People v. Conti
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Marlon Conti y Paraggua (Marlon) was charged with Violation of Section 5(a), in relation to Section 6(a), of Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004) and Statutory Rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in two separate Informations. The charges stemmed from an incident on November 13, 2013, where Marlon, the live-in partner of BBB, allegedly boxed and mauled BBB and threatened her with a gun, causing her emotional distress. Additionally, Marlon allegedly sexually abused AAA, BBB's seven-year-old daughter, by inserting his finger into her vagina and then having sexual intercourse with her against her will. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 4, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, found Marlon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of RA 9262 and Statutory Rape. The RTC sentenced Marlon to suffer arresto mayor for the RA 9262 violation, considering his preventive imprisonment as full service of sentence, and imposed a fine of P100,000.00. For Statutory Rape, Marlon was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to the victim. Marlon appealed only the Statutory Rape conviction to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA affirmed Marlon's conviction for Statutory Rape with modification regarding legal interest on damages. The records were elevated to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Marlon appealed his conviction for Statutory Rape, assailing the credibility of the private complainants and averring inconsistencies in their testimonies. The Supreme Court reviewed the CA's affirmation of Marlon's conviction for Statutory Rape.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in affirming Marlon's conviction for Statutory Rape. Whether Marlon can be convicted of both Statutory Rape and Sexual Assault based on the allegations in the Information.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the appeal, affirming Marlon's conviction for Statutory Rape. However, the Court modified the ruling by also convicting Marlon for Sexual Assault under Article 266-A(2) of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of RA 7610, based on the act of inserting his finger into the victim's vagina prior to sexual intercourse. The Court imposed penalties and damages for both offenses.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of Statutory Rape: The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the elements of Statutory Rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the RPC were sufficiently established. It was undisputed that the victim, AAA, was under 12 years old at the time of the incident. The carnal knowledge was proven by AAA's categorical testimony, corroborated by her mother BBB's eyewitness account and the medical findings of Dr. Simangan. The Court reiterated that denial is a weak defense that cannot outweigh positive testimony, and that the trial court's factual findings, especially regarding witness credibility, are accorded great weight and respect when affirmed by the CA. Marlon's defense of alibi was found unpersuasive, as his witness admitted they slept in separate rooms, making it impossible to corroborate his claim of being in the warehouse. The Court found no cogent reason to deviate from the lower courts' findings. On the issue of conviction for both Statutory Rape and Sexual Assault: The Supreme Court found that Marlon also committed Sexual Assault under Article 266-A(2) of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of RA 7610, based on the testimony that Marlon first inserted his finger into AAA's vagina before having sexual intercourse. The Court noted that the Information sufficiently alleged both acts: insertion of a finger and sexual intercourse. Although charging two offenses in a single information violates Section 13, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Court applied Section 3, Rule 120 of the Rules. This rule allows conviction for as many offenses as are charged and proved if the accused fails to object to the information before trial. Since Marlon did not file a motion to quash the Information, he could be convicted of both offenses proven during the trial. The Court clarified that the proper nomenclature for the offense involving insertion of an object into a child's orifice is "Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610," with an imposable penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Statutory Rape and further convicted the accused for Sexual Assault under Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5(b) of RA 7610, holding that both offenses were sufficiently alleged in the Information and proven by evidence, despite the violation of the rule against charging multiple offenses in a single information, due to the accused's failure to file a motion to quash.