G.R. No. 234841 June 3, 2019
MANUEL BARALLAS RAMILO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Manuel Barallas Ramilo was charged with rape through sexual assault under Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) for allegedly inserting his finger into the vagina of his 12-year-old daughter, AAA, on August 27, 2013. AAA testified that her father threatened to kill her if she reported the act. She later disclosed the abuse to her school principal, leading to Manuel’s arrest. The medico-legal examination, however, revealed no hymenal lacerations or physical injuries. Manuel denied the accusation, claiming it was fabricated due to familial discord, particularly instigated by his eldest daughter, BBB, who had also previously accused him of abuse.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Manuel of rape through sexual assault under the RPC, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty, holding that the crime should be prosecuted under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 (the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act) as the victim was a child below eighteen years old. It imposed the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as the qualifying circumstance of relationship was not alleged in the information.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly convicted the petitioner under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 instead of Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction under R.A. No. 7610. The Court clarified the applicable law based on the victim’s age and the nature of the act. For victims twelve years old or below, sexual assault is prosecuted under the RPC as rape. For victims above twelve but below eighteen, the act constitutes child abuse under R.A. No. 7610, provided the elements of the law are present. Here, AAA was twelve years old at the time of the incident. The Court applied the ruling in People v. Caoili, which established that for a victim who had just turned twelve, the crime falls under R.A. No. 7610 if the prosecution proves the accused committed the act with the “coercion or influence” attendant to the abuse of authority or moral ascendancy.
The Court found that the element of coercion was satisfied by Manuel’s threat to kill AAA, coupled with his moral ascendancy as her father. The absence of physical injuries does not negate the commission of lascivious conduct. The qualifying circumstance of relationship, while proven, could not increase the penalty under R.A. No. 7610 as it was not specifically alleged in the information. Thus, the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period, ranging from fourteen years, eight months, and one day to seventeen years and four months, was correctly imposed. The Court also affirmed the award of damages, including civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages.