People v. XXX265439
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: XXX265439 was charged with three counts of qualified statutory rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) and Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Republic Act No. 7610. The Informations alleged that on February 18 and 19, 2010, XXX265439, then 17 years old, with lewd design and discernment, had carnal knowledge of his niece, AAA265439, who was 9 years old, by inserting his penis into her vagina against her will. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found XXX265439 guilty of three counts of rape in relation to R.A. No. 7610, sentencing him to suffer reclusion temporal in its medium period for each count, with civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction with modification, sentencing XXX265439 to reclusion perpetua for each case and reducing the damages awarded. The Petition: XXX265439 appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking his acquittal.
Issue(s)
Whether XXX265439 is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of qualified statutory rape. Whether the qualifying circumstance of relationship within the third civil degree was sufficiently alleged in the Informations. Whether XXX265439 acted with discernment at the time of the commission of the crimes. Whether XXX265439 can be convicted of three counts of statutory rape based on the events of February 19, 2010.
Ruling
The appeal is partly granted. XXX265439 is found guilty of two counts of statutory rape for Criminal Case No. 11081-G and Criminal Case No. 11082-G. He is acquitted of qualified statutory rape in Criminal Case No. 11083-G due to reasonable doubt regarding the specific allegations. The penalty imposed is an indeterminate period of six years of prision correccional, as minimum, to 15 years and four months of reclusion temporal, as maximum, for each count. He is ordered to pay AAA265439 PHP 75,000.00 as civil indemnity, PHP 75,000.00 as moral damages, and PHP 75,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count, with 6% legal interest.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt for statutory rape: The prosecution successfully proved the elements of statutory rape for Criminal Case No. 11081-G and Criminal Case No. 11082-G. The victim, AAA265439, was 9 years old at the time, and the accused, XXX265439, her uncle, had carnal knowledge of her. The Court reiterated that statutory rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) is committed by sexual intercourse with a female below 12 years of age, regardless of consent, as the law presumes incapacity to give intelligent consent at that age. Proof of force or intimidation is unnecessary for statutory rape. The Court also found XXX265439's denial to be a weak defense that could not overcome the clear, categorical, and positive testimony of AAA265439. The trial court's factual findings on witness credibility, especially when affirmed by the CA, are accorded respect. The Court also noted that child victims' testimonies are generally given full weight and credence due to their youth and immaturity, which are often badges of truth and sincerity, as held in BBB v. People. On the sufficiency of allegations for qualified statutory rape: The Court ruled that the qualifying circumstance of relationship within the third civil degree was not sufficiently alleged in the Informations. While the Informations stated that XXX265439 was the niece's uncle, they did not explicitly state that he was a relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, a requirement for qualified statutory rape as established in People v. Estrada. Therefore, XXX265439 could only be convicted of statutory rape, not qualified statutory rape, for the incidents where the elements were proven. On acting with discernment: The Court found that XXX265439, despite being 17 years old, acted with discernment. His actions, such as inducing AAA265439's younger brother to leave and threatening AAA265439 not to report the incident, demonstrated an understanding of the depravity and consequences of his acts. This finding is crucial because, under Republic Act No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act), a child above 15 but below 18 who acts with discernment is not exempt from criminal responsibility. On the number of counts for February 19, 2010: The Court determined that XXX265439 could only be convicted of two counts of statutory rape for the events of February 19, 2010. Although AAA265439 stated in her affidavit that she was penetrated twice, she clarified that the second penetration occurred after the accused removed his penis and then inserted it again. The Court distinguished this from People v. Lucena, where separate penetrations with significant intervals and distinct criminal impulses justified multiple counts. Here, there was no indication of a significant interval, suggesting a single, albeit repeated, act.
Main Doctrine
The elements of qualified statutory rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code require the accused to have carnal knowledge of the offended party, who must be under twelve (12) years of age, and the offender must be a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, or relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree. The qualifying circumstance of relationship must be specifically alleged in the Information. A minor aged 17 who commits statutory rape, if found to have acted with discernment, is not exempt from criminal responsibility but is entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, leading to the imposition of the penalty next lower in degree.