Cases on R.A. No. 7610 – Special Protection of Children Against
Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act
Table of Contents
Page/s I. Doctrines/Synopsis………
……….. 2-4 II. Case Digests
a. People v. Degay | G.R. No. 182526 | August 25, 2010………..5-6
b. People v. Fragrante | G.R. No. 182521 | February 09, 2011………..7-10
c. People v. Pangilinan | G.R. No.183090 | November 14, 2011………..11-13
d. Acuzar v. Jorolan | G.R. No. 177878 | April 7, 2010……….14-15
e.
Garingarao v. People | G.R. No. 192760 | July 20, 2011………..16-17f.
People v. Bonaagua | G.R. No. 188897 | June 06, 2011………...18-19g.
People v. Dahilig | G.R. No. 187083 | June 13, 2011………..20h.
People v. Dominguez | G.R. No. 191065 | June 13, 2011……….21-22i. Flordeliz v. People | G.R. No. 186441 | March 3, 2010……….23-24
III. Original Cases
a. People v. Degay | G.R. No. 182526 | August 25, 2010……….…….25-31
b. People v. Fragrante | G.R. No. 182521 | February 09, 2011………32-42
c. People v. Pangilinan | G.R. No.183090 | November 14, 2011……….43-55
d. Acuzar v. Jorolan | G.R. No. 177878 | April 7, 2010………...56-61
e. Garingarao v. People | G.R. No. 192760 | July 20, 2011………..…62-67 f. People v. Bonaagua | G.R. No. 188897 | June 06,
2011………...68-76 g. People v. Dahilig | G.R. No. 187083 | June 13,
2011……….77-82
h.
People v. Dominguez | G.R. No. 191065 | June 13, 2011……….…83-94i. Flordeliz v. People | G.R. No. 186441 | March 3, 2010……….…..95-103
I. DOCTRINES
a. People of the Philippines v. Leonardo Degay | G.R. No. 182526 | August 25, 2010 | J. Perez
Absence of hymenal lacerations on the private organs of the victims does not negate rape. It stressed that the RTC correctly convicted the accused of three counts of statutory rape since the accused had sexual intercourse with the victims who are both under 12 years of age.
b. People of the Philippines v. Ernesto Fragrante | G.R. No. 182521 | February 09, 2011 | J. Carpio
(1) When the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period.
(2) In crimes against chastity, like acts of lasciviousness, relationship is considered aggravating." In that case, the Court considered relationship as an aggravating circumstance since the information mentioned, and the accused admitted, that the complainant is his daughter. In the instant case, the information expressly state that AAA is appellant's daughter, and appellant openly admitted this fact
.
c. People of the Philippines v. Bernabe Pangilinan | G.R. No.183090 | November 14, 2011 | J. Perez
Under Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610 in relation to RA 8353, if the victim of sexual abuse is below 12 years of age, the offender should not be prosecuted for sexual abuse but for statutory rape under Article 266-A (1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code and penalized withreclusion perpetua. On the other hand, if the victim is 12 years or older, the offender should be charged with either sexual abuse under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 or rape under Article 266-A (except paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised Penal Code. However, the offender cannot be accused of both crimes for the same act because his right against double jeopardy will be prejudiced. A person cannot be subjected twice to criminal liability for a single criminal act. Likewise, rape cannot be complexed with a violation of Section 5 (b) of RA 7610. Under Section 48 of the Revised Penal Code (on complex crimes), a felony under the Revised Penal Code (such as rape) cannot be complexed with an offense penalized by a special law.
d. SPO1 Acuzar v. Jorolan and Hon. Apresa, People’s Law Enforcement Board (PLEB) | G.R. No. 177878 | April 7, 2010 | J. Villarama Jr.
Misconduct generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct, motivated by premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose.It usually refers to transgression of some established and definite rule of action, where no discretion is left except what necessity may demand; it does not necessarily imply corruption or criminal intention but implies wrongful intention and not to mere error of judgment.
e. Jojit Garingarao v. People of the Philippines | G.R. No. 192760 | July 20, 2011 | J. Carpio
In case of acts of lasciviousness, the lone testimony of the offended party, if credible, is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. A child is deemed subject to other sexual abuse when the child is the victim of lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult. It is inconsequential that sexual abuse under RA 7610 occurred only once. Section 3 (b) of RA 7610 provides that the abuse may be habitual or not. Hence, the fact that the offense occurred only once is enough to hold the
accused liable for acts of lasciviousness under RA 7610.
f.
People of the Philippines v. Ireno Bonaagua y Berce | G.R. No. 188897 | June 06, 2011 | J. PeraltaIt must be emphasized, that like in the crime of rape whereby the slightest
penetration of the male organ or even its slightest contact with the outer lip or the labia majora of the vagina already consummates the crime, in like manner, if the tongue, in an act of cunnilingus, touches the outer lip of the vagina, the act should also be considered as already consummating the crime of rape through sexual assault, not the crime of acts of lasciviousness. However, when the victim testifies that the accused only touched her private part and licked it, but did not insert his finger in her vagina, this testimony of the victim, however, is open to various interpretation, since it cannot be identified what specific part of the vagina was defiled by the accused. Thus, in conformity with the principle that the guilt of an accused must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, the statement cannot be the basis for convicting the accused with the crime of rape through sexual assault. If such act is committed against a victim who was 8 years old at the time of the commission of the crime, the accused shall be charged of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness under Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610.
g. People of the Philippines v. Eduardo Dahilig y Agaran | G.R. No. 187083 | June 13, 2011 | J. Mendoza
Under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610in relation to RA 8353, if the victim of sexual abuse is below 12 years of age, the offender should not be prosecuted for sexual abuse but for statutory rape under Article 266-A (1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code and penalized with reclusion perpetua. On the other hand, if the victim is 12 years or older, the offender should be charged with either sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or rape under Article 266-A (except paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised Penal Code. However, the offender cannot be accused of both crimes for the same act because his right against double jeopardy will be prejudiced. A person cannot be subjected twice to criminal liability for a single criminal act. Likewise, rape cannot be complexed with a violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610. Under Section 48 of the
Revised Penal Code (on complex crimes), a felony under the Revised Penal Code (such as rape) cannot be complexed with an offense penalized by a special law.
h. People of the Philippines v. Jonie Dominguez | G.R. No. 191065 | June 13, 2011 | J. Sereno
Any child, regardless of age, can be a competent witness if he can perceive, and perceiving, can make known his perception to others and of relating truthfully facts respecting which he is examined.
i. Salvador Flordeliz y Abenojar v. People of the Philippines | G.R. No. 186441 | March 3, 2010 | J. Nachura
The Court is aware that the Information specifically charged petitioner with Acts of Lasciviousness under the RPC, without stating therein that it was in relation to R.A. No. 7610. However, the failure to designate the offense by statute or to mention the specific provision penalizing the act, or an erroneous specification of the law violated, does not vitiate the information if the facts alleged therein clearly recite the facts constituting the crime charged. The character of the crime is not determined by the caption or preamble of the information or by the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, but by the recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances in the complaint or information.
II. CASE DIGESTS
a. People of the Philippines v. Leonardo Degay | G.R. No. 182526 | August 25, 2010 | J. Perez
FACTS: At the time the crime of rape was complained by private respondent (AAA) she was nine (9) years old and a grade III pupil. The accused is their neighbor with only five houses separating them. During the second week of March, 2004, AAA was on her way to school when she met the accused. The accused kissed AAA on the forehead several times, and he brought her inside his house. He laid her on the sofa, mounted her, and inserted his hard penis into her vagina. AAA felt pain in her
vagina. After satisfying himself, the accused gave AAA P5.00 and warned her not to tell her mother about what happened. The said act was again repeated on March 25, 2004.
CCC, AAA’s mother learned about what happened to her daughter. CCC confronted AAA and she confirmed to CCC that she was raped by the accused. AAA and BBB, a four-year old girl who is another complainant were examined at the Bontoc General Hospital. BBB confessed that she is also raped by the accused when one day the accused brought her to the bedroom on the second floor of the house. He laid her down on the bed and the accused went on top of her. She felt pain in her vagina. The defense presented seven witnesses including the accused himself. The accused denied that he knew the victims and that he came to know them when he was
detained at Bauko Municipal Jail. The RTC found the accused guilty of three counts of statutory rape and it was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE: Whether the accused is guilty of lascivious conduct and not statutory rape. RULING: The accused argues that his acts of showing his penis to BBB and the touching of AAA’s vagina, mashing of her breasts and letting his penis touch her vagina constitute lascivious conduct and not statutory rape, citing Section 2(h) of the Rules and Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases, Republic Act No. 7610, which defines lascivious conduct as “the intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals on pubic area of a person.” He cites that the lascivious conduct is supported by the medico-legal findings on AAA and BBB, when it was found that there was no hymenal laceration on their organs. The accused further faults the RTC for not giving credence to his plausible alibi that he
was in another place on 8 May 2004 and it was impossible for him to have brought BBB to his house and raped her.
On the other hand, the prosecution, through the Office of the Solicitor General, in its brief argues that it had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed statutory rape and not just acts of lasciviousness. It cited the categorical and
straightforward testimonies of AAA and BBB as corroborated by the medical findings showing both victims suffered erythema or redness in the areas of their labias
minora and majora. It pointed out that this Court had held in People v. De la Cuesta,
that absence of hymenal lacerations on the private organs of the victims does not negate rape. It stressed that the RTC correctly convicted the accused of three counts of statutory rape since the accused had sexual intercourse with the victims who are both under 12 years of age. It finally argued that the accused cannot exculpate himself from liability by alleging that from the last week of February, 2004 to the first week of April, 2004, he was in Caboan, Capangdanan because Caboan is only three kilometers away from Sabangan and could be traversed in an hour or less. It was therefore not physically impossible for the accused to be at the crime scenes. After review, we uphold the rulings of the appellate court and the RTC.
b. People of the Philippines v. Ernesto Fragrante | G.R. No. 182521 | February 09, 2011 | J. Carpio
FACTS: Ernesto Fragrante was married to CCC; they had three children and the victim (AAA) is their third child. Three or four months before her eleventh (11) birthday, she woke up early because her father promised them that they will have driving lessons that day. Her father enterd her room, lie beside her on her bed, he was talking about a lot of things to her and then he started to fondle her breast and suck her nipples.
The said incident was repeated between June and August 1993 and on some other occasions. In September 1995 when AAA is at the age of thirteen (13), she was raped by her father Ernesto. She was told to get inside his room. He scolded her and told her to lie down on his bed. And then he raped her. She bbegged and struggled for him to remove his penis inside her but despite all her pleas he stayed on top of him.
In the evening of October 25, 1997 AAA was left home with his father because her mother and siblings went to a wake. Her father started massaging her breast. Her father strangled her and asked her whether she preferred to be strangled first and she answered no. He started touching her private parts and then she told him that her mother has arrived, that was the only time that she was allowed to leave but she was warned to not tell her mother what happened. After that, they report the incident to the NBI. The appellant was charged with nine (9) counts of acts of lasciviousness and (1) count of rape.
ISSUE: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant's conviction for nine (9) counts of acts of lasciviousness and one (1) count of rape
.
RULING: The court sustained the appellant’s conviction for (7) counts of acts of lasciviousness and (1) count of rape. He was acquitted for (2) counts of acts of lasciviousness on the ground of reasonable doubt.
The prosecution sufficiently established appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of rape.
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
Art. 335. When and how rape is committed. - Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
1. By using force or intimidation;
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and 3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.
As correctly found by the Court of Appeals, all the essential elements of rape are present in this case. The evidence on record clearly proves that appellant had carnal knowledge of his own minor daughter AAA.
It must be stressed that the gravamen of rape is sexual congress with a woman by force and without consent. In People v. Orillosa, we held that actual force or
intimidation need not be employed in incestuous rape of a minor because the moral and physical dominion of the father is sufficient to cow the victim into submission to his beastly desires. When a father commits the odious crime of rape against his own daughter, his moral ascendancy or influence over the latter substitutes for violence and intimidation. The absence of violence or offer of resistance would not affect the outcome of the case because the overpowering and overbearing moral influence of the father over his daughter takes the place of violence and offer of resistance
required in rape cases committed by an accused who did not have blood relationship with the victim.
In this case, AAA's testimony clearly showed how appellant took advantage of his relationship with and his moral ascendancy over his minor daughter when he had carnal knowledge of her. As found by the Court of Appeals, appellant instilled fear on AAA's mind every time he sexually molested her, thus: [AAA] also admitted that after accused-appellant has started sexually molesting her until she was raped, she was so frightened of him. In fact she could not tell her mother of her ordeal, mindful of the serious threats on her life and of the chaos it would cause their family.
We likewise find appellant's claim that the medical findings do not support the charge of rape untenable. Aside from AAA's positive, straightforward, and credible testimony, the prosecution presented the medical certificate issued by Dr. Bernadette
Madrid and the latter's testimony which corroborate AAA's claim that appellant raped her.
The Court is not impressed with appellant's claim that AAA's failure to immediately report the incidents to the proper authorities affected her credibility. Delay could be attributed to the victim's tender age and the appellant's threats. A rape victim's actions are oftentimes influenced by fear, rather than reason. In incestuous rape, this fear is magnified because the victim usually lives under the same roof as the
perpetrator or is at any rate subject to his dominance because of their blood relationship.
Appellant was charged with violation of Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in relation to Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610. These provisions state:
Art. 336. Acts of lasciviousness. -- Any person who shall commit any act of lasciviousness upon other persons of either sex, under any of the circumstances mentioned in the preceding article, shall be punished by prision correccional. Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. - Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:
x x x x
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse of lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period; x x x
The elements of sexual abuse under Section 5, Article III of Republic Act No. 7610 are as follows:
1. The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct. 2. The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to
sexual abuse.
3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.
As correctly found by the Court of Appeals, all the elements of sexual abuse under Section 5, Article III of RA 7610 are present here.
First, appellant's repeated touching, fondling, and sucking of AAA's breasts and inserting his finger into AAA's vagina with lewd designs undoubtedly constitute lascivious conduct under Section 2(h) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 7610, to wit:
(h) "Lascivious conduct" means the intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the
introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or public area of a person.
Second, appellant, as a father having moral ascendancy over his daughter, coerced AAA to engage in lascivious conduct, which is within the purview of sexual abuse. In People v. Larin, we held:
A child is deemed exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse, when the child indulges in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct (a) for money, profit, or any other consideration; or (b) under the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group.
Third, AAA is below 18 years old at the time of the commission of the offense, based on her testimony which was corroborated by her Birth Certificate presented during the trial. Section 3(a), Article I of Republic Act No. 7610 provides:
SECTION 3. Definition of Terms.
-(a) "Children" refers [to] persons below eighteen (18) years of age or those over but are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition;
Since all three elements of the crime were present, the conviction of appellant for acts of lasciviousness was proper.
In Criminal Case Nos. 98-652 and 98-658, we agree with the Office of the Solicitor General, representing the People, that the prosecution failed to prove appellant's guilt for acts of lasciviousness beyond reasonable doubt. While AAA testified that appellant habitually molested her, there was no specific evidence supporting the charge that appellant committed acts of lasciviousness in May 1993 and September 1997, or on or about those dates. Hence, we find appellant not guilty for two counts of acts of lasciviousness (Criminal Case Nos. 98-652 and 98-658) on the ground of reasonable doubt.
As regards the other criminal cases for acts of lasciviousness, where appellant's guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt, we affirm appellant's conviction. In these cases, the alternative circumstance of relationship under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code should be considered against appellant. In People v. Fetalino, the Court held that, "in crimes against chastity, like acts of lasciviousness, relationship is considered aggravating." In that case, the Court considered relationship as an aggravating circumstance since the informations mentioned, and the accused admitted, that the complainant is his daughter.
and appellant openly admitted this fact. Accordingly, we modify the penalty imposed in Criminal Case Nos. 98-657 and 98-659. Section 5, Article III of Republic Act No. 7610 prescribes the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion
perpetua. Since there is an aggravating circumstance and no mitigating
circumstance, the penalty shall be applied in its maximum period - reclusion
perpetua. Besides, Section 31 of Republic Act No. 7610 expressly provides that "The
penalty provided herein shall be imposed in its maximum period when the perpetrator is [a] x x x parent, x x x. In People v. Montinola and People v. Sumingwa, where the accused is the biological father of the minor victim, the Court appreciated the presence of the aggravating circumstance of relationship and accordingly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Thus, appellant herein is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in Criminal Case Nos. 98-657 and 98-659.
In Criminal Case Nos. 98-651, 98-653, 98-654, 98-655, and 98-656, where AAA was still below 12 years old at the time of the commission of the acts of lasciviousness, the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period in accordance with Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610. This provision specifically states "[t]hat the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period."Considering the presence of the aggravating circumstance of relationship, as explained, the penalty shall be
imposed in its maximum period. In People v. Velasquez, which involved a two year old child sexually abused by her grandfather, the Court imposed the indeterminate
sentence of 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal as minimum to 17 years of reclusion temporal as maximum. Accordingly, appellant herein is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal as minimum to 17 years of reclusion temporal as maximum.
Also, we modify the amount of moral damages and fine awarded by the Court of Appeals. We reduce the amount of moral damages from P50,000 to P15,000 and the amount of fine from P30,000 to P15,000 for each of the seven (7) counts of acts of lasciviousness. In addition, we award civil indemnity in the amount of P20,000, and exemplary damages in the sum of P15,000, in view of the presence of the
aggravating circumstance of relationship, for each of the seven (7) counts of acts of lasciviousness.
c. People of the Philippines v. Bernabe Pangilinan | G.R. No.183090 | November 14, 2011 | J. Perez
FACTS: AAA, a thirteen year old girl lived with her aunt BBB and her husband since she was two years old until July 27, 2001. At around 10 p.m. of July 27, 2001, while her aunt was working in Angeles, Pampanga, and she was watching television in their house, appellant arrived and ordered her to cook chicken adobo which she did.
Appellant approached her and pointed a samurai at her. Appellant then kissed her neck and mashed her breast. It was not the first time that appellant did that to her. AAA testified that prior to the said incident; she was already abused by the appellant several times. She said that the reason why she did not tell her aunt about the
molestation is because the appellant threatened to kill her and her aunt. She also said that her aunt and appellant treated her like their own child.
BBB denied all the allegations against him and on his defense he said that it was CCC, AAA’s cousin who molested her and that AAA is only forced by her wife’s relatives to file charges against him because they were against him and their relationship. His testimony was corroborated by two other witnesses. The Trial Court found the accused guilty for rape and sexual abuse. The Court of Appeals affirmed the said decision but with modifications as to the award for damages.
ISSUE: Whether the accused should be penalized for rape under RA 7610 or under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code.
RULING: In this case, appellant was charged under two separate information for rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code and sexual abuse under Section 5 (b) of RA No. 7610, respectively. However, we find the Information in Criminal Case No. 11769 for sexual abuse to be void for being violative of appellant’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
The allegations in the above-quoted Information would show the insufficiency of the averments of the acts alleged to have been committed by appellant. It does not contain the essential facts constituting the offense, but a statement of a conclusion of law. Thus, appellant cannot be convicted of sexual abuse under such Information. The right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against an
accused cannot be waived for reasons of public policy. Hence, it is imperative that the complaint or information filed against the accused be complete to meet its objectives. As such, an indictment must fully state the elements of the specific offense alleged to have been committed.
Art. 266-A Rape; When and How Committed – Rape is Committed –
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above be present.
We find that AAA remained steadfast in her assertion that appellant raped her through force and intimidation with the use of a samurai. And even after the incident, appellant threatened AAA that he would kill her and her
aunt, i.e., appellant's wife, should AAA report the incident.
A finding that the accused is guilty of rape may be based solely on the victim's testimony if such testimony meets the test of credibility. We held that no woman, much less a child of such tender age, would willingly submit herself to the rigors, the humiliation and the stigma attendant upon the prosecution of rape, if she were not motivated by an earnest desire to put the culprit behind bars.
Appellant argues that he could not be convicted of rape since based on the medical examination report, AAA's genitalia had no hymenal laceration which corroborated AAA's testimony that appellant merely kissed her and touched her breast on July 27, 2001.
Proof of hymenal laceration is not an element of rape.[53] An intact hymen does not negate a finding that the victim was raped. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without laceration of the hymen, is enough to constitute rape, and even the briefest of contact is deemed rape.[54]
While it appears from AAA's testimony that she was not raped precisely on July 27, 2001 as what appellant did was kiss her lips and mash her breast on that day, however, her entire testimony in the witness stand positively shows that appellant with the use of force and intimidation had carnal knowledge of her at some other time. She testified that appellant violated her since she was seven years old. The first time was when they were still staying in Angeles City where appellant touched her private parts; the second time was when they were already in Gerona, Tarlac, where appellant pointed a samurai at her and raped her; and the third time happened on July 27, 2001 when appellant kissed her lips and mashed her breast. Indeed,
appellant may be convicted for rape in the light of AAA's testimony. For in rape cases, the date of the commission is not an essential element of the offense; what is
Notably, the information alleges that the crime of rape was committed “on or about July 27, 2001,” thus the prosecution may prove that rape was committed on or about July 27, 2001, i.e., few months or years before, and not exactly on July 27, 2001. In his Supplemental Brief, appellant claims that he should have been prosecuted for rape under RA No. 7610 since AAA was already more than 12 years old when the alleged rape was committed which carries the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua.
We do not agree. In People v. Dahilig, wherein the question posed was whether the crime committed was rape (Violation of Article A, par. 1, in relation to Article 266-B, 1st paragraph of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA No. 8353), or is it Child Abuse, defined and penalized by Section 5, (b), RA No. 7610, we said:
As elucidated by the RTC and the CA in their respective
decisions, all the elements of both crimes are present in this case. The case of People v. Abay, however, is enlightening and instructional on this issue. It was stated in that case that if the victim is 12 years or older, the offender should be charged with either sexual abuse under Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610 or rape under Article 266-A (except paragraph 1 [d] of the Revised Penal Code. However, the offender cannot be accused of both crimes for the same act because his right against double jeopardy will be prejudiced. A person cannot be subjected twice to criminal liability for a single criminal act. Specifically, Abay reads:
Under Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610 in relation to RA 8353,if the victim of sexual abuse is below 12 years of age, the offender should not be prosecuted for sexual abuse but for statutory rape under Article 266-A (1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code and penalized with reclusion perpetua. On the other hand, if the victim is 12 years or older, the offender should be charged with either sexual abuse under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 or rape under Article 266-A (except paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised Penal Code. However, the offender cannot be accused of both crimes for the same act because his right against double jeopardy will be prejudiced. A person cannot be subjected twice to criminal liability for a single criminal act. Likewise, rape cannot be complexed with a violation of Section 5 (b) of RA 7610. Under Section 48 of the Revised Penal Code (on complex crimes), a felony under the Revised Penal Code (such as rape) cannot be complexed with an offense penalized by a special law.
In this case, the victim was more than 12 years old when the crime was committed against her. The Information against appellant stated that AAA was 13 years old at the time of the incident. Therefore, appellant may be
prosecuted either for violation of Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 or rape under Article 266-A (except paragraph 1 [d]) of the Revised Penal Code. While the Information may have alleged the elements of both crimes, the prosecution's evidence only established that appellant sexually violated the person of AAA through force and intimidation by
threatening her with a bladed instrument and forcing her to submit to his bestial designs. Thus, rape was established. Accordingly, the accused can indeed be charged with either Rape or Child Abuse and be convicted therefor. Considering, however, that the information correctly charged the accused with rape in violation of Article 266-A par. 1 in relation to Article 266-B, 1st par. of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, and that he was convicted therefor, the CA should have merely affirmed the conviction.
As in the present case, appellant can indeed be charged with either Rape or Child Abuse and be convicted therefor. The prosecution's evidence established that
appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA through force and intimidation by threatening her with a samurai. Thus, rape was established. Considering that in the resolution of the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, he resolved the filing of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code for which appellant was convicted by both the RTC and the CA, therefore, we merely affirm the conviction.
d. SPO1 Acuzar v. Jorolan and Hon. Apresa, People’s Law Enforcement Board (PLEB) | G.R. No. 177878 | April 7, 2010 | J. Villarama Jr.
FACTS: Aproniano Jorolan filed an Administrative Case against petitioner before the PLEB charging the latter of Grave Misconduct for allegedly having an illicit
relationship with respondent’s minor daughter. Jorolan also instituted a criminal case against the petitioner before the Municipal Trial Court of New Corella for Violation of Section 5 (b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as the Child Abuse Act.
Petitioner filed a Counter – Affidavit before the PLEB and he denied all the accusations against him. He also attached the complainant’s daughter’s affidavit wherein she denied having relationship with the petitioner. Upon receipt of the decision of PLEB whish found him guilty of grave misconduct (Child Abuse), he filed a Petition for
Certiorari with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order with the RTC of Tagum City which annulled the decision of PLEB. The respondent elevated the case to the CA which reversed and set aside the ruling of the RTC.
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that petitioner’s resort to certiorari was not warranted as the remedy of appeal from the decision of the PLEB was available to him.
RULING: petitioner opted to file a petition for certiorari before the trial court on the pretext that the PLEB had no jurisdiction to hear the administrative case until
petitioner is convicted before the regular court. According to petitioner, although the case filed before the PLEB was captioned as “Grave Misconduct,” the offense charged was actually for “Violation of Law,” which requires prior conviction before a hearing on the administrative case can proceed. Thus, petitioner insists that the PLEB should have awaited the resolution of the criminal case before conducting a hearing on the administrative charge against him.
The contention however is untenable. A careful perusal of respondent’s affidavit-complaint against petitioner would show that petitioner was charged with grave misconduct for engaging in an illicit affair with respondent’s minor daughter, he being a married man, and not for violation of law, as petitioner would like to convince this Court. Misconduct generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct,
motivated by premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose. It usually refers to transgression of some established and definite rule of action, where no discretion is left except what necessity may demand; it does not necessarily imply corruption or criminal intention but implies wrongful intention and not to mere error of judgment. On the other hand, “violation of law” presupposes final conviction in court of any crime or offense penalized under the Revised Penal Code or any special law or
distinct from each other. In criminal cases, proof beyond reasonable doubt is needed whereas in administrative proceedings, only substantial evidence is required. Verily, administrative cases may proceed independently of criminal proceedings. The PLEB, being the administrative disciplinary body tasked to hear complaints against erring members of the PNP, has jurisdiction over the case.
In the instant case, petitioner was notified of the complaint against him and in fact, he had submitted his counter-affidavit and the affidavits of his witnesses. He attended the hearings together with his counsel and even asked for several postponements. Petitioner therefore cannot claim that he had been denied of due process. Due process in an administrative context does not require trial-type
proceedings similar to those in courts of justice. Where opportunity to be heard either through oral arguments or through pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of due process. The requirements are satisfied where the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy. In other words, it is not legally objectionable for being violative of due process for an administrative agency to resolve a case based solely on position papers, affidavits or documentary evidence submitted by the parties as affidavits of witnesses may take the place of direct testimony. Here, we note that petitioner had more than enough opportunity to present his side and adduce evidence in support of his defense; thus, he cannot claim that his right to due process has been violated. Wherefore, the petition is denied.
e.
Jojit Garingarao v. People of the Philippines | G.R. No. 192760 | July 20, 2011 | J. CarpioFACTS: AAA, 16 years of age, was brought to the Virgen Milagrosa Medical Center by her father BBB and mother CCC due to fever and abdominal pain. AAA was admitted at the hospital for further observation. The next day, her father and mother left the hospital to process AAA’s Medicare papers and to attend to their store, respectively, leaving AAA alone in her room. When her father returned to the hospital, AAA told him that she wanted to go home. The doctor allowed them due to AAA’s insistence but instructed her that she should continue her medications. At home, AAA told her parents that Garingarao sexually abused her. They went back to the hospital and reported the incident to Dr. Morante. They inquired from the nurses’ station and learned that Garingarao was the nurse on duty on that day.
An Information was filed against Garingarao for acts of lasciviousness in relation to RA 7610. During the trial, AAA testified that, Garingarao, entered her room to check her medications and if she was still experiencing pains. Garingarao lifted AAA’s bra and touched her left breast and insisted that he was only examining her. Garingarao also slid his finger inside AAA’s private part and only stopped when he saw that AAA really had her monthly period.
In his defense, the accused testified that he went inside AAA’s room to administer her medicines and check her vital signs. Garingarao alleged that the filing of the case was motivated by the argument he had with AAA’s father about the administering of medicines. He was supported by the testimony of the nursing aide, Tamayo.
Garingarao further alleged that, assuming the charges were correct, there was only one incident when he allegedly touched AAA and as such, he should have been convicted only of acts of lasciviousness and not of violation of RA 7610. The RTC found Garingarao guilty as charged and gave credence to the testimony of AAA over Garingarao’s denial, which was affirmed by the CA.
ISSUE: Whether or not the single incident of act of lasciviousness would suffice to hold the accused liable under RA 7610
RULING: Yes. The Court has ruled that in case of acts of lasciviousness, the lone testimony of the offended party, if credible, is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. It is a settled rule that denial is a weak defense as against the positive identification by the victim. Both denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and constitute self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater
evidentiary weight than the positive declaration by a credible witness. Section 5, Article III of RA 7610 provides:
Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. - Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.
The elements of sexual abuse under Section 5, Article III of RA 7610 are the following: 1. The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; 2. The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected
to other sexual abuse; and
3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.
Under Section 32, Article XIII of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 7610, lascivious conduct is defined as follows:
[T]he intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia,
anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or
opposite sex, with the intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person.
In this case, the prosecution established that Garingarao touched AAA’s breasts and inserted his finger into her private part for his sexual gratification. Garingarao used his influence as a nurse by pretending that his actions were part of the physical examination he was doing. Garingarao persisted on what he was doing despite AAA’s objections. AAA twice asked Garingarao what he was doing and he answered that he was just examining her.
The Court has ruled that a child is deemed subject to other sexual abuse when the child is the victim of lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult. In lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult, there must be some form of compulsion equivalent to intimidation which subdues the free exercise of the offended party’s free will. In this case, Garingarao coerced AAA into submitting to his lascivious acts by pretending that he was examining her.
Garingarao insists that, assuming that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were true, he should not be convicted of violation of RA 7610 because the incident happened only once. Garingarao alleges that the single incident would not suffice to hold him liable under RA 7610. This argument has no legal basis. The Court has already ruled that it is inconsequential that sexual abuse under RA 7610 occurred only once. Section 3(b) of RA 7610 provides that the abuse may be habitual or not. Hence, the fact that the offense occurred only once is enough to
finds Jojit Garingarao guilty beyond reasonable doubt of acts of lasciviousness in relation to Republic Act No. 7610.
f.
People of the Philippines v. Ireno Bonaagua y Berce | G.R. No. 188897 | June 06, 2011 | J. PeraltaFACTS: AAA and her mother left their house in Candelaria to spend the Christmas with accused-appellant who is also AAA’s father, and stayed in the house of a certain Lola Jean in Las Piñas. One afternoon, AAA was inside a room lying in bed while her younger brothers were playing outside the house and her mother was not home. Accused-appellant entered the room, undressed her and thereafter, touched and caressed her breasts. He licked her vagina then inserted his finger into it. In the
evening of the same day, the accused-appellant raped AAA again in the same manner and under the same circumstances. Afterwhich, AAA was raped by accused-appellant for several times. AAA again did not report these incidents for fear that her mother would be killed by the accused.
AAA complained of severe abdominal pain which prompted her mother to take her to the hospital. In Quezon Memorial Hospital Lucena, she was physically examined by Dr. De Leon. The results revealed that there was a healed superficial laceration at the 9 o'clock position on the hymen of AAA. She told her mother about all the incidents of rape committed by accused-appellant. AAA's mother took her to the Police
Headquarters to file a complaint for rape against accused-appellant. She was also taken at the NBI where she executed a sworn statement. Accused-appellant denied committing the charges of rape charged against him. He claimed to be working in Las Piñas while AAA, her mother and siblings where in Sariaya, Quezon at the time the alleged rapes occurred. And every time they would visit him in Las Piñas, they would leave on the same day they arrived after he gives them money. The RTC after finding the evidence for the prosecution overwhelming against the accused's defense of denial and alibi, convicted Ireno with four (4) counts of rape, affirmed by the CA. ISSUE: Whether the accused’s act of touching the victim’s private part and licking it constitutes the crime of Rape through Sexual Assault or Acts of Lasciviousness under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610.
RULING: It is well entrenched in this jurisdiction that when the offended parties are young and immature girls, as in this case, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability, but also the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed if the matter about which they testified were not true. A young girl would not usually concoct a tale of defloration; publicly admit having been ravished and her honor tainted; allow the examination of her private parts; and undergo all the trouble and inconvenience, not to mention the trauma and scandal of a public trial, had she not in fact been raped and been truly moved to protect and preserve her honor, and motivated by the desire to obtain justice for the wicked acts committed against her. Moreover, the Court has repeatedly held that the lone testimony of the victim in a rape case, if credible, is
enough to sustain a conviction. Contrary to Ireno's contention, the medical findings of Dr. Melissa De Leon did not refute AAA's testimony of defilement, but instead
bolstered her claim. As to the three of four incidents (Criminal Case Nos. 0254, 03-0256, and 03-0257) of rape, Ireno was convicted with Qualified Rape through Sexual Assault. Ireno, is the father of the minor victim. Hence, the offenses were committed with the aggravating/qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship, which in turn, warrants the imposition of the higher penalty of reclusion temporal prescribed by Article 266-B of the RPC.
However, in one incident (Criminal Case No. 03-0255), accused-appellant cannot be held guilty as charged for the crime of rape. It must be emphasized, that like in the crime of rape whereby the slightest penetration of the male organ or even its slightest contact with the outer lip or the labia majora of the vagina already consummates the crime, in like manner, if the tongue, in an act of cunnilingus, touches the outer lip of the vagina, the act should also be considered as already consummating the crime of rape through sexual assault, not the crime of acts of lasciviousness. For this part, the victim testified that Ireno only touched her private part and licked it, but did not insert his finger in her vagina. This testimony of the victim, however, is open to various interpretation, since it cannot be identified what specific part of the vagina was defiled by Ireno. Thus, in conformity with the principle that the guilt of an accused must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, the statement cannot be the basis for convicting Ireno with the crime of rape through sexual assault. Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, defines and penalizes acts of lasciviousness committed against a child as follows:
Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. -- Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the
coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.
Paragraph (b) punishes sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct not only with a child exploited in prostitution, but also with a child subjected to other sexual abuses. It covers not only a situation where a child is abused for profit, but also where one through coercion, intimidation or influence engages in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child. However, pursuant to the foregoing provision, before an accused can be convicted of child abuse through lascivious conduct committed against a minor below 12 years of age, the requisites for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC must be met in addition to the requisites for sexual abuse under Section 5 of R.A. No. 7610.
Corollarilly, Section 2 (h) of the rules and regulations of R.A. No. 7610 defines "Lascivious conduct" as:
[T]he intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the
genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person.
Undeniably, all the afore-stated elements are present in Criminal Case No. 03-0255. Ireno committed lascivious acts against AAA by touching her breasts and licking her vagina and the lascivious or lewd acts were committed against AAA, who was 8 years old at the time as established by her birth certificate. Thus, Ireno is guilty of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness under Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610.
g. People of the Philippines v. Eduardo Dahilig y Agaran | G.R. No. 187083 | June 13, 2011 | J. Mendoza
FACTS: AAA, a helper, was sleeping when the accused made sexual advances on her. She shouted for help from her co-helper but to no avail because the latter was sound asleep. Eventually, the accused succeeded to undress her. Then, he forced his penis into her vagina which caused her pain and returned to his quarters when he was done. The accused left their employer's house; AAA then informed her employer about the incident. Their employer immediately assisted her in filing a case against accused which caused the arrest of the accused. The accused offered to marry AAA but the latter refused. In the medical examination, it was disclosed that there was a healing laceration in her hymen although no spermatozoa was found.
The accused denied the allegations and contended that the sexual congress that transpired between them was consensual as she was then his girlfriend. The RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Rape as what he laid before the court for its consideration was a mere self-serving claim of their relationship. The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision but clarified that the crime charged should have been "Child Abuse" as defined and penalized in Sec. 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610, based on the fact that the complainant was a minor, being 16 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense.
ISSUE: Whether the crime committed was Rape (Violation of Article 266-A par. 1 in relation to Article 266-B, 1st par. of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353), or is it Child Abuse, defined and penalized by Sec. 5, (b), R.A. No. 7610
RULING: As elucidated by the RTC and the CA in their respective decisions, all the elements of both crimes are present in this case. Under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610in relation to RA 8353, if the victim of sexual abuse is below 12 years of age, the offender should not be prosecuted for sexual abuse but for statutory rape under Article 266-A (1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code and penalized with reclusion perpetua. On the other hand, if the victim is 12 years or older, the offender should be charged with either sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or rape under Article 266-A (except paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised Penal Code. However, the offender cannot be accused of both crimes for the same act because his right against double jeopardy will be prejudiced. A person cannot be subjected twice to criminal liability for a single criminal act. Likewise, rape cannot be complexed with a violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610. Under Section 48 of the Revised Penal Code (on complex crimes), a felony under the Revised Penal Code (such as rape) cannot be complexed with an offense penalized by a special law.
In this case, the victim was more than 12 years old when the crime was committed against her. The Information against appellant stated that AAA was 13 years old at
the time of the incident. Therefore, appellant may be prosecuted either for violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610orrapeunderArticle 266-A (except paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised Penal Code. While the Information may have alleged the elements of both crimes, the prosecution's evidence only established that appellant sexually violated the person of AAA through force and intimidation by threatening her with a bladed instrument and forcing her to submit to his bestial designs. Thus, rape was
established.
Accordingly, the accused can indeed be charged with either Rape or Child Abuse and be convicted therefor. Considering, however, that the information correctly charged the accused with rape in violation of Article 266-A par. 1 in relation to Article 266-B, 1st par. of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, and that he was convicted therefor, the CA should have merely affirmed the conviction.
h. People of the Philippines v. Jonie Dominguez | G.R. No. 191065 | June 13, 2011 | J. Sereno
FACTS: Jonie Dominguez, being the brother of the mother of the victim’s father, raped AAA twice when she was only nine years old and BBB seven times when she was only twelve years old. Both of the victims kept silence about the instances of rape, until it their mother accidentally overheard Dominguez boasting in a drinking session that his grandchildren’s vaginas were already wide. The mother confronted her children and found what had happened. The children were brought to a doctor for examination. The doctor found AAA’s hymen intact but did not discount the fact that the child could have been molested. BBB was found to have old hymenal lacerations. During trial, AAA and BBB testified against Dominguez by narrating the lascivious acts he had done to them. According to their testimonies, the accused had employed trickery so that either AAA or BBB would be left alone with him and thereafter raped, with threats of harm to her person or her family. The only alibi of the accused is that he was in the mountains on the dates that he was alleged to have committed the crimes
ISSUE: Whether or not the testimonies of AAA and BBB are credible
RULING: It is thus clear that any child, regardless of age, can be a competent witness if he can perceive, and perceiving, can make known his perception to others and of relating truthfully facts respecting which he is examined. In the 1913 decision in United States vs. Buncad, this Court stated:
Professor Wigmore, after referring to the common-law precedents upon this point, says: "But this much may be taken as settled, that no rule defines any particular age as conclusive of incapacity; in each instance the capacity of the particular child is to be investigated." (Wigmore on Evidence, vol. I, p. 638)
While on the same subject, Underhill declares:
257. Children on the witness stand. - Under the common law,
competency of a child under the age of fourteen years to testify must be shown to the satisfaction of the court. He is presumptively incompetent, but if he is shown to be competent it is immaterial how young he may be when he testifies. He is competent if he possesses mental capacity and memory sufficient to enable him to give a reasonable and intelligible account of the transaction he has seen, if he understands and has a just appreciation of the difference between right and wrong, and comprehends the character, meaning and obligation of an oath. If the witness fulfills these requirements, it is immaterial as bearing upon his
competency that he is unable to define the oath or to define testimony. In the wise discretion of the court, a child four, five, six and for such ages as seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen or fifteen years of age may be shown competent to testify. It may not be said that there is any particular age at which as a matter of law all children are competent or incompetent. x xx
The requirements then of a child’s competency as a witness are the: (a) capacity of observation, (b) capacity of recollection, and (c) capacity of communication. And in ascertaining whether a child is of sufficient intelligence according to the foregoing requirements, it is settled that the trial court is called upon to make such determination.
The legal doctrine that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses is left to the judgment of the trial court is well-established.Its findings of facts, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are deemed conclusive on this Court.In this case, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found the prosecution witnesses credible.
Both the trial court and the CA found these defenses of denial and alibi incredible. The testimony of the accused was riddled with obvious inconsistencies. He denied knowing the victims, but eventually identified AAA as his grandniece. His own testimony contradicted his alibi, since he testified that from 2000 to 2002, he was residing in his brother’s house. This was where one of the rape incidents happened, and was even near the house of the victims. On this point, we have stated previously:
To establish alibi, the accused must prove (a) that he was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and (b) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.Physical impossibility "refers to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places."
On its part, the prosecution was able to show the existence of the elements of rape under the amended Revised Penal Code, effectuated by R.A. No. 8353, or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, which states:
Art. 266-A. Rape: When and how committed Rape is committed:
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.
Before and after the violations, the intimidation took the form of threats that the victims’ family would be killed by the accused. The accused also employed trickery and took advantage of his authority over his grandnieces. Under these circumstances, the accused was able to have carnal knowledge of BBB and commit a series of sexual assaults against both her and AAA. The two incidents of rape against AAA happened before she reached 12 years of age, she being 9 and 10 then. For those incidents, proof of threats, force or intimidation, is not necessary.
i. Salvador Flordeliz y Abenojar v. People of the Philippines | G.R. No. 186441 | March 3, 2010 | J. Nachura
FACTS: Sometime in March 1995, ABC, the wife of petitioner and the mother of private complainants AAA and BBB, left for Malaysia as an overseas worker. AAA and BBB were left under the care and custody of petitioner.In April 1995, while sleeping with BBB and AAA, who was then eleven (11) years old, petitioner touched AAA’s vagina, then played with it. AAA cried and told petitioner that it was painful. The latter stopped, but warned AAA not to tell anyone about it. Petitioner allegedly committed the same acts against AAA repeatedly. Not long after, petitioner was convicted of homicide and imprisoned in Muntinlupa City. In 2001, petitioner was released on parole.
Petitioner allegedly started molesting BBB in May 2002. The petitioner inserts his 2 fingers into BBB’s vagina whenever BBB visits petitioner, New Year’s Day, day before AAA’s birthday, and All Saints Day. Notwithstanding the repeated incidents of sexual abuse committed against her, BBB did not reveal her experiences to anybody because of fear for her life and that of her mother.
AAA and BBB had the chance to reveal the abuse when their mother ABC arrived for a vacation. AAA immediately told ABC what petitioner did to her. When confronted by ABC, BBB likewise admitted the repeated abuses committed by petitioner. ABC reported the incidents to the NBI. After conducting medical examinations on AAA and BBB, the attending physician remarked that there was a "disclosure of sexual abuse and she noted the presence of hymenal notch in posterior portion of hymenal rim that may be due to previous blunt force or penetrating trauma suggestive of abuse."With these findings, petitioner was charged with the crimes of Acts of Lasciviousness, committed against AAA, and nine (9) counts of Qualified Rape through Sexual Assault, committed against BBB, before the RTC.
ISSUE: Whether petitioner be charged of Acts of Lasciviousness in relation to R.A. 7610 without stating in the information
RULING: Section 32, Article XIII of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 7610 defines lascivious conduct as follows:
The intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person.
Based on the foregoing definition, petitioners act of touching AAA’s vagina and playing with it obviously amounted to lascivious conduct. Considering that the act was committed on a child less than twelve years old and through intimidation, it is beyond cavil that petitioner is guilty under the aforesaid laws.
The Court is aware that the Information specifically charged petitioner with Acts of Lasciviousness under the RPC, without stating therein that it was in relation to R.A. No. 7610. However, the failure to designate the offense by statute or to mention the specific provision penalizing the act, or an erroneous specification of the law violated, does not vitiate the information if the facts alleged therein clearly recite the facts constituting the crime charged. The character of the crime is not determined by the caption or preamble of the information or by the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, but by the recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances in the complaint or information.
In the instant case, the body of the Information contains an averment of the acts alleged to have been committed by petitioner and unmistakably describes acts punishable under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610.
It is also undisputed that petitioner is the father of AAA. The RTC did not appreciate the alternative circumstance of relationship, because it was not alleged in the Information. We do not agree.
The resolution of the investigating prosecutor, which formed the basis of the Information, a copy of which is attached thereto, stated that petitioner is the victim’s biological father. There was, therefore, substantial compliance with the mandate that an accused be informed of the nature of the charge against him.
III. Original Cases PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appell ee,
versus
-LEONARDO DEGAY Y UNDALOS CALDO, Accused-Appellant. G.R. No. 182526 Present: CORONA,C.J., Chairperson, VELASCO, JR., LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, DELCASTILLO,and PEREZ, JJ. Promulgated: August 25, 2010 x - - - x D E C I S I O N PEREZ, J.:
This is an appeal from the Decision[1] dated 27 September 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02176 affirming the Decision[2] dated 24 March 2006of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bontoc Mountain Province, Branch 35. The RTC found accused-appellant Leonardo Degay guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of statutory rape under Articles 266-A[3] and 266-B[4] of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay each of the victimsP50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
Appellant was charged with three counts of statutory rape in three Informations all dated 16 June 2004, which read:
The undersigned Provincial Prosecutor of Mt. Province, hereby accuses LEONARDO DEGAY, alias CALDO, of the crime of STATUTORY RAPE, defined and penalized under Arts. 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed as follows:
That on or about March 25, 2004, in the afternoon thereof, inside the at-atowan, XXX, barangay XXX, XXX, Mt. Province and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-name (sic) accused, with lewd design and with the use of force and intimidation, did then and there[,] willfully, unlawfully and feloniously remove the pant (sic) and panty of AAA[5] who is nine (9) years old, and thereafter have carnal knowledge of the latter, without the consent of and against her will, to the damage and prejudice of the said victim.[6]
Criminal Case No. 1850
The undersigned Provincial Prosecutor of Mt. Province, hereby accuses LEONARDO DEGAY, alias CALDO, of the crime of STATUTORY RAPE, defined and penalized under Arts. 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed as follows:
That on or about and sometime [in] the second (2nd) week of March 2004, at just past mid-day, at Sitio XXX, barangay XXX, XXX, Mt. Province and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design, and with the use of force and intimidation, [brought] to his house AAA who is nine (9) years old and once inside, accused removed his pant and brief and thereafter forcibly remove[d] the pant (sic) and panty of the victim, then touch and mash the vagina and breast of the latter several times and afterwards laid the victim on the sofa and, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of AAA without her consent and against her will, to the damage and prejudice of the latter.[7]
Criminal Case No. 1851
The undersigned Provincial Prosecutor of Mt. Province, hereby accuses LEONARDO DEGAY, alias CALDO, of the crime of STATUTORY RAPE, defined and penalized under Arts. 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed as follows:
That on or about May 8, 2004, in the afternoon thereof at
XXX, barangay XXX, XXX, Mt. Province and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design, and with