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

People versus ZZZ

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in a child rape case. The People of the Philippines prosecute ZZZ, whom the trial court and the Court of Appeals convicted of statutory rape for having carnal knowledge of a seven-year-old girl. The case matters to every Bar candidate because it gathers in one decision the elements of statutory rape, the effect of the 2022 amendment that raised the age of sexual consent from twelve to sixteen, the retroactivity rule for penal laws favorable to the accused, and the correct phrasing of the penalty and the damages when the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua.

Procedural History

ZZZ was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Kidapawan City with rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1, subparagraph d, in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. Assisted by counsel, he pleaded not guilty, and trial followed. In its decision dated January 29, 2021, the Regional Trial Court convicted him of qualified rape, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, and ordered him to pay 100,000 pesos each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, with interest at six percent per annum from finality. Without moving for reconsideration, ZZZ appealed to the Court of Appeals.

In its decision dated February 22, 2023, the Court of Appeals denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction with modifications. It held that the trial court's reference to qualified rape was a mere typographical error, since the body of the decision contemplated statutory rape. It affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua but deleted the phrase without eligibility for parole, reduced each award of damages to 75,000 pesos, and retained the six percent interest from finality. ZZZ elevated the case to the Supreme Court by notice of appeal. The Public Attorney's Office manifested that it would no longer file a supplemental brief, and the Office of the Solicitor General filed the appellee's brief for the People.

Facts

Private complainant was born on January 28, 2013. On June 17, 2020, at around seven thirty in the morning, then seven years old, she was left alone at home while her mother went to the barangay for rice ration and her father tapped rubber. She was playing by the road outside their house when ZZZ arrived. He held her hand, dragged her inside, closed the door, and pulled down her short pants. She wore no underwear, so her private parts were exposed. ZZZ opened the zipper of his pants, took out his penis, knelt behind her, bent her forward, and inserted his penis into her vagina. She felt pain.

Her father, BBB, arrived from tapping rubber. He opened the main door, saw no one, but in the living room he saw ZZZ kneeling behind his daughter, both naked from the waist down, with ZZZ making a push and pull movement. He heard his daughter cry for help and rushed to her; ZZZ fled. BBB reported the incident to the barangay captain, who photographed the crime scene and apprehended ZZZ. The police arrived and took custody of him.

Private complainant was medically examined by Dr. Flora Mae Sumugat-Espenorio, whose medico-legal record noted a hymenal laceration at the five o'clock position secondary to vaginal penetration of a blunt object. ZZZ, who is deaf-mute and testified with the assistance of his mother, denied the charge. He claimed he had gone to the house as usual to drink tuba, that BBB arrived and grew angry because he had entered without permission, and that he ran home, later shocked when the barangay captain came for him.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of statutory rape.
• Whether or not the alleged inconsistencies between the testimonies of private complainant and BBB destroy the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
• Whether or not the defense of denial may prevail over the positive testimony of the victim and the eyewitness.
• Whether or not the penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed, and whether or not the qualification without eligibility for parole was properly deleted.
• Whether or not the award of 75,000 pesos each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, with interest at six percent per annum from finality, is correct.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 8353, provides:

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: a) Through force, threat, or intimidation; b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and 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. 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.

Subparagraph d is the provision that defines statutory rape, and it is the provision under which ZZZ was charged and convicted.

Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code provides:

Article 266-B. Penalty. - Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

This is the provision that fixes the single indivisible penalty imposed on ZZZ.

Article 266-A, as further amended by Republic Act Number 11648, provides in part:

Article 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. - Rape is committed: 1) By a person who shall have carnal knowledge of another person under any of the following circumstances: d) When the offended party is under sixteen years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present: Provided, That there shall be no criminal liability on the part of a person having carnal knowledge of another person under sixteen years of age when the age difference between the parties is not more than three years, and the sexual act in question is proven to be consensual, non-abusive, and non-exploitative: Provided, further, That if the victim is under thirteen years of age, this exception shall not apply.

The Court applied the earlier version because the crime was committed on June 17, 2020, and the 2022 amendment has no favorable effect on the accused.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that all the elements of statutory rape were proved. The elements are, first, that the offended party is under twelve years of age, and second, that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim regardless of whether there was force, threat, or intimidation or grave abuse of authority. The victim's certificate of live birth showed she was born on January 28, 2013, making her seven years old on June 17, 2020. Her positive testimony established carnal knowledge, and it was corroborated by BBB's eyewitness account and by the medico-legal finding of hymenal laceration. The Court stressed that in every prosecution for statutory rape, consent is immaterial and force and intimidation are not necessary, because the law presumes that the victim does not and cannot have a will of her own on account of her tender years; the only subjects of inquiry are the age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge took place.

On the second issue, the Court held that the alleged inconsistencies pertained to minor details and were not fatal. It quoted its own ruling:

As long as the testimonies of the witnesses corroborate one another on material points, minor inconsistencies therein cannot destroy their credibility. Inconsistencies on minor details do not undermine the integrity of a prosecution witness.

On the third issue, the Court held that denial cannot prevail over positive testimony. It described denial as self-serving negative evidence that cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters, and it must be proved with strong and convincing evidence to prosper. Here, denial crumbled against the categorical identification by the victim and the eyewitness and against the medical findings.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the penalty of reclusion perpetua was correct under Article 266-B, and that the Court of Appeals correctly deleted the phrase without eligibility for parole. Under the guidelines in Administrative Matter Number 15-08-02-SC, where the death penalty is not warranted, there is no need to use that phrase, because it is understood that persons penalized with an indivisible penalty are not eligible for parole; the phrase is reserved for cases where the death penalty should have been imposed but was reduced to reclusion perpetua by Republic Act Number 9346.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that the reduced awards were correct under People versus Jugueta. Since the penalty is reclusion perpetua, and not death reduced to reclusion perpetua, the proper awards are 75,000 pesos each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, with interest at six percent per annum from finality until fully paid.

Doctrine

Statutory rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1, subparagraph d, has two elements: the offended party is under twelve years of age, and the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim. Consent is immaterial, and force, threat, or intimidation need not be proved, because the law presumes the victim cannot have a will of her own. The penalty is reclusion perpetua under Article 266-B. Where the death penalty is not warranted, the phrase without eligibility for parole must not qualify reclusion perpetua; that phrase is used only when the death penalty should have been imposed but was reduced to reclusion perpetua by Republic Act Number 9346. Where the penalty is reclusion perpetua, the damages are 75,000 pesos each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, with interest at six percent per annum from finality. Finally, a later penal law more favorable to the accused is given retroactive effect, but Republic Act Number 11648, which raised the age of sexual consent to sixteen, has no favorable effect on an accused who had carnal knowledge of a victim under twelve.

Disposition

The appeal was dismissed, the decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed, and ZZZ was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of statutory rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, and ordered to pay the victim 75,000 pesos each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, with interest at six percent per annum from finality until fully paid.

Remember This

Memorize this line: in statutory rape, the only subjects of inquiry are the age of the victim and whether carnal knowledge took place, because consent is immaterial and the law presumes the child has no will of her own. Examiners use this case to test the elements of statutory rape, the retroactive application of Republic Act Number 11648, the deletion of the phrase without eligibility for parole, and the correct amount of damages when the penalty is reclusion perpetua.