Title
People vs. XXX accused-appellant
Case
G.R. No. 262520
Decision Date
Nov 13, 2023
Accused-appellant convicted of qualified rape and multiple counts of lascivious conduct against minor stepdaughter, affirmed by Supreme Court with modified penalties and damages.
qualified rape
acts of
lasciviousness

Case Summary (G.R. No. 262520)

Factual Background

AAA testified that in 1995 the accused moved into their house in Sorsogon to cohabit with BBB. AAA stated that, as members of the religious group, they were taught to obey the accused, whom they called “teacher and lord,” under the belief that God would be angry if they disobeyed. AAA further narrated that the accused convinced BBB to allow group members to stay on their land and build houses and a kamalig for gatherings and bible study.

The first alleged incident occurred sometime in September 1996, when AAA was then 14 years old. AAA testified that she arrived home early and, as a sign of respect, kissed the accused on the cheek. The accused allegedly grabbed her, kissed her on the mouth, and tried to insert his tongue into her mouth. AAA claimed she did not report the incident because the accused threatened that the “spirit of God inside him would get angry” if she revealed what happened.

On October 17, 1996, at about 4:30 p.m., AAA testified that after she returned from school, the accused grabbed her toward her sibling’s room, laid her on a bed, kissed her on the mouth and neck, rolled up her dress, and mashed and kissed her breasts. AAA stated that after the acts, the accused told her not to tell anyone and threatened that the spirit inside him would be angry.

On October 18, 1996, around 4:30 p.m., when AAA’s mother and siblings were out of the house, AAA claimed the accused again molested her by kissing her mouth and breasts and similar lewd conduct.

AAA stated that because of fear of condemnation for being evil and unworthy, and because townmates looked down on their family for joining the religious group, she did not reveal the acts. She added that later, in 1999, when she was 17, lack of funds prevented her from pursuing college, and she was left at home with the accused.

AAA testified that the accused fondled her breasts while she was plucking his gray hair and looked at her angrily when she resisted. AAA also recalled that when she fetched dinner for the accused in the kamalig, he placed his hand on her and whispered “kayos kita,” meaning “let us fuck.” She further stated that the accused told her that her mother would become weak and must be replaced because the spirit wanted an heir. AAA testified that, suspecting malicious intent, she surrendered her virginity to her boyfriend Cosme, which allegedly angered the accused.

On August 2, 1999, AAA testified that the accused went to her room and ordered her to remove her clothes. She refused, but the accused allegedly removed her clothes, inspected her vagina by placing his hands or bands on her thighs, and directed her not to move because he would “heal” her. AAA claimed the accused used his fingers to separate the lips of her vagina. When she resisted, the accused scolded her and allegedly told her that men would desire her but would not take her seriously.

AAA also recounted that on the night of August 13, 1999, the accused told her he would cure her of her non-virgin state. AAA testified that her mother allegedly consented to a “healing session” by telling AAA to submit for the spiritual cure. AAA claimed she was undressed, prayers were uttered over her, and when she did not obey to undress herself, the accused allegedly proceeded to undress her, placed himself on top of her, and inserted his penis inside her vagina. AAA stated that she resisted by pushing him but that he was too strong, and she cried during the act.

AAA admitted she confided the rape incident to her aunt EEE, but the aunt allegedly discouraged reporting because it would bring shame to the family. AAA testified that she later filed charges after learning that CCC, her sister, had also been molested by the accused.

CCC corroborated AAA’s account by testifying that the accused also molested her, though she said she could no longer file a complaint because she went to work in Taiwan. Atty. Roberto Labitag testified that an offer of compromise had been extended to AAA through Atty. Cyril Oropesa, which AAA rejected.

Defense Evidence and the Trial Theory

The accused testified to admitting that he was the leader of the religious group and admitted that he lived with BBB and her family. However, he denied the accusations against him. He argued that it would have been impossible to commit the alleged crimes without being noticed because there were multiple houses from the highway to AAA’s home and several other dwellings and persons under the same roof. He also claimed he left Sorsogon later to live in Manila with BBB due to death threats. He further claimed that AAA’s grandmother allegedly offered to withdraw the criminal cases only on conditions such as separation from BBB, return of a bicycle store he tended, and payment for land occupied by those who built on the accused’s lot.

Cosme testified that he was AAA’s boyfriend in 1998 to 1999. He claimed that during their relationship, he noticed AAA and the accused treating each other as father and daughter and that AAA never told him anything against the accused. BBB admitted she was the accused’s live-in partner, but testified that she learned of the allegations only in 2004, after her children were no longer living with her. She stated she did not notice any evil happening when they were all still living together.

Trial Court Proceedings and Conviction

After arraignment on August 6, 2015, the accused pleaded not guilty. During pre-trial, the parties stipulated on (a) identities of the accused and the victim; (b) that BBB is the mother of AAA and the common-law wife of the accused since 1995; (c) that the accused, BBB, and BBB’s children lived together in one house in Sorsogon; and (d) that there was no medical certificate of the victim in these cases.

In its April 2, 2019 Joint Decision, the Regional Trial Court found the accused guilty of five counts of acts of lasciviousness and one count of consummated rape. For Criminal Cases Nos. 2445, 2446, 2447, 2448, and 2450, the trial court imposed an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for each count. For Criminal Case No. 2449, it imposed reclusion perpetua along with accessory penalties. It also ordered the accused to indemnify AAA with civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, and it required the sentence to be served simultaneously with detention credited in full.

In assessing credibility, the trial court noted that AAA was already a police officer when she testified and was able to recount incidents from when she was a minor. It held that AAA’s testimony was clear, straightforward, and convincing despite the lapse of time, and it emphasized that AAA cried while recalling the accused’s actions, which she considered as a stepfather, spiritual leader, and founder of their group. It gave greater weight to AAA’s categorical testimony over the accused’s denial and narrative about escape.

However, the trial court treated the conduct charged in Criminal Case No. 2450 as constituting the lesser offense of acts of lasciviousness, not attempted rape. The court reasoned that when the accused inspected AAA’s vagina by parting the lips of her organ with his fingers, AAA allegedly held his hands and stood up, preventing further execution.

Appeal and the Court of Appeals’ Modifications

The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, in an August 24, 2021 Decision, affirmed the conviction but modified the nomenclature of several offenses. The Court of Appeals found the accused guilty of five counts of Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 in the cases initially labeled as acts of lasciviousness and attempted rape. It applied penalties accordingly and ordered reduced monetary awards per count, with legal interest on monetary awards from the date of finality. It upheld the conviction for rape in Criminal Case No. 2449.

The Court of Appeals held that the prosecution established rape based on the accused’s moral influence and ascendancy in persuading AAA to undergo a “healing session,” which it characterized as a ploy for carnal knowledge. It likewise held that the accused’s denial could not overcome the victim’s credibility and positive identification. Regarding the acts of lascivious conduct, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s credibility assessment but corrected the proper offense designation for statutory compliance with People v. Tulagan.

Issue for Resolution Before the Supreme Court

On review, the Court treated the sole issue as whether the accused was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of five counts of lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 and one count of rape, in light of the prosecution evidence and the procedural and evidentiary requirements for qualified rape.

Supreme Court’s Ruling on Rape and Qualification

The Court held that the prosecution successfully established the commission of rape based on AAA’s testimony. It found that the accused, as the common-law spouse of AAA’s mother and as a spiritual leader of their religious group, had carnal knowledge of AAA on August 13, 1999, when she was still 17 years old. The Court reasoned that the accused used his moral influence and ascendancy by persuading AAA to undergo a “healing session” which turned out to be a ploy to consummate the rape.

The Court found no sufficient reason to disturb the trial court and the Court of Appeals’ assessment of AAA’s credibility. It highlighted the consistent factual circumstances recognized by the trial court: AAA testified candidly and straightforwardly despite the lapse of time; she recalled agonizing experiences in open court; her testimony involved no apparent motive to fabricate; and she cried during recounting. The Court reiterated that factual findings on witness credibility, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding absent a showing of substantial oversight or misapprehension.

On the defense arguments, the Court ruled that conviction for rape may rest solely on the credible testimony of the

...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