G.R. No. 208009, July 11, 2016
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Edilberto Pusing y Tamor, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Edilberto Pusing, was convicted for two counts of qualified rape and two counts of child abuse under Republic Act No. 7610. The victim, AAA, was his 12-year-old foster daughter with the cognitive ability of a nine-year-old. On April 5, 2004, while they were alone at home, Pusing sexually assaulted AAA by inserting his penis into her mouth, mashing her breasts, kissing her, licking her vagina, and finally having carnal knowledge of her. The following day, AAA’s cousin, BBB, was alerted by a neighbor and took custody of AAA. She then disclosed the assault to BBB and his wife, leading to a police report and a medical examination.
The Regional Trial Court found Pusing guilty. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions for two counts of qualified rape but modified the charges for child abuse, convicting him instead of two counts of acts of lasciviousness under the Revised Penal Code. Pusing appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and questioning the credibility of AAA’s testimony.

ISSUE

The core issue was whether the prosecution successfully proved Pusing’s guilt for the crimes of qualified rape and acts of lasciviousness beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the convictions with modifications. The Court upheld the credibility of AAA’s testimony, emphasizing that when a minor alleges rape, her testimony is accorded full weight and credit. The Court found AAA’s account of the sequential sexual acts to be clear, consistent, and credible. It ruled that the element of force or intimidation was subsumed by the qualifying circumstances of AAA’s minority and mental disability, which Pusing was aware of as her guardian. The Court affirmed the two convictions for qualified rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, qualified by the victim being under twelve years of age and demented.
Regarding the other acts, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that they constituted separate crimes of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, not child abuse under R.A. 7610. The Court explained that where the acts are covered by a special law (like the rape provisions), the other lewd acts not constituting rape should be prosecuted under the general penal law if they are distinct and separate occurrences. The acts of mashing AAA’s breasts and causing her to masturbate him were separate lascivious acts performed through force and intimidation. The Court modified the penalties accordingly, imposing reclusion perpetua for each count of qualified rape and indeterminate prison terms for the two counts of acts of lasciviousness. It also awarded civil indemnities, moral damages, and exemplary damages to the victim.