Title
People vs. XXX
Case
G.R. No. 230904
Decision Date
Jan 8, 2020
Appellant convicted of multiple sexual offenses against minors, including rape and lascivious conduct, affirmed by Supreme Court with modified penalties and damages.
rape
acts of lasciviousness
conviction

Case Summary (G.R. No. 230904)

Informations, Charges, and Arraignment

The RTC consolidated six (6) Informations, each for distinct but related offenses. In Criminal Case No. CR-06-8540, appellant was charged with rape by sexual assault against AAA for allegedly inserting his finger in her vagina by force, threat, and intimidation. In Criminal Case No. CR-06-8541, appellant was charged with acts of lasciviousness against BBB for allegedly touching her legs and private parts by force and intimidation. In Criminal Case No. CR-06-8542, appellant was charged with violation of Section 5(c) in relation to Section 6(b) of RA 9262, for allegedly attempting to cause physical harm to CCC and AAA by chasing them while armed with a bladed instrument. In Criminal Case No. CR-06-8543, appellant was charged with attempted rape against AAA, alleged to have commenced the commission of rape by kissing, embracing, forcing her to lay down, and touching and mashing her breast, but allegedly desisting due to a cause other than his own. In Criminal Case Nos. CR-06-8544 and CR-06-8545, appellant was charged with two (2) counts of rape by carnal knowledge against AAA on August 14, 2002 and August 21, 2002, respectively.

Appellant pleaded not guilty to all six (6) charges, and the cases proceeded to joint trial.

Prosecution Evidence: Victim Testimony and Corroboration

The prosecution relied on the testimonies of AAA, BBB, CCC, and DDD. Their accounts established appellant’s close domestic relationship with the children and described multiple sexual assaults and acts of violence during the years covered by the Informations.

AAA testified that she first met appellant when her mother introduced him as her new live-in partner when she was still six (6) years old, and she later considered him her real father because her biological father had left. She narrated three (3) material sexual incidents involving her. The first occurred on August 14, 2002. AAA stated that the night before the incident, she overheard appellant asking DDD for permission to treat AAA as his wife. DDD refused. On the evening of August 14, while AAA was left alone doing kitchen chores, appellant allegedly grabbed her, held her arms, covered her mouth, removed her jogging pants, and threatened her with death if she reported the incident to anyone, including DDD. AAA stated that appellant forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina and, after satisfying his lust, sexually assaulted her further by inserting his finger into her vagina. She also explained that she did not shout because appellant covered her mouth and repeatedly threatened DDD.

The second incident allegedly occurred on August 21, 2002. AAA related that when DDD and CCC were away, appellant shoved her face-down on the sofa, forced her position while she was stooping, removed her jogging pants, and forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina. AAA stated that she cried and felt pain, but could not shout because appellant was on top of her and her mouth was pushed against the sofa. As in the first incident, she kept silent because of fear that appellant would kill DDD.

The third incident, involving acts of sexual assault, was alleged to have happened on August 3, 2006 when AAA was seventeen (17) years old and sleeping in the same bedroom with her family. AAA testified that appellant woke her with malicious embrace and kisses, groped her inside her jogging pants, and inserted his middle finger into her vagina multiple times. She said she felt pain because his nails scratched her inner vagina. AAA testified that the presence of CCC asleep in the same room did not stop appellant.

AAA further testified to another molestation on August 4, 2006. She said appellant kissed and caressed her while she cleaned kitchen utensils, placed his hands inside her shirt, and mashed her breasts. AAA stated that appellant stopped when he saw DDD arriving, and then he acted as though he had sent her on an errand.

Finally, AAA described the events of August 5, 2006, when she said appellant arrived home drunk and berated the family, ridiculed them, threatened to hack them into pieces, and then went downstairs carrying a samurai. AAA testified that she pulled CCC and ran out; appellant chased AAA and CCC using the bladed weapon until he stopped when he saw a neighbor. The family sought help at the police station, but the police did not accompany them back to the house. On their way home, AAA and the others saw appellant burning their things, prompting them to seek police escort again. Appellant was arrested inside their house.

BBB corroborated the general pattern of sexual abuse and testified that appellant committed acts of lasciviousness against her on August 5, 2006. She stated that around 8 o’clock in the evening, appellant molested her by touching her thighs and breasts. BBB testified that she did not cry out because appellant threatened to kill her family if she disclosed the incident. She added that this was not the first time she was sexually violated and that it happened whenever she was left alone with appellant. She further testified that she first openly reported the abuse only when appellant was already caught by the police.

CCC corroborated the violence component on August 5, 2006. He stated that around 9 o’clock in the evening, appellant berated him and his sister before chasing them with a bladed weapon. They went to the police station to report the incident. When they returned home, they saw appellant burning their things and again returned to the police station for assistance, which led to appellant’s arrest.

DDD, appellant’s common-law wife and the mother of AAA and BBB, testified to the family structure and to the events of August 5, 2006. She stated that when she started living with appellant, AAA lived with DDD’s sister and BBB stayed with her mother, and that later AAA and BBB came to live with them. DDD testified that AAA and BBB treated appellant as “tatay.” She narrated that on August 5, 2006, appellant arrived drunk and shouted threats to kill them and then went upstairs. She said they heard banging noises, and when appellant came down carrying a bladed weapon, they ran outside. DDD and BBB went toward the barangay captain’s house while appellant chased AAA and CCC. After they reported the incident, they returned home to find appellant already burning their things.

On the medical aspect, the prosecution and the defense stipulated that Dr. Angelita Legaspi examined AAA and found healed hymenal lacerations at the four (4) o’clock, eight (8) o’clock, and twelve (12) o’clock positions, as later embodied in the Medical Certificate.

Appellant’s Defense Evidence

Appellant testified as the lone witness for the defense. He denied the first and second charges of rape. He claimed it was impossible for him to commit the rape counts because he had been working in Puerto Galera for most of 2002, and he alleged he was not free to leave work to visit DDD and the children regularly in Calapan City. He also denied sexually assaulting AAA on August 3, 2006 and said the act could not have happened because CCC was asleep in the room. As to BBB’s testimony of molestation on August 5, 2006, appellant asserted that the alleged incident did not take place since he allegedly went straight to bed that night. He claimed the August 5, 2006 incident was fabricated due to quarrels between him and DDD days before his arrest over an alleged P80,000.00 debt.

RTC Findings and Convictions

By Joint Decision dated June 24, 2014, the RTC convicted appellant on all counts. The RTC imposed the following principal results: it found appellant guilty of two (2) counts of rape by sexual assault and rape by carnal knowledge—as charged—against AAA, each qualified by minority and relationship, and it imposed reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole for each rape by carnal knowledge count. The RTC convicted appellant of acts of lasciviousness for the offense it considered proper in the attempted rape case, due to the prosecution’s alleged failure to prove that appellant attempted to touch AAA’s vagina. It also convicted appellant of acts of lasciviousness against BBB. Finally, the RTC found appellant guilty under Section 5(c) of RA 9262, treating appellant’s berating, running amok, and chasing with a bladed weapon as violence against women and their children that penalizes an attempt to cause physical harm.

Appellant’s defenses of denial and alibi were rejected as weak against the prosecution witnesses’ positive, categorical testimony.

Court of Appeals Proceedings and Modifications

Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals, challenging the credibility and plausibility of the testimonies and raising specific arguments for acquittal on the rape, acts of lasciviousness, and RA 9262 charges. He argued, among others, that DDD allegedly failed to take extraordinary protective measures after an indecent proposal; that AAA’s testimony did not establish threats, intimidation, or force beyond bare allegations; that the testimonies lacked medical and evidentiary support, including an objection to the medical report for not being supported by testimony in open court and its alleged timing four (4) years after the incidents; and that the charge for the August 3, 2006 incident was improbable given CCC’s presence. On acts of lasciviousness, appellant argued inconsistencies regarding whether BBB was alone in the house during the relevant time and attacked the RA 9262 charge by claiming the chasing incident was not sufficiently proven because certain neighbors did not testify.

In its Decision dated December 12, 2016 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07090, the Court of Appeals affirmed appellant’s conviction but modified the penalties and awards. It reduced and adjusted specific terms for acts of lasciviousness, ordered mandatory psychological counseling and compliance reporting for the RA 9262 conviction, and increased certain civil indemnities, moral damages, and exemplary damages for the qualified rape coun

...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