G.R. No. 249307 , August 27, 2020
BBB, Petitioner, vs. The People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner BBB, a minor at the time of the incident, was charged with Rape by Sexual Assault under Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Republic Act No. 7610 (RA 7610). The Information alleged that on November 14, 2012, in North Cotabato, petitioner, acting with discernment and with lewd design, inserted his finger into the genitalia of AAA, an 11-year-old child, against her will. Petitioner pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution’s version, as testified by AAA, was that she was invited by a classmate to go to a house where petitioner was present. After being left alone with petitioner, he asked if she had her monthly period, lowered her pants and underwear, kissed her cheek, and inserted his forefinger into her vagina. She felt pain, pulled up her clothes, and ran out. A medical examination revealed an old hymenal abrasion. The defense’s version was that petitioner and AAA were in a romantic relationship. On the said date, AAA went to the house where he was to confront him about rumors of another girlfriend. He consoled her, hugged her, and kissed her cheek, but denied any sexual assault.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), in its Decision dated July 6, 2018, found petitioner guilty as charged in its dispositive portion, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty and awarding damages. However, in the body of its decision, the RTC concluded that since the medical report stated the hymen was intact, petitioner committed acts of lasciviousness, not rape by sexual assault. The Court of Appeals (CA), in its Decision dated August 29, 2019, affirmed the conviction for Rape by Sexual Assault, modified the penalty, and ordered the case remanded to the trial court for appropriate disposition under the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding petitioner guilty of rape by sexual assault.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in applying the penalty under RA 7610 to petitioner, a minor offender.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision with modifications.
On the first issue, the Court held that the CA correctly affirmed the conviction for Rape by Sexual Assault. The Court found AAA’s testimony credible, consistent, and straightforward, and it was corroborated by the medical finding of an old hymenal abrasion. The defense’s arguments on AAA’s behavior were untenable, as a child victim cannot be expected to react as an adult. The RTC’s factual findings, affirmed by the CA, are accorded great weight. The discrepancy in the RTC decision—where the body discussed acts of lasciviousness but the dispositive portion convicted for rape—was resolved in favor of the dispositive portion, as it is the final order of the court. The evidence sufficiently established all elements of rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A(2).
On the second issue, the Court held that the proper penalty should be based on the Revised Penal Code (RPC), not RA 7610, because petitioner was a minor at the time of the offense. Applying RA 7610, which prescribes a higher penalty, to a minor offender would contravene the protective intent of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act. The Court modified the penalty. Applying Article 266-B of the RPC in relation to Article 68(2) (as petitioner was over 15 but under 18), the penalty next lower than prision mayor in its medium period should be imposed. The indeterminate sentence was adjusted to six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as maximum. The awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages were increased to P75,000.00 each, with interest at 6% per annum from finality until fully paid. The case was ordered remanded to the trial court for execution of the judgment and appropriate disposition under the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act.