Case Summary (G.R. No. 221443)
Factual Background
AAA testified that accused-appellant was a relative of BBB, her mother, who was allowed to stay with their family out of pity. He ran errands and attended to the children while BBB was washing clothes and her husband CCC tended their farm. Sometime between 2000 to 2001, when AAA was around five (5) years old, she and her siblings were left at home with accused-appellant. After their meal, accused-appellant ordered them to sleep. AAA was suddenly awakened when she felt accused-appellant, who was already naked, positioned on top of her. She stated that he forced his penis into her vagina, made push and pull movements causing her pain, and threatened to kill her if she told anyone. She further narrated that the molestation continued repeatedly, with accused-appellant bringing a bolo each time. AAA stated that the abuse stopped in 2002 when accused-appellant left their house.
Years later, on the evening of April 16, 2008, when AAA was already twelve (12) years old, she saw accused-appellant in their kitchen. She testified that accused-appellant squeezed her vagina and told her they were going to visit his house. She cried and told her cousin, DDD, about the incident. She also told DDD about the earlier rape incidents when she was five (5) years old and the subsequent ones committed by accused-appellant. Eventually, she told BBB, and they reported the matter to the barangay, after which they had the incident recorded in the police blotter. AAA later filed criminal cases, and accused-appellant was arrested.
On April 19, 2008, Dr. Ma. Josefina Villanueva Taleon, a Medical Officer III at the Northern Mindanao Medical Center, examined AAA and found old healed lacerations in her genitalia at the three (3), eight (8), and ten (10) o’clock positions.
Criminal Informations and Arraignment
Accused-appellant was charged in an Information for violation of Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610, alleging that from 2000 up to 2001, when AAA was about five to six years old, and knowing her minority, accused-appellant wilfully and unlawfully committed acts of sexual abuse by inserting his penis into her vagina against her will and without her consent, debasing and demeaning her intrinsic worth and dignity as a child and prejudicial to her development.
He was likewise charged for Acts of Lasciviousness in another Information, alleging that on April 16, 2008 at about 8:00 p.m., accused-appellant, with knowledge of AAA’s minority, through force and intimidation and actuated by lust or lewd design, committed lascivious conduct on twelve-year-old AAA by squeezing her vagina against her will.
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty.
Accused-Appellant’s Defense
Accused-appellant denied the charges. He asserted that AAA’s family was angry at him after he left their house because he could no longer understand what they were asking him to do for them. He maintained that he did not commit the acts imputed to him.
Trial Court Proceedings and Findings
In its Joint Decision dated February 6, 2013, the RTC convicted accused-appellant of (a) Rape in FC Crim. Case No. 2008-426 and (b) Unjust Vexation in FC Crim. Case No. 2008-427.
In the rape case, the RTC held that while the allegations in the Information for RA 7610, Section 5 (b) sufficiently described child abuse, the same allegations also established statutory rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended. It relied on AAA’s testimony that she was deflowered by accused-appellant when she was very young, and found her narration to be credible. It further sustained the identity of the offender based on her positive account and noted medical corroboration through Dr. Taleon’s finding of old healed lacerations at the three (3), eight (8), and ten (10) o’clock positions. Accordingly, the RTC sentenced accused-appellant to reclusion perpetua and ordered damages in favor of AAA in the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
In the unjust vexation case, the RTC found that on the evening of April 16, 2008, AAA encountered accused-appellant in their kitchen and that, without warning, he “just squeezed her vagina.” However, the RTC concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the element of lasciviousness or lewdness needed for conviction for Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC. The RTC reasoned that squeezing alone did not show intent to gratify sexual desires nor conduct demonstrative of carnal lust. Since AAA was clearly annoyed, it found accused-appellant liable only for Unjust Vexation under Article 287 of the RPC, imposing 30 days of arresto menor and a fine of P200.00, with accessory penalties. The RTC rejected accused-appellant’s denial for being insufficient against the prosecution’s positive evidence.
Appellate Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals
Accused-appellant appealed. The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated June 30, 2015, affirmed the RTC in toto. It sustained the lower court’s findings and rejected accused-appellant’s claim that it was impossible to commit rape because AAA’s younger brother was sleeping beside her during the alleged incident. The CA ruled that the presence of another person at the scene did not render the rape impossible. As to the conviction for unjust vexation, the CA affirmed without providing further justification.
Issue
The Supreme Court framed the sole issue as whether the CA erred in affirming accused-appellant’s conviction for Rape and Unjust Vexation.
The Court’s Ruling on Rape
The Supreme Court held that the appeal lacked merit and gave weight to the trial court’s credibility findings. It reiterated that trial courts’ factual findings, particularly those on witness credibility, are accorded great weight and are not disturbed on appeal absent circumstances showing misapprehension, oversight, or arbitrary evaluation.
With respect to FC Criminal Case No. 2008-426, the Court found that accused-appellant committed Rape against AAA when she was about five (5) years old. It adopted the RTC’s observation that the trial judge personally observed AAA’s conduct and demeanor and deemed her a credible witness. It emphasized that accused-appellant had the burden to present overlooked or misapprehended facts or circumstances that could materially affect the disposition, but he failed to do so.
The Supreme Court also sustained the CA’s rejection of accused-appellant’s “impossibility” argument based on AAA’s younger brother allegedly being present and sleeping beside her. It held that the presence of another person in the room does not negate commission of rape. The Court reiterated the doctrine that rape can occur in places where people congregate, including within a house where others are sleeping, and that it is not improbable for family members to remain asleep and not be awakened during the assault.
The Court therefore sustained the finding of guilt for rape and affirmed the conviction but modified the damages award in accordance with jurisprudence.
Modification of Damages for Rape
The Supreme Court modified the amounts due to AAA. It ordered accused-appellant to pay AAA P75,000.00 as moral damages, P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages.
The Court’s Ruling on the April 16, 2008 Incident
For FC Criminal Case No. 2008-427, the Supreme Court disagreed with the CA and RTC’s conclusion that accused-appellant should be convicted only of Unjust Vexation. After reviewing the evidence, the Court held that accused-appellant should instead be convicted of Acts of Lasciviousness, as charged, in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610.
The Court reiterated that Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC requires: (a) that the offender commits an act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (b) that the act is committed under specified circumstances, including through force, threat, or intimidation; and (c) that the offended party is another person of either sex.
The Court then examined Section 5 (b) of RA 7610, emphasizing that when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the law directs prosecution for rape and lascivious conduct under the RPC. It further explained that before criminal liability for lascivious conduct under RA 7610, Section 5 (b) may attach, the requisites of Acts of Lasciviousness penalized by Article 336 of the RPC must be met in addition to the requisites for sexual abuse under RA 7610, Section 5 (b)—including that the child is below eighteen years of age.
Applying these, the Supreme Court found all elements sufficiently established. It held that AAA’s minority at the time of the incident was proven through her Certificate of Live Birth, showing she was born on September 3, 1995. It also found that at the time of the act on April 16, 2008, AAA was twelve (12) years old. The Court further held that accused-appellant, an adult who exercised influence on AAA, committed a lascivious act by “squeezing” her vagina.
Rejection of the “No Lewdness” Rationale
The Court specifically disagreed with the trial court’s and CA’s reasoning that there was no lasciviousness or lewd design because AAA still had her underwear on and because the act could not be demonstrative of carnal lust. The Supreme Court stated that “lascivious conduct” is defined in the Rules and Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases as the intentional touching of genitalia, including through clothing, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify sexual desire. It also invoked jurisprudence expounding on “lewd” conduct, explaining that the presence of lewd design may be inferred from overt acts and environmental circumstances, and that what constitutes lewd conduct depends on the circumstances of each case.
The Court held that the “mere fact of ‘squeezing’ the private part” of a twelve-year-old could not have signified any intention other than lewd or indecent design. It con
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 221443)
- The case arose from the conviction of Dominador Ladra for Rape and Unjust Vexation by the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 22 in FC Crim. Case Nos. 2008-426 and 2008-427.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC through a Joint Decision dated June 30, 2015 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01160-MIN.
- On further appeal, the accused-appellant challenged the CA’s affirmance of his convictions for Rape and Unjust Vexation.
Parties and Procedural Posture
- The People of the Philippines acted as Plaintiff-Appellee in criminal prosecutions against Dominador Ladra, who appeared as Accused-Appellant.
- The RTC rendered a Joint Decision dated February 6, 2013 convicting the accused-appellant in two separate cases consolidated for decision.
- The CA rendered a decision dated June 30, 2015 affirming the RTC in toto for both convictions.
- The Supreme Court reviewed whether the CA erred in affirming the convictions for Rape and Unjust Vexation, and it ultimately modified the CA’s disposition.
Key Factual Allegations
- The complainant AAA was born on September 3, 1995, and she was the eldest of five siblings.
- The complainant’s family lived in a remote area in Dumarait, Balingasag, Misamis Oriental.
- The prosecution alleged that the accused-appellant was a relative of BBB, AAA’s mother, and that he stayed with the family out of pity.
- The accused-appellant allegedly ran errands and attended to the children while BBB washed clothes and her husband CCC tended their farm.
- Between 2000 to 2001, when AAA was about five (5) years old, AAA and her siblings were left at home with the accused-appellant.
- After their meal, the accused-appellant allegedly ordered the children to sleep, and AAA claimed that she was later awakened by a sexual assault.
- AAA testified that the accused-appellant was already naked, was on top of her, and forced his penis into her vagina, making push and pull movements causing her pain.
- AAA alleged that the accused-appellant threatened to kill her if she told anyone and that he repeatedly molested her, each time bringing a bolo with him.
- The sexual abuse allegedly ceased in 2002, when the accused-appellant left the house.
- Years later, on the evening of April 16, 2008, when AAA was already twelve (12) years old, AAA claimed that she saw the accused-appellant in their kitchen.
- AAA alleged that the accused-appellant squeezed her vagina and told her that they were going to visit his house.
- AAA testified that she was scared, cried, and told her cousin DDD about the incident, and she later revealed both the first rape incident and subsequent assaults to BBB.
- The incident was reported to the barangay and recorded in the police blotter, and AAA later filed criminal cases against the accused-appellant.
- Medical examination by Dr. Ma. Josefina Villanueva Taleon, Medical Officer III at the Northern Mindanao Medical Center, found old healed lacerations in AAA’s genitalia at the three (3), eight (8), and ten (10) o’clock positions.
Informations and Charges
- The accused-appellant was charged with violation of Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610 in an Information alleging sexual abuse of AAA when she was about five to six (5 to 6) years old.
- The RA 7610 Information alleged that the accused-appellant acted willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously by inserting his penis into AAA’s vagina against her will and without consent, and that the act debased and demeaned her as a child.
- The accused-appellant was likewise charged with Acts of Lasciviousness in an Information alleging that on April 16, 2008 at about 8:00 o’clock in the evening, the accused-appellant, using force and intimidation and acting with lust or lewd design, squeezed AAA’s vagina against her will.
- The Information specified that the act was done against twelve-year-old AAA and alleged violation of Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code as amended.
Defense Theories
- The accused-appellant denied the charges.
- He claimed that AAA’s family was angry at him when he left their house and that he left because he could not understand what they asked him to do.
- He implicitly maintained that the prosecution’s narration could not be believed or that he could not have committed the crimes under the circumstances presented.
RTC Findings and Sentencing
- In FC Criminal Case No. 2008-426, the RTC convicted the accused-appellant of Rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
- The RTC ordered the accused-appellant to pay AAA P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
- The RTC treated the RA 7610 allegations as sufficient to make out both child abuse and statutory rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
- The RTC found AAA’s testimony credible, noting that her account was straightforward, clear, categorical, and positive despite her tender age.
- The RTC relied on the medical findings of Dr. Taleon showing healed lacerations consistent with the alleged rape.
- In FC Criminal Case No. 2008-427, the RTC convicted the accused-appellant of Unjust Vexation instead of Acts of Lasciviousness.
- The RTC sentenced the accused-appellant to imprisonment for a period of 30 days of arresto menor and to pay a fine of P200.00, with accessory penalties.
- The RTC reasoned that the prosecution failed to establish lewdness or lasciviousness as would justify conviction for Acts of Lasciviousness.
- The RTC held that merely squeezing AAA’s vagina did not demonstrate an intent to gratify sexual desires or carnal lust.
- The RTC nevertheless found that the act clearly annoyed AAA and therefore constituted Unjust Vexation under Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code.
- The RTC rejected the accused-appellant’s defense as insufficient to debunk the prosecution’s positive evidence.
CA Ruling on Both Convictions
- The CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto, sustaining the findings of guilt for both cases.
- The CA rejected the accused-appellant’s claim that it was impossible to commit the rape because AAA’s younger brother was sleeping beside her during the alleged incident.
- The CA held that the presence of another person at the scene did not render rape impossible, and it emphasized that rape may occur even in the same room where other family members are sleeping.
- As to the Unjust Vexation conviction, the CA affirmed without providing additional justification beyond concurrence with the RTC’s conclusion.
Sole Supreme Court Issue
- The Supreme Court addressed whether the CA erred in affirming the accused-appellant’s conviction for Rape and Unjust Vexation.