G.R. No. 221443 July 17, 2017
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. DOMINADOR LADRA, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

The case involves two incidents. The first occurred between 2000 and 2001 in Balingasag, Misamis Oriental, when private complainant AAA was around five years old. Accused-appellant Dominador Ladra, a relative allowed to stay with AAA’s family, raped AAA on multiple occasions while she and her siblings were under his care. He threatened to kill her if she reported the abuse. The second incident occurred on April 16, 2008, when AAA was twelve. Ladra suddenly appeared in their kitchen and squeezed her vagina. This act prompted AAA to reveal the past rapes to her cousin and mother, leading to a barangay report, a police blotter entry, and a medical examination. The medical report confirmed old, healed lacerations in AAA’s genitalia.
The accused-appellant was charged with violation of Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 (child abuse) for the rape and with Acts of Lasciviousness for the 2008 incident. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of Statutory Rape and, instead of Acts of Lasciviousness, found him guilty of the lesser offense of Unjust Vexation for the squeezing incident. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The core issues were whether the RTC correctly convicted Ladra of Statutory Rape based on the information for child abuse, and whether his act of squeezing AAA’s vagina constituted Unjust Vexation.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. On the rape charge, the Court held that an information for child abuse under RA 7610 can sustain a conviction for Statutory Rape under the Revised Penal Code. The rationale is that the allegations in the information—specifically, the carnal knowledge of a child below twelve years old—inherently constitute the elements of Statutory Rape: sexual intercourse with a woman under twelve, regardless of consent. The variance between the crime charged (child abuse) and the crime proved (Statutory Rape) did not prejudice the accused, as the facts alleged clearly informed him of the nature and cause of the accusation. AAA’s credible, categorical testimony, corroborated by medical findings of healed lacerations, established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Regarding the 2008 incident, the Court agreed with the lower courts that the prosecution failed to prove lewd design or intent to gratify sexual desire, which is essential for Acts of Lasciviousness. However, the act of suddenly squeezing AAA’s vagina was a form of coercion that caused annoyance, thereby constituting the crime of Unjust Vexation under Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty and fines imposed by the RTC were affirmed. The Court modified the damages for rape, increasing civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to ₱100,000.00 each, following prevailing jurisprudence.