G.R. No. 244609 , September 8, 2020
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. XXX, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, XXX, was charged with rape in relation to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610, the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act. The information alleged that on May 8, 2012, XXX, the brother-in-law of the 13-year-old victim AAA, dragged her while she was sleeping, undressed her, and had carnal knowledge against her will. He threatened to kill her mother if she reported the incident. AAA later disclosed the rape to her sister-in-law and the police. A medical examination confirmed penetration of her vaginal orifice.
XXX pleaded not guilty and presented a defense of denial. He claimed he was sleeping in a different room and maintained a good relationship with AAA and his live-in partner. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted XXX of rape under R.A. 7610, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the award of damages and clarified that the applicable law was R.A. 8353 (The Anti-Rape Law of 1997), not R.A. 7610.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellant for the crime of rape.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but corrected the legal basis. The Court upheld the factual findings of the lower courts, giving great weight to the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility. AAA’s testimony was clear, consistent, and categorical in detailing how XXX dragged her, undressed her, inserted his penis into her vagina, and covered her mouth to prevent her from shouting. This positive identification overcame XXX’s bare denial.
However, the Supreme Court agreed with the CA’s clarification on the applicable law. For a conviction under Section 5(b) of R.A. 7610, the prosecution must prove that the child was exploited in prostitution or other sexual abuse. The Court, citing People v. Tulagan, held that sexual intercourse with a child, even if consensual, is deemed child abuse under R.A. 7610 only when the child is exploited for monetary consideration or profit. In this case, the prosecution failed to prove that AAA was subjected to such exploitation or was a child exploited in prostitution. Therefore, the proper crime is rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 8353. The Court affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, each set at P75,000.00, with legal interest.