G.R. No. 187742 ; April 20, 2010
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Crizaldo Pacheco y Villanueva, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

An Information charged accused-appellant Crizaldo Pacheco, the stepfather of AAA, with the rape of AAA, a nine-year-old minor, on or about January 7, 2002, in Malabon City, by means of force and intimidation. The prosecution presented AAA, who testified that accused-appellant raped her multiple times, with the last incident occurring at around 2:00 a.m. on January 7, 2002. She was awakened as he removed her clothes, mounted her, inserted his penis into her vagina, and made pumping movements. She felt pain but could not cry out due to his threats of physical harm. She later revealed the abuse to a teacher, leading to a report to Bantay Bata ABS-CBN and the police. Police Senior Inspector Ruby Grace Sabino, a medico-legal officer, testified that her examination revealed AAA had a deep healed hymenal laceration. The defense presented only accused-appellant, who denied the rape, claimed AAA bore a grudge because he spanked her, and alleged that his brother-in-law had previously molested AAA. The Regional Trial Court convicted accused-appellant of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay civil indemnity and moral damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC Decision in toto.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty of the crime charged despite the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court ruled that the crime committed was statutory rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, which requires only two elements: (1) carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) that the woman was below 12 years of age. Force, intimidation, and physical evidence of injury are not required for statutory rape. AAA’s credible, positive, and straightforward testimony, corroborated by medical findings of a hymenal laceration, sufficiently established carnal knowledge. The Court rejected accused-appellant’s defenses: (1) The victim’s failure to shout or resist was immaterial, as the law presumes a child below 12 cannot have a will of her own, and her submission was explained by accused-appellant’s moral ascendancy and previous beatings; (2) Rape can be committed even in the presence of others, as “lust is no respecter of time and place”; (3) The alleged grudge from a spanking was an insufficient motive for a young girl to fabricate a serious rape accusation; and (4) The medical finding of a healed laceration did not negate rape. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed. The Court also modified the damages, awarding PhP50,000 as civil indemnity, PhP50,000 as moral damages, and PhP30,000 as exemplary damages.