Case Summary (G.R. No. 210161)
Key Dates
• September 2002 – First occasion of sexual abuse (AAA, then 12, intoxicated in accused’s house; forced intercourse)
• December 2003 – Second occasion of sexual abuse (AAA, then 13, intoxicated; forced intercourse)
• December 8, 2005 – Filing of two Informations for child abuse under RA 7610, Sec. 5(b)
• June 26, 2006 – Arraignment and plea of “not guilty”
• March 12, 2012 – RTC Branch 22 Decision convicting accused of two counts of rape (Revised Penal Code Art. 266-A(1)) and imposing reclusion perpetua on each count plus civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages
• October 9, 2013 – CA Decision affirming RTC in toto
• January 10, 2018 – SC Decision
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 21 – protection against double jeopardy
• Revised Penal Code, Art. 266-A(1) – rape by force, threat, unconsciousness or abuse of authority; prescribes reclusion perpetua when offended party is under 12 or otherwise
• R.A. 7610, Sec. 5(b) – sexual abuse of a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; penalty of reclusion temporal (medium to maximum period)
Procedural History
Udang was jointly tried on two Informations alleging child abuse under Sec. 5(b) of R.A. 7610. The RTC nevertheless convicted him of two counts of rape under Art. 266-A(1) of the RPC and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua per count, with damages. The CA affirmed. The SC took up the appeal.
Issues
- Whether the change of judge between trial and decision deprived appellant of a fair assessment of witness credibility.
- Whether charging and convicting for both rape (RPC) and sexual abuse (R.A. 7610) violates the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy.
- Whether, given the Informations’ factual allegations, conviction should be for rape or for sexual abuse.
SC’s Analysis and Rulings
Judge Replacement Does Not Void Decision
– Jurisdiction vests in the court, not in an individual judge. Inevitably, judges may retire or transfer pending decision.
– Following United States v. Abreu (1915) and People v. Court of First Instance of Quezon, Br. X (1993), the SC held that a successor judge may decide on a complete, authentic transcript without requiring re-trial. No prejudice was shown.No Double Jeopardy Between Rape and Sexual Abuse
– Art. III, Sec. 21 bars prosecution or multiple punishments only for offenses sharing “identical essential elements” (same offense) or “the same act” under both law and ordinance.
– Rape under RPC Art. 266-A(1) requires force, threat, unconsciousness or abuse of authority; sexual abuse under R.A. 7610, Sec. 5(b) punishes any sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with an exploited child, regardless of consent.
– Distinct essential elements mean that a single act may give rise to both offenses without offending double jeopardy. Abay doctrine (2009) to the contrary is overruled.Proper Conviction Is for Sexual Abuse, Not Rape
– The Informations allege that Udang “sexually abuse[d]” AAA by intercourse while she was intoxicated, debasing her dignity—elements of sexual abuse under R.A. 7610, Sec. 5(b).
– Factual allegations, not cited statutes, determine the charged offense. Here, all elements of sexual abuse (intercourse or lascivious conduct; victim under 18; adult’s coercion or influence) are established by AAA’s c
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 210161)
Facts of the Case
- Two Informations for “child abuse” under Republic Act No. 7610 were filed on December 8, 2005, against Bienvinido Udang, Sr., docketed as Family Case Nos. 2006-140 and 2006-141.
- First incident (September 2002): AAA, then 12 years old, drank five bottles of Tanduay rum with Udang’s children, became intoxicated, was carried by Udang into a room, undressed, and subjected to sexual intercourse.
- Second incident (December 2003): AAA, then 13, drank with Bienvinido Jr. and Udang, became sleepy, lay down in a room, was followed by Udang who undressed her and had intercourse until ejaculation.
- Medical examination (April 14, 2004) by Dr. Darlene Revelo revealed healed hymenal lacerations at 4, 7, and 10 o’clock positions and excoriations between thighs and genitalia.
Procedural History
- June 26, 2006: Udang pleaded not guilty; joint trial commenced in RTC Branch 22, Cagayan de Oro City.
- March 12, 2012: RTC convicted Udang of two counts of rape under Article 266-A(1) of the Revised Penal Code, imposed reclusion perpetua on each count, and awarded civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages.
- October 9, 2013: Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01032 affirmed the RTC decision in toto.
- October 23, 2013: Notice of appeal filed with the Supreme Court; case submitted on July 7, 2014; Decision promulgated January 10, 2018 (G.R. No. 210161).
Defense and Prosecution Contentions
- Prosecution:
- AAA’s testimony was “categorical, convincing and consistent” regarding the events.
- Medical findings corroborated sexual violence.
- Policy gives full credence to child-victim’s statement.
- Defense:
- Udang denied all acts; asserted alibi (with fam