View full case

PEOPLE v. IRENO BONAAGUA Y BERCE

FACTS:

Ireno Bonaagua seeks the reversal of the Court of Appeals' decision convicting him of three counts of Statutory Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness under Republic Act No. 7610. He was charged with four counts of rape involving his minor daughter, AAA. The prosecution presented the testimonies of AAA, her mother, and Dr. Melissa De Leon. According to AAA, Ireno raped her multiple times and threatened to kill her mother if she reported the incidents. AAA's mother discovered the abuse after AAA complained of severe abdominal pain and took her to file a complaint. Ireno denied the charges and claimed they were fabricated by AAA's mother. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Ireno guilty of four counts of rape based on overwhelming evidence against him. The RTC sentenced him to suffer reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay civil indemnity and moral damages. Ireno appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the RTC's decision with modifications. The Supreme Court is now hearing Ireno's appeal, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that AAA's testimony was inconsistent and unbelievable.

During AAA's testimony, she detailed the instances where her father inserted his finger into her vagina. Dr. Melissa De Leon conducted a medical examination and found a single healed superficial laceration on AAA's hymen. Dr. De Leon explained that it is possible for a hymen to sustain only one laceration even if there were multiple instances of finger insertion, depending on the force exerted and the thickness of the hymen. AAA's hymen was found to be thick and firm, which could explain why there was only one laceration despite her claim. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals considered AAA's testimony credible and consistent with the medical findings.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the single laceration on the complainant's hymen is consistent with her claim of multiple instances of sexual abuse.

  2. Whether the affidavit of desistance filed by the complainant's mother should be considered in dismissing the case against the accused.

  3. Whether the acts committed by the accused constitutes rape or acts of lasciviousness under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610.

  4. Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

  5. Whether the act of licking the outer lip of the vagina constitutes rape through sexual assault or acts of lasciviousness.

  6. Whether the statement of the victim that the accused only touched and licked her private part without inserting his finger in her vagina is sufficient to convict the accused of rape through sexual assault.

  7. Should the imposable penalty for the crimes of rape be based on the provisions of R.A. No. 7610?

  8. Should the amount of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages be modified in line with current jurisprudence?

RULING:

  1. The single laceration on the complainant's hymen is consistent with her claim of multiple instances of sexual abuse. The medical expert testified that a thick and firm hymen may only sustain one laceration despite multiple insertions, depending on the force applied. In this case, the complainant has a thick and firm hymen, which explains the single laceration despite her claim of multiple incidents of abuse.

  2. The affidavit of desistance filed by the complainant's mother should not be considered in dismissing the case against the accused. Rape is no longer considered a private crime, and thus the pardon by the offended party does not extinguish the offender's criminal liability. Furthermore, the affidavit of desistance was executed in connection with another accusation of rape in a different location and not the cases subject of this appeal. In addition, the affidavit was executed to regain custody of the children and not as a genuine pardon for the offenses committed.

  3. The Supreme Court held that the acts committed by the accused constituted acts of lasciviousness under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610. However, the accused cannot be found guilty of rape as the prosecution failed to establish the element of insertion of the finger into the victim's vagina.

  4. The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals that the prosecution has proven the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of acts of lasciviousness.

  5. The act of licking the outer lip of the vagina constitutes rape through sexual assault, not acts of lasciviousness.

  6. The statement of the victim that the accused only touched and licked her private part without inserting his finger in her vagina is not sufficient to convict the accused of rape through sexual assault.

  7. Yes. The imposable penalty for the crimes of rape should be based on the provisions of R.A. No. 7610. The appropriate penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period, which is fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months. The presence of the aggravating circumstance of relationship also warrants an increase in the penalty. The defendant is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of thirteen (13) years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to sixteen (16) years, five (5) months and ten (10) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum.

  8. Yes. The amount of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages should be modified in line with current jurisprudence. The civil indemnity ex delicto is increased to P20,000.00, while the moral damages and exemplary damages for each count of rape is reduced to P30,000.00. Additionally, the amount of exemplary damages awarded in each count of rape is increased to P15,000.00.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A single laceration on the hymen may be consistent with multiple instances of sexual abuse if the hymen is thick and firm.

  • Affidavits of desistance are generally unreliable and are disfavored by the courts.

  • Denial and alibi are weak defenses in rape cases, especially in the face of direct and categorical testimony from the complainant.

  • A positive and categorical testimony, which has the ring of truth, generally prevails over a bare denial.

  • In criminal cases, an examination of the entire records may be explored to arrive at a correct conclusion.

  • In order to be convicted of acts of lasciviousness under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610, the requisites for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code must be met in addition to the requisites for sexual abuse under Section 5 of R.A. No. 7610.

  • Acts of lasciviousness, as defined in Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, includes intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.

  • The slightest penetration of the male organ or even its slightest contact with the outer lip or the labia majora of the vagina is already considered sufficient to establish rape.

  • The guilt of an accused must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

  • Penalties for rape through sexual assault are determined according to the aggravating/qualifying circumstances present.

  • The minimum term of an indeterminate sentence should be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree.

  • The higher penalty provided by R.A. No. 7610 may not be imposed when the offenses were committed with aggravating/qualifying circumstances already prescribed in the Revised Penal Code.

  • The provisions of R.A. No. 7610 should be applied in cases involving sexual abuse committed against minors.

  • In crimes against chastity, such as acts of lasciviousness, the relationship between the offender and the offended party is always considered an aggravating circumstance.

  • The civil indemnity ex delicto, moral damages, and exemplary damages awarded in cases of rape should be in accordance with current jurisprudence.