GR No 229861

People of the Philippines vs Francisco Ejercito

GR No 229861         July 2, 2018

Facts:

            Ejercito was charged with the crime of rape defined and penalized under Article 266-A, in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 8353 otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997.

            On October 2001, AAA, then a 15-year-old high school student was cleaning the chicken cage at the back of their house when she saw Ejercito pointing a gun at her and dragged her to a nearby barn, removed her shorts and underwear, while he undressed and himself on top of her. After Ejercito finished the sexual act, he casually walked away and warned AAA not to tell anybody or else her parents will get killed. The following day, AAA was absent from school and she headed to CCC, her aunt, whom she confided the incident. AAA moved to the city but Ejercito was able to track her; AAA became his sex slave then later a paramour. After rehabilitation, AAA confided with BBB, her mother, about the rape incident back in 2001. A complaint was filed against Ejercito.

            The RTC found Ejercito guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. He appealed to CA which affirmed the RTC ruling. Hence, Ejercito appealed with the SC.

Issue:

            WON Ejercito’s conviction must be upheld.

Held:

            The appeal is without merit.

            SC held that for a charge of rape by sexual intercourse under Art 266-A (1) of the RPC, as amended by RA 8353, to prosper, the prosecution must prove that a) the offender had a carnal knowledge of a woman; and b) he accomplished this act under the circumstances mentioned in the provision. The gravamen of rape is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will.

            In this case, the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the presence of all elements of rape by sexual intercourse through AAA’s positive testimony. The RTC, as affirmed by CA, found AAA’s testimony to be credible, noting further that Ejercito failed to establish any ill motive on her part which could have compelled her to falsely accuse him of the aforesaid act.

            The Court remains mindful of the Section 5(b) of RA 7610 which equally penalizes those who commit sexual abuse by means of either a) sexual intercourse, or b) lascivious conduct against a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. In this case, it has been established that Ejercito committed the act of sexual intercourse against and without the consent of AAA, who was only 15 years of age at the time. As such, she is considered under the law as a child who is exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse.

            There being two laws that punish sexual abuse, both may theoretically apply to the same case. They should be harmonized is possible and if there is any conflict, then the one that deals with a part of the same subject in a more detailed way shall prevail whether it was passed prior to the general statute.

            Hence, Ejercito being charged and convicted of having sexual intercourse with a minor, provisions under RA 8353 should prevail over RA 7610.