Case Summary (G.R. No. 238405)
Prosecution Evidence — Victim’s Testimony
AAA testified in detail that on September 5, 2007 she was summoned and taken into a room where XXX ordered her to undress, forced his penis into her mouth (fellatio) and subsequently inserted his penis into her vagina; she described pain on penetration and crying, recounted threats by XXX not to tell her mother, and related that the last time she was molested her mother saw XXX forcing her to perform fellatio. The victim’s account included demonstrations of penetration and consistent statements about the sequence of events. She testified at different times (trial transcripts show testimony at ages nine and later at twelve) and her testimony was described in the record as detailed, consistent on essential matters, and unrehearsed.
Prosecution Evidence — Mother’s Testimony and Medical Findings
BBB testified that on September 5, 2007 she observed AAA and XXX in a compromising position in the house, described seeing what she perceived as XXX “breastfeeding” the child on his genitals and that her child reported being molested and threatened by XXX. Medical evidence by Dr. Genevive Laguerta (Medical-Legal Certificate) recorded redness at the vulvar opening and hymenal lacerations at the 7, 11 and 1 o’clock positions; the doctor opined that an object such as a penis had been forcibly inserted into the victim’s hymenal opening. The victim’s birth certificate established her age at the time.
Defense Case
XXX testified and denied the allegations. He admitted the common-law relationship with BBB and admitted being with AAA on September 5, 2007, but denied committing the acts alleged. The defense presented no alibi accounting for absence from the scene, and the accused did not provide evidence that materially contradicted the victim’s testimony or the medical findings.
RTC Findings and Judgment
The Regional Trial Court (Branch 61, Gumaca) credited the victim’s testimony as detailed, convincing, and corroborated by the mother’s testimony and medical evidence; it found AAA’s minority proved by her birth certificate; and it rejected defense assertions of ill motive. The RTC convicted XXX as follows: Criminal Case No. 9994-G — Rape by Sexual Assault (Object Rape) with a sentence stated as 12 years prision mayor minimum to 20 years reclusion temporal maximum, and awarded P30,000 each for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages; Criminal Cases Nos. 9995-G and 10479-G — Statutory Rape with sentences of reclusion perpetua each and awards of P75,000 civil indemnity, P75,000 moral damages, and P30,000 exemplary damages for each case.
Court of Appeals Ruling and Modifications
The Court of Appeals affirmed convictions for the rape-by-sexual-assault count in No. 9994-G and for statutory rape in No. 10479-G but acquitted the accused in No. 9995-G due to reasonable doubt. The CA found qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship and treated the rape as qualified where appropriate. The CA modified penalties and awards (for example, ordering different indeterminate ranges and increasing damages in one count to P100,000 each), and imposed six percent per annum interest on monetary awards from finality until paid. The CA denied the accused’s motion for partial reconsideration.
Legal Standards Applied — Elements, Pleading, and Nomenclature
The Supreme Court reiterated controlling legal principles cited in the records: the name or title of the offense in an information does not control where the allegations in the body identify the elements; an information must sufficiently allege the elements and any qualifying circumstances that alter the nature or penalty of the offense so the accused can prepare a defense (Quimvel; Andaya; Begino). Article 266-A (as amended by R.A. No. 8353) distinguishes rape by sexual intercourse (paragraph 1) and rape by sexual assault/object (paragraph 2). Article 266-B prescribes penalties for rape under paragraph 1, including increased penalties where qualifying circumstances are present.
Application of Tulagan and Proper Designation for Object Rape Count (No. 9994-G)
The Court applied People v. Tulagan and related jurisprudence to hold that where sexual-assault acts are committed against a victim under twelve years of age, the proper designation is “Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610” rather than being treated as an Article 336 act of lasciviousness. Because AAA was eight years old at the time, Criminal Case No. 9994-G was properly designated as Sexual Assault under Article 266-A(2) in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610. The statutory penalty framework yields prision mayor as the base penalty for such sexual assault, but where qualifying or aggravating circumstances exist (here: the victim’s minority and the accused’s relationship to the victim as common-law spouse of the parent), the penalty is increased to reclusion temporal; applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law the Court imposed an indeterminate sentence of twelve (12) years prision mayor as minimum to twenty (20) years reclusion temporal as maximum, and adjusted damages to P50,000 each for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages.
Application to Rape by Sexual Intercourse Count (No. 10479-G) — Qualified Rape
For Criminal Case No. 10479-G, the evidence established carnal knowledge by penile-vaginal penetration, satisfying the essential elements of rape by sexual intercourse. Given that the victim was under eighteen and the offender was the common-law spouse of the victim’s parent (a qualifying relationship), the offense constituted Qualified Rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) in relation to Article 266-B. The Information properly alleged the qualifying circumstances and they were proven at trial; therefore the qualifying circumstance converted the offense to qualified rape and justified imposition of the higher penalty. Because of the statutory and constitutional prohibition on the death penalty (R.A. No. 9346), the Court affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, and awarded P100,000 each for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages for that count.
Credibility, Corroboration, and Rejection of Defense Arguments
The Supreme Court accorded deference to the RTC and CA findings on witness credibility, noting that the victim’s testimony was candid, consistent on core facts, and corroborated by the mother’s observations and the medical findings of hymenal lacerations
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 238405)
Case Background and Procedural Posture
- The case concerns an appeal from the April 25, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08168, which affirmed with modifications the December 4, 2015 Judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 61, Gumaca, Quezon, in Criminal Case Nos. 9994-G, 9995-G, and 10479-G.
- G.R. No. 238405; decision authored by Justice Hernando and promulgated December 07, 2020 (891 Phil. 655).
- The accused-appellant is identified as XXX (initials used pursuant to administrative protocol).
- A Motion for Partial Reconsideration was filed before the CA and denied by Resolution dated September 29, 2017.
Informations / Charges (Three Criminal Cases)
- Criminal Case No. 9994-G: Information labeled "Object Rape" alleging that on or about September 5, 2007, in xxxxxxxxxxx, Province of Quezon, XXX, with lewd design, forced eight-year-old AAA to perform fellatio on him by inserting his penis into her mouth; accused alleged to be common-law spouse of AAA’s mother BBB; allegation that accused abused moral ascendancy and used moral depravity in committing the offense.
- Criminal Case No. 9995-G: Information labeled "Statutory Rape" alleging that on or about September 5, 2007, XXX had carnal knowledge of eight-year-old AAA by inserting his penis into her vagina against her will; accused identified as common-law spouse of AAA’s mother BBB; alleged abuse of moral ascendancy and moral depravity.
- Criminal Case No. 10479-G: Information labeled "Statutory Rape" alleging that sometime in September 2007, XXX had carnal knowledge of eight-year-old AAA by inserting his penis into her vagina against her will; accused identified as common-law spouse of AAA’s mother BBB.
- The Informations included allegations of the victim’s minority and the relationship between accused and victim’s parent in the body of the Informations.
Plea and Trial Procedure
- XXX pleaded "not guilty" to all charges.
- The three criminal cases were tried jointly by the RTC.
- The trial produced testimony from the child-victim (AAA), her mother (BBB), medical evidence, and the accused (who testified for the defense as sole witness).
Prosecution’s Version of Events
- Prosecution established that XXX was the common-law husband/partner of BBB (AAA’s mother).
- For Criminal Case No. 10479-G, prosecution alleged that sometime in September 2007, AAA was lying naked on the floor when XXX laid on top of her and twice inserted his penis into her vagina and threatened her not to tell her mother.
- For Criminal Case Nos. 9994-G and 9995-G, prosecution alleged that on September 5, 2007, XXX summoned eight-year-old AAA, brought her into a room, removed her shorts, placed his penis into her mouth (fellatio), and thereafter inserted his penis into AAA’s vagina.
- AAA later confided to BBB about the incidents, leading to BBB reporting the matter to authorities and XXX’s arrest.
Victim’s Identity and Age Evidence
- AAA’s birth certificate shows she was born on February 6, 1999, establishing she was eight years old when the alleged acts occurred in September 2007.
- Trial Service of the Notes (TSNs) reflect AAA’s testimony on various dates; the record notes AAA was nine and later twelve years old when placed on the witness stand in different proceedings.
Victim’s Testimony (AAA)
- AAA testified in detail to multiple incidents: being summoned by XXX, being taken into a room, being told to undress, having XXX insert his penis into her mouth (one time, per testimony), and having his penis inserted into her vagina (advised as painful; two times in one incident per later testimony).
- AAA recounted being forced, threatened not to tell her mother, crying, feeling pain on insertion and movement, and reporting the incident to her mother the next day.
- AAA provided demonstrative indications to the fiscal to describe penetration and identified XXX as the perpetrator.
- AAA also recounted that on the last time she was molested, BBB saw XXX forcing her to perform fellatio.
Mother’s Testimony (BBB)
- BBB testified she saw on September 5, 2007, XXX seemingly “breastfeeding” AAA with his genital organ while XXX lay beside the table and AAA’s hair was disheveled.
- Upon confronting AAA, AAA told BBB not to tell XXX and reported that XXX was molesting her, including breastfeeding on XXX’s genitals, fondling her breasts, and raping her.
- BBB confirmed AAA is her child by a prior husband and not by XXX.
- BBB’s testimony corroborated aspects of AAA’s account and established the victim’s relationship to the accused (accused being common-law partner of BBB).
Medical Evidence
- Dr. Genevive Bayongan Laguerta examined AAA and, in a Medical Legal Certificate, found redness on the opening of AAA’s vulva and hymenal lacerations at 7, 11 and 1 o’clock positions.
- Dr. Laguerta opined that an object, such as a penis, was inserted inside the opening of the hymen by force.
- The Court noted that these medical findings corroborated AAA’s testimony of penetration.
Defense Version and Testimony of Accused (XXX)
- XXX testified as the lone defense witness, confirmed he and BBB were not legally married (i.e., common-law relationship), and denied the allegations.
- He admitted he raised AAA from age two to around eight and admitted being with AAA on September 5, 2007.
- Defense advanced denial and suggested potential ill motive but did not present a solid alibi accounting for accused’s whereabouts during the incidents.
RTC Judgment (December 4, 2015)
- The RTC fo