SAMBAYANANG PILIPINAS, NAGSASAKDAL, LABAN KAY GGG269811 (CA-G.R CR-HC BLG. 16711 [DATING KASONG KRIMINAL BLG. SC-21639 HANGGANG 21642]), NASASAKDAL.

Sambayanan Pilipinas, Nagsasakdal, Laban kay GGG269811

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the accused, referred to in the record as GGG269811, asks the Supreme Court to overturn his convictions for three counts of statutory rape and one count of sexual assault. The private complainant, AAA269811, was a child of nine and ten years old when the acts were committed, and the accused was the common-law husband of her paternal grandmother, a man who lived in the same household and exercised moral ascendancy over her. The case matters for the bar because it gathers in one decision the elements of statutory rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, the separate crime of sexual assault by insertion of the finger, the weight given to the clear testimony of a child victim, and the correct penalty and damages for each offense.

Procedural History

The prosecution filed before the Regional Trial Court of Laguna three Informations for statutory rape and one Information for sexual assault. After trial, the Regional Trial Court, in a decision dated the seventh of January 2022, found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of all four charges. For each count of statutory rape it imposed reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay seventy-five thousand pesos each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages. For sexual assault it imposed an indeterminate penalty and ordered fifty thousand pesos each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, with interest at six percent per annum on all awards.

The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals. In a decision dated the twenty-ninth of June 2023, the Court of Appeals denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction, except that it modified the penalty for sexual assault to an indeterminate term of twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal as minimum to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal as medium. The accused then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by appeal, and the Court resolved it in a decision promulgated in April 2026.

Facts

AAA269811 testified that the abuse began in 2014, when she was nine years old and living in the house of her grandmother, PGM269811, whose common-law husband was the accused. On one afternoon, while she was sleeping in a room, the accused woke her, removed her clothes, and forced himself upon her, inserting his penis into her vagina. She tried to push his hands away and struggled, but he was bigger and stronger. He told her not to tell anyone, and she was afraid.

Days later, while her grandmother was washing clothes outside, the accused entered the room where she lay, pretending to fix a nail for a mosquito net, and again forced her to have sexual intercourse. He stopped only when he heard the grandmother calling for the child. In 2015, when she was ten, the abuse continued. On one occasion he kissed her, laid her on a bench in the living room, and had intercourse with her while the grandmother was at the back of the house. On another occasion he waited for her outside the bathroom after school, held her private parts, removed her clothes, and inserted his penis into her vagina despite her attempt to push him away. He again told her to keep quiet.

She kept silent for two years. Her mother, an overseas worker, had asked her aunt AMA269811 to look after her. One day the mother confiscated the child's cellphone, and the aunt read a message in which the child said that her uncle had molested her. She later admitted that the uncle was the accused. Her father, FFF269811, confronted his mother, but the grandmother took the side of her common-law partner and accused the father of inventing the story to gain the family land. The accused denied the charges, claiming the child was not in their custody during those years and that his work as a fisherman and carpenter kept him away from home. The trial court and the Court of Appeals found the child's testimony clear, consistent, and credible, and convicted him.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the accused for three counts of statutory rape and one count of sexual assault.
• Whether or not the elements of statutory rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the elements of sexual assault by insertion of the finger were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the penalty and the awards of damages imposed were correct.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, paragraph one, defines rape, and its subparagraph (d) governs statutory rape:

Article 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: 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.

This provision supplies the two elements the Court applied: the victim is under twelve years of age, and the offender had carnal knowledge of her regardless of force, threat, or intimidation.

Article 266-A, paragraph two, defines sexual assault:

Article 266-A. Rape: When And How Committed. — Rape is committed: 2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.

This is the provision under which the insertion of the accused's finger into the child's vagina was punished, in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act Number 7610.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court denied the appeal and affirmed the convictions, except for modifications in the penalty and damages. On the second issue, the Court held that statutory rape has two elements: that the victim is under twelve years of age, and that the accused had carnal knowledge of her, regardless of force, threat, or intimidation. Both were proven. The child was nine and ten years old during the incidents, a fact not disputed at trial, and her testimony was clear, positive, and categorical as to the three acts of intercourse in 2014 and 2015.

On the third issue, the Court found that the prosecution established every element of sexual assault, since the child clearly described how the accused repeatedly inserted his finger into her private parts against her will, and she described the pain she felt.

On the fourth issue, the Court corrected the penalty and the damages. The Court stressed that the testimony of a child victim of rape is entitled to greater weight than the bare denials of the accused, and that it is not for the victim to prove that she did all she could to resist, for the law does not require resistance when the victim is a child of tender years. The Court also rejected the defense of alibi, since the school of the child was in the same barangay as the house of the accused, and the grandmother herself admitted that the houses were not far apart.

Doctrine

Statutory rape under Article 266-A, paragraph one, subparagraph (d) of the Revised Penal Code is committed when the victim is under twelve years of age and the offender has carnal knowledge of her, even without force, threat, or intimidation. Sexual assault under paragraph two of the same article is a distinct crime, committed by inserting the penis into the mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another. The clear and consistent testimony of a child victim of tender years is given greater weight than the denials of the accused, and the victim need not show resistance, for the law presumes that a child cannot give consent. Moral ascendancy of the offender over the child substitutes for force and intimidation. The penalty for each count of statutory rape is reclusion perpetua, with civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages of seventy-five thousand pesos each, while sexual assault carries an indeterminate penalty and damages of fifty thousand pesos each, all with interest at six percent per annum.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the appeal of GGG269811 and affirmed his conviction for three counts of statutory rape and one count of sexual assault, with modifications to the penalty and damages, and ordered him to pay the amounts stated in the decision with interest.

Remember This

Memorize the two elements of statutory rape: the victim is under twelve years of age, and there is carnal knowledge, regardless of force or consent. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between statutory rape and sexual assault, the weight of a child victim's testimony, and the correct penalties and damages for each crime.