G.R. No. 265439 , November 13, 2023
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. XXX265439, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant XXX265439, then 17 years old, was charged with three counts of qualified statutory rape against his nine-year-old niece, AAA265439. The incidents allegedly occurred on February 18 and 19, 2010. The prosecution presented AAA’s testimony detailing how the accused, on the first occasion, sent her younger brother away before sexually assaulting her. On the second day, he allegedly threatened her before committing the act again, which was interrupted by the arrival of AAA’s mother, BBB265439. Medical examination confirmed a laceration on AAA’s hymen. The defense consisted solely of XXX’s denial, claiming he was never alone with the victim and that BBB had a history of abusing him.
The Regional Trial Court convicted XXX265439 of three counts of rape under Republic Act No. 7610 . Applying the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, it imposed the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period for each count. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua for each count, holding that the proper penalty for qualified statutory rape under the Revised Penal Code in relation to R.A. No. 7610 is reclusion perpetua to death, and that the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority only entitles the offender to the penalty one degree lower, which is reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of qualified statutory rape, considering the accused-appellant’s minority as a privileged mitigating circumstance.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals. The legal logic proceeds from the proper classification of the crime and the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The Court clarified that the accused was convicted of qualified statutory rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) and Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as the victim was under twelve years of age. The qualifying circumstance of relationship (uncle-niece) was also present. The prescribed penalty for this qualified offense is reclusion perpetua to death.
The Court then applied the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority under Article 68(2) of the Revised Penal Code, as the accused was over 15 but under 18 years old at the time of the crime. This circumstance mandates the imposition of the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law. Since the prescribed penalty is reclusion perpetua to death, the penalty one degree lower is reclusion perpetua. Therefore, the correct penalty for each count is reclusion perpetua. The Court further held that the Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply to offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua. Consequently, the Court of Appeals correctly modified the RTC decision to impose reclusion perpetua for each of the three counts of qualified statutory rape. The awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages were also affirmed with interest.