G.R. No. 141647-51 March 6, 2002
People of the Philippines vs. Sailito Perez y Gazo

FACTS

Sailito Perez was charged with five counts of statutory rape against his 11-year-old niece, Jobelyn Ramos, in Malabon, Metro Manila, from January to February 1998. The prosecution’s evidence detailed a series of assaults. In the first incident, Perez pinned Jobelyn down, threatened her, and attempted penetration. Subsequent incidents involved similar attempts, an act of anal penetration, and lascivious conduct where he forced her to touch his penis and licked her private part. The defense presented denial and alibi, claiming Perez was working as a tricycle driver during the alleged incidents. They also alleged that the complaints were motivated by a grudge held by Jobelyn’s mother after Perez’s family refused her a loan.
The trial court convicted Perez. However, on appeal, the Supreme Court meticulously reviewed the evidence for each charge. It found that the prosecution failed to prove the completion of the crime of rape by sexual intercourse in several instances, as full penetration of the female organ was not established. The Court also noted Perez’s minority, being below 18 years old at the time of the crimes, as a privileged mitigating circumstance requiring a lowered penalty.

ISSUE

The primary issue was whether the trial court correctly convicted the accused-appellant of five counts of statutory rape based on the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. It upheld the conviction but reclassified the crimes based on the specific evidence for each count. The Court applied the legal principle that the crime of consummated rape requires proof of the penis touching at least the labia of the victim’s vagina. For counts where only attempts at vaginal penetration were proven, Perez was convicted of attempted rape. For the act of anal penetration, he was correctly convicted of rape under Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 8353. For the incident involving lascivious acts without attempted penetration, he was convicted of acts of lasciviousness.
The Court gave full credence to the victim’s candid and consistent testimony, which bore the hallmarks of truth, and found the defense of denial and alibi weak and unsubstantiated. The alleged ill-motive was deemed insufficient to overturn the positive identification. Consequently, with the mitigating circumstance of minority applied, the Court imposed corresponding reduced penalties for each reclassified offense and affirmed the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages.