People of the Philippines vs Salvador Tulagan
GR No 227363 March
12, 2019
Facts:
Tulagan was charged to have
committed crimes of sexual assault and statutory rape as defined and penalized
under Article 266-A, paragraphs 2 and 1 (d) of RPC, respectively in relation to
Article 266-B.
In September 2011, AAA then 9 years
of age, was peeling corn with her cousin when Tulagan approached her, spread
her legs and inserted his finger into his private part. On October 8 of the
same year, AAA was playing with her cousin in front of Tulagan’s house and he
brought AAA to his home and did sexual intercourse. Tulagan denied the charges
by an alibi, and claimed that his mother had a misunderstanding with AAA’s
grandmother, who later on started spreading rumors that he raped her
granddaughter.
The RTC found that the prosecution
successfully discharged the burden of proof in two offenses of rape against
Tulagan. It held that all elements of sexual assault and statutory rape were
duly established.
Upon appeal, CA affirmed RTC’s
conviction of Tulagan. Hence, appeal to SC.
Issue:
WON Tulagan may be held guilty of
the crime charged.
Held:
The petition has no merit. Factual
findings of the trial court carry great weight and respect due to the unique
opportunity afforded them to observe the witnesses when placed on the stand.
As correctly held by the CA, the
fact that some details testified to by AAA did not appear in her Sinumpaang
Sanaysay does not mean that the sexual assault did not happen. AAA was still
able to narrate all the details of the sexual assault she suffered in Tulagan’s
hands. AAA’s account of her ordeal being straightforward and candid and
corroborated by the medical findings of the examining physician as well as her
positive identification of Tulagan as the perpetrator of the crime is, thus,
sufficient to support a conviction of rape.
Defense of denial must also be
rejected. Being a negative defense, defense of denial, if not substantiated by
clear and convincing evidence, deserves no weight in law and cannot be given
greater evidentiary value than the testimony of the credible witnesses. Tulagan
must have established the physical impossibility for him to be at the locus
criminis when the rape incident took place.
SC took this opportunity to
reconcile provisions on under RPC on Acts of Lasciviousness, Rape and Sexual
Assault as amended by RA No 8353 and the Sexual Intercourse and Lascivious
Conduct under Section 5 (b) of RA No 7610.
For an accused to be convicted of
acts of lasciviousness, the confluence of the following essential elements must
be proven: 1) the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; and
2) it is done under any of the following circumstances: a) by using force or
intimidation; b) when the offended woman is deprived of reason or is otherwise
unconscious, or c) when the offended party is under 12 years of age.
If the acts constituting sexual
assault are committed against a victim under 12 years of age or is demented,
the nomenclature of the offense should be Sexual Assault RPC in relation to
Section 5 (b) or RA No 7610.
If the victim is 12 years old and
under 18 years old, or 18 years old and above under special circumstances, the
nomenclature of the crime should be Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b) of
RA No 7610.
Sexual intercourse with a victim who
is under 12 years old or is demented is statutory rape.
Elements
of rape under Article 266-A (1) under RPC:
1.
offender is a man
2.
carnal knowledge of a woman
3.
through force, threat or intimidation, when the offended party is deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious, and by means of fraudulent machination or
grave abuse of authority
Elements
of rape under Section 5 (1) of RA No 7610:
1.
offender is a man
2.
carnal knowledge of woman
3.
coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group is employed against the
child to become a prostitute
