Supreme Court E-Library
Information At Your Fingertips


  View printer friendly version

867 Phil. 362

SECOND DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 240441, December 04, 2019 ]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. XXX," ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

D E C I S I O N

REYES, A., JR., J.:

In a criminal case where the life and liberty of the accused are at stake, every qualifying circumstance alleged in the Information must be proved as much as the crime itself    Thus, in the crime of rape and lascivious conduct under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610,[1] an allegation that the accused is  the  common-law  spouse  of  the  victim s  mother  must  be  sufficiently established.    Equally  noteworthy, the  terms "common-law  spouse"  and "step-parent"   are distinct  terms  bearing different legal  meanings, which may not be used interchangeably.

This  treats  of  the  Notice  of  Appeal[2]  under  Section  13(c),  Rule 124  of  the  Rules  on  Criminal  Procedure,  as  amended  by  A.M.  No 00-5-03-SC filed by accused-appellant XXX, seeking the reversal of the Decision[3]  dated January 25, 2018, rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.  CR-HC   No.   08224,  which  affirmed  the  trial   court's   ruling convicting him of the crimes of Violation  of Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610; Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(d) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); and Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a) of the RPC.

The Antecedents

XXX was charged in three separate Informations with Violation of Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, Statutory Rape, and Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(d) of the RPC, committed as follows:

Criminal Case No. IR-7893

That in the afternoon of December 2, 2006, inside their house at xxxxxxxxxxx Iriga City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, in total disregard of the minority  and  naivety  of  the  complainant, did, then  and there  willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit an act of lascivious conduct upon one BBB,[4]   a 14-year  old  girl,  by then and there  pulling  and removing the latter's   blanket,  placing  his  hand  under  the  said  minor's   shirt,  and caressing her breast and legs while whispering to the latter words in the dialect "sige  na ", thereby causing psychological injury, fear, trauma and shock to the minor-complainant,  to the latter's  damage and prejudice in such amount as may be proven in court.

ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.[5]

Criminal Case No. IR-7957

That sometime in August 1998 at  around  noontime  and  at the banana plantation in  xxxxxxxxxxx Iriga City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, the step father of the complainant,  taking advantage of the latter's  minority, and armed with  a  bolo,  by  means  of  force  and  intimidation,  did, then  and there, willfully,  unlawfully   and  feloniously  have   carnal  knowledge  of  his stepdaughter AAA who was then 8 years old and a minor at the time of the incident, by inserting his penis into her vagina against the latter's will, to the damage  and  prejudice  of the said AAA in such amount as may be proven in court.

ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.[5]

Criminal Case No. IR-7958

That sometime in April 2002 in the evening and at the coprahan in xxxxxxxxxxx Iriga City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, the step father of the complainant, taking advantage of the latter's minority and armed with a bolo, by means of force, threat and intimidation, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of his stepdaughter AAA who was then 13 years old and a minor at the time of the incident, by inserting his penis into her vagina against the latter's will, to the damage and prejudice of said AAA in such amount as may be proven in court.

ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.[7]
XXX pleaded not guilty to the charges.   Trial on the merits ensued thereafter.[8]

The antecedent facts reveal that AAA and BBB are daughters of CCC, a widow.  In January 1997, CCC and XXX started living together in Iriga City.[9]

Sometime in August 1998, XXX ordered AAA to bring his bolo to the banana plantation  in Iriga City.  AAA was then 10 years old. When AAA handed over the bolo, XXX took hold of her, directed her to remove her clothes, and ordered her to lie down on the ground.  XXX threatened to kill her, should she refuse to obey his command.   Out of fear, AAA obliged. Then, XXX removed his own clothes and positioned himself on top of AAA. He forcibly had carnal knowledge of her.  The rape lasted for about an hour. AAA cried the whole time.  Then, XXX told AAA to get dressed and warned her not to tell the incident to anyone, or else he will harm her family.[10]

Sometime  in April 2002, at around 11:00 p.m., AAA was sleeping inside their house when XXX woke her up.  He told her to quietly go outside the house.  Fearful of what he might do to her family, AAA obliged.[11]

XXX took AAA to the coconut kiln.   There, he ordered AAA to lie down on the floor. He removed her underwear, then took off his own clothes and laid on top of her.  After which, he inserted his penis inside her vagina and made several push and pull movements.  When he finished, he directed AAA to dress up and go back home.[12]

Sometime in December 2006, while BBB was sleeping in her room, she suddenly felt someone tugging her blanket. Upon waking, she saw XXX beside her.  XXX inserted his hands under her shirt, mashed her breasts, and caressed her legs.   She refused XXX's  advances, which angered him.  He warned her against talking back to him.[13]

Fearful that XXX might rape her, BBB reported the matter to their neighbor DDD.[14]

On December 8, 2006, AAA likewise reported the rape incident to the police authorities.   Thereafter, AAA was referred to the City Health Office for medico-legal examination.   The findings revealed that AAA had deep, healed lacerations in several positions on her hymen.[15]

XXX vehemently denied the charges leveled against him.  He related that he started living with CCC when AAA was already 10 years old.  As such, AAA's claim that she was raped when she was only 8 years old was untrue.  Neither could he have raped her in April 2002, because at that time, CCC was already living in their house and would have thus immediately found out about the incident.[16]

Likewise, XXX averred that BBB's claim was untrue, considering that he no longer lived with them at the time of the alleged incident because he left after Typhoon Reming destroyed their house.[17]

Ruling of the RTC

On January 26, 2016, the RTC rendered a Joint Judgment[18] convicting XXX of the crimes of violation of Section 5(b), Article III of R.A.  No. 7610, Statutory Rape under Article 266-A,  paragraph 1(d) of the RPC, and Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a) of the  RPC.

The dispositive portion of the RTC ruling reads:
WHEREFORE,  premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding [XXX] GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt,

in Criminal Case No. IR-7893 -for the crime of SEXUAL ABUSE under Section 5(b), Article III of [R.A. No.] 7610 and imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay Private Complainant BBB  the  following:  Php20,000.00  as  civil  indemnity, Php15,000.00  as moral damages, and Php15,000.00 as exemplary damages, with 6% annual interest from the time of finality of this judgment until full payment.

in  Criminal  [Case]  Nos. IR-7957  and 7958 - for  the crimes of STATUTORY RAPE and RAPE under ART. 266-A respectively and imposing   upon   him   the  penalty   of  reclusion   perpetua  without  the possibility of parole for each [crime].  He is further ordered to pay Private Complainant AAA the amount of Php75.000.00 as civil indemnity, Php75,000.00    as   moral   damages,   and   Php30,000.00   as   exemplary damages,  with  6%  annual  interest  from  the  time  of  finality  of  this judgment until full payment.

SO ORDERED.[19]
Aggrieved, XXX filed an appeal with the CA.

Ruling of the CA

On  January  25,  2018,  the  CA  rendered the assailed  Decision[20] affirming with modification the conviction meted by the RTC.

The CA held that XXX may only be convicted of simple rape in Criminal Case Nos.  IR-7957 and IR-7958, considering that the allegation in the Information that XXX was AAA's stepfather was never actually proven during  the  trial.    What  was  established  was  simply  that  XXX  was  the common law spouse of the victim's mother.[21]

Also, the  CA increased the  awards of  exemplary damages from P30,000.00 to P75,000.00; while maintaining the awards of civil indemnity of P75,000.00; and moral damages of P75,000.00.[22]

As  for  Criminal  Case  No. IR-7893, for  violation  of  Section  5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, the CA held that the aggravating circumstance of relationship  may  not  be considered,  as the said circumstance  was not alleged   in   the   Information.      Accordingly,   absent   any mitigating   or aggravating  circumstances,  the  penalty  shall  be  applied  in  its  medium period, which is reclusion temporal in its maximum period.[23]

As for the damages awarded, the CA affirmed the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages of P75,000.00 each.  In addition, the CA ordered XXX to pay a fine of P15,000.00.[24]

The dispositive portion of the assailed CA decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED.  The assailed January 26, 2016 Joint Judgment of the [RTC], Branch 34, Iriga City, is MODIFIED, thus:

(1)        In Criminal Case Nos. IR-7957 and 7958, the penalty of reclusion perpetua is sustained for each count but the phrase "without the possibility of parole" is REMOVED pursuant to A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC; while the award of exemplary damages is INCREASED to Php 75,000.00 EACH count; and

(2)     In  Criminal Case No.  IR-7893. The  appellant is SENTENCED to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of fourteen (14)  years  and  eight  (8)  months of  reclusion temporal minimum, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal maximum, as maximum; and he is further ORDERED to pay a FINE of Php 15,000.00.

The rest of the assailed Joint Judgment STANDS.

SO ORDERED.[25]
Aggrieved, XXX filed a Notice of Appeal[26] under Rule 124, Section 13(c) of the  Rules of Criminal Procedure.

The Issue

The main issue raised for the Court's resolution is whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt XXX's guilt for the crimes charged.

XXX assails the credibility of AAA and BBB, alleging that their testimonies are inconsistent and incredible.[27] ,    Particularly, he points out that in AAA's direct testimony, she claimed that she was first raped in August 1998, when she was just 8 years old.  However, on cross-examination, AAA contradicted herself, and stated that she was 10 when she was first raped.[28]

He avers that it was impossible for him to have committed the crime, as he started cohabiting with CCC when AAA was already 10 years old.[29]

In  the  same  vein,  XXX  alleges  that  AAA's  behavior  after  the purported rape renders her tale questionable.   It was strange that AAA did not even  bother  to  wake  up her siblings,  or seek  help, despite knowing XXX's  plan  to rape her.   Instead,  she willingly  walked  with him to the coconut kiln.  Also, it was odd that after the purported rape incident, AAA simply returned to their house and went back to sleep as if nothing terrible happened.  XXX urges that it is beyond comprehension that AAA still stayed with him, and still treated him as her stepfather, if he indeed defiled her.[30]

In addition, XXX  contends that AAA's reason for reporting the rape incident was suspect, as she admitted that she filed the case out of fear that XXX will rape her sister BBB.  According to XXX, this proves that she was merely coaxed by DDD to file charges against him. Added to all this, it took nine  years  from  the  first  rape  incident,  and  five  years  from the  second incident, for AAA to report the rape.[31]

Similarly, XXX surmises that the lacerations in AAA's hymen could have been caused by other factors.[32]

Furthermore, XXX points out that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of force and intimidation.  AAA admitted that he did not force or intimidate her into committing the sexual acts.  Although she claimed that XXX threatened her, these threats were allegedly done after the commission of the rape, and thus, could not have been sufficient to subdue her.[33]

Anent BBB's accusation, XXX claims that he could not have sexually abused her on December 2, 2006, considering that at that time, BBB was already living with DDD, while he was living alone in a makeshift house in Iriga City.[34]

XXX likewise claims that the prosecution failed to prove all the elements for violation of Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610.  BBB did not claim that XXX forced her or intimidated her, or subdued the free exercise of her will.[35]

On  the  other  hand,  the  People,  through  the  Office  of the  Solicitor General  (OSG),  counters  that  the  prosecution  sufficiently  proved  XXX's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.   The OSG maintains that the prosecution sufficiently established all the elements for the crimes charged, and the testimonies of the victims AAA and BBB were worthy of credence.[36]

Ruling  of the Court

The instant appeal is bereft of merit.

The     Prosecution     Established
Beyond   Reasonable   Doubt    the
Guilt  of XXX for  the  Crimes  of
Rape  Under  Article   266-A,  l(a)
and l(d)

Article  266-A of the RPC, as amended  by R.A. No. 8353,[37]  defines the crime of rape as follows:
Art. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. -Rape is committed-

1)     By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:

a. Through force, threat or intimidation;
b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious;
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
d. When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented,  even  though  none  of the  circumstances  mentioned  above  be present;
Accordingly,  to  sustain  a conviction  for rape through  sexual intercourse, the prosecution must prove the following elements beyond reasonable doubt, namely: (i) that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (ii) that said act was accomplished a) through the use of force or intimidation, or b) when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or c) by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority, or d) when the victim is under 12 years of age or is demented.[38]

In the instant case, the Informations in Criminal Case Nos. IR-7957 and IR-7958, charge XXX with raping AAA twice.

The  first  rape  incident  took  place  in April  1998,  when AAA was merely  10  years  old.    AAA's age  was  sufficiently  established  from her testimony, and confirmed through the presentation of her birth certificate, which indicates that she was born on February 19, 1988.[39] This proves that she was in fact 10 years old in April 1998.

It cannot be gainsaid that "sexual congress with a girl under 12 years old  is  always  rape."[40] In  statutory  rape,  force  and  intimidation  are immaterial,  and  the  only  subject  of  inquiry  is  the  age  of the  child and whether carnal knowledge in fact took place.   The law presumes that the victim does not and cannot have a will of her own on account of her tender years.   In the same vein, the child's  consent is immaterial because of her presumed incapacity to discern evil from good.[41]

The  fact  of  carnal  knowledge  was  proven  through  the  credible testimony of AAA, viz.:
Prosecutor Norma Beltran:

Q:     After giving to [XXX] the bolo, what happened?
A:    He take [sic] hold of me.

Q:     After that, what happened next?
 A:    He instructed me to remove my clothes and he asked me to lie down on the ground.

Q:     Did you follow the instruction of your stepfather to remove your clothes?
A:     Yes, ma'am.

Q:     Why did  you obey that instruction of  [XXX]  to  remove your clothes?
A: I obeyed to [sic] the instruction given to me by [XXX] because he said that if I will not obey him, he will kill my family.

Q:     When [XXX] was uttering those words, where was then the bolo which you delivered to him?
A:    The bolo was beside him.

xxxx

THE COURT:

Q:     The question is what [XXX] did to you and not what you did.
A:     [XXX] raped me already.

Prosecutor Beltran:
Q:     When [XXX] raped you, what was your position.
A:    I was lying down on the ground.

Q:     And what was then the position of your legs?
A:     Open legs.

Q:     And when you said you were already lying down and your legs were open, where was [XXX] in relation to you?
 A:     He was on top of me.

xxxx

Q:     When [XXX] laid down on top of you, what did he do in relation to your vagina?

xxxx

A:     [XXX] inserted his penis to my vagina.

Q:     And  what  did  you feel  when  [XXX]  inserted  his penis to  your vagina?
 A:     I felt pain, ma'am.

Q:     And  after  [XXX] was  able  to insert  his  penis to your  vagina, what  movement  did he do if any?
A:     He made a push and pull movement
.[42] (Emphasis ours)
XXX assails AAA's credibility by claiming that she made inconsistent statements regarding  her age in April 1998.   XXX points out that, during AAA's.. direct examination, she claimed that she was 8 years old when XXX first raped her.  However, she later on stated during her cross examination that was already 10 years old when she was first raped.
XXX's argument fails to persuade.
"In statutory rape, time is not an essential element except to prove that the  victim  was  a  minor  below  twelve  years  of  age  at  the  time  of  the commission of the offense."[43]    Thus, what matters in the instant case is the fact that the prosecution  established that AAA was definitely short of 12 years when she was raped.

Anent  the  charge  of  rape  through  force  and  intimidation,  AAA credibly narrated that sometime in April 2002, XXX ordered her to go with him to the coconut kiln.  AAA was left with no choice but to obey XXX, out of fear that he will kill her family if she refuses to give in to his advances.[44] Undoubtedly, XXX  succeeded  in having carnal knowledge with AAA by intimidating her into submission.

Added to this, AAA, being a child of tender years easily succumbed to XXX's intimidation and coercion.  It must be remembered that AAA looked at XXX as her "Tatay."[45]    XXX's moral ascendancy as common-law spouse of the victims' mother takes the place of force and intimidation as an element of rape.[46] It is well-settled that the term "intimidation"  may also include moral intimidation and coercion,[47]   which are precisely what XXX used to overpower AAA.

AAA's Behavior After the Rape
Incidents,     and   Her   Failure 
to Timely Report the Abuse She
Experienced Do Not Destroy Her
Credibility


XXX cannot  attack AAA's credibility by claiming that her behavior and actuations after the rape incident are atypical of a rape victim.  To begin with, there is no such thing as a typical reaction or norm of behavior among rape  victims.     The  workings  of  the  human  mind  when  placed  under emotional stress is unpredictable.  Some victims may shout, some may faint, while others may be shocked into insensibility.  Not every victim can be expected to act with reason or conformably with the usual expectation of mankind.[48] Certainly, it is unfair to expect and demand a rational reaction or a standard behavioral response from AAA, who was confronted with such startling  and traumatic  experience.   Her failure to shout, or seek for help does not negate rape.  Neither shall her refusal to get angry at xxx or leave her residence be taken against her.

Furthermore,  AAA's   credibility  is not  affected  by  her  delay  m reporting the rape incident.

In People v. Gersamio[49]  and People v. Velasco,[50] the Court emphasized that the victim's failure to report the rape to other persons does not perforce warrant  the  conclusion  that  she  was  not  sexually  molested  and  that  her charges against the accused are all baseless, untrue and fabricated.  Delay in prosecuting the offense is not an indication of a fabricated charge,[51] and does not necessarily cast doubt on the credibility of the victim.[52]    This especially holds true if the victim faces the threat of physical violence.[53]   Unfortunately for the victim, pain and ignominy are better than risking having the offender make good his threats of retaliation.[54]    In fact, "it  is not uncommon for a young girl to be intimidated and cowed into silence and conceal for some time the violation of her honor, even by the mildest threat against her life."[55] In AAA's case, she was cowed into silence by XXX, who threatened to kill her family should she report the rape incident.

The  Prosecution  Sufficiently
Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt
that .XXX is Guilty of Lascivious
Conduct  Under  Section  5(b),
Article   III    of   R.A.   No.    7610
Committed Against BBB


Essentially, Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 states in no uncertain terms that:
Sec. 5. Child  Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. - Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual  intercourse  or  lascivious  conduct,  are  deemed  to  be  children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.

The  penalty  of  reclusion  temporal  in  its  medium  period  to  reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:

xxxx

(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the victims is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators  shall  be prosecuted under  Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336  of Act No. 3815,  as amended,  the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period.
To sustain a conviction under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610, the prosecution must establish that: (i) the accused commits an act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (ii) the said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other  sexual abuse; and (iii) the child is below 18 years old.[56]

Parenthetically, '"lascivious  conduct' means the intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person."[57]

Furthermore, a child is deemed subjected to other sexual abuse when he or she indulges in lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult.[58]

:XXX's acts of inserting his hands inside BBB 's t-shirt, mashing her breasts, and caressing her legs to gratify his, sexual desire, undoubtedly fall under the definition of lascivious conduct under Section 2(h) of the rules and regulations of R.A. No. 7610.

XXX used his moral ascendancy over BBB, the daughter of his common-law  spouse, in order to perpetrate his lascivious conduct.   BBB lived with XXX during her formative years, and had always regarded him as her father. Added to this, BBB was afraid of him because he usually beat her and her family whenever he was in a bad mood.[59]

Finally, as established through BBB's testimony and birth certificate, she was only 14 years old when XXX molested her.  BBB was born on September 11, 1992,[60]  which makes her 14 years old when she was molested on December 2, 2006.

The following exchange reveals BBB's harrowing experience:
Prosecutor Nonna Beltran:

Q:     Miss Witness, do you recall where were you in the early morning of December 2, 2006.
A:     Yes, ma'am.

Q:     Where were you?
A:    I was then in the room sleeping.

xxxx

Q:     While you said you were sleeping, what happened?
A:     I was awakened when I felt the blanket was being pulled away.

xxxx

Q:     After you were awakened, what happened next?
A:    As I have said, after I was awakened, I saw [XXX] on my side and I noticed that he inserted his hand under my shirt.

xxxx

Q:     You said that [XXX] inserted his hand inside your shirt. What did he do?
A:     He mashed my breast and legs.

Q:     Both your two (2) breasts?
A:     Yes, ma'am.

xxxx

Q:         What did you do, Miss Witness, during that time when [XXX] was mashing your breasts?
A:     I told him not to do that to me, ma'am.

xxxx

Q:     What did [XXX] tell you?
A:     [XXX] was angry and he said, "di mo 'ko pag orag-oragan."

Q:     What did you feel when [XXX] uttered those words to you?
A:     I felt afraid.

Q:     When he said, "orag-oragan," what did [XXX] meant by that?
A:     To my understanding, he might harm me, ma'am."[61]
Against  this  factual  backdrop,  all  that  XXX  offers  are  the  weak defenses of denial and alibi.  In addition, he claims that BBB's testimony is questionable,   as  she  was  uncertain  on  whether  the  rape  took  place  on December 2 or December 6.

These contentions fail to persuade.

The defenses of denial and alibi are always viewed with disfavor as they can easily be concocted.  Besides, these defenses easily falter against BBB's positive and categorical identification of :XXX as her defiler.

Anent BBB's  alleged uncertainty as to the precise date of the sexual molestation,   it  bears   stressing   that  the  precise   date  and  time  of  the commission of the offense is not an essential' element of lascivious conduct. Regardless   of  whether  the  abuse  took  place  on  December  2  or  6,  is immaterial, considering that BBB was able to prove that it in fact took place, and that she was 14 years old when she was abused.

The Proper Penalty for Criminal
Case Nos. IR-7957  and  IR-7958
for Rape

Under Article 266-B of the RPC, the supreme penalty of death shall be imposed against the accused if the victim of rape is below 18 years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.  However, to justify the imposition of the death penalty, it is essential that the special qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship are properly alleged in the Information and duly proven during the trial.[62]

The RTC convicted XXX of qualified rape, in view of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship - XXX being the common law spouse of AAA's mother. A perusal of the Informations, however, reveal that what was alleged was that XXX was the "stepfather" of AAA.  Because of this, the Court  agrees  with the  CA that XXX may only be convicted of simple rape, due to the absence of proof that he was in fact AAA's stepfather. It does not help that the prosecution was able to establish that XXX was the common-law spouse of AAA's mother, as this circumstance was not alleged in the Information.

It cannot be gainsaid that the terms "stepfather"  and "common-law spouse" are two distinct terms that may not be used interchangeably.  In People  v.  Hermocilla,[63]    the  Court  explained  that  "a  stepdaughter  is  a I daughter of  one's  spouse  by previous marriage, while a stepfather is the husband of one's mother by virtue of a marriage subsequent to that of which the person spoken is the offspring."[64]  As such, the allegation that the victim is the stepdaughter of the accused requires competent proof and should not be easily accepted as factually true.   The bare contention that the accused was married to the victim's mother is not enough, in the same manner that the victim's  reference  to the accused as her stepfather will not suffice.[65] Remarkably, in People v. Abello,[66] the Court stressed that the best evidence of such relationship will be the marriage contract.  This stricter requirement is only proper as relationship is an aggravating circumstance that increases the imposable penalty and hence must be proven by competent evidence.[67]

Notably, the cases of People v. Barcela,[68]  and People v. Salvador,[69] bear  similar  factual  moorings  with  the  instant  case.     In  Barcela,  the Information stated that the accused was the stepfather of the rape victim, but what  was  proven- during  the  trial  was  that  the  accused  was  merely the common-law spouse of the victim's mother. The Court refused to apply the qualifying circumstance of relationship, considering that the relationship alleged in the information was different from that actually proven during the trial.  The Court held that a contrary ruling will run counter to Barcela's right to be informed of the charge lodged against him.[70]

The  same  circumstances  existed  in the  case  of  Salvador,  where the Information  filed  against therein  accused-appellant  charged him with raping his stepdaughter,  but a perusal of the records showed that therein accused-appellant   was  only  the  common law  husband  of  the  victim's mother.  In this case, the Court stated that even if it was proven that therein accused-appellant   was  indeed  the  common  law  spouse  of  the  victim's mother, this cannot be appreciated, since the information did not specifically allege it as a qualifying circumstance.[71]

Applying the foregoing pronouncements to the instant case, the qualifying circumstance of relationship cannot be used against XXX.   The allegation in the Information that he was AAA's stepfather was not proven during the trial, and hence, shall not be used against him.  In the same vein, although the prosecution proved that he was in fact CCC's common-law spouse, this too shall not be appreciated against him, as this circumstance was not specified in the Information.   Accordingly, the CA correctly downgraded the offense to simple rape for both Criminal Case Nos. IR-7957 and IR-7958.

The Proper Penalty for Criminal
Case No. IR-7893 for Lascivious
Conduct   under   Section   5(b)   of
R.A. No. 7610

Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 provides that the imposable penalty for lascivious conduct[72] shall be reclusion temporal, in its medium period, to reclusion perpetua.[73]

It must  be noted that the RTC erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance  of  relationship,  as  the  Information  for  Criminal  Case  No. IR-7893  failed  to  specifically  allege  the  relationship  between  XXX  and BBB.

Applying  the  indeterminate  sentence law, XXX shall  be sentenced with a penalty consisting of a maximum term which  is the penalty under the RPC properly imposed after considering any attending circumstance, and a minimum term that is within the range of the penalty next lower than that prescribed  by the RPC  for the offense committed.     Accordingly, the CA correctly imposed the penalty of fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to twenty ( 20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.

The damages awarded by the CA must be modified to conform with the Court's recent pronouncement in the case of People v. Tulagan.[74]   XXX shall be liable for P50,000.00 civil indemnity; P50,000.00 moral damages; and P50,000.00 exemplary damages.  In addition, XXX shall pay a fine of P15,000.00  as  provided  for  in  Section  31 f)  of  R.A.  No.  7610  and  as affirmed in People v. Ursua.[75]

Finally, the CA correctly ordered the payment of interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum, which shall run from the date of finality of this Decision until full satisfaction.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the  instant appeal is DISMISSED  for  lack  of  merit.  The  Decision  dated  January  25,  2018 of  the  Court  of  Appeals  in  CA-GR.   CR-HC  No.  08224,  convicting accused-appellant   XXX  of  Rape  under article  266-A,  paragraph  1(d) of  the  Revised  Penal  Code,  Rape  under  Article  266-A,  paragraph  1(a) of  the  Revised   Penal   Code,   and  Lascivious   Conduct   under  Section 5(b)  of  Republic  Act  No.  7610,  is  AFFIRMED  with  modification,  in that,      in   Criminal   Case   No.   IR-7893   for   Lascivious   Conduct under Section  5(b)  of  Republic  Act  No.  7610,:  XXX  is  declared  liable  to pay     BBB    P50,000.00    as    civil    indenmity;    P50,000.00    as    moral damages; and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, in addition to a fine of P15,000.00.

All  amounts  due  shall  earn  a  legal interest  of  six  percent  (6%) per   annum   from   the   date   of   finality   of   this   Decision   until   full satisfaction.

All other aspects of the CA decision are affirmed.

SO ORDERED.


Perlas-Bernabe,** J., Reyes, A., Jr., (acting chairperson), Hernando, Inting, and Zalameda, *** JJ., concur.



* At the victim's instance or, if the victim is a minor, that of his or her guardian, the complete name of the accused may be replaced by fictitious initials and his or her personal circumstances blotted out from the decision, resolution, or order if the name and personal circumstances of the accused may tend to establish or compromise the victims' identities, in accordance with Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 (III [l][c]) dated September 5, 2017.

**On official business.

*** Designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2727  dated October 25, 2019; on official
leave.

[1] AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST  CHILD  ABUSE,  EXPLOITATION AND  DISCRIMINATION, AND  FOR  OTHER PURPOSES (Approved on June 17, 1992).

[2] CA rollo, pp. 129-130.

[3] Penned by Associate  Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, with Presiding Justice and Chairperson Romeo F. Barza and Associate  Justice Mario V  Lopez (now a Member of this Court), concurring; id. at 115-124.

[4] The real  name  of the  victim, her personal  circumstances  and other information  which tend to establish  or compromise  her  identity, as well as those of her immediate family, or household members, shall not be disclosed to protect her privacy, and fictitious initial shall, instead, be used, in accordance with People v. Cabalquinto (533 Phil. 703[206]) and the Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017.

[5] CA rollo, pp. 80-81.

[6] Id. at 81.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Id. at 83.

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] Id.

[13] Id. at 84.

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] Id.

[17] Id. at 60.

[18] Rendered by Presiding Judge Manuel M. Rosales; id. at 57-66.

[19] Id. at 66.

[20] Id.at 115-124.

[21] Id. at 122.

[22]  Id.

[23] Id. at 123.

[24] Id

[25] Id. at 123-124.

[26]Id. at 129.

[27] Id. at 133.

[28] Id. at 39-40

[29] Id. at 45.

[30] Id. at 41

[31] Id. at 32-43.

[32] Id. at 47.

[33] Id. at 47-48.

[34] Id. at 45.

[35] Id. at 50.

[36] Id. at 84-102.

[37] The Anti-Rape  Law of 1997.

[38] People v. Esteban, 735 Phil. 663, 670 (2014).

[39] CA rollo, p. 89. rollo

[40] People  v. Sabal,  Jr., 734  Phil. 742,  745  (2014),  citing  People  v. Perez, 595  Phil.  1232, 1260  (2008).

[41] People v. Sabal, id, citing People v. Teodoro, 622 Phil. 328, 342-343 (2009).

[42]  Ca rollo, pp. 90-91

[43]  People v. Teodoro, supra note 41, at 344.

[44] CA rollo, p. 94.

[45]
Id. at 95.

[46] People v. Viernes, 423 Phil. 463, 484 (2001).

[47] Quimvel v. People, 808 Phil. 889,930 (2017); People v.  Leonardo, 638 Phil. 161, 186 (2010).

[48] People v. Zafra, 712 Phil. 559, 572 (2013).

[49] 763 Phil. 523 (2015).

[50] 722 Phil. 243 (2013).

[51] People v. Gersamio, supra note 49, at 536-537.

[52] People v. Velasco, supra note 50, at 253-254.

[53] Id. at 255.

[54] People v. Gersamio, supra note 49, at 536-537.

[55] People v. Mantis, 477 Phil. 275 (2004), citing People v. Bea, Jr., 366 Phil. 334,340-341 (1999).

[56] People v. Rayon, Sr., 702 Phil. 672, 684 (2013).

[57] Id. at 683.

[58] People v. Montinola, 567 Phil. 387,407 (2008).

[59] CA rollo, p. I 00.

[60] Id. at 99.

[61] Id. at 98-99.

[62] People v. Lomaque, 710 Phil. 338, 354 (2013).

[63] 554 Phil. 189 (2007).

[64] Id. at 197.

[65] People v. Lomaque, supra note 62.

[66] 601 Phil. 373 (2009).

[67] Id. at 396-397.

[68] 734 Phil. 332 (2014).

[69] 790 Phil. 782 (2016).

[70] People v. Barcela, supra note 68, at 340-341.

[71] People v. Salvador, supra note 69, at 791-792.

[72] People v. Ursua, 819 Phil. 467,480-481 (2017).

In People v. Ursua, the Court enunciated that "[i] the victim is exactly twelve (12) years of age, or more than twelve  (12) but below eighteen (18) years of age, or is eighteen (18) years or older but is unable  to  fully  take  care  of  herself himself  or  protect  herself/himself   from  abuse,  neglect,  cruelty, exploitation or discrimination  because of a physical or mental disability or condition, the crime should be designated  as "Lascivious   Conduct  under  Section  5(b)  of R.A.  No. 761 0," and  the imposable  penalty is reclusion temporal, in its medium period, to reclusion perpetua."

[73] Id.

[74] People of the Philippines v. Salvador Tulagan, G.R. No, 227363, March 12,2019.

[75] 819 Phil. 467 (2017).

© Supreme Court E-Library 2019
This website was designed and developed, and is maintained, by the E-Library Technical Staff in collaboration with the Management Information Systems Office.