G.R. No. 192327 - People vs. Pueyo

Case Summary (G.R. No. 192327)

Petitioner and Respondent (procedural posture)

Petitioner appealed from the Court of Appeals’ December 29, 2009 decision affirming the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 260, Parañaque City, which had convicted petitioner on February 22, 2005. The Supreme Court disposition affirmed the CA decision with modifications, upgrading the conviction to sexual assault (statutory rape by sexual assault) under Article 266‑A(2) of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 (RA 7610), and adjusting penalty and damages.

Key Dates

Alleged offense: November 4, 1997. Information filed: November 24, 1998. RTC judgment: February 22, 2005. CA decision: December 29, 2009. Supreme Court decision: February 26, 2020. Constitution applied: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision date after 1990).

Applicable Law

Primary statutes and rules applied: Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act) including Section 3(b), Section 5(b), and Section 10(a); Article 266‑A(2) of the Revised Penal Code (statutory rape by sexual assault); Section 31(f), Article XII of RA 7610 (discretionary fine for rehabilitation); Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 7610 (definition of lascivious conduct); applicable jurisprudence cited by the courts.

Antecedent Facts (prosecution version)

AAA, born March 15, 1991, lived in a compound in Parañaque City. On the morning of November 4, 1997, while playing near a bulldozer and on a pile of coconut lumber, AAA was ordered by neighbor Flor Pueyo (a welder) to get down; she refused. Pueyo allegedly approached and poked a welding rod into AAA’s genital area, causing pain and bleeding. AAA later showed blood noticed by her mother, who brought her to a clinic and then to the Philippine General Hospital (PGH) for further treatment.

Evidence Presented (trial)

Prosecution witnesses included victim AAA; medical practitioners Dr. Corazon S. Ramos (general practitioner), Dr. Stella Guerrero‑Manalo (PGH pediatrician), Dr. Cynthia Ramos Leynes (PGH child psychiatrist); an NBI supervising agent; and AAA’s mother BBB. Documentary and object evidence of treatment and examination findings were introduced. Defense witnesses were petitioner and his wife, who denied the incident.

Medical Findings

PGH examination by Dr. Stella Guerrero‑Manalo documented: hymenal laceration at 11 o’clock position; fresh hymenal laceration at 6 o’clock extending to the posterior vaginal wall; posterior fourchette extending to the perineum; and active bleeding from laceration sites. These findings were characterized as “compatible with penetration injury secondary to assault as per disclosure.”

Defense Version

Petitioner admitted his presence and welding work near the children but denied touching or poking AAA with a welding rod, contending the allegations were fabricated. He suggested alternative causes (e.g., self‑inflicted by nails) and pointed to alleged inconsistencies in testimony and the thickness of the child’s clothing.

RTC Ruling (trial court)

The RTC found AAA’s testimony credible — positive, spontaneous, and consistent with the normal course of events — and convicted petitioner of violation of Section 10(a) of RA 7610. The RTC imposed an indeterminate sentence of six years and one day to eight years of prision mayor and awarded P1,640.00 for medicines, P4,000.00 for food and fare, and P500,000.00 for loss of employment of AAA’s father.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The CA affirmed the RTC’s factual findings but modified penalty and damages. It sentenced petitioner to an indeterminate penalty of four years, two months and one day of prision correccional as minimum to six years, eight months and one day of prision mayor as maximum. The CA awarded P1,640.00 for medicines and P50,000.00 as moral damages; it deleted the P4,000.00 and the P500,000.00 awards.

Issue on Appeal to the Supreme Court

Petitioner challenged the CA decision as erroneous and without basis, renewing arguments on alleged inconsistencies in testimony, the plausibility of injury causes, and the credibility of the victim and her mother.

Supreme Court’s Assessment of Credibility

The Supreme Court found the appeal without merit. It held AAA’s testimony to be candid, straightforward, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things, and therefore credible. The Court characterized alleged inconsistencies and petitioner’s insinuations about the victim’s sexual or psychological tendencies as trivial and insufficient to overcome the probative force of the victim’s direct and positive testimony corroborated by medical evidence. The Court reiterated the principle that a credible victim’s testimony may suffice for conviction when untainted by material inconsistency.

Legal Elements Considered — Section 10(a), RA 7610

The Court noted the requisites for conviction under Section 10(a), RA 7610: (1) victim’s minority; (2) acts constituting physical abuse committed by the accused; and (3) that such acts are punishable under RA 7610. These elements were satisfied: AAA was a child (six years old at the time); petitioner’s act (poking with a welding rod) constituted physical/sexual abuse as defined by Section 3(b); and the act was clearly punishable under RA 7610.

Recharacterization to Sexual Assault / Statutory Rape by Sexual Assault

Notwithstanding the RTC and CA findings under Section 10(a), the Supreme Court concluded petitioner’s conduct amounted to a graver offense: statutory rape by sexual assault under Article 266‑A(2) of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5(b) of RA 7610. The Court applied the established elements of Article 266‑A(2): (1) commission of sexual assault; (2) use of an instrument or object inserted into the genital or anal orifice; and (3) commission under circumstances including that the victim is under 12 years of age. The Court found the welding rod penetration satisfied these elements and that a child’s consent is immaterial.

Application of People v. Dagsa and Definition of Lascivious Conduct

The Court referenced People v. Dagsa and the Implementing Rules’ definition of lascivious conduct (intentional touching of genitalia, anus, groin, etc., directly or through clothing) to frame the conduct under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 a

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 192327)

Case Caption, Court, and Decision Reference

G.R. No. 192327; Decision promulgated February 26, 2020; reported at 871 Phil. 703, Second Division.
Case title as above: The People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Flor Pueyo alias Tito Flong, Accused-Appellant.
Decision text headed "HERNANDO, J.:" introducing the appeal to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeals (CA) decision.
Appeal from the December 29, 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 29263, which affirmed the February 22, 2005 Judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 260, Parañaque City, in Criminal Case No. 98-1096.

Procedural History

Information filed on November 24, 1998, charging Flor Pueyo with violation of Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act), as amended.
RTC rendered Judgment on February 22, 2005, finding Pueyo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 10(a), RA 7610, and imposed penalties and awards (dispositive quoted in source).
Pueyo appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which rendered a Decision on December 29, 2009, affirming the RTC Judgment with modifications as to penalty and damages.
Accused-appellant elevated the case to the Supreme Court by way of appeal; the Supreme Court resolved the appeal in the present Decision dated February 26, 2020.
Administrative and docket notes: certain personal names and geographical details were redacted per Supreme Court Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015; additional members were designated per raffle dated January 27, 2020, to replace justices who inhibited.

Charged Offense and Text of the Information

Charge in the Information: that on or about November 4, 1997, in Parañaque City, the accused willfully, unlawfully and feloniously inserted a welding rod into the vagina of [AAA], then a six (6) year old minor, thereby causing undue pain, injury, damage and prejudice — charged as violation of Section 10(a), RA 7610.
The geographical location and names of minor victims and certain family members were redacted in the published records per administrative circular.

Plea and Trial

Upon arraignment, accused Flor Pueyo pleaded not guilty.
Trial ensued with the prosecution presenting multiple objects and documentary evidence and six (6) witnesses, and the defense presenting two (2) witnesses.

Prosecution Witnesses and Evidence Presented

Witnesses for the People:
- Victim AAA (the minor).
- Dr. Corazon S. Ramos, general practitioner who initially examined AAA in clinic and placed sterile gauze on the bleeding vaginal wound and referred AAA to PGH or Ospital ng Maynila.
- Julma Dizon Dapilos, National Bureau of Investigation supervising agent.
- Dr. Stella Guerrero-Manalo, Philippine General Hospital (PGH) pediatrician who conducted subsequent medical examination and testified to specific genital injuries.
- Dr. Cynthia Ramos Leynes, PGH child psychiatrist.
- BBB, mother of AAA (name redacted).
Documentary and object evidence were introduced (references to records pages provided in source).

Medical Findings (Dr. Guerrero-Manalo)

Medical examination yielded the following findings:
- Hymenal laceration at 11 o'clock position.
- Fresh hymenal laceration at 6 o'clock position extending to posterior vaginal wall.
- Posterior fourchette extending to perineum.
- Bleeding from laceration sites.
The medical findings were described as "compatible with penetration injury secondary to assault as per disclosure."

Prosecution’s Version of Events (as established at trial)

Victim AAA was born on March 15, 1991; she lived in a compound in Parañaque City near accused Pueyo, whom she called "Tito Flor."
On the morning of November 4, 1997, AAA and playmates were playing on a parked bulldozer near her residence while Pueyo was doing welding work nearby.
Pueyo reportedly told the children to climb down the bulldozer; AAA sat with legs spread on a pile of coconut lumber. Pueyo allegedly approached AAA and poked a welding rod onto her genital area, causing pain and bleeding.
AAA went home around 9:30 a.m. and did not tell her mother immediately; mother BBB later noticed blood when bathing AAA and brought her to Dr. Ramos' clinic.
Prosecution imputed to Pueyo expenses for AAA’s medical treatment and loss of employment of AAA’s father as a result of filing the case.

Defense Version and Testimony

Accused Pueyo denied the allegations and claimed he never touched AAA.
He admitted he was doing welding work near the children on the morning in question but asserted the allegations that he poked AAA with a welding rod were lies concocted against him.
Defense presented two witnesses: accused Pueyo himself and his wife, Marietta Pueyo.

RTC Findings and Disposition (February 22, 2005)

RTC found AAA’s testimony positive, understandable, spontaneous, credible, and consistent with the normal run of things.
RTC believed the prosecution’s version and found Pueyo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 10(a), RA 7610.
Dispositive portion (as quoted in the source):
- Convicted of Violation of Section 10(a) of RA 7610.
- Penalized to suffer an indeterminate sentence of six (6) years and one (1) day to eight (8) years of prision mayor.
- Ordered to pay offended party P1,640.00 for medicines, P4,000.00 for food and fare, and P500,000.00 for loss of job of the father of the offended victim [AAA].

Court of Appeals Ruling (December 29, 2009) — Findings and Modifications

CA found no reason to reverse the RTC and was persuaded primarily by Dr. Guerrero-Manalo’s testimony and medical certification establishing genital lacerations resulting from penetration by a metal welding rod.
CA upheld that Pueyo poked AAA with a welding rod causing genital lacerations and physical injury.
CA modified the penalty and damages awarded by the RTC:
- Sentenced Pueyo to indeterminate imprisonment of FOUR (4) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS AND ONE (1) DAY of prision correccional as minimum, to SIX (6) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS AND ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as maximum.
- Ordered payment of P1,640.00 for medicines.
- Ordered payment of P50,000.00 as moral
...continue reading