The CA maintained that all elements of statutory rape were evident, emphasizing the necessity of statutory definitions over the nuances of varying testimonies.

Legal Standards of Statutory Rape

The pertinent legal provisions, particularly Article 266-A and Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, stipulate that statutory rape is established when the victim is under twelve ye

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.