G.R. No. 222654 . February 21, 2018.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROMEO GARIN y OSORIO, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Romeo Garin y Osorio, was charged with rape through sexual assault under Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Republic Act (RA) No. 7610. The Information alleged that on December 25, 2010, in Butuan City, he willfully inserted his finger into the vagina of “AAA,” a four-year-old minor, by means of force, threat, or intimidation, causing her mental, emotional, and psychological trauma. During arraignment, the appellant pleaded not guilty. The defense stipulated on the appellant’s identity, the victim’s minority, and the date of the incident.
The prosecution presented the testimonies of the victim “AAA,” her mother “BBB,” a witness, and a doctor. “AAA” testified that the appellant took her, placed her on his lap, inserted his finger into her vagina causing pain, and later chased and boxed her when she tried to escape. Her mother recounted discovering her daughter’s distressed state and learning of the assault. The defense presented the appellant and his mother, who claimed he was merely playing with the child and denied the accusation, though the appellant admitted to being with the victim at the material time.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the appellant’s guilt for rape through sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the appellant’s conviction but modified the penalty. The Court upheld the factual findings of the lower courts, emphasizing that the victim’s credible and categorical testimony, corroborated by her mother’s account of her immediate distressed condition, sufficiently established the commission of the crime. The defense of denial could not prevail over the positive identification and straightforward narration of the minor victim, whose testimony was consistent and unshaken.
On the legal qualification, the Court clarified that the crime committed is rape through sexual assault under Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code, as the act of inserting a finger into the vagina constitutes sexual penetration. However, since the Information was specifically framed under this provision in relation to RA 7610, and not under the special qualifying circumstances of RA 8353 (the Anti-Rape Law of 1997), the crime is not qualified rape. Consequently, the penalty should be that for rape in its simple form. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of eight years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages were affirmed in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.