PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDDIE CERNA Y CIANA @ “EDDIE,” ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Cerna

The Case

This is People versus Cerna, a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, prosecuted Eddie Cerna y Ciana, a school guard, for sexually abusing a young girl identified in the record as AAA. Eddie was charged in three separate criminal informations with rape and with lascivious conduct, and he was convicted below. The case matters to every bar candidate because the Supreme Court uses it to draw a sharp line between the special law on child abuse, Republic Act Number 7610, and the Revised Penal Code. It teaches when Section 5(b) of that special law applies, and when it does not, and it shows how a reviewing court may correct a conviction even on a point the accused himself raised.

Procedural History

Eddie was arraigned before the Regional Trial Court of Manila and pleaded not guilty to all three charges. After pre-trial and trial, the Regional Trial Court found him guilty of rape in the October 2018 case, acquitted him in the December 2018 case for failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and found him guilty of acts of lasciviousness in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act Number 7610 in the January 2017 case. Eddie appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals denied the appeal and affirmed the Regional Trial Court in its entirety. The case then reached the Supreme Court by appeal. Both the Office of the Solicitor General and the Public Attorney's Office filed manifestations adopting their respective briefs filed in the Court of Appeals.

Facts

AAA was born on the sixth of February 2006. Sometime in January 2017, while she was sitting inside a school guard house waiting for her classmates for dance practice, Eddie approached her and began touching and squeezing her leg. When she tried to leave, he stopped her and threatened to harm her. He then touched her breasts and her vagina. He warned her that he would kill her mother and bar her from school if she told anyone, and so she kept silent.

Sometime in October 2018, AAA was at her aunt's store. As she was leaving for home in the evening, Eddie blocked her way, gripped her left shoulder tightly, and dragged her to the guard house. There he forcibly removed her clothes, kissed her breasts, inserted his finger into her vagina, and succeeded in inserting his penis into her vagina. She could only cry in pain. According to AAA, the abuse happened more than ten times, the last being in March 2019.

In August 2019, AAA's mother noticed weight gain, particularly in the abdomen, and a pregnancy test confirmed her suspicion. AAA then disclosed everything. The medico-legal officer, a child protection specialist, examined AAA and found her medical evaluation diagnostic of sexual contact or sexual abuse. AAA gave birth on the fifteenth of September 2019. For the defense, Eddie alone testified, denying the accusations and claiming he was a guard at a different school.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in all the charges.
• Whether or not the alleged improbability of committing the acts in a public place and the delay in reporting them destroy the credibility of the victim's testimony.
• Whether or not the acts of lasciviousness and the insertion of a finger into the victim's genital through force, threat, or intimidation fall under Section 5(b) of Republic Act Number 7610.
• Whether or not the accused may be convicted of rape by sexual assault and of acts of lasciviousness under the Revised Penal Code on the basis of the informations filed.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, defines rape, and its first paragraph provides:

Rape is committed by a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: 1) Through force, threat, or intimidation.

This is the provision under which the October 2018 carnal knowledge was punished.

The second paragraph of the same article provides:

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 covers the insertion of a finger into the victim's genital, which the Court held to be rape by sexual assault.

Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

The penalty of prision correccional shall be imposed upon any person who shall commit any act of lasciviousness or lewdness under any of the following circumstances: 1) When committed with violence or intimidation; 2) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; 3) When committed by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; 4) When the offended party is under twelve years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.

This is the provision under which the January 2017 acts were properly punished, the victim then being ten years old.

Section 5(b) of Republic Act Number 7610 provides:

Those who commit the acts of abuse referred to in Section 10 of this Act shall be punished as provided therein.

The Court confined this provision to children exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse, and held it inapplicable where the acts are committed through force or intimidation.

Ruling

The Court denied the appeal for failure to show reversible error. On credibility, it held that the trial court's assessment deserves the utmost respect, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and that youth and immaturity are badges of truth and sincerity. On the public place, it held that lust is no respecter of time and place, and that rape may be committed even in places where people congregate. On delay, it held that long silence is never construed as an indication of false accusation unless the delay is unreasonable and unexplained, and here the delay was explained by Eddie's threats.

Reviewing the entire record, the Court modified the conviction in the October 2018 case. The information charged both carnal knowledge and the kissing of the breasts and insertion of a finger, and since no motion to quash was filed, the defect of duplicity was waived. The Court therefore convicted Eddie of rape under Article 266-A(1) and also of rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A(2), both in relation to Article 266-B.

On the special law, the Court applied its ruling in Gramatica and held that Section 5(b) of Republic Act Number 7610 does not apply when the lascivious conduct is committed through force or intimidation, because a semblance of consent, albeit defective, is required. Since the acts here were committed through force, threat, and intimidation, the Revised Penal Code governed. The Court thus convicted Eddie of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336, the victim being under twelve years old, in which case the other circumstances need not be present.

Doctrine

First, Section 5(b) of Republic Act Number 7610 covers only a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse, meaning one who indulges in the sexual act for money, profit, or other consideration, or due to the coercion or influence of an adult. Second, that coercion or influence must not rise to the level of force or intimidation, because the special law requires a semblance of consent, albeit defective. Third, where the lascivious conduct or sexual act is committed through force, threat, or intimidation, the Revised Penal Code applies, and the insertion of a finger into the genital of a child through force is rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A(2). Fourth, when the victim is below twelve years old, the other circumstances in Article 336 need not be present. Fifth, an appellate court in a criminal appeal may review the entire record and correct errors not raised by the appellant.

Disposition

The appeal was denied, and Eddie was convicted of rape under Article 266-A(1), rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A(2), and acts of lasciviousness under Article 336, with increased damages of 150,000 pesos each for the rape by carnal knowledge and 50,000 pesos each for the other offenses.

Remember This

Memorize this line: Section 5(b) of Republic Act Number 7610 does not apply when the lascivious conduct is committed through force or intimidation. Examiners use this case to test the boundary between the special law and the Revised Penal Code, and to test whether a candidate knows that a finger inserted into the genital through force is rape by sexual assault, not merely lasciviousness.