Title
People vs. Flores y Lagua
Case
G.R. No. 188315
Decision Date
Aug 25, 2010
Appellant convicted of two counts of simple rape against adoptive daughter; acquitted of 179 counts due to insufficient evidence. Penalties and damages modified.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 4401)

Procedural Posture and Key Dates

181 informations (Criminal Cases Nos. 03-081 to 03-261) charged respondent with 181 counts of rape, separately alleging dates and ages. Arraignment: not guilty pleas. Pre-trial: parties stipulated that AAA was under 15, that respondent was guardian, and that AAA had been in the respondent’s custody since infancy. Trial court (RTC, Makati, Branch 140) convicted respondent of all 181 counts and sentenced him to death for each count; imposed damages. Court of Appeals initially dismissed respondent’s appeal for failure to file brief, then the Supreme Court remanded for mandatory appellate review because imposition of death penalty required automatic review. Court of Appeals (29 January 2009) affirmed conviction but reduced liability to two counts of rape and imposed reclusion perpetua and damages. Respondent appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reviewed and rendered the decision summarized herein (decision date in record).

Stipulated and Undisputed Facts

Parties stipulated (pre-trial) that AAA was under 15 years old, that respondent was her guardian, and that AAA had been under respondent’s and his wife’s custody since age one and a half. Undisputed factual testimony established that AAA lived with her adoptive mother (BBB) and respondent; BBB worked nights; respondent arrived from working abroad in 1997 and lived with AAA and BBB. AAA reported repeated sexual assaults beginning when she was 11 years old through age 14; she eventually disclosed the abuse in October 2002 to a friend (Marvin), which led to barangay and police involvement and a medico-legal examination.

Prosecution Evidence and Narrative

Five prosecution witnesses testified: the victim (AAA), Marvin Suello, PO1 Evangeline Babor, P/Sr. Insp. Paul Ed Ortiz (medico-legal examiner), and Maximo Duran (Bantay Bayan). AAA described a pattern of sexual assaults beginning in February 1999: initial touching of thighs and breasts, threats and intimidation, incidents involving a bread knife and forced vaginal penetration, and repeated rapes allegedly occurring on average three times per week until 15 October 2002. She specifically recounted a first incident (when she was 11) involving a knife to the neck and forcible sexual intercourse, and a final incident on 15 October 2002 with the same modus operandi. AAA delayed reporting until October 2002 when she sought refuge with a friend and disclosed the abuse.

Medico-legal Findings and Corroboration

The medico-legal report, based on examination by P/Sr. Insp. Ortiz, recorded presence of a hymenal deep healed laceration at 1 o'clock and a shallow healed laceration at 2 o'clock and concluded AAA was in a “non-virgin state physically.” The expert opined such lacerations could have been caused by a solid object, including penile penetration. The Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court treated the medical findings as corroborative of AAA’s testimony regarding sexual penetration.

Defense Case and Contentions

Respondent was the sole defense witness. He denied raping AAA, admitting only that he was a strict disciplinarian who scolded and spanked her. He suggested AAA had propensity to lie (citing an alleged prior stealing incident) and highlighted perceived inconsistencies such as delayed reporting and the proximity of relatives. He contested the trial court’s use of the stipulated guardianship and minority as qualifying circumstances and argued an adopting parent must be judicially established to qualify as a “guardian” for aggravated rape.

RTC Ruling (Trial Court)

The RTC convicted respondent of all 181 counts of rape under the penal provisions invoked, finding AAA’s testimony “straightforward, consistent and credible,” and concluding force and intimidation attended the offenses. The trial court relied on minority and relationship (adoptive father) as qualifying circumstances and imposed the death penalty for each count, and ordered substantial moral and exemplary damages.

Court of Appeals Ruling

On mandatory appellate review the Court of Appeals substantially modified the RTC judgment. It acquitted respondent on 179 counts (Criminal Cases Nos. 03-082 to 03-260) for reasonable doubt, and found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt only in two counts (Criminal Cases Nos. 03-081 and 03-261) corresponding to the first and last incidents that were specifically described. It imposed reclusion perpetua for each count (reflecting modification in light of RA 9346 abolishing death penalty) and awarded civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages in specified amounts for each count. The Court of Appeals held that AAA’s general claim of repeated assaults (three times a week over three years) was too indefinite to sustain proof of each separate count; only the incidents described with particularity were proven.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court’s review addressed: (1) credibility of AAA and sufficiency of proof for the multiple charged counts; (2) applicability and proof of qualifying circumstance “guardian” in relation to Article 266-B (aggravating circumstances) and whether stipulation could establish that qualifying circumstance; and (3) proper penalty and damages in light of statutory and jurisprudential authorities, including RA 9346’s abolition of the death penalty.

Credibility and Single-Witness Rule

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ evaluation of AAA’s credibility, emphasizing established doctrine that victim testimony is central in rape prosecutions and that where the issue turns on credibility, factual findings of trial and appellate courts should be respected if supported by convincing evidence. The Court noted both courts found AAA’s account spontaneous, forthright, and consistent on material points, and the trial court had the advantage of observing her demeanor.

Proof of Multiple Separate Offenses

Applying People v. Garcia and related doctrine, the Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that each count of rape is a distinct offense that must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Court concluded the prosecution proved only two distinct incidents with sufficient particularity (the first and last incidents). The victim’s generalized testimony that she was raped “three times a week” over a multi-year period was indefinite and insufficient to prove the remaining 179 distinct counts beyond reasonable doubt.

Guardian as Qualifying Circumstance and Requirement of Proof

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in treating the relationship (guardian) as a qualifying circumstance in the rape counts. The Court reiterated controlling jurisprudence (People v. De la Cruz; People v. Garcia and subsequent cases) that the term “guardian,” as a qualifying circumstance that elevates rape to its qualified form, implies a legal or judicial guardianship (or at least a de facto guardian, subject to the restrictive interpretation developed in jurisprudence). More importantly, the Court emphasized the constitutional and procedural principle that qualifying circumstances which increase the penalty (and in particular those that could lead to capital punishment) cannot be established merely by stipulation; they must be specifically alleged in the information and proved by the prosecution. Because the informations did not allege the qualifying circumstance of relationship (guardian) and the prosecution failed to prove adoptive parentage as a qualifying relationship beyond mere stipulation, the respondent’s conviction could not be elevated to qualified rape on that ground.

Penalty Adjustment in Light of RA 9346 and Proof Findings

Given the failure to prove qualifying relationship and because the death penalty is no longer available under RA 9346 (as applied by the courts), the Supreme Court affirmed respondent’s conviction only for two counts of simple rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each count. The

    ...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