G.R. No. 261962* PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. XXX, ACCUSED-APPELLANT. January 27, 2025
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 261962*, January 27, 2025 ]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. XXX, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
DIMAAMPAO, J.:
This instant Appeal[1]before the Court bewails the Decision[2]of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11125, which affirmed with modification the Judgment[3]rendered by Branchxxxof the Regional Trial Court,xxxxxxx, Catanduanes (RTC), convicting accused-appellant XXX of the crime of rape as defined and penalized under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353,[4]in relation to Republic Act No. 7610.[5]
On January 21, 2015, an Information[6]docketed as Criminal Case No. 5319 was filed against XXX, indicting him for the crime of rape. The inculpatory averments of the Information read as follows:
That sometime in the evening in November 2012, between November 8, 2012 to November 14, 2012, inxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, province of Catanduanes, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, while the victim, [AAA], who was then ten (10) years old, and therefore, under twelve (12) years of age, was sleeping at the house of [BBB], the above-named accused, with lewd designs, lay [sic] down beside her, then removed her shorts and panty, placed himself on top of the victim, kissed her, and then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had carnal knowledge of the victim against her will, through force, threat and/or intimidation, which acts debased, degraded and demeaned her intrinsic worth as a child and as a human being, to the damage and prejudice of the said victim and that of the general public.
That the crime was attended by the following aggravating circumstance[s], namely, that the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is the victim's relative by consanguinity within the third civil degree.[7]
Upon arraignment, XXX pled not guilty to the charge.[8]Trial forthwith ensued.
The prosecution avouched that sometime in November 2012, CCC and DDD were going to attend the wake of a certain Jesus Tayo a.k.a. "Jaru" inxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,xxxxxxxxxxx, Catanduanes. Before heading to the wake, they left their then 10-year-old[9]daughter, AAA, in the house of a certain EEE.[10]
AAA then went to the house of her friend's grandmother, BBB, to play with her friend. EEE and BBB eventually left to attend the wake. Thereupon, XXX, the brother of DDD,[11]went to BBB's house and asked AAA to look after FFF, his then 2-year-old daughter, as he was also going to the wake.[12]
FFF and AAA were already asleep in the living room of BBB's house when AAA was awakened by XXX, who appeared to be drunk. XXX lay beside her and removed her shorts and panty. He then placed himself on top of AAA's body and kissed her lips. Afterwards, he removed his brief and inserted his penis into her vagina. AAA cried in pain. She struggled to push XXX away and begged him to stop, to no avail. XXX only stopped when DDD called him from outside the house.[13]
AAA heard her mother call XXX by his nickname "xxxxxx", to accompany her to the wake. XXX replied, "Iyo" (yes). DDD also called AAA because FFF was crying. Immediately thereafter, XXX left through the main door. Despite the fact that DDD was just outside, AAA did not call for help as she was afraid of her own mother, who, for many times in the past, had physically hurt her by pinching her and hitting her with a rattan stick.[14]
A year later, AAA recounted the rape incident to DDD's aunt, GGG, who then relayed the same to CCC and DDD, AAA's parents. Thenceforward, they accompanied their daughter to undergo a medical examination and to report the incident at the police station.[15]
On November 20, 2013, Dr. Cheryl T. Benavidez (Dr. Benavidez) conducted a physical examination on AAA. Dr. Benavidez eventually testified that her examination on AAA revealed the presence of an old hymen laceration at 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock positions that could have been caused by "[s]oft [t]issue [i]njury. . . [p]robably [s]econdary to [a]lleged [s]exual [a]ssault[.]"[16]Dr. Benavidez asked AAA if she had been doing any heavy physical work, to which she denied.[17]
In the afternoon of the same day, AAA, together with her parents, reported the incident to Police Officer II Rowena Llandelar, who took their respectiveSinumpaang Salaysay.[18]
Subjected to mental evaluation, AAA was brought to Dr. Gibson Gabitan (Dr. Gabitan) on July 10 and 15, 2017. Dr. Gabitan found her to have exhibited a "mild form of intellectual disability."[19]According to him, AAA could not fully express what exactly happened to her. However, even in not a logical progression of events, AAA was able to describe a fraction of what she had experienced during the rape incident. While Dr. Gabitan could not categorically vouch for the truth of AAA's narration, he admitted that she was consistent with her story that she was sexually abused.[20]
For his part, XXX failed to adduce any evidence to exculpate himself from liability.[21]
In due course, the RTC rendered its Judgment convicting XXX of the crime of rape. Thefalloreads:
WHEREFORE,this Court finds [XXX] GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of [r]ape and is, hereby, sentenced to suffer the penalty ofreclusion perpetuawithout eligibility for parole, and to pay the victim, AAA, the amounts of SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS ([PHP] 75,000.00), as civil indemnity, SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS ([PHP] 75,000.00), as moral damages and THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS ([PHP] 30,000.00), as exemplary damages, which shall be subject to legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of Judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.[22](Emphasis in the original)
The RTC accorded full weight and credence to AAA's positive and categorical testimony, which established that, indeed, XXX had carnal knowledge of her without her consent. Corollary thereto, Dr. Gabitan's assessment of AAA's mental condition, albeit not indispensable, bolstered her case.[23]
Likewise, the RTC adjudged that the prosecution demonstrably established that AAA was only 10 years old when the rape incident transpired and that XXX was her uncle, who, therefore, had moral ascendancy over her. Evidently, the concurrence of AAA's minority and her relationship to XXX is a special qualifying circumstance, which sentence may be death penalty were it not for the supervening passage of Republic Act No. 9346.[24]Section 2 of this Act imposes the penalty ofreclusion perpetuain lieu of death when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code, as in this case. Thus, XXX could not be eligible for parole.[25]
Unflustered, XXX sought recourse before the CA,[26]which, in the impugned Decision, sustained his guilt, ratiocinating in this wise—
Accused-appellant criticizes the testimony of AAA to be unworthy of belief for being too incredible and improbable in view of Dr. Gabitan's finding that AAA exhibited a mild form of intellectual disability.
This Court is not persuaded.
AAA's mental condition does not make her testimony incredible as long as she can recount her experience in a straightforward, spontaneous, and believable manner[.]
. . . .
What also makes the case stronger for the prosecution is that the testimony of AAA is corroborated by the medical findings of the presence of lacerations in her hymen. Such medico-legal findings bolsters the prosecution's testimonial evidence. InPeople v. Francica, the Supreme Court held that lacerations were the best physical evidence of forcible defloration and that physical evidence speaks more eloquently than a hundred witnesses. Together, these pieces of evidence produce a moral certainty that accused-appellant indeed raped AAA.[27]
The CA explicated that while the RTC received in evidence XXX's plea bargain as an implied admission of his guilt, it nevertheless considered the evidence presented by the prosecution.[28]
Lastly, the amounts of civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages awarded were modified by the CA, in accordance with recent jurisprudence.[29]The CA decreed—
ACCORDINGLY,the appeal isDENIED. The Judgment dated 10 April 2018 of the Regional Trial Court, 5thJudicial Region, Branchxx,xxxxxxxxxxx, Catanduanes, in Criminal Case No. 5319, convicting accused-appellant XXX of [r]ape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, in relation to Republic Act No. 7610 isAFFIRMEDwithMODIFICATIONin that civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages are eachINCREASEDto one hundred thousand pesos ([PHP] 100,000.00). Interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this [D]ecision until fully paid is to be imposed on all the amounts of damages awarded.
SO ORDERED.[30](Emphasis in the original)
Taking umbrage at the foregoing disposition, XXX is now before the Court, ascribing error on the part of the CA in affirming his conviction.
According to XXX, AAA's testimony is tainted with contradictions and illogical details as to the occurrence of the rape incident. He relies on the testimony of Dr. Gabitan, an expert, which revealed that AAA's statements were inconsistent and unreliable. He likewise faults the RTC for convicting him based on his plea bargain.[31]
The Court's Ruling
After a judicious rumination of the case, the Court upholds XXX's conviction, but modifies the crime committed to statutory rape instead of qualified rape.
AAA's testimony is
straightforward and credible.
Upholding the findings of the RTC, the CA adjudged thatAAA's testimony was straight forward, positive and credible, viz.:
. . . .. . . .
The Court has consistently held that when the credibility of a witness is in question, the trial court's observations and conclusions deserve great respect and are accorded finality, unless the records show material facts or circumstances that the lower court overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated, and which, if properly considered, would ultimately alter the result of the case. Such is the case since trial courts are in the best position to ascertain and measure the sincerity and spontaneity of witnesses through their actual observation of the manner of testifying, demeanor and behavior of witnesses in court. Therefore, trial judges can better determine if such witnesses are telling the truth, as they are in the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies. The rule finds an even more stringent application where the said factual findings are sustained by the CA,[33]as in this case.
XXX makes a lunge at AAA's testimony in view of Dr. Gabitan's finding that she exhibited a mild form of intellectual disability.
The assailment deserves scant consideration. On this score, the Court reverberates the CA's disposition apropos the issue at hand, viz.:
AAA's mental condition does not make her testimony incredible as long as she can recount her experience in a straightforward, spontaneous, and believable manner. The disquisition inPeople v. Deniegais instructive, to wit:
In the present case, it is true that based on the medical and psychiatric evaluation of AAA, she has moderate mental retardation and that she has the mental age of a six-year-old child. Accused-appellant makes much of this fact to discredit the testimony of AAA. This Court has, nonetheless, held that competence and credibility of mentally deficient rape victims as witnesses have been upheld where it is shown that they can communicate their ordeal capably and consistently.Rather than undermine the gravity of the complainant's accusations, it even lends greater credence to her testimony, that, someone as feeble-minded and guileless could speak so tenaciously and explicitly on the details of the rape if she has not in fact suffered such crime at the hands of the accused.The basic rule is that when a victim's testimony is credible and sufficiently establishes the elements of the crime, it may be enough basis to convict an accused of rape.[34](Emphasis in the original)
In sooth, AAA's credible and straightforward testimony withstands scrutiny sufficient to produce a verdict of conviction, even more so, when it is corroborated with solid physical evidence. The physical examination conducted on AAA revealed that she sustained old laceration at 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock positions in her external genitalia. "Hymenal lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best evidence of forcible defloration. And when the consistent and forthright testimony of a rape victim is consistent with medical findings, as in this case, the essential requisites of carnal knowledge are deemed to have been sufficiently established."[35]
XXX was positively identified
as the perpetrator of the crime
XXX asseverates that the prosecution failed to identify him as the perpetrator since the purported rape occurred in a house that was poorly lit.[36]He claims that AAA only recognized her because of his facial hair and the apparent smell of alcohol.[37]
XXX's asseverations hold no water.
Admittedly, the place where the rape incident occurred was poorly lit. However, such circumstance alone did not prevent AAA from positively identifying XXX as her perpetrator. As established during trial, immediately after the incident, AAA heard her mother, loud and clear, calling XXX by his nickname "xxxxxx", thus—
[PROS. VALEZA:]
From the foregoing avowals, there is nary a doubt that AAA positively identified XXX as the person who committed the bestial act against her. Moreover, inPeople v. Sanay,[39]the Court emphasized that identifying the assailant based onfamiliaritymay be deemed reliable, thusly—
A victim who was sufficiently acquainted with their assailant due to a prior relationship or association, such as being "barriomates," neighbors, or as the second husband of their grandmother, signifies a certain familiarity with the assailant's physical features, which the victim may easily perceive at the time of the commission of the crime. Accordingly, even when the offense was committed under circumstances that make it difficult for the victim to ascertain the identity of the perpetrator, as in this case where AAA was raped at night, the identification of the accused is deemed credible when the victim is closely familiar with the assailant.[40]
It cannot be gainsaid that AAA is familiar with both the physical features and the voice of XXX, being her uncle. Irrefutably, she had adequate basis to easily identify him as her abuser.
Lust is no respecter of time
and place, and AAA's silence
before revealing her ordeal
does not imply falsity
The Court, inPeople v. Descartin,[41]has settled that—
[C]lose proximity of other relatives at the scene of the rape does not negate the commission of the crime. Rape can be committed even in places where people congregate, in parks, along the roadside, within school premises, inside a house where there are other occupants, and even in the same room where other members of the family are also sleeping. It is not impossible or incredible for the members of the victim's family to be in deep slumber and not to be awakened while a sexual assault is being committed.Lust is no respecter of time and place; neither is it deterred by age nor relationship.[42](Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)
With the foregoing doctrinal mooring, the Court cannot lend credence to XXX's postulations that,first, it is contrary to human experience that AAA failed to shout or ask for her mother's help who was just nearby, andsecond, it would have been highly dangerous on his part to abuse AAA when her mother was just nearby.
In the same vein, the fact that AAA stayed silent for a year does not imply that the accusations divulged later were false.People v. Tadeo[43]instructs—
There is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with startling or frightful experience. Fear has rendered some people immobile if not useless in some life-and-death situations. Besides, when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect, all that is necessary to prove that rape was committed. No woman would be willing to undergo a public trial, along with the shame, humiliation and dishonor of exposing her own degradation, were it not to condemn an injustice and to have the offender apprehended and punished. The embarrassment and stigma of allowing an examination of her private parts and testifying at a public trial on the painfully intimate details of her violation effectively rule out the possibility of a false accusation of rape.[44](Citations omitted)
XXX is guilty of statutory rape
InPeople v. Barcela,[45]this Court decreed that—
In the crime of rape, the concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship with the offender is a special qualifying circumstance and raises the penalty to the supreme penalty of death. It is essential that this circumstance must be alleged in the criminal complaint or information and must be provedconclusivelyandindubitablyas the crime itself; otherwise, the crime shall be considered simple rape warranting the imposition of the lower penalty ofreclusion perpetua.[46](Citation omitted)
Both the RTC and the CA held that the rape committed by XXX was qualified on account of AAA's minority and his being a relative of AAA within the third civil degree by consanguinity.
The Court begs to disagree.
The crime of qualified rape is punishable under Article 266-B(1) of the Revised Penal Code, which reads:
Article 266-B. Penalty. — . . .
. . . .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 eighteen (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[.] [Emphasis supplied]
Article 266-B(1) qualifies the crime of rape when it is committed by a relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree of a victim below the age of 18.
AAA's minority is undisputed. The prosecution unmistakably established that she was merely 10 years old when she was raped by XXX. This was evinced by her birth certificate.[47]However, the Court is faced with this conundrum anent AAA's relationship with XXX:Is he indeed a relative by consanguinity within the third civil degree, as alleged in the Information?
This Court finds and so holds that XXX is not.
AAA's birth certificate purportedly shows that CCC is her father and DDD is her mother. However, both CCC and DDD admitted during trial that AAA was an adopted child.[48]Upon this point, the Court takes cue from the case ofXXX257134 v. People,[49]which reiterated the following jurisprudential precept:
The relationship established by the adoption, however, is limited to the adopting parent, and does not extend to his other relatives, except as expressly provided by law. Thus,the adopted child cannot be considered as a relative of the ascendants and collaterals of the adopting parents, nor of the legitimate children which they may have after the adoption, except that the law imposes certain impediments to marriage by reason of adoption. Neither are the children of the adopted considered as descendants of the adopter.The relationship created is exclusively between the adopter and the adopted, and do not extend to the relatives of either.[50](Emphasis in the original; citation omitted)
Applying the foregoingdoctrine of exclusivity, AAA and XXX are thus not related to each other.
The Court is mindful that under Republic Act No. 11642,[51]the State has unequivocally considered that the legitimate filiation created between the adopter and the adoptee shall be extended to the adopter's parents, adopter's legitimate siblings, and legitimate descendants.[52]Furthermore, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 11642 stipulate that the effect of adoption shall retroact to the date the petition for adoption is filed.[53]
All the same, despite the retroactive provisions of Republic Act No. 11642, the law cannot be applied in the case of XXX as the crime was committed in 2012. Applying otherwise would violate the constitutional prohibition againstex post factolaws. InTrillanes IV v. Medialdea,[54]this Court defined anex post factolaw as follows:
A law passed after the occurrence of a fact or commission of an act, which retrospectively changes the legal consequences or relations of such fact or deed.... It is a law which provides for the infliction of punishment upon a person for an act done which, when it was committed, was innocent;a law which aggravates a crime or makes it greater than when it was committed; a law that changes the punishment or inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when it was committed; a law that changes the rules of evidence and receives less or different testimony than was required at the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict the offender;a law which, assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes a penalty or the deprivation of a right which, when done, was lawful; a law which deprives persons accused of crime of some lawful protection to which they have become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or of the proclamation of amnesty; every law which, in relation to the offense or its consequences, alters the situation of a person to his disadvantage.
The prohibition againstex post factolaws is generally aimed against the retrospectivity of penal laws.[55](Emphasis in the original; emphasis supplied; citations omitted)
Clearly then, the provisions of Republic Act No. 11642 cannot apply to the case at bench. The qualifying circumstance of relationship cannot be used against XXX.
Penalty
The Court modifies the penalty imposed and the damages awarded by the CA. As XXX is guilty of statutory rape, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty ofreclusion perpetua. Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence,[56]he is also ordered to pay the victim PHP 75,000.00 as civil indemnity, PHP 75,000.00 as moral damages, and PHP 75,000.00 as exemplary damages.
ACCORDINGLY,the instant Appeal isDISMISSED. The September 14, 2020 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11125 isAFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS.
Accused-appellant XXX isGUILTYof statutory rape. He isSENTENCEDto suffer the penalty ofreclusion perpetuaandORDERED to PAYAAA the sum of PHP 75,000.00 as civil indemnity, PHP 75,000.00 as moral damages, and PHP 75,000.00 as exemplary damages. The monetary awards shall be subject to legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until full payment.
The Department of Social Welfare and Development isDIRECTEDto refer the victim AAA to the appropriate rape crisis center for the necessary assistance to be rendered to the victim and her family, in accordance with Republic Act No. 8505, or the Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act of 1998.
SO ORDERED.
IntingandGaerlan, JJ., concur.
Caguioa (Chairperson), J., see concurring opinion.
Singh, J., on leave.
*The identity of the victims or any information which could establish or compromise their identities, as well as those of their immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015, entitled: Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders Using Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances dated September 5, 2017.
**On leave.
[1]Rollo, pp. 3-5.
[2]Id.at 8-23. The September 14, 2020 Decision was penned by Associate Justice Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela of the Second Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
[3]Id.at 25-33. The April 10, 2018 Judgment in Criminal Case No. 5319 was rendered by Presiding Judge Lelu P. Contreras.
[4]The Anti-Rape Law of 1997.
[5]Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act.
[6]RTC records, pp. 1-3.
[7]Id.at 1.
[8]Id.at 24-a, Certificate of Arraignment.
[9]Id.at 13, Certificate of Live Birth of AAA.
[10]Rollo, pp. 27-28.
[11]TSN, AAA, April 19, 2017, p. 3.
[12]Rollo, p. 28.
[13]Id.
[14]Id.
[15]Id.at 29.
[16]TSN, Dr. Cheryl T. Benavidez, January 25, 2017, p. 11.See alsoRTC records, p. 14, Medicolegal Certificate.
[17]Rollo, pp. 28-29.
[18]Id.at 29; RTC records, p. 10,Sinumpaang Salaysayof AAA; 11,Sinumpaang Salaysayof CCC; 12,Sinumpaang Salaysayof DDD.
[19]TSN, Dr. Gibson Gabitan, October 4, 2017, p. 5.
[20]Rollo, pp. 30-31.
[21]Id.at 30.
[22]Id.at 32-33.
[23]Id.at 30-31.
[24]An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines.
[25]Rollo, p. 32.
[26]CArollo, pp. 30-53. Brief for the Accused-Appellant.
[27]Rollo, pp. 15, 17.
[28]Id.at 20.
[29]Id.at 21-22.
[30]Id.at 22.
[31]Seerollo, pp. 36-40, Manifestation (In Lieu of Supplemental Brief).
[32]TSN, AAA, April 19, 2017, pp. 10-11.
[33]SeePeople v. AAA, 876 Phil. 639, 650 (2020) [Per C.J. Peralta, First Division].
[34]Rollo, pp. 15-16.
[35]People v. XXX, 856 Phil. 408, 420 (2019) [Per J. Lazaro-Javier, Second Division].
[36]CArollo, p. 44.
[37]Id.at 43.
[38]TSN, AAA, April 19, 2017, p. 15.
[39]918-A Phil. 726 (2021) [Per J. Caguioa, First Division].
[40]Id.at 740.
[41]810 Phil. 881 (2017) [Per J. Tijam, Third Division].
[42]Id.at 892.
[43]422 Phil. 640 (2001) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
[44]Id.at 646.
[45]734 Phil. 332 (2014) [Per J. Mendoza, Third Division].
[46]Id.at 347.
[47]RTC records, p. 13.
[48]TSN, CCC, August 29, 2017, p. 3; TSN, DDD, August 22, 2017, p. 3.
[49]G.R. No. 257134, February 6, 2023 [Per J. Kho, Jr., Second Division].
[50]Id.at 13. This pinpoint citation refers to the copy of the Decision uploaded to the Supreme Court website.
[51]The Domestic Administrative Adoption and Alternative Child Care Act.
[52]SEC. 41. Legitimacy. - the adoptee shall be considered the legitimate child of the adopter for all intents and purposes and as such in entitled to all the rights and obligations provided by law to legitimate children born to them without discrimination of any kind. To this end, the adoptee is entitled to love, guidance, and support in keeping with the means of the family. The legitimate filiation that is created between the adopter and adoptee shall be extended to the adopter's parents, adopter's legitimate siblings, and legitimate descendants.
The adopter is also given the right to choose the name by which the child is to be known, consistent with the best interest of the child.
[53]Republic Act No. 11642, Implementing Rules and Regulations (2002), sec. 69.
[54]G.R. Nos. 241494, 256660 & 256078, April 3, 2024 [Per J. Singh,En Banc].
[55]Id.at 43-44. This pinpoint citation refers to the copy of the Decision uploaded to the Supreme Court website.
[56]783 Phil. 806 (2016) [Per J. Peralta,En Banc].
G.R. No. 261962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff-appellee,v. XXX,[1]Accused-appellant.
CONCURRING OPINION
CAGUIOA,J.:
I agree with theponenciathat the prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant XXX had carnal knowledge of AAA[2], who was just 10 years old at the time of the incident. Likewise, I concur in finding that XXX committed statutory rape, not qualified rape of a minor.
For one to be convicted of qualified rape of a minor, the twin circumstances of minority and relationship must be present.[3]Minority here means that the victim is below the statutory age;[4]while relationship means that 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:[5]Otherwise, if only minority is present, the accused should be convicted of statutory rape.
Here, the minority of AAA is undisputed;[6]however, relationship is wanting. While it is expressly stated in the Information that XXX is AAA's relative by consanguinity within the third civil degree,[7]the parents of AAA divulged during trial that AAA was adopted.[8]Therefore, XXX and AAA are not related to each other.
I.
Republic Act No. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 expanded the definition of rape under Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code and added that the crime shall be qualified when, among others, the victim is a minor 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.
When Republic Act No. 8353 was passed, the prevailing rule in adoption cases was thatthe relationship created by adoption was limited only to the adopter and the adoptee(henceforth, the "doctrine of exclusivity").
The doctrine of exclusivity was first set out by the Court in the landmark case ofTeotico v. Del Van Chan[9](Teotico). In brief,Teoticoinvolved the probate of the will of a certain Maria MorterayBalsalobre Vda. De Aguirre (Maria) who died without issue in July 1955. Ana del Val Chan (Ana), claiming to be an adopted child of Francisca Mortera (Francisca), the deceased sister of Maria, opposed the probate. According to the Court, Ana may not intervene in the probate proceeding since she did not have any interest in the estate, in the will, or in the property to be affected by it. The Court ruled that she is not an heir of Maria since she is only an adopted daughter of Francisca. Under the law, the relationship created by adoption is exclusive only to the adopter and the adoptee. Thus, "no relationship is created between the adopted and the collaterals of the adopting parents,"[10]viz.:
The oppositor cannot also derive comfort from the fact that she is an adopted child of Francisca Mortera becauseunder our law the relationship established by adoption is limited solely to the adopter and the adopted and does not extend to the relatives of the adopting parents or of the adopted child except only as expressly provided for by law. Hence, no relationship is created between the adopted and the collaterals of the adopting parents. As a consequence, the adopted is an heir of the adopter but not of the relatives of the adopter.
The relationship established by the adoption, however, is limited to the adopting parent, and does not extend to his [or her] other relatives, except as expressly provided by law.Thus, the adopted child cannot be considered as a relative of the ascendants and collaterals of the adopting parents, nor of the legitimate children which they may have after the adoption, except that the law imposes certain impediments to marriage by reason of adoption. Neither are the children of the adopted considered as descendants of the adopter. The relationship created is exclusively between, the adopter and the adopted, and does not extend to the relatives of either.(Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. 1, p. 652)
Relationship by adoption islimited to adopter and adopted, and does not extend to other members of the family of either; but the adopted is prohibited to marry the children of the adopter to avoid scandal." (An Outline of Philippines Civil law by Justice Jose B. L. Reyes and Ricardo C. Puno, Vol. 1, p. 313;See alsoCaguioa, Comments and Cases on Civil Law, 1955, Vol. 1, pp. 312-313; Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines, 1959 ed., Vol. 1, p. 515)[11](Emphasis supplied)
The doctrine of exclusivity inTeoticowas reiterated by the Court inSayson v. Court of Appeals[12](1992),Reyes v. Elquiero[13](2020), and inPeople v. XXX257134[14](XXX251734) (2023), which also involved sexual abuse cases.
InXXX257134, the Court did not appreciate the qualifying circumstance of relationship because under the doctrine of exclusivity, the victim and the accused therein were not related to each other, the latter being only the "adoptive uncle" of the victim. Thus, the accused therein was convicted of sexual assault in its simple form only.
Since the crime was committed by XXX in 2012, the doctrine of exclusivity must likewise be applied herein. Considering that AAA is only an adopted daughter of XXX's sister, AAA and XX are likewise not related to each other. Accordingly, XXX should be convicted of statutory rape since the qualifying circumstance of relationship is absent.
II.
I am mindful that under Republic Act No. 11642 or the Domestic Administrative Adoption and Alternative Child Care Act of 2022, the State has unequivocally pronounced that the legitimate filiation that is created between the adopter and the adoptee shall be extended to the adopter's parents, adopter's legitimate siblings, and legitimate descendants.[15]The Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 11642 provide that the effect of adoption shall retroact to the date the petition for adoption is filed.[16]Accordingly, with the enactment of Republic Act No. 11642, an adoptee gains a family, not just a parent.
However, even with the provision on the retroactive application of Republic Act No. 11642, the law may not be applied to the crime committed by XXX in 2012 because of the Constitutional prohibition againstex post facto laws. In brief, an ex post facto lawrefers to:
One — (a) which makes an action done before the passing of the law and which was innocent when done criminal, and punishes such action; or(b) which aggravates a crime or makes it greater than it was when committed; or (c) which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when it was committed;or (d) which alters the legal rules of evidence and receives less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict the defendant; or (e) which assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only but in effect imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right which when done was lawful; or (f) which deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he [or she] has become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty.[17](Emphasis supplied)
Under Republic Act No. 11642, the filiation created by adoption between AAA and her adopters is extended to the latter's legitimate siblings, making XXX and AAA related to each other within the third civil degree. Since Republic Act No. 11642 will qualify the crime committed by XXX, the Court cannot apply the provisions of said law in the present case.
In view of the foregoing, ICONCURthat XXX should be held liable for statutory rape and not qualified rape of a minor.
[1]In line with Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017, titled "Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders Using Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances," the names of the private offended parties, along with all other personal circumstances that may tend to establish their identities, are made confidential to protect their privacy and dignity.
[2]Id.
[3]People v. ABC260708, G.R. No. 260708, January 23, 2024 [Per J. M. Lopez,En Banc],available athttps://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/69314.
[4]The term "statutory age" shall mean either "below 12 years old" or "under 16 years old" depending on whether the crime of rape was committed before or after the effectivity of Republic Act No. 11648, respectively.Seeid.
[5]Republic Act No. 8353, sec. 2.
[6]Ponencia, p. 11.
[7]Id.at 2.
[8]Id.at 11.
[9]121 Phil. 392 (1965) [Per J. Bautista,En Banc].
[10]Id.at 398.
[11]Id.
[12]282 Phil. 332 (1992) [Per J. Cruz, First Division].
[13]881 Phil. 66 (2020) [Per J. Gaerlan, Third Division].
[14]G.R. No. 257134, February 6, 2023 [Per J. Kho, Second Division], available athttps://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/69094.
[15]Section 41.Legitimacy.— The adoptee shall be considered the legitimate child of the adopter for all intents and purposes and as such in entitled to all the rights and obligations provided by law to legitimate children born to them without discrimination of any kind. To this end, the adoptee is entitled to love, guidance, and support in keeping with the means of the family. The legitimate filiation that is created between the adopter and adoptee shall be extended to the adopter's parents, adopter's legitimate siblings, and legitimate descendants.
The adopter is also given the right to choose the name by which the child is to be known, consistent with the best interest of the child.
[16]Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 11642, art. VI, sec. 69.
[17]Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto, 572 Phil. 71, 86-87 (2008).