XXX269009 (CRIMINAL CASE NO. L-13307), PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES RESPONDENT.

XXX269009 versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by XXX269009 against the People of the Philippines, assailing the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals that affirmed his conviction for sexually assaulting a five-year-old child. The case matters because the Supreme Court uses it to draw the dividing line between the Revised Penal Code and Republic Act No. 7610, the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, clarifying when an act against a child is rape by sexual assault and when it is lascivious conduct under the special law.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court of Pangasinan, Branch, tried XXX269009 on an information for rape by sexual assault and, in a decision dated May 14, 2021, found him guilty under Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610. He appealed to the Court of Appeals. On April 28, 2023, the Court of Appeals denied the appeal but modified the judgment, convicting him instead of lascivious conduct under Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610, adjusting the penalty, and adding a fine of 15,000 pesos. His motion for reconsideration was denied in a resolution dated August 4, 2023. He then filed the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, raising essentially the same arguments he had raised before the Court of Appeals.

Facts

XXX269009 was the live-in partner of the aunt of AAA269009. They lived in the same family home, together with the child's mother, grandmother, aunt, and the young son of the aunt and the petitioner. Sometime in 2013, when AAA269009 was five years old, the petitioner called her into his room, gave her his cellphone to play with, and carried her and his toddler son onto the bed. While she played, he pulled down her undergarments, licked her vagina, and inserted his finger into it. She felt pain. There were other occasions, including one during a bath, when he inserted his finger into her vagina.

The child did not report the assaults because she feared the petitioner would harm her, and she feared her mother would disown her. She suffered trauma, shown by recurring nightmares, absent-mindedness, and difficulty sleeping. Years later, after she had left the family home to stay with her estranged father, and when she was already twelve, she disclosed the abuse to her older sister in the presence of her father and older brother. Her mother reported the matter to the police, and the child was medically examined and interviewed by the Department of Social Welfare and Development.

Dr. Daryl Joe Aquino, a pediatric resident, examined her and found an incomplete laceration of the hymen at the five and seven o'clock positions, indicating that the hymen had been partially torn a long time ago. The petitioner denied the charge, claiming he treated the child as his own, that he was busy tending their sari-sari store, and that other family members were always present in the home.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner committed rape by sexual assault against a child below twelve years of age.
• Whether or not the inconsistencies in the child's testimony and her delay in reporting the abuse destroy her credibility.
• Whether or not the failure of the information to allege the exact date of the crime violated the petitioner's right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
• Whether or not the crime should be classified as lascivious conduct under Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610, or as rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, defines rape and provides:

Rape is committed 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 petitioner was ultimately convicted, because his finger was the instrument inserted into the child's genital orifice.

Section 5 of Republic Act No. 7610, Article III, provides:

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 Court construes this provision to require that the child indulge in the act through coercion or influence, which is the element that distinguishes the special law from the Revised Penal Code.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition is without merit. It is not a trier of facts and gives great weight to the factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, absent glaring errors. The elements of rape by sexual assault were established: the insertion of an instrument or object into the genital orifice of another person, done when the victim is under twelve years of age. The child's testimony was corroborated by the medical findings.

On the second issue, the Court ruled that inaccuracies and inconsistencies in a rape victim's testimony are generally expected, and they strengthen rather than weaken credibility because they show the testimony is not rehearsed. What matters is consistency on the occurrence of the crime and the identity of the perpetrator. Delay in reporting does not mean fabrication, since it may be attributed to tender age and fear. The Court also held that there is no standard behavior among rape victims, and that lust is no respecter of time and place.

On the third issue, the Court held that the exact date of the commission of sexual assault is not an essential element of the crime, so its precise time has no substantial bearing and need not be alleged precisely in the information. The information sufficiently informed the petitioner of the charge.

On the fourth issue, the Court applied its recent ruling in Gramatica versus People, which clarified that sexual abuse under Republic Act No. 7610 contemplates abuses where a minor indulges, or consents albeit defectively, to sexual conduct resulting from the perpetrator's coercion or undue influence. The word engage suggests active participation of the child, not merely passive victimization. The Court held that the Revised Penal Code and Republic Act No. 7610 serve different purposes: the former focuses on acts carried out through force or intimidation, while the latter addresses exploitative situations where coercive social and personal factors undermine the child's consent. Thus, if a case does not fall under the specific conditions of Section 5(b), it should be prosecuted as rape or acts of lasciviousness under the Revised Penal Code. Applying this, the Court modified the conviction to rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A(2), since the child was five years old and the act was committed by inserting a finger into her vagina.

Doctrine

• Rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code is committed by inserting the penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person, when any of the circumstances in paragraph 1 is present, including that the victim is under twelve years of age.
• Sexual abuse under Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610 requires that the child indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct through the coercion or influence of an adult. Where the child is a passive victim of force or intimidation, the case falls under the Revised Penal Code, not the special law.
• Inconsistencies in a rape victim's testimony on minor matters do not destroy credibility; they show the testimony is not rehearsed. The exact date of the crime is not an essential element and need not be precisely alleged.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals were affirmed with modifications: the petitioner was found guilty of rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code, sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of ten years as minimum to seventeen years and four months as maximum, ordered to pay 50,000 pesos each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages with interest at six percent per annum, and the fine of 15,000 pesos was deleted.

Remember This

The single line to memorize: where a child below twelve is a passive victim of sexual assault through force or intimidation, the crime is rape by sexual assault under the Revised Penal Code, not lascivious conduct under Republic Act No. 7610. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between the Revised Penal Code and Republic Act No. 7610, and the rule that the exact date of the crime need not be alleged in the information.