SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 257134. February 06, 2023 ]XXX25734 v. PEOPLE +
XXX257134,[1] PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
XXX25734 v. PEOPLE +
XXX257134,[1] PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
KHO, JR., J.:
Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari[2] are the Decision[3] dated September 3, 2019 and the Resolution[4] dated July 1, 2021 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 42290, which affirmed with modification the Judgment[5] dated September 3, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court of xxxxxxxxxxx City, Branch 202 (RTC) in Crim. Case Nos. 15-0425 & 0427, and found petitioner XXX257134 (petitioner) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of: (a) Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), in relation to Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. (RA) 7610;[6] and (b) Rape under Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended by RA 8353,[7] in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610.
The Facts
Petitioner stands charged with the crimes of: (1) Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC, in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610; and (2) Rape under Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended by RA 8353, in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610, the accusatory portions of the two (2) criminal Informations read as follows:[8]
The prosecution alleged that victim AAA257134, a minor, is petitioner's nephew. Petitioner, the adopted brother[11] of AAA257134's mom, does not live with AAA257134 but would often go to their house in the City of xxxxxxxxxxx. When AAA257134 took the witness stand, he testified that he was molested by his uncle around 200 times which started when he was still six (6) years old. Particularly, on the night of his seventh birthday, petitioner made him touch his penis and shake it up and down.[12] (subject of Crim. Case No. 15-0425)
Another incident narrated by AAA257134 transpired on June 14, 2014.[13] According to AAA257134, after he attended a choir practice, he went to and played at the park together with petitioner, his cousin, and two (2) nannies. They then went home to have dinner; after which, AAA257134 took a shower to get ready for bed and stayed in the same room with petitioner, his cousin, and the nannies. As soon as the two (2) nannies left and upon finding that AAA257134's cousin was already asleep, petitioner locked the room and held AAA257134's wrist and made him hold his penis in an up and down motion. Petitioner then tried to put his penis into AAA257134's mouth, but the latter resisted. Petitioner also tried to insert his penis into AAA257134's anal orifice while they were both lying sidewards. According to AAA257134, he felt pain and itchiness when petitioner slightly inserted his penis into his anus. The said scenario repeatedly happened on the same night until AAA257134's mother arrived. Petitioner authoritatively told AAA257134 not to tell anyone.[14] However, the following day, AAA257134 told his mother what petitioner has been doing to him.[15] (subject of Crim. Case No. 15-0427)
AAA257134 further testified that he did not readily report to his mother the bestial acts committed by his uncle against him out of fear. Every after an incident of molestation, AAA257134 would get sores in his anus and his mom would just put medicine on it and he would be relieved of pain and itchiness. Upon learning what AAA257134 suffered under the hands of petitioner, AAA257134's mom reported the same to the Women and Children Protection Desk. AAA257134's mom then filed a complaint against petitioner.[16] A Medico-Legal Report was later presented by the prosecution which however showed no traces of abrasion or laceration.[17]
In his defense, petitioner presented a number of witnesses including his own mother and the nannies of AAA257134. Petitioner's mother belied AAA257134's allegation that the former frequented their house and claimed that petitioner would only go there on family affairs or upon request of AAA257134's mom. She also testified that there was no occasion that petitioner was left alone with AAA257134 as the latter was always in the company of his nanny.[18]
AAA257134's nannies, meanwhile, uniformly testified that there was no instance that AAA257134 was left alone with petitioner as either they or AAA257134's mother were with him all the time. All three (3) of the nannies contradicted the charge of rape against petitioner claiming that if there was such an incident, they would have witnessed it. They likewise mentioned that AAA257134 had the propensity to lie by making stories which often result to them being scolded by AAA257134's mother.[19]
Petitioner, for his part, interposed the defense of denial and alibi. He belied the claim that he frequented the house of AAA257134 as he only went there on special occasions. He further averred, among others, that he could not have possibly committed the acts imputed against him as AAA257134 was never left alone to his care. Petitioner even insinuated that AAA257134 might have a grudge against him because he would always side with AAA257134's cousin whenever they would have fights.[20] Lastly, petitioner argued that the Medico-Legal Report submitted by the prosecution shows no traces of abrasion or laceration in AAA257134's anus, thus, negating the commission of sexual assault.[21]
The RTC Ruling
In a Judgment[22] dated September 3, 2018, the RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the following: (a) in Crim. Case No. 15-0425, for Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 for which he was sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and ordered to pay AAA257134 P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P75,000.00 as moral damages; and (b) in Crim. Case No. 15-0427, for Rape under Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended by RA 8353 in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 for which petitioner was sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of ten (10) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and ordered to indemnify AAA257134 in the amount of P75,000.00, another P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. Finally, the RTC imposed on all monetary awards interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of its judgment until fully paid.[23]
In so ruling, the RTC found the prosecution's evidence to be sufficient in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It maintained that there is no reason to doubt AAA257134's credibility as his testimony is consistent, candid, and straightforward as against petitioner's bare denial and alibi. Further, AAA257134's credibility survived strict scrutiny by the court when AAA257134 positively identified petitioner as the perpetrator of the crime and when AAA257134 testified with specificity what transpired between them. Lastly, the RTC noted that AAA257134's revelation that he had been raped, coupled with his submission to a medical examination and willingness to undergo public trial at a young age cannot be so easily dismissed as a mere concoction or tell-tale.[24]
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed[25] to the CA.
The CA Ruling
In a Decision[26] dated September 3, 2019, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling with the following modifications: (a) in Crim. Case No. 15-0425, petitioner was found guilty of the crime of Child Abuse and was sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to sixteen (16) years, five (5) months, and ten (10) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to pay the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (b) in Crim. Case No. 15-0427, petitioner was found guilty of the crime of Qualified Rape through Sexual Assault and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period often (10) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to pay the amount of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. All the damages awarded are to earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum.[27]
Here, the CA maintained that the claim of petitioner that AAA257134's statements are replete of discrepancies deserves scant consideration. It explained that courts expect minor inconsistencies when a child-victim narrates the details of a harrowing experience like rape. Such inconsistencies on minor details are in fact badges of truth, candidness, and the fact that the witness is unrehearsed. Hence, the alleged inconsistencies in the victim's testimony regarding the exact time and date of the commission of the rape and lascivious conduct, respectively, does not make AAA257134's otherwise straightforward and coherent testimony, on material points, less worthy of belief.[28]
Petitioner thereafter filed a Motion for Reconsideration[29] which was denied by the CA in a Resolution[30] dated July 1, 2021. Hence, this petition.
The Issue Before the Court
The issue for the Court's resolution is whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC Judgment finding petitioner guilty of the crimes charged.
The Court's Ruling
The petition is without merit.
Preliminarily, it must be stressed that findings of fact by the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, is accorded great weight and respect as trial courts are in the best position to ascertain and measure the sincerity and spontaneity of witnesses through their actual observation of the witnesses' manner of testifying.[31] In this case, however, the defense did not adduce substantial evidence plausible enough for the Court to depart from the factual findings of the courts a quo. As such, the Court gives full weight to their finding that petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged, as will be explained below.
The Court, at the onset, notes that although most of the existing jurisprudence on rape (and acts of lasciviousness) involves women as victims,[32] this does not escape the reality that said crime can likewise be committed against a man, a minor at that, as in this case.
The essential elements in the prosecution for Rape through Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC are: (1) that the offender commits an act of sexual assault; (2) that the act of sexual assault is committed by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice or by inserting any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person; and (3) that the act of sexual assault is accomplished by using force or intimidation, among others.[33] This shall be qualified pursuant to Article 266-B of the RPC if the victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is, inter alia, a relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree of the victim.[34]
On the other hand, the elements of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5 of RA 7610 are: (1) the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) it is done by using force or intimidation, or when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or when the offended party is under 12 years of age; and (3) the offended party is another person of either sex.[35] In Barona v. People,[36] the term "lewd" was defined as "obscene, lustful, indecent or lecherous. It signifies that form of immorality which has relation to moral impurity or that which is carried in a wanton manner."[37]
Guided by the foregoing, the Court rules that the prosecution has sufficiently established the foregoing elements of Rape through Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC. First, AAA257134 positively identified petitioner as the perpetrator of the crime charged. Second, AAA257134 narrated that on June 14, 2014, petitioner repeatedly abused him by inserting his penis into his anal orifice. AAA257134 recounted that on that night, he was lying side by side with petitioner when the latter turned him around and pulled down his pants just exposing the butt.[38] While in that position, petitioner slightly inserted his penis into AAA257134's anus which made the latter feel pain and itchiness.[39] On cross-examination, AAA257134 further testified that petitioner also made him stand bending over while shoving his penis into his butt.[40] Third, besides petitioner exercising moral ascendancy over AAA257134, him being his "uncle," he also ordered AAA257134 not to tell anyone about the incident. The pertinent portions of AAA257134's testimony are quoted below:[41]
Petitioner stands charged with the crimes of: (1) Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC, in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610; and (2) Rape under Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended by RA 8353, in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610, the accusatory portions of the two (2) criminal Informations read as follows:[8]
On arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged. Trial on the merits ensued.Crim. Case No. 15-0425
[Acts of Lasciviousness in relation to Sec. 5 (b), RA 7610]
That sometimes (sic) in the year 2011, in the City of xxxxxxxxxxx, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being the uncle of the complainant, with lewd design, and with intent to abuse and to gratify his sexual desire, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit an act of lasciviousness on [AAA257134], Six (6) years old, by then and there making him hold his penis and by directing him to perform the act of masturbation on him, against his will and without his consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[9]Crim. Case No. 15-0427
[Rape in relation to Sec. 5 (b), RA 7610]
That on or about the 14th day of June 2014, in the City of xxxxxxxxxxx, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being the uncle of complainant, with lewd design, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit an act of sexual assault on [AAA257134], Nine (9) years old, by then and there inserting his penis into his anal orifice, against his will and without his consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[10]
The prosecution alleged that victim AAA257134, a minor, is petitioner's nephew. Petitioner, the adopted brother[11] of AAA257134's mom, does not live with AAA257134 but would often go to their house in the City of xxxxxxxxxxx. When AAA257134 took the witness stand, he testified that he was molested by his uncle around 200 times which started when he was still six (6) years old. Particularly, on the night of his seventh birthday, petitioner made him touch his penis and shake it up and down.[12] (subject of Crim. Case No. 15-0425)
Another incident narrated by AAA257134 transpired on June 14, 2014.[13] According to AAA257134, after he attended a choir practice, he went to and played at the park together with petitioner, his cousin, and two (2) nannies. They then went home to have dinner; after which, AAA257134 took a shower to get ready for bed and stayed in the same room with petitioner, his cousin, and the nannies. As soon as the two (2) nannies left and upon finding that AAA257134's cousin was already asleep, petitioner locked the room and held AAA257134's wrist and made him hold his penis in an up and down motion. Petitioner then tried to put his penis into AAA257134's mouth, but the latter resisted. Petitioner also tried to insert his penis into AAA257134's anal orifice while they were both lying sidewards. According to AAA257134, he felt pain and itchiness when petitioner slightly inserted his penis into his anus. The said scenario repeatedly happened on the same night until AAA257134's mother arrived. Petitioner authoritatively told AAA257134 not to tell anyone.[14] However, the following day, AAA257134 told his mother what petitioner has been doing to him.[15] (subject of Crim. Case No. 15-0427)
AAA257134 further testified that he did not readily report to his mother the bestial acts committed by his uncle against him out of fear. Every after an incident of molestation, AAA257134 would get sores in his anus and his mom would just put medicine on it and he would be relieved of pain and itchiness. Upon learning what AAA257134 suffered under the hands of petitioner, AAA257134's mom reported the same to the Women and Children Protection Desk. AAA257134's mom then filed a complaint against petitioner.[16] A Medico-Legal Report was later presented by the prosecution which however showed no traces of abrasion or laceration.[17]
In his defense, petitioner presented a number of witnesses including his own mother and the nannies of AAA257134. Petitioner's mother belied AAA257134's allegation that the former frequented their house and claimed that petitioner would only go there on family affairs or upon request of AAA257134's mom. She also testified that there was no occasion that petitioner was left alone with AAA257134 as the latter was always in the company of his nanny.[18]
AAA257134's nannies, meanwhile, uniformly testified that there was no instance that AAA257134 was left alone with petitioner as either they or AAA257134's mother were with him all the time. All three (3) of the nannies contradicted the charge of rape against petitioner claiming that if there was such an incident, they would have witnessed it. They likewise mentioned that AAA257134 had the propensity to lie by making stories which often result to them being scolded by AAA257134's mother.[19]
Petitioner, for his part, interposed the defense of denial and alibi. He belied the claim that he frequented the house of AAA257134 as he only went there on special occasions. He further averred, among others, that he could not have possibly committed the acts imputed against him as AAA257134 was never left alone to his care. Petitioner even insinuated that AAA257134 might have a grudge against him because he would always side with AAA257134's cousin whenever they would have fights.[20] Lastly, petitioner argued that the Medico-Legal Report submitted by the prosecution shows no traces of abrasion or laceration in AAA257134's anus, thus, negating the commission of sexual assault.[21]
In a Judgment[22] dated September 3, 2018, the RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the following: (a) in Crim. Case No. 15-0425, for Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 for which he was sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and ordered to pay AAA257134 P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P75,000.00 as moral damages; and (b) in Crim. Case No. 15-0427, for Rape under Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended by RA 8353 in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 for which petitioner was sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of ten (10) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and ordered to indemnify AAA257134 in the amount of P75,000.00, another P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. Finally, the RTC imposed on all monetary awards interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of its judgment until fully paid.[23]
In so ruling, the RTC found the prosecution's evidence to be sufficient in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It maintained that there is no reason to doubt AAA257134's credibility as his testimony is consistent, candid, and straightforward as against petitioner's bare denial and alibi. Further, AAA257134's credibility survived strict scrutiny by the court when AAA257134 positively identified petitioner as the perpetrator of the crime and when AAA257134 testified with specificity what transpired between them. Lastly, the RTC noted that AAA257134's revelation that he had been raped, coupled with his submission to a medical examination and willingness to undergo public trial at a young age cannot be so easily dismissed as a mere concoction or tell-tale.[24]
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed[25] to the CA.
In a Decision[26] dated September 3, 2019, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling with the following modifications: (a) in Crim. Case No. 15-0425, petitioner was found guilty of the crime of Child Abuse and was sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to sixteen (16) years, five (5) months, and ten (10) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to pay the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (b) in Crim. Case No. 15-0427, petitioner was found guilty of the crime of Qualified Rape through Sexual Assault and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period often (10) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to pay the amount of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. All the damages awarded are to earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum.[27]
Here, the CA maintained that the claim of petitioner that AAA257134's statements are replete of discrepancies deserves scant consideration. It explained that courts expect minor inconsistencies when a child-victim narrates the details of a harrowing experience like rape. Such inconsistencies on minor details are in fact badges of truth, candidness, and the fact that the witness is unrehearsed. Hence, the alleged inconsistencies in the victim's testimony regarding the exact time and date of the commission of the rape and lascivious conduct, respectively, does not make AAA257134's otherwise straightforward and coherent testimony, on material points, less worthy of belief.[28]
Petitioner thereafter filed a Motion for Reconsideration[29] which was denied by the CA in a Resolution[30] dated July 1, 2021. Hence, this petition.
The issue for the Court's resolution is whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC Judgment finding petitioner guilty of the crimes charged.
The petition is without merit.
Preliminarily, it must be stressed that findings of fact by the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, is accorded great weight and respect as trial courts are in the best position to ascertain and measure the sincerity and spontaneity of witnesses through their actual observation of the witnesses' manner of testifying.[31] In this case, however, the defense did not adduce substantial evidence plausible enough for the Court to depart from the factual findings of the courts a quo. As such, the Court gives full weight to their finding that petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged, as will be explained below.
The Court, at the onset, notes that although most of the existing jurisprudence on rape (and acts of lasciviousness) involves women as victims,[32] this does not escape the reality that said crime can likewise be committed against a man, a minor at that, as in this case.
The essential elements in the prosecution for Rape through Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC are: (1) that the offender commits an act of sexual assault; (2) that the act of sexual assault is committed by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice or by inserting any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person; and (3) that the act of sexual assault is accomplished by using force or intimidation, among others.[33] This shall be qualified pursuant to Article 266-B of the RPC if the victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is, inter alia, a relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree of the victim.[34]
On the other hand, the elements of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5 of RA 7610 are: (1) the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) it is done by using force or intimidation, or when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or when the offended party is under 12 years of age; and (3) the offended party is another person of either sex.[35] In Barona v. People,[36] the term "lewd" was defined as "obscene, lustful, indecent or lecherous. It signifies that form of immorality which has relation to moral impurity or that which is carried in a wanton manner."[37]
Guided by the foregoing, the Court rules that the prosecution has sufficiently established the foregoing elements of Rape through Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC. First, AAA257134 positively identified petitioner as the perpetrator of the crime charged. Second, AAA257134 narrated that on June 14, 2014, petitioner repeatedly abused him by inserting his penis into his anal orifice. AAA257134 recounted that on that night, he was lying side by side with petitioner when the latter turned him around and pulled down his pants just exposing the butt.[38] While in that position, petitioner slightly inserted his penis into AAA257134's anus which made the latter feel pain and itchiness.[39] On cross-examination, AAA257134 further testified that petitioner also made him stand bending over while shoving his penis into his butt.[40] Third, besides petitioner exercising moral ascendancy over AAA257134, him being his "uncle," he also ordered AAA257134 not to tell anyone about the incident. The pertinent portions of AAA257134's testimony are quoted below:[41]
Sinumpaang Salaysay dated June 26, 2013 marked as Exhibit "A"
The Court is not convinced.
Contrary to the view of petitioner, the Court finds no inconsistency in the testimony of AAA257134. That there are different versions as to how AAA257134 was sexually assaulted in just one night is not far removed from happening. As alleged by AAA257134, he was repeatedly abused by petitioner on the night of June 14, 2014, hence, the varied narration. In light of this, petitioner's defense of alleged material discrepancy on AAA257134's testimony which purportedly weigh heavily on his credibility deserves scant consideration. On this score, it is worth emphasizing that the "courts expect minor inconsistencies when a child-victim narrates the details of a traumatic experience."[42] In fact, inconsistencies reflect candidness and the fact that the testimony was unrehearsed.[43]
Moreover, in Ricalde v. People,[44] the Court, through Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, held that full weight and credit are accorded to testimonies of child victims as their "[y]outh and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity."[45] Even more, a child witness' testimony is enhanced when the accusations are directed against a close relative given the social stigma it may cause their entire family.[46]
In this case, considering AAA257134's age, it is unlikely that he would fabricate a story which would bring to the fore his harrowing experience in the hands of his very own uncle; more so, subject him and his family to trauma and humiliation arising from the public trial concomitant to the resolution of the case.
Moreover, the Court agrees with the CA when it ruled that in rape cases, an accused may be convicted based on the lone and uncorroborated testimony of the victim, provided said testimony is clear, positive, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[47] Hence, petitioner's claim that the Medico-Legal Report revealed no evidence that AAA257134 suffered ano-genital injury or any sign of sexual abuse is of no moment.
As regards the charge for Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5 of RA 7610, the prosecution likewise proved the concurrence of the above-enumerated elements. The testimony of AAA257134 revealed that petitioner started molesting him when he was six (6) years old. Particularly, during his seventh birthday, petitioner made AAA257134 touch his penis and shake it up and down inside a room where AAA257134 and his grandmother were asleep. Petitioner then left the room after.
Petitioner, nonetheless, questions his conviction for Acts of Lasciviousness due to the discrepancy in the year the act of molestation, as alleged in the information, was committed and thereafter proved on trial. According to petitioner, AAA257134 averred that he was molested in 2011 on his seventh birthday. Petitioner, however, argued that AAA257134's seventh birthday was in 2012, hence, the information failed to sufficiently inform him of the date of the commission of the crime.
This argument is untenable.
The CA, citing various jurisprudence, aptly explained that in rape cases, the exact date of commission of sexual abuse is inconsequential on the ground that it "is not a material ingredient of the said crime."[48] More importantly, petitioner did not deny that he was with AAA257134 on his seventh birthday. No sufficient proof was likewise offered showing the impossibility of committing the crime imputed against petitioner on said day. At this point, it is not amiss for the Court to point out that AAA257134 testified that petitioner started molesting him when he was six (6) years old and the incident that transpired on his seventh birthday is only one among the many abuses he experienced from petitioner.
In view of the foregoing discussions, the Court finds no reason to overturn the CA's findings, as there was no showing that it overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, petitioner's criminal liability in both Crim. Case No. 15-0425 and Crim. Case No. 15-0427 must be sustained.
Petitioner's criminal liability in both Crim. Case No. 15-0425 and Crim. Case No. 15-0427 having been established, the Court now goes to the proper nomenclature of the crimes that he committed, the imposable penalties, and his civil liability ex delicto.
In People v. Tulagan[49] (Tulagan), the Court, through Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, threshed out the "applicable laws and [consequent penalties] for the crimes of acts of lasciviousness or lascivious conduct and rape by carnal knowledge or sexual assault, depending on the age of the victim, in view of the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 266-A and Article 336 of the [RPC], as amended by [RA] 8353 and Section 5(b) of [RA] 7610."[50] For this purpose, Tulagan provided a comprehensive table stating the proper nomenclature of crimes involving sexual abuse against children, to wit:[51]
Pursuant to Tulagan, the nomenclature of the crime that petitioner committed in Crim. Case No. 15-0425 is "Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610" which has the prescribed penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period, i.e., fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months. Taking into consideration the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL), as well as the absence of any modifying circumstances in this case, the minimum term of the imposable penalty should be taken from reclusion temporal in its minimum period, which has the range of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months; whereas the maximum term of the imposable penalty should be taken from the medium period of the prescribed penalty, which has the range of fifteen (15) years, six (6) months, and twenty (20) days to sixteen (16) years, five (5) months, and nine (9) days. Given the foregoing, the Court sentences petitioner to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of thirteen (13) years of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to sixteen (16) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Further, and in accordance with Tulagan,[52] petitioner should also pay AAA257134 the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, all with legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this ruling until full payment.
However, as regards Crim. Case No. 15-0427, there is a need to modify certain aspects of the CA ruling. First, it is well to point out that the CA found petitioner liable for Qualified Sexual Assault, due to the existence of the qualifying circumstance of minority (i.e., AAA257134 was just nine [9] years old when the crime occurred) and relationship (i.e., petitioner is AAA257134's "uncle"). However, while such minority and relationship were indeed alleged in the information, a closer perusal of the records would readily show that their relationship is neither by consanguinity nor by affinity; rather, petitioner is a mere adoptive uncle of AAA257134. In Reyes v. Elquiero (Reyes),[53] the Court, through Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, held that "[t]he legal relationship created by adoption extends only to the adopter and the adoptee." Reyes further reiterated the ruling in Teotico v. Del Van Chan[54] which declared that:
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated September 3, 2019 and the Resolution dated July 1, 2021 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 42290 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS, as follows:
SO ORDERED.
Leonen, SAJ. (Chairperson), Lazaro-Javier, M. Lopez, and J. Lopez, JJ., concur.
[1] The identity of the victim or any information which could establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family, household members, and/or accused, shall be withheld pursuant to RA 7610, entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on June 17, 1992; RA 9262, entitled "AN ACT DEFINING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN, PROVIDING FOR PROTECTIVE MEASURES FOR VICTIMS, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES THEREFORE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on March 8, 2004; and Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, otherwise known as the "Rule on Violence against Women and Their Children" (November 15, 2004). (See footnote 4 in People v. Cadano, Jr., 729 Phil. 576, 578 [2014] [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division], citing People v. Lomaque, 710 Phil. 338, 342 [2013] [Per J. Brion, Second Division]. See also Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015, entitled "PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES IN THE PROMULGATION, PUBLICATION, AND POSTING ON THE WEBSITES OF DECISIONS, FINAL RESOLUTIONS, AND FINAL ORDERS USING FICTITIOUS NAMES/PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES," dated September 5, 2017.)
[2] Rollo, 12-99.
[3] Id. at 108-132. Penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla (+) (former member of the Court) with Associate Justices Maria Elisa Sempio Diy and Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin, concurring.
[4] Id. at 135-136. Penned by Associate Justice Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin with Associate Justices Maria Elisa Sempio-Diy and Rafael Antonio M. Santos, concurring.
[5] Id. at 229-243. Penned by Judge Elizabeth Yu Guray.
[6] Entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION, PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR ITS VIOLATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on June 17, 1992.
[7] Entitled "AN ACT EXPANDING THE DEFINITION OF THE CRIME OF RAPE, RECLASSIFYING THE SAME AS A CRIME AGAINST PERSONS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ACT NO. 3815, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED PENAL CODE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on September 30, 1997.
[8] Rollo, p. 137.
[9] Id. at 109, 137, and 158.
[10] Id. at 109, 137, and 157.
[11] Id. at 139.
[12] See id. at 110.
[13] "June 24, 2014" in the CA Decision; id.
[14] See id. at 110 and 138.
[15] Id. at 249.
[16] Id. at 111.
[17] Id. at 116.
[18] Id. at 111.
[19] Id. at 111-112.
[20] Id. at 112 and 143-144.
[21] Id. at 46-49 and 117-180.
[22] Id. at 137-151. Docketed as Crim Case Nos. 15-0425 and 0427, and penned by Judge Elizabeth Yu Guray.
[23] Id. at 151.
[24] See id. at 147-151.
[25] See Appellant's Brief dated January 10, 2019; id. at 152-226.
[26] Id. at 108-133.
[27] Id. at 131-132.
[28] See id. at 115-131.
[29] Id. at 293-349.
[30] Id. at 135-136.
[31] People v. Aguilar, 565 Phil. 233, 247-248 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
[32] See Ricalde v. People, 751 Phil. 793, 815 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
[33] See People v. Caoili, 815 Phil. 839, 883 (2017) [Per J. Tijam, En Banc]; and People v. Alfredo, 653 Phil. 435, 451-452 (2010) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., First Division].
[34] See People v. Comboy, 782 Phil. 187, 197-198 (2016) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division].
[35] See People v. Jagdon. Jr., G.R. No. 242882, September 9, 2020 [Per J. Delos Santos, Second Division].
[36] See G.R. No. 249131, December 6, 2021 [Per J. Carandang, Third Division].
[37] Id., citing People v. Egan, 432 Phil. 74, 84 (2002) [Per J. Bellosillo, Second Division].
[38] Rollo, p. 139.
[39] Id.
[40] Id.
[41] Id. at 41-44.
[42] Fernandez v. People, 843 Phil. 745, 752 (2018) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
[43] People v. Salaver, 839 Phil. 90, 104 (2018) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division], citing People v. Descartin, 810 Phil. 881, 893 (2017) [Per J. Tijam, Third Division].
[44] 751 Phil. 793 (2015) [Third Division].
[45] Id. at 805, citing People v. Olivia, 616 Phil. 786, 792 (2009) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division].
[46] See People v. Esperanza, 453 Phil. 54 (2003) [Per C.J. Davide, Jr., En Banc].
[47] People v. Alicante, 388 Phil. 233, 249 (2000) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
[48] Rollo, p. 121, citing People v. Cinco, 622 Phil. 858 (2009) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
[49] 849 Phil. 197 (2019) [En Banc].
[50] Id. at 248.
[51] Id. at 248-249.
[52] See id. at 292.
[53] G.R. No. 210487, September 2, 2020 [Third Division].
[54] 121 Phil. 392 (1965) [Per J. Bautista Angelo, En Banc].
[55] Id. at 398; citation omitted.
[56] People v. Tulagan, supra note 49, at 292.
Sinumpaang Salaysay dated August 19, 2014 marked as Annex "A" of Exhibit "E"
Transcript of Stenographic Notes dated February 10, 2016:
In insisting his innocence, petitioner posited that AAA257134's testimony are replete with material inconsistencies given AAA257134's narration of different versions as to how he was sexually assaulted by petitioner. Moreover, petitioner questioned the time said sexual assault was committed. He argued that AAA257134 initially claimed that the incident happened at around 5:30 p.m. on June 14, 2014. However, after petitioner allegedly proved the impossibility of committing the same at said time, AAA257134 conveniently modified his testimony to the effect that the petitioner committed the dastardly act at nighttime instead.
The Court is not convinced.
Contrary to the view of petitioner, the Court finds no inconsistency in the testimony of AAA257134. That there are different versions as to how AAA257134 was sexually assaulted in just one night is not far removed from happening. As alleged by AAA257134, he was repeatedly abused by petitioner on the night of June 14, 2014, hence, the varied narration. In light of this, petitioner's defense of alleged material discrepancy on AAA257134's testimony which purportedly weigh heavily on his credibility deserves scant consideration. On this score, it is worth emphasizing that the "courts expect minor inconsistencies when a child-victim narrates the details of a traumatic experience."[42] In fact, inconsistencies reflect candidness and the fact that the testimony was unrehearsed.[43]
Moreover, in Ricalde v. People,[44] the Court, through Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, held that full weight and credit are accorded to testimonies of child victims as their "[y]outh and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity."[45] Even more, a child witness' testimony is enhanced when the accusations are directed against a close relative given the social stigma it may cause their entire family.[46]
In this case, considering AAA257134's age, it is unlikely that he would fabricate a story which would bring to the fore his harrowing experience in the hands of his very own uncle; more so, subject him and his family to trauma and humiliation arising from the public trial concomitant to the resolution of the case.
Moreover, the Court agrees with the CA when it ruled that in rape cases, an accused may be convicted based on the lone and uncorroborated testimony of the victim, provided said testimony is clear, positive, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[47] Hence, petitioner's claim that the Medico-Legal Report revealed no evidence that AAA257134 suffered ano-genital injury or any sign of sexual abuse is of no moment.
As regards the charge for Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5 of RA 7610, the prosecution likewise proved the concurrence of the above-enumerated elements. The testimony of AAA257134 revealed that petitioner started molesting him when he was six (6) years old. Particularly, during his seventh birthday, petitioner made AAA257134 touch his penis and shake it up and down inside a room where AAA257134 and his grandmother were asleep. Petitioner then left the room after.
Petitioner, nonetheless, questions his conviction for Acts of Lasciviousness due to the discrepancy in the year the act of molestation, as alleged in the information, was committed and thereafter proved on trial. According to petitioner, AAA257134 averred that he was molested in 2011 on his seventh birthday. Petitioner, however, argued that AAA257134's seventh birthday was in 2012, hence, the information failed to sufficiently inform him of the date of the commission of the crime.
This argument is untenable.
The CA, citing various jurisprudence, aptly explained that in rape cases, the exact date of commission of sexual abuse is inconsequential on the ground that it "is not a material ingredient of the said crime."[48] More importantly, petitioner did not deny that he was with AAA257134 on his seventh birthday. No sufficient proof was likewise offered showing the impossibility of committing the crime imputed against petitioner on said day. At this point, it is not amiss for the Court to point out that AAA257134 testified that petitioner started molesting him when he was six (6) years old and the incident that transpired on his seventh birthday is only one among the many abuses he experienced from petitioner.
In view of the foregoing discussions, the Court finds no reason to overturn the CA's findings, as there was no showing that it overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, petitioner's criminal liability in both Crim. Case No. 15-0425 and Crim. Case No. 15-0427 must be sustained.
Petitioner's criminal liability in both Crim. Case No. 15-0425 and Crim. Case No. 15-0427 having been established, the Court now goes to the proper nomenclature of the crimes that he committed, the imposable penalties, and his civil liability ex delicto.
In People v. Tulagan[49] (Tulagan), the Court, through Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, threshed out the "applicable laws and [consequent penalties] for the crimes of acts of lasciviousness or lascivious conduct and rape by carnal knowledge or sexual assault, depending on the age of the victim, in view of the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 266-A and Article 336 of the [RPC], as amended by [RA] 8353 and Section 5(b) of [RA] 7610."[50] For this purpose, Tulagan provided a comprehensive table stating the proper nomenclature of crimes involving sexual abuse against children, to wit:[51]
| Crime Committed: | Age of Victim: | Under 12 years old or demented | 12 years old or below 18, or 18 under special circumstances | 18 years old and above |
| Acts of Lasciviousness committed against children exploited in prostitution or other sexual abuse | Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610: reclusion temporal in its medium period | Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610: reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua | Not applicable | |
| Sexual Assault committed against children exploited in prostitution or other sexual abuse | Sexual Assault under Article 266-A (2) of the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610: reclusion temporal in its medium period | Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610: reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua | Not applicable | |
| Sexual Intercourse committed against children exploited in prostitution or other sexual abuse | Rape under Article 266-A (1) of the RPC: reclusion perpetua, except when the victim is below 7 years old in which case death penalty shall be imposed | Sexual Abuse under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610: reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua | Not applicable | |
| Rape by carnal knowledge | Rape under Article 266-A (1) in relation to Article 266-B of the RPC: reclusion perpetua, except when the victim is below 7 years old in which case death penalty shall be imposed | Rape under Article 266- A (1) in relation to Article 266-B of the RPC: reclusion perpetua | Rape under Article 266-A (1) of the RPC: reclusion perpetua | |
| Rape through Sexual Assault | Sexual Assault under Article 266-A (2) of the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610: reclusion temporal in its medium period | Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610: reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua | Sexual Assault under Article 266-A (2) of the RPC: prision mayor | |
Pursuant to Tulagan, the nomenclature of the crime that petitioner committed in Crim. Case No. 15-0425 is "Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610" which has the prescribed penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period, i.e., fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months. Taking into consideration the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL), as well as the absence of any modifying circumstances in this case, the minimum term of the imposable penalty should be taken from reclusion temporal in its minimum period, which has the range of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months; whereas the maximum term of the imposable penalty should be taken from the medium period of the prescribed penalty, which has the range of fifteen (15) years, six (6) months, and twenty (20) days to sixteen (16) years, five (5) months, and nine (9) days. Given the foregoing, the Court sentences petitioner to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of thirteen (13) years of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to sixteen (16) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Further, and in accordance with Tulagan,[52] petitioner should also pay AAA257134 the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, all with legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this ruling until full payment.
However, as regards Crim. Case No. 15-0427, there is a need to modify certain aspects of the CA ruling. First, it is well to point out that the CA found petitioner liable for Qualified Sexual Assault, due to the existence of the qualifying circumstance of minority (i.e., AAA257134 was just nine [9] years old when the crime occurred) and relationship (i.e., petitioner is AAA257134's "uncle"). However, while such minority and relationship were indeed alleged in the information, a closer perusal of the records would readily show that their relationship is neither by consanguinity nor by affinity; rather, petitioner is a mere adoptive uncle of AAA257134. In Reyes v. Elquiero (Reyes),[53] the Court, through Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, held that "[t]he legal relationship created by adoption extends only to the adopter and the adoptee." Reyes further reiterated the ruling in Teotico v. Del Van Chan[54] which declared that:
The relationship established by the adoption, however, is limited to the adopting parent, and does not extend to his other relatives, except as expressly provided by law. Thus, the adopted child cannot be considered as a relative of the ascendants and collaterals of the adopting parents, nor of the legitimate children which they may have after the adoption, except that the law imposes certain impediments to marriage by reason of adoption. Neither are the children of the adopted considered as descendants of the adopter. The relationship created is exclusively between the adopter and the adopted, and do not extend to the relatives of either.[55] (Emphasis supplied)In light of this, the qualifying circumstance of relationship between petitioner and AAA257134 is absent. As such, the Sexual Assault committed by petitioner against AAA257134 is not in its qualified form, but merely in its simple form. Furthermore, pursuant to Tulagan, the proper nomenclature of the crime petitioner committed in Crim. Case No. 15-0427 is Sexual Assault under Article 266-A (2) of the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610, which has the prescribed penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period, i.e., fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months. Considering the provisions of the ISL, as well as the absence of any modifying circumstances in this case, the minimum term of the imposable penalty should be taken from reclusion temporal in its minimum period, which has the range of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months; whereas the maximum term of the imposable penalty should be taken from the medium period of the prescribed penalty, which has the range of fifteen (15) years, six (6) months, and twenty (20) days to sixteen (16) years, five (5) months, and nine (9) days. Given the foregoing, the Court sentences petitioner to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of thirteen (13) years of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to sixteen (16) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Further, and in accordance with Tulagan,[56] petitioner should also pay AAA257134 the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, all with legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this ruling until full payment.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated September 3, 2019 and the Resolution dated July 1, 2021 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 42290 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS, as follows:
- In Criminal Case No. 15-0425, petitioner XXX257134 is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in relation to Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. (RA) 7610. Petitioner is thus sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of thirteen (13) years of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to sixteen (16) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to pay AAA257134 the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages.
- In Criminal Case No. 15-0427, petitioner XXX257134 is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Sexual Assault under Article 266-A (2) of the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610. Accordingly, petitioner is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of thirteen (13) years of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to sixteen (16) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to pay AAA257134 the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.
Leonen, SAJ. (Chairperson), Lazaro-Javier, M. Lopez, and J. Lopez, JJ., concur.
[1] The identity of the victim or any information which could establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family, household members, and/or accused, shall be withheld pursuant to RA 7610, entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on June 17, 1992; RA 9262, entitled "AN ACT DEFINING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN, PROVIDING FOR PROTECTIVE MEASURES FOR VICTIMS, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES THEREFORE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on March 8, 2004; and Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, otherwise known as the "Rule on Violence against Women and Their Children" (November 15, 2004). (See footnote 4 in People v. Cadano, Jr., 729 Phil. 576, 578 [2014] [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division], citing People v. Lomaque, 710 Phil. 338, 342 [2013] [Per J. Brion, Second Division]. See also Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015, entitled "PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES IN THE PROMULGATION, PUBLICATION, AND POSTING ON THE WEBSITES OF DECISIONS, FINAL RESOLUTIONS, AND FINAL ORDERS USING FICTITIOUS NAMES/PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES," dated September 5, 2017.)
[2] Rollo, 12-99.
[3] Id. at 108-132. Penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla (+) (former member of the Court) with Associate Justices Maria Elisa Sempio Diy and Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin, concurring.
[4] Id. at 135-136. Penned by Associate Justice Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin with Associate Justices Maria Elisa Sempio-Diy and Rafael Antonio M. Santos, concurring.
[5] Id. at 229-243. Penned by Judge Elizabeth Yu Guray.
[6] Entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION, PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR ITS VIOLATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on June 17, 1992.
[7] Entitled "AN ACT EXPANDING THE DEFINITION OF THE CRIME OF RAPE, RECLASSIFYING THE SAME AS A CRIME AGAINST PERSONS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ACT NO. 3815, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED PENAL CODE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on September 30, 1997.
[8] Rollo, p. 137.
[9] Id. at 109, 137, and 158.
[10] Id. at 109, 137, and 157.
[11] Id. at 139.
[12] See id. at 110.
[13] "June 24, 2014" in the CA Decision; id.
[14] See id. at 110 and 138.
[15] Id. at 249.
[16] Id. at 111.
[17] Id. at 116.
[18] Id. at 111.
[19] Id. at 111-112.
[20] Id. at 112 and 143-144.
[21] Id. at 46-49 and 117-180.
[22] Id. at 137-151. Docketed as Crim Case Nos. 15-0425 and 0427, and penned by Judge Elizabeth Yu Guray.
[23] Id. at 151.
[24] See id. at 147-151.
[25] See Appellant's Brief dated January 10, 2019; id. at 152-226.
[26] Id. at 108-133.
[27] Id. at 131-132.
[28] See id. at 115-131.
[29] Id. at 293-349.
[30] Id. at 135-136.
[31] People v. Aguilar, 565 Phil. 233, 247-248 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
[32] See Ricalde v. People, 751 Phil. 793, 815 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
[33] See People v. Caoili, 815 Phil. 839, 883 (2017) [Per J. Tijam, En Banc]; and People v. Alfredo, 653 Phil. 435, 451-452 (2010) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., First Division].
[34] See People v. Comboy, 782 Phil. 187, 197-198 (2016) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division].
[35] See People v. Jagdon. Jr., G.R. No. 242882, September 9, 2020 [Per J. Delos Santos, Second Division].
[36] See G.R. No. 249131, December 6, 2021 [Per J. Carandang, Third Division].
[37] Id., citing People v. Egan, 432 Phil. 74, 84 (2002) [Per J. Bellosillo, Second Division].
[38] Rollo, p. 139.
[39] Id.
[40] Id.
[41] Id. at 41-44.
[42] Fernandez v. People, 843 Phil. 745, 752 (2018) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
[43] People v. Salaver, 839 Phil. 90, 104 (2018) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division], citing People v. Descartin, 810 Phil. 881, 893 (2017) [Per J. Tijam, Third Division].
[44] 751 Phil. 793 (2015) [Third Division].
[45] Id. at 805, citing People v. Olivia, 616 Phil. 786, 792 (2009) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division].
[46] See People v. Esperanza, 453 Phil. 54 (2003) [Per C.J. Davide, Jr., En Banc].
[47] People v. Alicante, 388 Phil. 233, 249 (2000) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
[48] Rollo, p. 121, citing People v. Cinco, 622 Phil. 858 (2009) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
[49] 849 Phil. 197 (2019) [En Banc].
[50] Id. at 248.
[51] Id. at 248-249.
[52] See id. at 292.
[53] G.R. No. 210487, September 2, 2020 [Third Division].
[54] 121 Phil. 392 (1965) [Per J. Bautista Angelo, En Banc].
[55] Id. at 398; citation omitted.
[56] People v. Tulagan, supra note 49, at 292.