G.R. No. 265439 - People vs. XXX65439, accused-appellant

Ask AI

G.R. No. 265439: People vs. XXX5439, accused-appellant

Getting related questions...
What do you want to know about the case?
Your conversations and searches stay on your device. We do not store or track your activity on our servers. To know more about our privacy commitment see jur.ph/privacy Ask AI provides quick answers grounded in full case texts to avoid mistakes. Always verify with the original text.

Ask AI

Title Supreme Court: People vs. XXX65439, accused-appellant

Case: G.R. No. 265439

Decision Date: Nov 13, 2023

A 17-year-old was convicted of two counts of statutory rape of his 9-year-old niece; acquitted of a third count due to insufficient evidence. Penalty reduced due to minority, with eligibility for rehabilitation under RA 9344.

A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 265439)

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Alleged offenses: February 18 and 19, 2010. Informations filed: all dated June 16, 2010 (Criminal Case Nos. 11081-G, 11082-G, 11083-G). Trial court judgment: August 7, 2018 (convicting the accused of three counts of rape). Court of Appeals decision: July 9, 2021 (affirming with modification; sentenced to reclusion perpetua and reduced monetary awards). Supreme Court resolution and decision on appeal: November 13, 2023. Parties’ appellate positions: accused-appellant sought acquittal; Office of the Solicitor General and the accused adopted their respective Court of Appeals briefs before the Supreme Court.

Facts as Found by the Prosecution

On February 18, 2010, the 17-year-old accused allegedly went to his brother’s house, saw his 9-year-old niece (the victim) and her younger brother watching television, gave the younger brother PHP 1.00 to get him out of the room, then removed the victim’s and his own clothing and inserted his penis into the victim’s vagina; the victim felt pain and remained silent out of fear. On February 19, 2010, the accused allegedly returned, threatened to kill the victim if she reported the prior incident, and again removed her clothing and had sexual intercourse with her; the victim’s mother arrived and saw the accused leaving hurriedly while the victim was pulling up her clothes. The mother confronted the accused and reported the matter to the barangay. Medical examination on February 22, 2010 recorded a cut/lacerated wound at the 9 o’clock position on the hymenal area (Certification No. WCPU 2010-02-0055).

Defense Version at Trial

The accused denied the charges and asserted that he had been physically abused by BBB265439 (the victim’s mother) since 2004; he further claimed he was never alone with the victim during the two years he stayed in BBB265439’s house. The accused was the sole defense witness.

Trial Court Judgment

The Regional Trial Court, by judgment dated August 7, 2018, found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of rape in relation to R.A. No. 7610. The trial court applied the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority in favor of the accused and sentenced him to the lower penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period (14 years, 8 months, and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months) for each count, and ordered payment of PHP 100,000 civil indemnity, PHP 100,000 moral damages, and PHP 30,000 exemplary damages per count.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals, by decision dated July 9, 2021, affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty and awards. It found all elements of qualified statutory rape established, recognized the accused’s minority (17 years old) as a privileged mitigating circumstance, and imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each case (modifying monetary awards to PHP 75,000 each for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages per count). The CA applied People v. Jugueta in reducing the monetary awards and ordered legal interest of 6% per annum.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of qualified statutory rape.

Governing Legal Standard on Qualified Statutory Rape

Under Article 266-A(1)(d) in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, the elements of qualified statutory rape are: (1) carnal knowledge of the offended party, a girl; (2) the offended party was under twelve (12) years of age at the time of the rape; and (3) the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, or relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree. For statutory rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) the victim’s consent is legally irrelevant: absence of free consent is conclusively presumed for victims below 12 years of age. Allegations of the qualifying circumstance (relationship by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree) must be sufficiently pleaded in the information.

Supreme Court’s Assessment of Evidence and Pleadings

The Supreme Court found that the prosecution proved the essential elements of statutory rape for two incidents (February 18 and one of the penetrations on February 19) based on the victim’s consistent and categorical testimony and supporting medical findings and corroborative circumstances (mother’s observation and immediate reporting). However, the Court identified a pleading defect: the Informations alleged only that the accused had carnal knowledge of “his niece,” but did not expressly allege the qualifying relationship in the statutory language required by precedent (i.e., “a relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree”). Citing People v. Estrada, the Court held that omission of the specific averment of the qualifying relationship in the Information precludes conviction for the qualified form of statutory rape under Article 266-A(1)(d).

Rationale for Reducing the Number of Convictions

Although the trial court and CA convicted on three counts, the Supreme Court concluded the record supported conviction for only two counts of statutory rape. The victim’s testimony indicated two penetrations on February 19, but the record lacked any clear showing of a significant interval or separate criminal intent between the two acts to treat them as separate offenses under the principles applied in People v. Lucena. Consequently, the Court found two established acts of carnal knowledge (one on February 18 and one on February 19) and acquitted the accused of the third count for reasonable doubt.

Discernment, Minority, and Criminal Responsibility

The Court determined that the accused, though 17 years old at the time of the offenses, acted with discernment. The accused’s conduct—inducing the younger sibling to leave by giving him money, and threatening the victim with death to secure silence—demonstrated an understanding of the nature and consequences of his acts. Under prevailing jurisprudence and R.A. No. 9344, a child above fifteen but under eighteen who acted with discernment may be held criminally responsible. The Court therefore denied exemption from criminal liability based on juvenile status.

Applicability of Juvenile Justice Provisions and Suspension of Sentence

Although R.A. No. 9344 provides for suspension of sentence and diversion in certain cases involving children in conflict with the law, the Supreme Court observed that by the time of conviction (August 7, 2018) the accused had already exceeded the maximum age (21) for suspension under Section 40; thus, the automatic suspension mechanism under Section 38 was no longer available. Nev

...continue reading

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 265439)

The Case

Appeal from the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CR No. 42378) dated July 9, 2021, which affirmed with modification the conviction of accused-appellant XXX265439 for three counts of rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) and Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act). (Rollo, pp. 9–28; CA Decision dated July 9, 2021.)
Petition to the Supreme Court seeks reversal of the Court of Appeals’ Decision and prays for acquittal of XXX265439. (Rollo, pp. 3–5.)
Decision of the Supreme Court rendered by Justice Lazaro-Javier on November 13, 2023 (G.R. No. 265439), partly granting the appeal and modifying the judgment of conviction and sentence as detailed below. (Rollo.)

Antecedent Charges and Informations

Three Informations, all dated June 16, 2010, charged XXX265439 with three counts of qualified statutory rape, captioned as Criminal Case Nos. 11081-G, 11082-G, and 11083-G. (Rollo, p. 10.)
Criminal Case No. 11081-G alleged that on February 18, 2010 at about 4:00 p.m. in xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Province of Quezon, the accused, a seventeen-year-old who acted with discernment, with lewd design, willfully, knowingly and feloniously had carnal knowledge of his niece AAA265439, a nine-year-old female child, by inserting his penis into her vagina, against her will. (Rollo, p. 10.)
Criminal Case Nos. 11082-G and 11083-G alleged that on February 19, 2010 at about 4:00 p.m. in the same jurisdiction, the accused, a seventeen-year-old who acted with discernment, with lewd design, willfully, knowingly and feloniously had carnal knowledge of his niece AAA265439, a nine-year-old female child, by inserting his penis into her vagina, against her will. (Rollo, pp. 10–11.)
On arraignment, XXX265439 pleaded “not guilty.” (Rollo, p. 13.)

Proceedings and Testimony

Prosecution witnesses: victim AAA265439, her mother BBB265439, Barangay Captain CCC265439, social worker Rosalinda G. BuAales, and Dr. Ramon Baldovino. (Rollo, p. 13.)
Defense witness: the accused, XXX265439, testified as the lone defense witness. (Rollo, p. 13–14.)
Trial court conducted fact-finding and rendered judgment on August 7, 2018. (Rollo, pp. 29–38.)

Prosecution’s Version of Events

February 18, 2010 (about 4:00 p.m.): 17-year-old XXX265439 arrived at his brother’s house, saw niece AAA265439 and her younger brother watching television, gave the younger brother PHP 1.00 and told him to move elsewhere, then removed AAA265439’s shorts and underwear and his own, coaxed her to lie down, and inserted his penis into her vagina; AAA265439 experienced pain and remained quiet out of fear; accused hurriedly dressed and left upon hearing voices outside. (Rollo, pp. 11–12.)
February 19, 2010 (about 4:00 p.m.): accused returned, threatened to kill AAA265439 if she reported the prior incident, again removed her shorts and underwear and inserted his penis into her vagina; mother BBB265439 arrived, saw accused leaving AAA265439’s room, and observed AAA265439 pulling up her clothes; BBB265439 confronted and hit accused with a bamboo stick. (Rollo, pp. 11–12.)
BBB265439 reported the incident to Barangay Captain CCC265439 who sent barangay police; XXX265439 voluntarily accompanied the police for questioning. (Rollo, p. 12.)
Medical examination by Dr. Luisa V. Escondo (Certification No. WCPU 2010-02-0055 dated February 22, 2010) found a cut/lacerated wound at the 9 o’clock position on the hymenal area of AAA265439. (Rollo, pp. 12–13.)

Defense’s Version of Events

Accused XXX265439 denied the charges. (Rollo, p. 14.)
He claimed BBB265439 had physically abused him since 2004 and that abuse continued while he was entrusted to her care. (Rollo, p. 14.)
He testified that although he stayed in BBB265439’s house for two years, he was never alone with AAA265439. (Rollo, p. 14.)

Trial Court’s (RTC) Judgment

By Judgment dated August 7, 2018, the Regional Trial Court found XXX265439 guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of rape in relation to Republic Act No. 7610. (Rollo, pp. 37–38.)
The RTC considered the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority and sentenced the accused to the lower penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period ranging from 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months for each count. (Rollo, p. 37.)
The RTC ordered payment to the private complainant AAA265439 of PHP 100,000.00 as civil indemnity, PHP 100,000.00 as moral damages, and PHP 30,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count. (Rollo, p. 37.)
Judgment penned by Presiding Judge Maria Chona E. Pulgar-Navarro, Regional Trial Court. (Rollo, pp. 29–38.)

Court of Appeals Ruling

Court of Appeals Decision dated July 9, 2021 affirmed the RTC’s conviction but modified the penalty and damages. (Rollo, pp. 9–28.)
The Court of Appeals: (a) found prosecution proved elements of qualified statutory rape; (b) noted victim AAA265439 was nine years old at the time; (c) applied privileged mitigating circumstance of minority to accused (17 years old) under Section 68(2) RPC; and (d) modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua for each case. (Rollo, pp. 24–27.)
The Court of Appeals reduced the amounts of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages from PHP 100,000.00 each to PHP 75,000.00 each for each count in accordance with People v. Jugueta. (Rollo, pp. 26–27.)
Imposed legal interest of 6% per annum on damages from finality of decision until full satisfaction. (Rollo, p. 27.)

Issue on Appeal Presented to the Supreme Court

Framed issue: Is XXX265439 guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of qualified statutory rape? (Rollo, p. 3–5.)

Legal Elements and Principles Applied (Article 266‑A(1)(d) & Article 266‑B)

Elements of qualified statutory rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) in relation to Article 266-B:
- (1) The accused had carnal knowledge of the offended party a girl;
- (2) The offended party was under twelve (12) years of age at the time of the rape; and
- (3) The offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree. (Rollo, citing statutory provisions.)
Statutory rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) is established by sexual intercourse with a woman below 12 years of age regardless of consent; proof of force, intimidation, or lack of consent is unnecessary as absence of free consent is conclusively presumed for victims below 12. (Rollo, citing People v. DDD and statutory interpretation.)
The qualifying circumstance of relationship (relati

...continue reading

END