GR No 151085

Joemar Ortega vs People of the Philippines

GR No 151085        August 20, 2008

Facts:

          Ortega was about 14 years of age when he was charged with a crime of rape in two separate Information for allegedly raping AAA, who was then about 8 years of age. Apparently, there were two conflicting stories as to what happened during the time which AAA alleged to have been raped by Ortega.

         The RTC held that the defenses of denial by Ortega cannot prevail over the positive identification by AAA and BBB who testified with honesty and credibility as to the person of Ortega. The imposed penalty was imprisonment for a period of 6 six years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to 15 years of reclusion temporal as maximum. Ortega appealed.

        CA affirmed the ruling of RTC holding that the positive identification of Ortega by AAA and BBB were categorical, consistent, and without showing any ill motive. It also ruled that the respective medical examinations were irrelevant as it is established that the slightest penetration of the lips of the female organ consummates rape. Again, Ortega assailed the decision.

Issue:

          WON Ortega may avail of the benefit given by law under RA No 9344.

Held:

          Yes, Ortega may avail of the same.

          SC was convinced that Ortega committed the crime of rape against AAA. In a prosecution for rape, the complainant’s candor is the single most important factor. If the complainant’s testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused can be convicted solely on that basis.

          However, for one who acts by virtue of any of the exempting circumstances, although he commits a crime, by the complete absence of any of the conditions which constitute freewill or voluntariness of the act, no criminal liability arises. Therefore, while there is a crime committed, no criminal liability attaches.

       What is controlling, though, with respect to the exemption from criminal liability of the child in conflict with the law, is not his age at the time of the promulgation of the judgment but his age at the time of the commission of the offense.

       It bears stressing that Ortega was only 13 years old at the time of the commission of the alleged rape. This was duly proven by the certificate of live birth, by petitioner’s own testimony, and by the testimony of his mother.

          

            Hence, Ortega may avail of the benefit given by the law under RA No 9344.

GR No 182941

Robert Sierra vs People of the Philippines

GR No 182941        July 3, 2009

Facts:

        Sierra was a 15-year old minor. He was accused of unlawfully and feloniously having sexual intercourse with AAA, his 13-year old sister. In his defense, Sierra claimed that he was selling cigarettes at the time of the alleged rape and that AAA only invented the story because she bore him a grudge for the beatings he gave her.

        The RTC convicted Sierra of qualified rape, imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Sierra then elevated the decision to CA by attacking AAA’s credibility. He also invoked Section 6 (1) of RA No 9344, otherwise known as the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 to exempt him from the criminal liability considering he was only 15 years old at the time the crime was committed.

      CA nevertheless affirmed the RTC decision with modification as to the penalty. It held Sierra to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of reclusion temporal maximum. Hence, the petition to the SC.

Issue:

     WON Sierra may avail of RA 9344 with minority as an exempting circumstance.

Held:

      Yes, Sierra may avail of the said law.

     RA No 9344 merely amended Article 192 of PD No 603, as amended, in that the suspension of sentence shall be enjoyed by the juvenile even if he is already 18 years of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt. Evidently, the intention of the Congress was to maintain the other disqualification as provided in Article 192 of PD no 603, as amended, and Section 32 of AM No 02-1-18-SC.

     Hence, juveniles who have been convicted of a crime with the imposable penalty of reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua to death, or death, are disqualified from having their sentences suspended.

        According to SC, RA No 9344 was enacted into law on April 28, 2006 and took effect on May 20, 2008. Its intent is to promote and protect the rights of a child in conflict with the law or a child at risk by providing a system that would ensure that children are dealt with in a manner appropriate to their well-being through a variety of disposition measures such as care, guidance and supervision order, counselling, probation, foster care, education and vocational training program and other alternatives to institutional care. More importantly, the law modifies the minimum age limit of criminal responsibility for minor offenders.

         The current law drew its changes from the principle of restorative justice that it espouses; it considers the ages 9-15 years as formative years and gives minors of this age to right their wrong through diversion and intervention measures.

GR No 227363

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

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.