Case Summary (G.R. No. 170470)
Applicable Law and Charges
The accused was charged with two offenses:
- Qualified Rape under Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) as amended.
- Violation of Section 10 (A), Article VI of Republic Act No. 7610 (RA 7610), which pertains to other acts of child abuse or cruelty prejudicial to a child's development.
Summary of the Prosecution's Case
AAA testified that the accused, who she regarded as her father figure, raped her on the evening of March 11, 2004, at their home. Despite initial resistance, she complied due to threats from the accused that he would kill her and her family if she made any noise. The assault took place in the living room and continued in the bedroom, with her one-year-old sister sleeping nearby. AAA did not disclose the incident immediately out of fear but later confided in her aunt, who reported the case to the authorities. Medical examination confirmed hymenal lacerations consistent with sexual assault.
AAA also testified to a subsequent incident on March 27, 2004, when the accused slapped her face upon her return to retrieve her belongings, which was witnessed by barangay officials.
Summary of the Defense's Case
The accused denied the charges, asserting that AAA ran away from home due to a reprimand from him regarding her failure to eat at home. He admitted slapping AAA but denied any sexual assault. He alleged that a “kambal” (an unidentified individual) was the true perpetrator, a claim unsupported by evidence. The accused maintained that he treated AAA as his own daughter.
Trial Court's Findings and Sentence
The Regional Trial Court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified rape and violation of RA 7610. The court gave credence to AAA’s testimony, holding that inconsistencies were minor and understandable given the traumatic context. It ruled that the accused used moral ascendancy, given his relationship to AAA, in lieu of actual physical force or intimidation. The accused was sentenced to reclusion perpetua for rape, with damages awarded to AAA, and a sentence of four years and two months to ten years of imprisonment for the child abuse violation, with additional damages and fines.
Court of Appeals Decision
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty and damages. It found the accused guilty of simple rape, not qualified rape, and imposed reclusion perpetua without the “without eligibility for parole” clause. It increased damage awards for the rape conviction and adjusted the sentence for the RA 7610 violation to four years, nine months, and eleven days to six years, eight months, and one day of imprisonment. The appellate court confirmed the accused's guilt based on the victim's minority and his moral ascendancy.
Discrepancy Between the Body and Dispositive Portion of the Decision
An evident inconsistency appeared where the body of the Appellate Court's decision held the accused guilty of qualified rape, but its dispositive portion convicted him of simple rape only. The Supreme Court applied the rule that, where such conflict exists and the error is clear and evident, the body of the decision prevails to correct the dispositive portion, consistent with precedent.
Supreme Court's Ruling on Criminal Liability
The Supreme Court held the accused guilty only of simple rape under Article 266-A of the RPC. It ruled that the offense of qualified rape requires proof of both minority of the victim and a specified familial relationship (parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, or relative within the third civil degree, or common-law spouse of the victim’s parent). The Information incorrectly alleged the accused as the victim’s stepfather, but evidence only established a common-law partnership with the victim’s mother, which is not recognized as legal marriage or sufficient to qualify the rape as “qualified.”
The Court referenced precedents clarifying that a common-law spouse is not the same as a stepfather for purposes of qualified rape, and thus the accused is not liable for qualified rape. Minority was established and alleged correctly, which serves as an aggravating circumstance. The Court applied jurisprudence granting exemplary damages where either minority or relationship is established, even if the other is lacking.
Supreme Court's Ruling on Violation of RA 7610
The accused was found guilty of violating Section 10 (a), Article VI of RA 7610 for slapping AAA, which the Court held as humiliating, degrading, and traumatizing to a child, thus constituting child abuse under the law. The courts observed that the slap was meant to intimidate AAA, likely to prevent her from exposing the rape. The prescribed penalty under RA 7610 was properly applied using the Indeterminate Sentence Law, with a
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 170470)
Case Background and Nature of the Appeal
- The case is an appeal from the decision dated August 28, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10516, affirming the conviction of appellant XXX.
- XXX was convicted of qualified rape under Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and violation of Section 10(A), Article VI of Republic Act No. 7610 (RA 7610).
- The appeal seeks to reverse this conviction and to reassess the criminal and civil liabilities imposed.
Charges Against the Accused
- Criminal Case No. 04-2755 charged XXX with rape committed on or about March 11, 2004 involving AAA, a minor aged 15 years, with the use of force, violence, and intimidation.
- The charge specified that XXX is the stepfather of the victim, AAA.
- Criminal Case No. 04-2754 charged XXX with violating Section 10(A), Article VI of RA 7610 by physically assaulting AAA on or about March 27, 2004, slapping her face and causing injuries prejudicial to her development.
- Appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges at the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
Summary of Trial and Testimonies
- Prosecution witnesses included the victim AAA, her mother BBB, her aunt DDD, barangay tanod Gilbert Gandia, and Dr. Wennie Parado-Alcantara.
- AAA testified that appellant sexually molested her on March 11, 2004 when she was 15, detailing events in the family home involving physical force, threats to kill her family if she resisted, and the act of rape.
- AAA recounted fleeing her home after the incident and reporting the matter to relatives and eventually the police.
- Medical examination by Dr. Parado-Alcantara confirmed hymenal lacerations and contusions consistent with AAA’s testimony.
- The assault allegedly occurred inside their home, both in the living room and bedroom, despite the presence of other siblings.
- On March 27, 2004, appellant allegedly slapped AAA upon her return home with barangay officials; this was admitted by appellant.
- Appellant denied the rape charges, claiming that AAA ran away due to being scolded and that a person named "kambal" was the real perpetrator.
- The defense argued inconsistency in the victim’s testimony regarding the number and location of assaults.
Ruling of the Trial Court
- The RTC convicted XXX of qualified rape and violation of RA 7610, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and prision correccional to prision mayor, respectively.
- The RTC found the victim credible despite minor inconsistencies in details due to the traumatic nature of the event.
- It ruled that appellant used moral ascendancy over the minor victim instead of physical force.
- Awarded damages included civil indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages totaling significant sums in both cases.
Findings and Decision of the Court of Appeals
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified some penalties and damages.
- The court recognized that although the Information charged appellant as the victim’s stepfather, the evidence showed they were common-law spouses.
- The body of the CA decision held appellant guilty of qualified rape with penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, but the dispositive portion convicted only of simple rape and imposed reclusion perpetua without the parole restriction.
- The CA increased damage awards to P100,000.00 each for civil indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages for rape.
- For violation of RA 7610,