GR 182230; (September, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 182230; September 19, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EDGARDO LUPAC y FLORES, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
The accused-appellant, Edgardo Lupac, was charged with the statutory rape of his niece, AAA, who was alleged to be ten years old at the time of the incident on May 21, 1999. The prosecution’s version established that AAA was left alone in their house with Lupac. She fell asleep in a bedroom and awoke to find herself naked from the waist down, feeling pain in her genitalia. Lupac, clad only in his underwear, was standing nearby and apologized. AAA immediately reported the incident to a neighbor and later to her mother. A medico-legal examination confirmed a deep, fresh laceration on her hymen, consistent with recent sexual intercourse. Lupac denied the accusation, claiming alibi, and asserted he was not related to AAA.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Lupac of statutory rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and awarding damages. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified its characterization, finding the crime to be simple rape, not statutory rape, due to the prosecution’s failure to conclusively prove AAA was under twelve years old at the time of the commission of the crime. Lupac appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging AAA’s credibility.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the conviction of Edgardo Lupac for the crime of rape.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court upheld the findings of both lower courts regarding the credibility of the victim, AAA. The assessment of a witness’s credibility by the trial court is accorded great weight and respect, as it is in the best position to observe demeanor. Lupac failed to show any fact or circumstance that was overlooked which would alter this assessment.
On the legal characterization of the offense, the Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the crime committed was simple rape under Article 266-A(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code, not statutory rape. While the information alleged AAA was ten years old, the prosecution did not reliably establish her minority under twelve through competent evidence like a birth certificate. Her testimony alone on her age was insufficient for the qualifying circumstance of statutory rape. However, the element of lack of consent was duly proven. The evidence showed AAA was asleep and unconscious when the sexual intercourse was committed, which constitutes rape under the circumstance of the victim being deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. This mode was substantially alleged in the information. The Court sustained the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages.