View full case

PEOPLE v. EDWARD SUMAYOD Y OSANO

FACTS:

Three amended informations were filed against Edward Sumayod y Osano and two informations were filed against Eliseo Sumayod y Lagunzad before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 31 of San Pedro, Laguna. Edward was charged with one count of rape and two counts of rape by sexual assault, while Eliseo was charged with one count of rape and one count of rape by sexual assault. The charges were all committed against a minor, AAA, who was seven years old at the time.

AAA, a minor who was seven years old at the time, was left in the care of her maternal grandmother, BBB, due to her mother's substance abuse issues and her father's absence. Unbeknownst to BBB, her other daughter left AAA with Eliseo and his common-law wife, Teresita. Edward, BBB's sixteen-year-old nephew, also resided with them. AAA was sexually abused on multiple occasions by both Edward and Eliseo. Edward raped AAA by forcibly inserting his penis into her vagina, mouth, and anal orifice. Eliseo also raped AAA by inserting his penis into her vagina, mouth, and anal orifice. AAA never reported the abuse because Edward threatened to throw her in a garbage truck or river and Eliseo threatened to withhold food from her. Furthermore, AAA was brought to the river by Edward, where he raped her and left her to drown, but she was luckily saved by her older cousin.

In June 2009, AAA experienced physical symptoms, such as difficulty sitting and a high fever, and was taken to the hospital. It was discovered that she had infections, lacerations in her hymen, and spermatozoa in her genital area. AAA eventually disclosed the abuses to BBB, who then reported the matter to the Department of Social Welfare and Development and the National Bureau of Investigation. Both Edward and Eliseo were charged with rape and rape by sexual assault.

The Regional Trial Court found Edward and Eliseo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charges, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. Edward and Eliseo were sentenced to imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. They were also ordered to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals also ordered that all damages be subject to interest at 6% per annum from the date of finality of the judgment until fully paid.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellant Eliseo for one count of rape and one count of sexual assault.

  2. Whether or not the testimony of the private complainant AAA is credible.

  3. Whether accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of the child

  4. Whether the private complainant's testimony should be given weight

  5. Whether the private complainant's testimony is credible despite the defense's attempts to discredit her.

  6. Whether the delay in reporting the incidents of assault affects the private complainant's credibility.

  7. Is there sufficient evidence to support the conviction of the accused-appellant for statutory rape and rape by sexual assault?

  8. What should be the proper nomenclature and penalty for rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code?

  9. Whether or not the Philippine National Police (PNP) has the authority to conduct a warrantless search of a parked vehicle based solely on a tip from an anonymous informant.

  10. Whether or not the discovery of illegal drugs during a warrantless search is admissible as evidence in court.

RULING:

  1. The Court affirms accused-appellant Eliseo's conviction with modification. The Court agrees with the Court of Appeals in relying on AAA's testimony and accepting it as credible. The Court holds that the candid and consistent testimony of AAA, along with the corroborating evidence from Dr. Senado and Dr. Del Mundo-Nepomuceno, outweighs the alibi and denial of the accused-appellants. The Court also cites previous jurisprudence that emphasizes the likelihood of a victim's revelation of being raped and their willingness to endure a public trial as indicators of the truthfulness of their claims.

  2. The trial court and appellate court both found that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant had committed the crime of statutory rape. The age of the victim was proven and there was evidence of sexual intercourse. Thus, accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of the child.

  3. The defense's contention that private complainant's testimony should not be given weight is rejected. The victim's failure to struggle or resist the attack does not affect her credibility. It is recognized that different people react differently to traumatic situations, especially a six-year-old child being attacked by people she believed to be her protectors. Delays in reporting the incidents are also common for victims of sexual assault. Therefore, the private complainant's candid, straightforward, and consistent testimony must prevail over the self-serving allegations of the defense.

  4. The private complainant's testimony is found to be credible. Despite the defense's attempts to mislead and discredit her, she remained consistent and categorical in her answers. The excerpt of her testimony shows her understanding of how she was touched and raped by the accused. The fact that she was able to withstand the defense's twisting of questions and remained consistent in her answers strengthens her credibility.

  5. The delay in reporting the incidents of assault does not affect the private complainant's credibility. She was under the care of the accused, lived in his house, and depended on him for basic necessities. The moral ascendancy he had over her explains why she did not resist the abuse when it was happening and why she did not immediately report it. Fear of being deprived of food, water, or shelter can reasonably explain the delay in reporting the incidents.

  6. Yes, there is sufficient evidence to support the conviction of the accused-appellant for statutory rape and rape by sexual assault. The Court finds no reason to reverse the trial court's finding, considering the concurrence of multiple circumstances attested by a credible witness and corroborated by other evidence.

  7. The proper nomenclature for rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610, should be "Sexual Assault." Although Republic Act No. 8353 defined specific acts constituting acts of lasciviousness as a distinct crime of "sexual assault," it did not redefine the traditional concept of rape. Therefore, acts of lasciviousness or lascivious conduct committed against a child, such as touching other delicate parts or kissing with malice, are still punished as acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Republic Act No. 7610.

  8. The PNP does not have the authority to conduct a warrantless search of a parked vehicle based solely on a tip from an anonymous informant. The Supreme Court held that a reliable and trustworthy information is required to justify a warrantless search.

  9. The discovery of illegal drugs during a warrantless search is not admissible as evidence in court. The Supreme Court emphasized that the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures outweighs the interest of the State in prosecuting drug offenders.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The candid and consistent testimony of the victim, coupled with corroborating evidence, is given more weight than the alibi and denial of the accused. (Corroborated testimony)

  • A victim's revelation of being raped and their voluntary submission for a medical examination, with the willingness to endure a public trial, is more likely to be true than a mere concoction. (Credibility of victim's testimony)

  • Elements of statutory rape are the victim being under 12 years of age and the accused having carnal knowledge of her.

  • Factual findings of the trial court, as well as its conclusions of law, are given the highest respect unless certain facts or circumstances that would substantially affect the result of the case have been overlooked or misinterpreted.

  • Victims of rape or sexual assault are not required to physically resist, as the use of intimidation and fear are inherent in these crimes.

  • The reaction of a minor victim cannot be expected to conform to adult standards of behavior.

  • Delayed reporting of sexual assault is common among victims.

  • The credibility of witnesses is crucial in the determination of guilt or innocence. In this case, the private complainant's consistent and categorical testimony strengthens her credibility.

  • Delay in reporting incidents of assault in cases of moral ascendancy does not necessarily affect the credibility of the victim. Fear and dependency can explain the delay in reporting the incidents.

  • Sexual assault under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code is a distinct crime with its own elements and penalties.

  • The proper nomenclature for rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610, is "Sexual Assault."

  • Acts of lasciviousness or lascivious conduct committed against a child, other than the sexual assault defined under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, are still punished under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Republic Act No. 7610.

  • The constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures requires that searches and seizures be conducted with a warrant issued by a competent authority based on probable cause.

  • A warrantless search and seizure is allowed only under certain recognized exceptions, such as when there is consent, when the search is an incident to a lawful arrest, when there is probable cause coupled with exigent circumstances, or when the search is conducted in "plain view".

  • The information provided by an anonymous informant should be carefully evaluated and corroborated by independent police work in order to establish its reliability and establish probable cause for a warrantless search.

  • Illegally obtained evidence, including drugs discovered during an unlawful search, is considered "fruit of the poisonous tree" and is therefore inadmissible in court.