G.R. No. 187083 ; June 13, 2011
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Eduardo Dahilig y Agaran, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

The accused, Eduardo Dahilig, and the private complainant, AAA, were both house helpers employed by Karen Gomez. AAA was 16 years old at the time of the incident, having been born on August 17, 1984. An Information dated August 6, 2001, charged Dahilig with Rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed on or about December 17, 2000, in San Juan, Metro Manila, by means of force and intimidation, and by taking advantage of night time and the dwelling of the complainant.
The prosecution’s version, as testified by AAA, was that at around 4:00 a.m. on December 17, 2000, while she was sleeping on the floor, Dahilig touched her, pinned her down, removed her clothes, and had forcible sexual intercourse with her despite her resistance and shouts for help from her co-helper, Roxanne, who was asleep. The following day, AAA confronted Dahilig, who then left their employer’s house. AAA reported the incident to their employer, leading to Dahilig’s arrest. A medico-legal examination revealed a healing hymenal laceration consistent with loss of virginity around December 17, 2000.
The defense, presented solely by the accused, claimed that the sexual intercourse was consensual as AAA was his girlfriend. He testified that they had a prior consensual sexual encounter in November 2000 and that on the morning of December 17, 2000, AAA moved beside him on the floor and they made love, with Roxanne awake. He left later that day after a quarrel between AAA and Roxanne. He later attempted to fetch AAA for marriage but was unsuccessful and was eventually arrested.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Dahilig of Rape, giving credence to AAA’s consistent testimony and rejecting the uncorroborated “sweetheart defense.” The RTC sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay AAA ₱50,000 as moral damages and ₱50,000 as civil indemnity.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s factual findings but modified the conviction. The CA held that since AAA was a minor (16 years old) at the time of the act, the crime committed was Child Abuse under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 (The Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act), and not Rape under the Revised Penal Code. The CA sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of 11 years of prision mayor, as minimum, to 17 years, 4 months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and affirmed the awards of damages.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly convicted the accused-appellant of the crime of Child Abuse under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 instead of Rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION the Decision of the Court of Appeals.
The Court upheld the CA’s finding that the accused is guilty of Child Abuse under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 . The law defines a “child” as a person below eighteen (18) years of age. Since AAA was 16 years old at the time of the sexual intercourse, which the accused admitted, all the elements of child abuse were present: 1) the accused had carnal knowledge of AAA; 2) AAA was a child at the time (16 years old); and 3) the act was committed under circumstances of sexual abuse.
The Court rejected the accused’s “sweetheart defense” for lack of clear and convincing corroborative evidence. It found AAA’s testimony credible, straightforward, and consistent. The medico-legal finding of a healing hymenal laceration corroborated her claim of recent sexual intercourse.
Regarding the proper penalty, the Court applied Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610 , which prescribes the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period (14 years, 8 months, and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months) for acts of child prostitution and other sexual abuse. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the imposable penalty was within the range of 14 years, 8 months, and 1 day to 20 years. The CA’s imposed indeterminate penalty of 11 years of prision mayor (minimum) to 17 years, 4 months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal (maximum) was within the statutory range and was thus affirmed.
The awards of ₱50,000 as civil indemnity and ₱50,000 as moral damages were also affirmed.
The dispositive portion of the Supreme Court’s Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated October 29, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01488 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant EDUARDO DAHILIG y AGARAN is found GUILTY of child abuse under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 and is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of eleven (11) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. He is ordered to pay AAA the amounts of Fifty Thousand Pesos (₱50,000.00) as civil indemnity and Fifty Thousand Pesos (₱50,000.00) as moral damages. The period of his preventive detention shall be credited in his favor.