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

People versus XXX

The Case

This is an ordinary appeal to the Supreme Court by XXX, who was convicted by the Regional Trial Court and, on appeal, by the Court of Appeals, of violating Section 5(b) of Republic Act Number 7610, the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, and of qualified rape under the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 8353. The victim, AAA, was the daughter of XXX's live-in partner. The case matters because the Supreme Court re-examines two recurring bar subjects: the sufficiency of an Information that fixes the date of the offense only by year, and the correct characterization of sexual acts committed against a child who is unwilling from the outset, which determines whether the crime is sexual abuse under Republic Act Number 7610 or the lesser offense of acts of lasciviousness under the Revised Penal Code.

Procedural History

XXX was charged in two separate Informations before the Regional Trial Court. One Information charged violation of Section 5(b) of Republic Act Number 7610 for lascivious conduct committed on October 30, 2014 against AAA, then a thirteen-year-old minor, by touching her vagina. The other Information charged qualified rape committed sometime in 2013 against AAA, then a twelve-year-old minor and the accused's stepdaughter. XXX pleaded not guilty, and trial on the merits followed.

The Regional Trial Court rendered a Joint Decision finding XXX guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both crimes. For violation of Section 5(b) of Republic Act Number 7610, the trial court imposed an indeterminate penalty of twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal in its minimum period as minimum to fifteen years, six months, and twenty-one days of reclusion temporal in its medium period as maximum, and ordered payment of moral damages, exemplary damages, and a fine of fifteen thousand pesos each, plus twenty thousand pesos as civil indemnity. For qualified rape, the trial court imposed reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and ordered payment of one hundred thousand pesos each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, with legal interest at six percent per annum from finality.

XXX appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the Information for qualified rape was defective because it stated only "sometime in the year 2013," that AAA's testimony was incredible and inconsistent, and that the elements of the crimes were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Office of the Solicitor General countered that the defect was raised for the first time on appeal and that the time of commission is not an essential element of rape. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty for violation of Section 5(b) of Republic Act Number 7610, sentencing XXX to reclusion perpetua and ordering payment of seventy-five thousand pesos each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages. XXX then brought this ordinary appeal to the Supreme Court. The parties dispensed with supplemental briefs and adopted their appellate briefs.

Facts

XXX lived with BBB, the mother of AAA, as live-in partners since 2005 or 2006, and they had two children of their own. AAA's biological father, CCC, lived elsewhere. In 2013, AAA was twelve years old, having been born on February 21, 2001. According to AAA, XXX began molesting and sexually abusing her in 2013, when she was a Grade 6 student. Whenever she came home from school, XXX would tell her to take a nap. When her mother was outside the house doing laundry or caring for her half-brother, XXX touched her private parts, undressed her, and inserted his penis into her vagina. This happened about three times a week whenever BBB was not around. AAA did not tell her mother at first because she was afraid her mother would leave her. After several incidents, she told BBB, but BBB did not believe her.

On October 30, 2014, XXX again sexually abused AAA by touching her private parts and inserting his penis into her vagina. The following day, October 31, 2014, AAA lost consciousness in school. The school guidance counselor spoke with her, and AAA disclosed the abuses. The counselor called the Department of Social Welfare and Development, whose officer helped AAA contact CCC and report the matter to the police. That same day, AAA, assisted by CCC, reported the incident to the Women and Children's Protection Desk and filed complaints for violation of Section 5(b) of Republic Act Number 7610 and for qualified rape.

On November 3, 2014, AAA underwent a medico-legal examination. The result revealed a deep healed laceration at the three, six, and nine o'clock positions of the hymen, and the medico-legal officer concluded there was clear evidence of application of blunt trauma to the hymen. For his part, XXX denied having sexual intercourse with AAA. He claimed that another person, DDD, raped AAA, and that BBB filed a complaint against DDD which did not prosper. He admitted that in 2013 AAA lived in the same house with him, BBB, and their two children, but insisted he was never left alone with AAA. He surmised that the complaints were filed as retaliation for his strict discipline of AAA.

Issues

• Whether or not the designation of the date of the rape as "sometime in the year 2013" violated XXX's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
• Whether or not the prosecution established the qualifying circumstance of relationship that would raise the crime to qualified rape.
• Whether or not AAA's testimony was credible despite alleged inconsistencies with her sworn statement.
• Whether or not XXX's acts constituted sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of Republic Act Number 7610 or the lesser offense of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, defines 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: a) Through force, threat, or intimidation.

This provision establishes the elements of rape through force, threat, or intimidation, which the Court found satisfied here through the moral ascendancy of the common-law father over the minor victim.

Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides the qualifying circumstances:

Article 266-B. Penalties. – The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances: 1) When the victim is under 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.

This provision is the basis for qualified rape, which requires that the qualifying relationship be both alleged in the Information and proven during trial.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the phrase "sometime in the year 2013" alleges a definite year, namely 2013, and does not violate the accused's right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. The Court distinguished its earlier ruling in People versus Ladrillo, where the phrase "on or about the year 1992" was defective because it encompassed not only 1992 but also 1991 and 1993. Here, the phrase fixes the crime in a definite year. At any rate, the Court held that XXX waived his objection to the alleged defect because he failed to move to quash the Information or to allege that ground in such a motion.

On the second issue, the Court held that while the Information alleged that AAA was XXX's stepdaughter, the prosecution failed to establish that relationship. A stepfather is the husband of one's mother by virtue of a marriage subsequent to that of which the person spoken of is the offspring, and it presupposes a legitimate relationship between the accused and the victim's mother. Here, the records showed only that XXX was the live-in partner of AAA's mother. While the prosecution proved the common-law relationship, the Information did not properly allege the qualifying circumstance of relationship, which affected XXX's right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Consequently, he could only be held liable for rape and not qualified rape.

On the third issue, the Court found AAA's testimony clear, straightforward, and unequivocal. The alleged inconsistency between her sworn statement and her direct testimony did not discredit her, because an affidavit taken ex parte is generally incomplete and inferior to testimony in open court. The Court also found that AAA's mother's disbelief did not negate the abuse, given the mother's admission that she loved XXX more than her own daughter and would do anything in his favor. The Court reiterated that no woman, least of all a child, would concoct a story of rape, allow examination of her private parts, and subject herself to public trial or ridicule if she had not in truth been a victim.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that XXX could only be held liable for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, not sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of Republic Act Number 7610. The Court explained that sexual abuse under Republic Act Number 7610 covers situations where a minor indulges, or consents albeit defectively, to engage in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct as a result of coercion or undue influence exerted by an adult. The word "engage" suggests active participation by the child, who is not merely a passive victim but engages in it precisely due to the employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement, or coercion exerted by the adult. Since there was no proof that AAA actively participated, and in fact she was unwilling from the outset, she could not be said to have engaged in lascivious conduct, which negates a finding of sexual abuse under Republic Act Number 7610.

The Court sentenced XXX for rape to reclusion perpetua, deleting the phrase "without eligibility for parole" since that phrase is only employed when emphasizing that the accused should have been sentenced to death were it not for Republic Act Number 9346. For acts of lasciviousness, the Court applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law and sentenced XXX to six months of arresto mayor as minimum to four years and two months of prision correccional as maximum. The Court awarded civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages of seventy-five thousand pesos each for the rape, and one hundred fifty thousand pesos each for the acts of lasciviousness.

Doctrine

An Information that alleges the date of the offense as "sometime in the year" followed by a definite year complies with the requirement that the time of commission be alleged as near to the actual date as the Information will permit, because it fixes the crime in a definite year. Any objection to a defect in the Information is waived if the accused fails to move to quash or to allege the ground in such a motion.

Qualified rape under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code requires that the qualifying circumstance of relationship be both alleged in the Information and proven beyond reasonable doubt. A common-law relationship between the accused and the victim's mother does not establish the step-parent relationship, which presupposes a legitimate relationship between the accused and the victim's mother.

Sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of Republic Act Number 7610 requires that the minor engage in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, meaning that the minor actively participates, albeit with defective consent, due to the employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement, or coercion exerted by the adult. Where the minor is unwilling from the outset and does not actively participate, the act constitutes acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, not sexual abuse under Republic Act Number 7610.

Disposition

The appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeals Decision was affirmed with modification: XXX was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in one case and of rape in the other, sentenced accordingly, and ordered to pay damages, with all monetary awards earning six percent legal interest per annum from finality until fully paid.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that sexual abuse under Republic Act Number 7610 requires that the child engage in the lascivious conduct with defective consent, so an unwilling child who does not actively participate makes the crime acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, not sexual abuse. Examiners like to use this case to test the distinction between sexual abuse and acts of lasciviousness, and to test the requirement that the qualifying circumstance of relationship in qualified rape must be both alleged in the Information and proven beyond reasonable doubt.