G.R. No. 219889 January 29, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. EDWIN DAGSA y BANTAS @ “WING WING”, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

Accused-appellant Edwin Dagsa was charged with the rape of AAA, a four-year-old child. The prosecution alleged that on October 11, 2004, Dagsa, a cousin of AAA’s father, stopped AAA and her two classmates on their way home. He told the classmates to leave, promising to give AAA candy. The classmates later looked back and saw Dagsa remove AAA’s panty and fondle her vagina. Upon arriving home, AAA immediately removed her panty. The next day, while bathing, she told her mother, BBB, that her vagina was painful because Dagsa had “played with” it and inserted his penis. BBB reported the incident to the police after speaking with AAA’s classmates.
At trial, the prosecution presented AAA’s mother, her two classmates, the investigating police officer, and a psychologist. AAA herself was not presented as a witness. The defense presented no evidence. The Regional Trial Court convicted Dagsa of rape, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Dagsa appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the evidence was insufficient and largely hearsay.

ISSUE

Whether the accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court acquitted accused-appellant Edwin Dagsa of rape but found him guilty of the lesser offense of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Republic Act No. 7610 . The legal logic is anchored on the variance between the offense charged and the offense proved, governed by Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 120 of the Rules of Court. The prosecution failed to establish the essential element of carnal knowledge (sexual intercourse) required for rape under Article 266-A. The direct eyewitness accounts of AAA’s classmates only proved that Dagsa removed AAA’s panty and fondled her vagina. AAA’s out-of-court statement to her mother about penile insertion was inadmissible as it did not qualify as part of the res gestae; it was not spontaneous but was made in response to her mother’s questioning the following day.
However, the evidence conclusively proved the elements of Acts of Lasciviousness: the lewd fondling of a child’s genitalia. Since this offense is necessarily included in the crime of rape as charged, a conviction for the lesser offense is legally permissible. The Court modified the penalties and awards accordingly, imposing an indeterminate prison term and damages pursuant to RA 7610. The acquittal for rape was based on the prosecution’s failure to meet the quantum of proof beyond reasonable doubt for that specific crime, while the conviction for the included offense was justified by the evidence actually presented and admitted.