People of the Philippines vs. Anthony Mabalo y Bacani

A conviction for Simple Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a) of the Revised Penal Code is proper when the prosecution fails to prove the victim's minority, even if the Information alleges that the victim was a minor. The prosecution bears the burden of proving the victim's age through a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents, or the testimony of the victim's mother or relatives; without such proof, the accused cannot be convicted under R.A. No. 7610, but may still be convicted of Simple Rape if all elements of the crime are established.

The accused-appellant, Anthony Mabalo y Bacani, was a boarder in a two-storey house in the City of xxxxxxxxxxx, where the private complainant, AAA, lived with her family. AAA was allegedly 14 years old at the time of the incident. The case involves the prosecution of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, in relation to R.A. No. 7610, which provides special protection against child abuse, exploitation, and discrimination. The distinction between Simple Rape under the Revised Penal Code and sexual abuse under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610 is central to the case, particularly regarding the prosecution's burden to prove the victim's age.

At around 12:30 a.m. of June 24, 2008, appellant arrived at the two-storey house where he boarded with his wife and the family of private complainant AAA, who was allegedly 14 years old at the time. AAA was alone in the living room watching television, while appellant's wife had left two days earlier after a quarrel. At 2:30 a.m., appellant came out of his room, approached AAA, and held her right thigh with his left hand. He pushed her to the floor, covered her mouth with his left hand, and used his right hand to pull down his pants and underwear. After exposing his penis, he lifted his hips, opened her legs, and inserted his manhood into her vagina. AAA felt pain in her abdomen while appellant made two pumping motions before ejaculating. AAA attempted to struggle but was weakened by her asthma. Appellant then told AAA not to tell anyone about what happened.

A few hours after the incident, AAA told her mother what happened while visiting her at her workplace. AAA and her mother then went to the xxxxxxxxxxx Police Station and executed a sworn statement. AAA was given a general physical examination and an anogenital examination at the Philippine General Hospital. The Final Medico-legal Report yielded findings "diagnostic of blunt force or penetrating trauma." On the same date, around 1:00 p.m., appellant was arrested.

Appellant denied raping AAA, claiming that at 3:00 a.m. of June 24, 2008, he was along xxxxxxxxxxx selling breakfast meals, soap, bread, and coffee, in the company of his relatives. He claimed he was shocked to learn of the accusation when he was invited to the barangay hall and confronted by AAA's mother. The prosecution presented the testimonies of AAA, SPO1 Solomon Santos, SPO1 Napoleon Reyes, and Dr. Merle Tan, while appellant testified in his own defense. The trial court found appellant guilty, and the CA affirmed, ruling that despite the prosecution's failure to prove AAA's minority, appellant could still be convicted of Simple Rape.

• Credibility of the Victim's Testimony: Appellant argued that the trial court erred in relying on AAA's testimony because it is not credible.
• Lack of Force, Intimidation, or Violence: Appellant argued that he did not employ force, intimidation, or violence upon AAA.
• Absence of Spermatozoa: Appellant claimed that the sexual organ of AAA was found negative for spermatozoa.
• Failure to Prove Minority: Appellant claimed that the prosecution failed to establish AAA's minority.

• Sufficiency of the Victim's Testimony: The prosecution maintained that AAA's clear and unwavering testimony detailing the circumstances of the rape was sufficient to sustain a conviction, as the lone testimony of a credible victim in rape cases is enough.
• Corroboration by Medico-Legal Evidence: The prosecution argued that AAA's positive identification of appellant was corroborated by the medico-legal report, which showed findings "diagnostic of blunt force or penetrating trauma," consistent with the victim's account.
• Weakness of Denial and Alibi: The prosecution contended that appellant's defenses of denial and alibi were inherently weak and could not prevail against the victim's positive and straightforward declarations, especially since appellant failed to prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene.

• Conviction under R.A. No. 7610 vs. Simple Rape: Whether appellant may be convicted of rape in relation to R.A. No. 7610 when the prosecution failed to prove the victim's minority.
• Credibility of the Victim's Testimony: Whether the trial court erred in relying on AAA's testimony as credible.
• Force, Intimidation, or Violence: Whether appellant employed force, intimidation, or violence upon AAA.
• Absence of Spermatozoa: Whether the negative finding of spermatozoa on the victim's sexual organ negates the commission of rape.
• Proof of Minority: Whether the prosecution failed to establish AAA's minority.

• Conviction under R.A. No. 7610 vs. Simple Rape: No. The conviction was for Simple Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, because the prosecution failed to prove AAA's minority, which is an essential element of sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610.
• Credibility of the Victim's Testimony: No error. The trial court's findings on credibility are generally not disturbed on appeal, and AAA's testimony was clear, unwavering, and detailed, with no motive to falsely incriminate appellant.
• Force, Intimidation, or Violence: Yes. The prosecution established that appellant used force and intimidation by holding AAA's thigh, pushing her to the floor, covering her mouth, and overpowering her despite her attempts to struggle.
• Absence of Spermatozoa: No. The absence of spermatozoa does not negate rape; the medico-legal report showing blunt force or penetrating trauma corroborates the victim's testimony, and medical findings are not an element of rape.
• Proof of Minority: Yes, the prosecution failed to establish AAA's minority. Without a certificate of live birth or other competent evidence of age, the Court deemed the crime committed as Simple Rape.

• Conviction under R.A. No. 7610 vs. Simple Rape: The Court distinguished between Simple Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a) of the Revised Penal Code and sexual abuse under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610. Citing People vs. Abay, the Court explained that if the victim is 12 years or older, the offender should be charged with either sexual abuse under R.A. No. 7610 or rape under Article 266-A (except paragraph 1[d]), but not both, as this would prejudice the right against double jeopardy. The essential elements of Section 5(b) are: (a) the accused commits sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (b) the act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and (c) the child is below 18 years of age. Since the prosecution failed to prove AAA's age through a certificate of live birth or other competent evidence, the Court agreed with the CA that the crime committed was Simple Rape.

• Credibility of the Victim's Testimony: The Court applied the well-entrenched principles in reviewing rape cases: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility, but it is difficult to prove and more difficult for the innocent accused to disprove; (2) the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits. The Court found that AAA related her ordeal in a clear and unwavering manner, and appellate courts generally do not disturb the trial court's findings on credibility, as the trial court is in a better position to observe the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying. No exception to this rule applied, as there was no showing that the trial court's evaluation was arbitrary or that it overlooked material facts.

• Force, Intimidation, or Violence: The Court found that the prosecution established the element of force and intimidation through AAA's detailed testimony that appellant held her right thigh, pushed her to the floor, covered her mouth, and inserted his penis into her vagina despite her attempts to struggle. Her asthma weakened her resistance, but the force employed by appellant was sufficient to overcome her will.

• Absence of Spermatozoa: The Court rejected appellant's argument that the negative finding of spermatozoa negates rape. The medico-legal report showing findings "diagnostic of blunt force or penetrating trauma" corroborated AAA's testimony. The Court noted that while medical findings are not an element of rape and cannot establish the identity of the perpetrator, they are corroborative of the victim's testimony that she was raped.

• Proof of Minority: The Court applied the guidelines in People vs. Pruna for determining the age of the victim, which require: (1) a certificate of live birth as the best evidence; (2) similar authentic documents such as baptismal certificates and school records in its absence; (3) the testimony of the victim's mother or family members under certain circumstances; (4) the complainant's testimony if expressly and clearly admitted by the accused; (5) the prosecution's burden to prove age; and (6) a categorical finding by the trial court as to the victim's age. Without a certificate of live birth or other means to ascertain AAA's age beyond doubt, the Court was constrained to deem the crime as Simple Rape.

• Distinction between Simple Rape and Sexual Abuse under R.A. No. 7610 — Under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, rape is committed through force, threat, or intimidation; when the offended party is deprived of reason or unconscious; by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; or when the offended party is under 12 years of age or demented. Under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, sexual abuse requires: (a) sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (b) performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and (c) the child is below 18 years of age. If the victim is 12 years or older, the offender should be charged with either sexual abuse under R.A. No. 7610 or rape under Article 266-A (except paragraph 1[d]), but not both, to avoid prejudice to the right against double jeopardy. Rape cannot be complexed with a violation of Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610, as a felony under the Revised Penal Code cannot be complexed with an offense under a special law.

• Guidelines for Determining the Age of the Victim (People vs. Pruna) — The Court established a hierarchy of evidence for proving the victim's age: (1) the best evidence is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth; (2) in its absence, similar authentic documents such as baptismal certificates and school records showing the date of birth; (3) if such documents are lost or unavailable, the clear and credible testimony of the victim's mother or a family member qualified to testify on pedigree, under specified circumstances; (4) in the absence of all the foregoing, the complainant's testimony will suffice if expressly and clearly admitted by the accused; (5) the prosecution bears the burden of proving the victim's age, and the accused's failure to object shall not be taken against him; and (6) the trial court should always make a categorical finding as to the victim's age.

• Credibility of the Victim in Rape Cases — In reviewing rape cases, the Court is guided by the principles that: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility, but it is difficult to prove and more difficult for the innocent accused to disprove; (2) the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits. The lone testimony of the victim, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. When a woman says she has been raped, she says, in effect, all that is necessary to show that she has indeed been raped, and a victim would not come out in the open if her motive were anything other than to obtain justice.

• Denial and Alibi as Defenses — Denial and alibi are viewed with disfavor as they are inherently weak defenses, especially in light of the complainant's positive and straightforward declarations identifying the accused as the perpetrator. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.

• "Under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 in relation to RA 8353, of the victim of sexual abuse is below 12 years of age, the offender should not be prosecuted for sexual abuse but for statutory rape under Article 266-A(l)(d) of the revised Penal Code and penalized with reclusion perpetua. On the other hand, if the victim is 12 years or older, the offender should be charged with either sexual abuse under Section 5(b of RA 7610 or rape under A1iicle 266-A (except paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised Penal Code. However, the offender cannot be accused of both crimes for the same act because his right against double jeopardy will be prejudiced." — This passage from People vs. Abay, quoted by the Court, establishes the rule that an offender cannot be charged with both sexual abuse under R.A. No. 7610 and rape under the Revised Penal Code for the same act, as this would violate the right against double jeopardy.

• "Without the Certificate of Live Birth and other means by which AAA's age as alleged in the Information could have been ascertained beyond doubt, this Court is constrained to agree with the CA and deem the crime committed as Simple Rape." — This statement articulates the Court's conclusion that the prosecution's failure to prove the victim's minority through competent evidence precludes conviction under R.A. No. 7610, resulting in conviction for Simple Rape instead.

• "Again, it must be remembered that, when a woman says that she has been raped, she says, in effect, all that is necessary to show that she has indeed been raped. A victim of rape would not come out in the open if her motive were anything other than to obtain justice. Her testimony as to who abused her is credible where she has absolutely no motive to incriminate and testify against the accused." — This passage articulates the Court's rationale for relying on the victim's testimony in rape cases, emphasizing that a credible victim's account is sufficient to sustain a conviction.

• People vs. Joel Jaime, G.R. No. 225332, July 23, 2018 — Cited for the distinction between Simple Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a) of the Revised Penal Code and sexual abuse under R.A. No. 7610, including the elements of each crime and the applicable penalties.
• People vs. Abay, 599 Phil. 390 (2009) — Controlling precedent on the rule that an offender cannot be charged with both sexual abuse under R.A. No. 7610 and rape under Article 266-A for the same act, as this would prejudice the right against double jeopardy, and that rape cannot be complexed with a violation of Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610.
• People vs. Pruna, 439 Phil. 440 (2002) — Controlling precedent establishing the guidelines for determining the age of the victim in cases involving child abuse, providing the hierarchy of evidence for proving age.
• People vs. Padilla, 617 Phil. 170 (2009) and People vs. Ramos, 577 Phil. 197 (2008) — Cited for the well-entrenched principles in reviewing rape cases regarding the difficulty of proving rape and the scrutiny required of the complainant's testimony.
• People vs. Peralta, 619 Phil. 268 (2009) — Cited for the rule that the lone testimony of the victim, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for rape.
• Remiendo vs. People, 618 Phil. 273 (2009) — Cited for the rule that appellate courts generally do not disturb the trial court's findings on credibility of witnesses.
• People vs. Panganiban, 412 Phil. 98 (2001) — Cited for the exceptions to the rule on non-disturbance of trial court findings on credibility.
• People vs. Malana, 646 Phil. 290 (2010) and People vs. Estrada, 624 Phil. 211 (2010) — Cited for the rule that denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses viewed with disfavor.
• People vs. Paculba, 628 Phil. 662 (2010) and People vs. Achas, 612 Phil. 652 (2009) — Cited for the rule that denial and alibi cannot prevail against the complainant's positive and straightforward declarations.
• People vs. Ugos, 586 Phil. 765 (2008) and People vs. Milian, 477 Phil. 790 (2004) — Cited for the rule that a victim of rape would not come out in the open if her motive were anything other than to obtain justice.

• Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a), Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353 — Defines the crime of rape committed through force, threat, or intimidation. The Court applied this provision in affirming appellant's conviction for Simple Rape.
• Article 266-B, Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353 — Provides the penalty of reclusion perpetua for rape. The Court affirmed the penalty imposed by the lower courts.
• Section 5(b), Article III, R.A. No. 7610 — Defines the crime of sexual abuse of children exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. The Court applied this provision in distinguishing sexual abuse from Simple Rape and in determining that the prosecution's failure to prove the victim's minority precluded conviction under this law.
• Section 40, Rule 130, Rules on Evidence — Pertains to testimony on pedigree, which the Court referenced in the People vs. Pruna guidelines for proving the victim's age through the testimony of the victim's mother or family members.
• Section 48, Revised Penal Code — Pertains to complex crimes. The Court cited this provision in explaining that a felony under the Revised Penal Code, such as rape, cannot be complexed with an offense under a special law like R.A. No. 7610.

Leonen, J., Reyes, J., Hernando, J., and Carandang, J., concurred in the decision.