G.R. No. 247234 . August 22, 2022.
BBB247234, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner BBB247234 was charged with multiple counts of child abuse and rape by sexual assault against his minor niece, KKK247234, and nephew, LLL247234. For KKK, the Information alleged that on July 2, 2010, he inserted his fingers into the vagina of the then 3-year-old child. For LLL, a separate Information alleged that in November 2011, the accused performed various sexual acts upon the then 5-year-old boy, including oral sex and anal penetration with a finger. The crimes were aggravated by relationship, the accused being the children’s uncle by affinity.
During trial, the child victims testified with clarity. LLL247234 recounted the specific sexual acts performed on him by “Papa BBB247234” inside a bedroom. KKK247234, using a teddy bear as an aid, demonstrated how the accused poked her vagina with his finger. Their testimonies were corroborated by the medical findings of Dr. Marcelo Orong, who documented healed hymenal lacerations on KKK and anal lesions on LLL consistent with the insertion of a blunt object. The Regional Trial Court convicted BBB247234 of two counts of rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the guilt of the petitioner for two counts of rape by sexual assault was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The Court meticulously applied the rules on evaluating a child witness’s testimony, emphasizing that the testimony of a child-victim is given full weight and credit, especially when the details are spontaneous and consistent. The Court found the testimonies of both KKK and LLL credible, natural, and convincing. Their young age at the time of the incidents rendered them incapable of fabricating such depraved acts. Their narratives were corroborated by the medical evidence, which objectively showed injuries consistent with sexual assault.
The legal logic centered on the elements of rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A(2). The Court held that the acts committed—inserting a finger into a female child’s vagina and performing fellatio on a male child—constitute sexual assault, defined as an act of sexual penetration through the use of any instrument or object. The law does not require the instrument to be inanimate; a finger qualifies as an “object.” Furthermore, the act of fellatio, where the accused inserted his penis into the child’s mouth, is a form of penetration that constitutes rape by sexual assault. The Court rejected the petitioner’s defenses of denial and alibi, which are inherently weak against the positive and categorical identification by the victims. The aggravating circumstances of minority and relationship were duly proven, warranting the imposition of the proper penalties.