Case Summary (G.R. No. 227363)
Key Dates
Alleged events: September 2011 (sexual assault by insertion of finger); October 8, 2011 (sexual intercourse).
RTC decision: February 10, 2014.
Court of Appeals decision: August 17, 2015.
Supreme Court decision (final review): March 12, 2019.
Charges and Informations
Two informations were filed. Criminal Case No. SCC‑6210 charged sexual assault (allegedly by forcibly inserting the accused’s finger into AAA’s vagina) under Article 266‑A(2) of the RPC in relation to R.A. No. 7610. Criminal Case No. SCC‑6211 charged statutory rape (sexual intercourse with a nine‑year‑old) under Article 266‑A(1)(d) of the RPC in relation to R.A. No. 7610. The accused pleaded not guilty to both informations.
Material Facts as Established at Trial
BBB (the victim’s aunt) observed suspicious conduct involving the victim and a man; after the victim used an outdoor bathroom, BBB inspected the child’s genitalia, noted swelling, and the child then disclosed abuse by appellant (calling him “Badong”/Salvador Tulagan). AAA testified to two incidents: a September 2011 episode in which Tulagan allegedly spread her legs and inserted his finger into her genitalia (painful), and an October 8, 2011 episode in which he allegedly took her inside his house, ordered her to lie down, removed her clothing, undressed himself, kissed her, and inserted his penis into her vagina while holding her hands. Medical examination by Dr. Tumacder found a healed hymenal laceration at the 6 o’clock position and a dilated vaginal opening, which the doctor said is abnormal for a nine‑year‑old. The accused denied the allegations, maintained an alibi for September mornings, and claimed malicious rumor stemming from a family misunderstanding.
Trial Court Disposition
The Regional Trial Court found the victim’s testimony credible and convicted Tulagan of (1) rape by sexual intercourse (Criminal Case No. SCC‑6211) under Article 266‑A(1)(d), sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and awarding indemnities and damages; and (2) rape by sexual assault (Criminal Case No. SCC‑6210) under Article 266‑A(2), imposing an indeterminate sentence (minimum prision correccional, maximum prision mayor) and awarding indemnities and damages. The RTC emphasized the victim’s positive, categorical identification and the corroborative medical findings, and rejected the alibi and denial.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The CA affirmed the RTC’s convictions but modified penalties and damages. In SCC‑6210 (rape by sexual assault) the CA imposed an indeterminate penalty equivalent to 12 to 15 years reclusion temporal, increased moral damages and awarded exemplary damages. In SCC‑6211 (statutory rape) the CA increased the awards of civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages to P100,000 each. Interest at 6% per annum on damages from finality was imposed.
Issues on Appeal to the Supreme Court
The accused appealed to the Supreme Court reiterating that (a) the victim’s testimony contained inconsistencies and lapses undermining credibility; (b) the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and (c) the CA erred in giving weight to the victim’s testimony despite alleged inconsistencies and delay in reporting.
Standard of Review and Credibility Assessment
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the long‑standing rule giving deference to trial courts on factual findings, particularly credibility determinations, because trial courts are uniquely positioned to observe demeanor and assess sincerity. The Court held that minor inconsistencies in a witness’s account do not automatically destroy credibility; what is decisive is the witness’s consistency on the principal elements and the presence of corroborating evidence. The Court applied this doctrine with heightened respect where the RTC’s findings were sustained by the CA.
Application of the Law to the Facts; Evidentiary Findings
The Supreme Court found that (1) AAA’s testimony was straightforward, categorical and corroborated by medical findings; (2) the positive identification of Tulagan by AAA outweighed the accused’s denials and alibi; (3) Tulagan failed to establish physical impossibility given the proximity of residences and the lack of proof he could not have been present; and (4) delay in reporting did not defeat credibility in the absence of proof of concoction or malicious motive. Accordingly, the Court affirmed guilt beyond reasonable doubt for both offenses.
Reconciliation and Clarification of Penal Provisions (R.A. 8353 vis‑à‑vis R.A. 7610)
The Court undertook an extensive analysis to reconcile: (a) the RPC provisions on rape (Article 266‑A as amended by R.A. 8353) and acts of lasciviousness (Article 336); (b) the legislative definition of lascivious conduct (R.A. 7610 and its implementing rules); and (c) the interaction of R.A. 7610 (child protection statute) with R.A. 8353 (Anti‑Rape Law). Key clarifications include:
- Rape by carnal knowledge (Article 266‑A(1)) remains conceptually distinct from sexual assault (Article 266‑A(2)); the latter originally absorbed certain lewd acts formerly treated as acts of lasciviousness.
- R.A. 7610 introduced the concept of children “exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse” (EPSOSA), and defined lascivious conduct in broader, child‑protection terms (intentional touching of specified body parts or introduction of objects into genital/anal orifices).
- Where an act falls both within sexual assault under Article 266‑A(2) and within the definition of lascivious conduct under R.A. 7610 (i.e., the victim is a child as defined by law), the offender should generally be held liable under R.A. 7610 when this yields the more protective penalty for a child victim—consistent with the statute’s special‑protection purpose and constitutional child‑welfare principles.
- Sexual intercourse with a child under 12 years old or a demented person is statutory rape under Article 266‑A(1)(d) and Article 266‑B (reclusion perpetua); consent is immaterial for victims under 12 or demented.
- The Court explained how Dimakuta, Quimvel and Caoili apply and clarified boundaries for charging offenses, stressing that charging and conviction should follow the actual facts alleged and proven, and that overlap must be resolved in light of statutory text, legislative purpose, and lex specialis principles.
Nomenclature and Penalty Modifications in This Case
Because AAA was nine years old, the Supreme Court held that:
- Criminal Case No. SCC‑6210 (insertion of finger into a nine‑year‑old’s genitalia) is properly designated as Sexual Assault under Article 266‑A(2) of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. 7610. The Court applied the penalty appropriate under R.A. 7610 for a child victim: an indeterminate sentence with minimum and maximum within the reclusion temporal range. The Court specified the indeterminate penalty as 12 years, 10 months and 21 days of reclusion temporal (minimum) to 15 years, 6 months and 20 days of reclusion temporal (maximum).
- Criminal Case No. SCC‑6211 (sexual intercourse with a nine‑year‑old) is statutory rape under Article 266‑A(1)(d) in relation to Article 266‑B, and the penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed.
Awards of Civil Indemnity, Moral and Exemplary Damages
The Supreme Court adjusted and fixed damages consistent with the applicable penalties and jurisprudential practice:
- SCC‑6210 (Sexual Assault in relation to R.A. 7610; victim under 12): civil indemnity P50,000; moral damages P50,000; exemplary damages P50,000.
- SCC‑6211 (Statutory Rape; reclusion perpetua): civil indemnity P75,000; moral damages P75,000; exemplary damages P75,000 (modifying the CA awards).
All awarded damages bear legal interest at 6% per annum from the date of finality of the Supreme Court decision until fully paid. The Court also explained a broader framework (endorsed in the opinion) for damages in related offenses: acts of lasciviousness against adults (smaller awards), sexual assault against adults (intermediate awards), and larger awards where penalties are more severe or where exemplary damages are warranted to deter abuse of children.
Final Disposition and Administrative Direction
The Supreme Court denied the appeal on the merits and affirmed the convictions of the RTC and CA with the modifications above. The Court ordered remittal of a copy of the decision to the Department of Justice, Office of the Solicitor General, Court Administrator, and the CA Presidi
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 227363)
Procedural History
- Appeal to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated August 17, 2015 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06679, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Joint Decision dated February 10, 2014 in Criminal Case Nos. SCC-6210 and SCC-6211.
- RTC convicted Salvador Tulagan (accused-appellant) of sexual assault (Crim. Case No. SCC-6210) and statutory rape (Crim. Case No. SCC-6211); accused pleaded not guilty upon arraignment.
- CA affirmed RTC’s findings but modified nomenclature, penalties and awards of damages in part.
- Supreme Court resolution rendered March 12, 2019 (G.R. No. 227363), denying the appeal with modifications to nomenclature, penalty in SCC-6210, and damages in SCC-6211.
Parties and Case Identifiers
- Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines.
- Accused-Appellant: Salvador Tulagan (referred to as “Tulagan”).
- Victim: Referred to in documents as AAA (minor; identity withheld pursuant to RA No. 7610 and related authorities).
- Trial court: Regional Trial Court of San Carlos City — Criminal Case Nos. SCC-6210 (sexual assault) and SCC-6211 (statutory rape).
- Appellate court: Court of Appeals — CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06679.
- Supreme Court: G.R. No. 227363.
Facts as Found by Trial Court and Recited by the Courts A quo
- Events and lay-witness observations:
- BBB, aunt of victim AAA, observed around 10:30 a.m. on October 17, 2011, a man looking at AAA outside their house; when AAA asked to go to the outside bathroom the man suddenly went near her; BBB confronted them, the man left; after AAA returned BBB noticed swelling of AAA’s genitalia and AAA subsequently named appellant (Badong/Salvador Tulagan) as the wrongdoer and asked for help.
- Victim AAA’s testimony (9 years old at relevant times):
- Sometime in September 2011 while peeling corn with her cousin, Tulagan approached her, spread her legs and inserted his finger into her private part; it was painful; Tulagan later pretended to be looking for something and left.
- On or about October 8, 2011, while playing in front of Tulagan’s house, he brought AAA into his house, told her to be quiet, ordered her to lie down, removed her short pants and panties, undressed himself, kissed her cheeks, inserted his penis into her vagina, held and pinned her hands, she cried and felt pain; she did not tell anyone until her aunt examined her.
- Medical/expert evidence:
- Dr. Brenda Tumacder’s genital examination of AAA found a healed laceration at the 6 o’clock position of the hymen and an enlarged/dilated vaginal opening; Dr. Tumacder stated such findings are not normal for a nine-year-old.
- Defense evidence and assertions:
- Tulagan admitted proximity to victim’s residence (lived about 5 meters away) but claimed he did not know AAA well and denied being present at AAA’s house during September 2011.
- Alibi: alleged that during September 2011 (8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.) he was gathering dried banana leaves and resting on their terrace after 1:00 p.m.; claimed his mother was engaged in cutting the banana leaves at the back of the kitchen.
- Alleged motive/rumor: defense claimed prior misunderstanding between Tulagan’s mother and AAA’s grandmother that produced rumors that he raped AAA.
Formal Charges (as alleged in the Informations)
- Criminal Case No. SCC-6210 (Sexual Assault):
- That sometime in September 2011, within jurisdiction, accused, by means of force, intimidation and abuse of superior strength, forcibly laid victim AAA on a cemented pavement and willfully, unlawfully and feloniously inserted his finger into AAA’s vagina, against her will and consent — Contrary to Article 266-A, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in relation to R.A. 7610.
- Criminal Case No. SCC-6211 (Statutory Rape):
- That on or about October 8, 2011, within jurisdiction, accused, by means of force, intimidation and abuse of superior strength, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had sexual intercourse with AAA, a 9-year-old minor, against her will and consent — Contrary to Article 266-A, par. 1(d) of the RPC in relation to R.A. 7610.
Trial Court (RTC) Findings and Disposition (Joint Decision dated February 10, 2014)
- Credibility and proof:
- RTC found prosecution discharged burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt on both offenses, relying on the credible and positive declaration of the victim AAA over defendant’s alibi and denial.
- Elements found established:
- Sexual assault (Art. 266-A, para. 2) — insertion of finger into AAA’s genitalia found proved with attendant circumstances of force/intimidation/abuse of superior strength.
- Statutory rape (Art. 266-A, para. 1(d)) — carnal knowledge of a woman under 12 years of age present.
- Sentences and awards imposed by RTC (dispositive quoted in source):
- SCC-6211 (statutory rape): Appellant found GUILTY; sentenced to reclusion perpetua; indemnify victim Php50,000; moral damages Php50,000; pay costs.
- SCC-6210 (rape by sexual assault): Appellant found GUILTY; sentenced to indeterminate penalty of 6 years prision correccional (minimum) to 12 years prision mayor (maximum); indemnify victim Php30,000; moral damages Php20,000; pay costs.
Court of Appeals Decision (August 17, 2015) — Summary of Modifications
- CA affirmed RTC’s convictions but modified penalties and damages as follows:
- Criminal Case No. SCC-6210 (Rape by Sexual Assault):
- Sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 12 years reclusion temporal (minimum) to 15 years reclusion temporal (maximum).
- Moral damages increased to Php30,000; exemplary damages Php30,000 also granted.
- Criminal Case No. SCC-6211 (Statutory Rape):
- Civil indemnity and moral damages increased to Php100,000 each; exemplary damages Php100,000.
- All damages subject to legal interest at 6% per annum from finality until fully paid.
- Criminal Case No. SCC-6210 (Rape by Sexual Assault):
Issues Raised on Appeal to the Supreme Court
- Main contentions of Salvador Tulagan:
- CA erred in giving weight to AAA’s testimony despite alleged inconsistencies, lapses and contradictions affecting her credibility.
- Alleged insufficiency of proof beyond reasonable doubt; defense of denial and alibi should have been credited.
- Alleged ill motive and rumor by victim’s grandmother purportedly undermining credibility.
- Issues addressed by the Supreme Court majority included:
- Whether factual findings and credibility assessments of the RTC and CA should be disturbed.
- Proper nomenclature and legal characterization of the offenses committed against a child victim aged 9 (interaction of Art. 266-A, RA 8353 and RA 7610).
- Proper penalty to be imposed for sexual assault (SCC-6210) given the victim’s age and applicable statutes.
- Proper amounts of civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages to be awarded under the circumstances.
Supreme Court Majority Ruling — Overview and Key Determinations
- Appeal denied; RTC and CA factual findings affirmed except for modifications to nomenclature, penalty in SCC-6210, and damages in SCC-6211.
- On factual findings and witness credibility:
- Trial court’s observations on credibility carry great weight because of its opportunity to observe witnesses’ demeanor; appellate courts will not lightly overturn them absent facts of weight and substance.
- AAA’s testimony was found credible, straightforward and unwavering on principal elements of the crimes and included positive identification of Tulagan.
- Minor inconsistencies in a witness’s testimony do not, by themselves, destroy credibility; minor variances may bolster credibility as they suggest non-rehearsed testimony.
- Medical findings (hymenal laceration and enlarged vaginal opening) corroborated AAA’s account.
- Defense alibi rejected because Tulagan lived within 50 meters of AAA’s house and failed to prove physical impossibility of presence at locus criminis; denial as negative defense lacked clear and convincing evidence to outweigh AAA’s positive testimony.
- Delay in reporting to police did not, by itself, negate the truthfulness of the charge absent other circumstances proving concoction or ill motive.
- On statutory nomenclature and penalties (reconciliation between RPC as amended by RA 8353 and RA 7610):
- The Court undertook a detailed reconciliation of the law on rape/sexual assault (RPC as amended by RA 8353) and sexual intercourse/lascivious conduct provisions under RA 7610, focusing on terminology, legislative history and penalties.
- Concluded that where acts constituting sexual assault are committed against a victim under 12 years old (or demented), the proper nomenclature is “Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of RA 7610,” not “Acts of Lasciviousness under Art. 336.”
- When sexual intercourse is committed with a victim under 12 years of age or demented, the proper designation is statutory rape under Art. 266-A(1)(d) in relation to Art. 266-B (punishable by reclusion perpetua; special rules for under 7 years old as previously provided).
- Application to the instant case:
- SCC-6210 (finger insertion into 9-year-old): properly characterized as Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Art. 266-A of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b), RA 7610 because the victim was under 12 and the act constituted lascivious conduct (introduction of object into genital orifice).
- Therefore the imposable penalty should be that under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 (reclusion temporal in its medium period), and application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law yields an indeterminate sentence with maximum equal to the proper maximum under the law (15 years, 6 months, 20 days reclusion temporal) and minimum taken from the next lower penalty range — resulting in indeterminate penalty recalculated by the Court.
- SCC-6211 (sexual intercourse with 9-year-old): statutory rape under Art. 266-A(1)(d) in relation to Art. 266-B; sentence of reclusion perpetua affirmed.
- On recalculation of sentence for SCC-6210:
- Applying Indeterminate Sentence Law and proper statutory ranges, the Supreme Court set the indeterminate penalty for SCC-6210 at twelve (12) years, ten (10) months and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion tempo