Title
People vs. Reyes y Marasigan
Case
G.R. No. 210619
Decision Date
Aug 20, 2014
An 11-year-old girl was raped twice by her mother's common-law partner. Medical evidence and credible testimony led to his conviction for qualified statutory rape, with modified damages imposed.
rape
statutory rape
conviction

Case Summary (G.R. No. 210619)

Factual Background

Two separate informations for rape were filed against the accused-appellant. In Criminal Case No. C-02-6987, it was alleged that sometime in May 2002, at Barangay Calero, Calapan City, the accused-appellant, motivated by lust and lewd design, and by means of force and intimidation, succeeded in having carnal knowledge of AAA, an eleven-year-old daughter of his common-law wife, against her will and without consent. In Criminal Case No. C-02-6988, it was alleged that on or about August 5, 2002, at the same place, the same acts were committed against AAA, then also an eleven-year-old daughter of his common-law wife, against her will and without consent.

Upon arraignment, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges. During pre-trial, the prosecution stipulated and the defense admitted that the accused-appellant was the common-law husband of AAA’s mother, BBB. The defense waived the accused-appellant’s right to stipulate facts and to enter into a plea-bargaining agreement.

The prosecution presented AAA’s birth certificate showing that she was born on October 31, 1990, a medical certificate dated August 7, 2002 prepared by Dr. Ma. Teresita Nieva-Bolor, and affidavits executed by AAA and BBB. The defense offered AAA’s birth certificate as its sole documentary evidence.

Prosecution’s Version of Events

In its narrative of the prosecution’s version, the Office of the Solicitor General described that in May 2002, when AAA was eleven years old, the accused-appellant entered a room where she was alone, touched her breasts, removed her clothes, and prevented her from leaving. He removed his own shorts and briefs, placed himself on top of her, attempted to insert his penis into her vagina, and, after failing to fully insert, put on his clothing and left the house. AAA then dressed and went to the neighbor’s house where she watched television. Although she later spoke to her mother after the incident, she did not disclose what happened earlier because she feared the accused-appellant’s threat to kill her and her mother.

For the second incident, on August 5, 2002, the prosecution asserted that AAA was again alone in their room when the accused-appellant entered. He removed her blouse, skirt, sando shirt, and panty, and threatened to kill her and her mother, preventing her from resisting effectively. He mounted her on top of her and attempted to insert his penis into her vagina. She tried to push him away but failed. She felt pain in her vagina during “push and pull” motions. Afterward, the accused-appellant put on his shorts and briefs and left. AAA dressed and, about an hour later, her mother and siblings arrived, after which AAA disclosed the rape. AAA reported the incidents later that evening, and on August 6, 2002, Dr. Nieva-Bolor examined AAA and issued a medical certificate reporting vulvar erythema and hymenal lacerations, including incomplete healed hymenal lacerations at the three o’clock position and complete healed hymenal lacerations at the five, six, eight, and nine o’clock positions, which were possibly caused by insertion of the penis during actual sexual intercourse, as well as other possibilities such as masturbation, insertion of hands or objects, or insertion of a hard or erect penis.

Defense’s Version and Testimonies

The accused-appellant denied the charges. He stated that he and BBB had a common-law relationship for two years and that the arrangement deteriorated because BBB became unemployed and used his earnings for gambling. He claimed that on August 5, 2002, he was at home doing carpentry work the whole day, with AAA and BBB present, while their siblings were in school. He narrated that later that night he drove BBB and her children, including AAA, away from the house. He alleged that AAA filed the complaints out of anger.

His defense witness, Princess Ann Sicat, testified that she was with AAA the entire day of August 5, 2002. She claimed that the accused-appellant could not have raped AAA at that time because AAA went home late at around eight o’clock in the evening. Sicat also testified she attended classes in Calapan Central School.

Trial and Joint RTC Conviction

In its Joint Decision dated November 25, 2009, the RTC convicted the accused-appellant of two counts of rape, one for the May 2002 incident and one for the August 5, 2002 incident. The RTC found the accused-appellant’s theory that AAA filed complaints due to resentment or retaliation to be unconvincing. It treated the supposed motive as too shallow and flimsy, reasoning that a minor would not risk humiliation, anxiety, and public exposure if her account were untrue. The RTC also found AAA’s testimony to be detailed and straightforward regarding both incidents. It gave weight to Dr. Nieva-Bolor’s findings of hymenal lacerations as corroborative of AAA’s allegations.

As to Sicat’s testimony, the RTC found it biased and without credibility. Although Sicat claimed she was with AAA all day of August 5, she admitted that she attended her classes at Calapan Central School, which the RTC found inconsistent with her claimed timeline. The RTC further rejected the accused-appellant’s denial as self-serving negative evidence that could not overcome AAA’s positive testimony.

The RTC imposed the penalty of two (2) reclusion perpetua (as then applied under the charges), with accessory penalties, and ordered the accused-appellant to pay civil indemnity of P100,000.00, moral damages of P75,000.00, and exemplary damages of P50,000.00, as stated in its dispositive portion.

Issues Raised on Appeal to the CA and the OSG’s Position

Before the CA, the accused-appellant assailed the RTC judgment. He claimed that for the May 2002 incident, the prosecution failed to show penetration. He argued that AAA testified only that he tried to insert his organ but was unable to do so. For the August 5, 2002 incident, he pointed out that Dr. Nieva-Bolor’s examination two days later showed no evidence of fresh lacerations and only incomplete lacerations at the three o’clock position and healed lacerations at the five, six, eight, and nine o’clock positions. He argued that the manner by which the lacerations were incurred was uncertain and could be due to regular insertion of hard objects, self manipulation, or severe scratching from improper hygiene.

The OSG countered these claims. It emphasized that for the May 2002 incident, AAA’s affidavit executed while she was at the police station, which was offered by the prosecution, categorically indicated that the accused-appellant inserted his penis into her vagina. For the August 5, 2002 incident, the OSG relied on AAA’s detailed narration of the acts and the pain she experienced, and on Dr. Nieva-Bolor’s medical findings of hymenal lacerations. It also highlighted that AAA’s vulva was reddish at the time of examination and that Dr. Nieva-Bolor opined that sexual intercourse was among the possible causes.

CA Ruling Affirming Conviction

On July 10, 2013, the CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto. The CA held that AAA’s testimony carried the “ring of truth” and that the accused-appellant’s reliance on an alleged absence of penetration for the May 2002 incident was unavailing. It reasoned that when AAA testified she felt pain because the accused-appellant tried to insert his penis into her vagina while on top of her and performing pumping motions, an “entry” was established. The CA stressed that even the “least extent” of entry into the female organ sufficed and that remaining a virgin did not negate rape.

On the medical aspect, the CA held that the absence of fresh lacerations was not a firm indication that no rape occurred, citing the rule that hymenal lacerations were not an element of rape. It found that AAA’s testimony alone was sufficient to convict for the August 5, 2002 incident, and it treated the medical certificate as corroborative rather than indispensable. In addition, the CA applied the doctrine that the absence of fresh lacerations does not prove the victim was not raped.

The CA also reiterated that factual findings on witness credibility by the trial court, affirmed by the CA, generally should not be disturbed absent overlooked substantial facts and circumstances.

Supreme Court’s Treatment of the Applicable Law and Elements

In reviewing the case, the Supreme Court sustained the CA’s verdict of conviction for two counts of statutory rape, but it modified the civil damages and imposed interest on the damages awarded. It analyzed the elements of rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) and the penalty under Article 266-B. It stated that to be liable under Article 266-A(1)(d) for statutory rape, force, threat, intimidation, fraudulent machination, or grave abuse of authority were not required as elements, and deprivation of reason or unconsciousness was also not required. It also noted that if the victim was below eighteen years of age and the offender was the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim, the offense fell under the qualifying circumstances discussed under Article 266-B.

The Court then discussed the elements of statutory rape as articulated in People of the Philippines v. Guillermo B. Cadano, Jr., emphasizing that statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below twelve years of age regardless of consent or lack thereof, and that proof of force, intimidation, or consent was unnecessary because absence of free consent was conclusively presumed. It identified the prosecution’s burden as proving: (a) the age of the complainant; (b) the identity of the accused; and (c) the sexual intercourse between the accused and the complainant.

Evidence Supporting Statutory Rape in This Case

Applying those principles, the Court held that the statutory rape elements were present. It found that AAA was eleven years old when the offenses were committed, supported by the birth certificate presented as evidence. It also found that the accused-appellant’s identity was established through

...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