View full case

PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO EJERCITO

FACTS:

Accused-appellant Francisco Ejercito, also known as Ejercito, was charged with the crime of Rape under Article 266-A, in relation to Article 266-B, of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) as amended by Republic Act No. 8353. The prosecution alleged that on October 10, 2001, Ejercito, with lewd design and by means of force and intimidation, raped AAA, a 15-year-old high school student. AAA claimed that Ejercito pointed a gun at her, threatened her and her family, and forcibly took her to a nearby barn where he raped her. Ejercito warned AAA not to tell anyone or her parents would be killed. The next day, AAA disclosed the incident to her aunt and later moved to the city to continue her studies. However, Ejercito tracked her down, made her his sex slave, and sexually abused her from 2002 to 2005. AAA eventually disclosed the rape to her parents in 2005. Ejercito pleaded not guilty and asserted that he had a consensual relationship with AAA from 2002 to 2004. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Ejercito guilty of Rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. Ejercito appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), but the CA affirmed the RTC's ruling with modifications. Ejercito now appeals to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals (CA) erroneously applied the old Rape Law instead of the new rape provisions in convicting the accused.

  2. Whether or not the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt the elements of Rape by sexual intercourse under the new rape provisions.

  3. Whether or not the act committed by the accused can be considered a violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610.

  4. Whether or not the accused can be charged under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code or under Section 5(b) of RA 7610.

    • Whether the provisions of RA 8353 amending the RPC should prevail over Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 in cases where a minor is raped through sexual intercourse.
    • Whether there is an overlap between the elements of rape under RA 8353 and sexual intercourse against a minor under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610.

  7. Whether the act of committing carnal knowledge against a child, twelve (12) years old or older, constitutes both rape under Section 266-A of the RPC and child abuse under Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610.

  8. Whether an accused can be charged with both rape and child abuse for the same act.

  9. Whether rape can be complexed with a violation of Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610.

  10. Whether the application of Section 5 (b) of Republic Act (RA) No. 7610 or RA 8353 amending the Revised Penal Code (RPC) should be determined based on the "focus of evidence" approach.

  11. Whether the conflict between the application of Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 and RA 8353 should be resolved based on the penalty provided by each law.

  12. Whether the provisions on rape under RA 8353 amending the RPC should prevail over Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 in cases where the accused is charged and convicted of having sexual intercourse with a minor.

  13. Whether the "focus of evidence" approach used in Tubillo, et al. rulings should be abandoned.

RULING:

  1. The CA erroneously applied the old Rape Law since it was already repealed upon the enactment of RA 8353 in 1997. The CA should have applied the provisions of RA 8353, which resulted in the new rape provisions of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

  2. The prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt the presence of all the elements of Rape by sexual intercourse under Article 266-A (1) of the RPC, as amended by RA 8353. The court found AAA's testimony credible, and the accused failed to establish any ill motive on her part. The trial court's factual findings were affirmed.

  3. The act committed by the accused can be considered a violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610. The law punishes not only child prostitution but also other forms of sexual abuse against children. Even if the accused committed sexual abuse against the child victim only once and without a prior sexual affront, it still constitutes a violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610.

  4. The accused should be charged under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code. Penal laws are crafted by the legislature to punish certain acts, and when two penal laws may both theoretically apply to the same case, the law which is more special in nature should prevail. RA 8353, amending the RPC, should be uniformly applied in cases involving sexual intercourse committed against minors.

  5. The provisions of RA 8353 amending the RPC should prevail over Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 in cases where a minor is raped through sexual intercourse. There is an overlap between the elements of rape under RA 8353 and sexual intercourse against a minor under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610. Therefore, RA 8353, being the more recent and comprehensive law on rape, applies and should be used to prosecute the rape of a minor through sexual intercourse.

  6. The act of committing carnal knowledge against a child, twelve (12) years old or older, can constitute both rape under Section 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and child abuse under Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610 (R.A. No. 7610).

  7. An accused cannot be charged with both rape and child abuse for the same act because it would violate the accused's right against double jeopardy.

  8. Rape cannot be complexed with a violation of Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610 because, under Section 48 of the Revised Penal Code, a felony under the Revised Penal Code (such as rape) cannot be complexed with an offense penalized by a special law.

  9. The "focus of evidence" approach is not a valid basis to resolve the conflict between the application of Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 and RA 8353. The court should rely on legal interpretation using the principles of statutory construction. The determination of the act being punished and its attending circumstances, rather than the focus of evidence, is the key consideration in resolving the conflicting applications of the two laws.

  10. The conflict between the application of Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 and RA 8353 should not be resolved based on the penalty provided by each law. The superseding scope of RA 8353 should be the sole reason for its prevalence over Section 5 (b) of RA 7610. Penalties are merely accessory to the act being punished by a particular law, and once the proper application of a penal law is determined over another, the imposition of the penalty attached to that act only follows as a matter of course.

  11. The provisions on rape under RA 8353 should prevail over Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 in cases where the accused is charged and convicted of having sexual intercourse with a minor. The accused should be convicted of rape under paragraph 1(a), Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended by RA 8353, if there is proof of carnal knowledge through force, threat, or intimidation.

  12. The "focus of evidence" approach used in Tubillo, et al. rulings should be abandoned.

PRINCIPLES:

  • In criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review.

  • The appeal confers full jurisdiction over the case on the appellate court.

  • The reviewing tribunal can correct errors, reverse the trial court's decision, and increase the penalty.

  • The old Rape Law, Article 335 of the RPC, was repealed by RA 8353.

  • To convict a person of Rape under Article 266-A (1) of the RPC, the prosecution must prove carnal knowledge of a woman under the circumstances mentioned in the provision.

  • The gravamen of Rape is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will.

  • The trial court is in the best position to determine the credibility of witnesses.

  • Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 penalizes those who commit sexual abuse against a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse.

  • Section 5(a) and 5(b) of RA 7610 punish acts pertaining to or connected with child prostitution and other forms of sexual abuse against children.

  • Violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610 can occur even if the accused commits sexual abuse against the child victim only once.

  • The terms "coercion and influence" as used in Section 5(b) of RA 7610 are broad enough to cover "force and intimidation" as used in the Information.

  • When two penal laws may both theoretically apply to the same case, the law which is more special in nature should prevail.

  • RA 8353 re-classified the crime of Rape from a crime against chastity to a crime against persons and provided for more particularized instances of rape.

  • Under RA 8353, rape is considered committed not only through carnal knowledge but also through certain lascivious acts now classified as rape by sexual assault.

  • RA 8353 provides for new penalties for rape that may be qualified under various circumstances.

  • In cases where a minor is raped through sexual intercourse, the provisions of RA 8353 amending the RPC prevail over Section 5 (b) of RA 7610, although both laws penalize sexual intercourse against a minor.

  • The Court clarified that the prosecution's evidence should focus on the elements of "coercion and influence" or "force and intimidation" to determine whether the case falls under rape under RA 8353 or sexual intercourse against a minor under RA 7610.

  • The term "coercion and influence" as appearing in the law is broad enough to cover "force and intimidation."

  • A person cannot be subjected twice to criminal liability for a single criminal act.

  • Rape cannot be complexed with a violation of a special law offense.

  • The determination of the act being punished and its attending circumstances is the key consideration in resolving conflicting applications of penal laws.

  • The superseding scope of a law should prevail over another law in cases of conflict.

  • Penalties are merely accessory to the act being punished by a particular law, and should not be the sole consideration in determining the applicable law.

  • The determination of penalties is a policy matter that belongs to the legislative branch of government. The judiciary cannot adjust the gradations of penalties fixed by Congress through its legislative function.

  • In cases of perceived unfairness in the imposable penalties between two applicable laws, the solution is through remedial legislation and not through judicial interpretation.

  • Courts may correct only those errors or mistakes that are clearly clerical or obvious, but not those due to oversight, especially where the law is clear, and to correct it would change the meaning of the law.

  • The provisions on rape under RA 8353 should prevail over Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 in cases where the accused is charged and convicted of having sexual intercourse with a minor.

  • The "focus of evidence" approach used in Tubillo, et al. rulings has been abandoned.