People of the Philippines vs. XXX

A charge of qualified rape requires that the qualifying relationship be both properly alleged and proved; where the accused is merely the victim's mother's live-in partner, the stepdaughter allegation is not established and the accused is liable only for simple rape. Likewise, sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 requires that the minor engage in lascivious conduct through defective consent; an unwilling minor does not engage, so the offense is only acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code.

XXX was the live-in partner of BBB, the mother of AAA, and had been living with BBB since 2005 or 2006; they had two children of their own. AAA was BBB's daughter with her biological father, CCC. The prosecution arose under Republic Act No. 7610, which protects children against abuse, exploitation, and discrimination, and under the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, which defines rape and provides a higher penalty for qualified rape when the victim is under 18 and the offender is, among others, a step-parent or the common-law spouse of the victim's parent.

XXX lived in [location], Rizal, with BBB, his live-in partner since 2005 or 2006, and their two children. AAA was BBB's daughter with CCC, born on February 21, 2001. At the time of the first incident in 2013, AAA was 12 years old and a Grade 6 student; her half-brother was five and her half-sister was still a baby. In 2013, AAA lived in the same house with XXX, BBB, and their two children.

According to AAA, XXX began molesting and sexually abusing her in 2013. Whenever she came home from school, XXX told her to sleep or take a nap in the afternoon. During those times, when BBB was outside the house doing laundry for a neighbor or caring for AAA's half-brother, XXX touched AAA's private parts, undressed her, and inserted his penis into her vagina. This happened about three times a week whenever BBB was not around or was busy with household chores. At first, AAA did not tell BBB because she was afraid BBB would leave her. After several incidents, AAA eventually told BBB, but BBB did not believe her.

On October 30, 2014, XXX again sexually abused AAA by touching her private parts and inserting his penis into her vagina. The following day, October 31, 2014, AAA lost consciousness while in school. The school guidance counselor spoke with AAA and asked if she had a problem; AAA then disclosed XXX's sexual abuses. The guidance counselor called the Department of Social Welfare and Development, and a DSWD officer assisted AAA in contacting her biological father, CCC, and reporting the incident to the police. That same day, AAA, assisted by CCC, reported the incident to the Women and Children's Protection Desk and filed complaints against XXX for violation of Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 and qualified rape. On November 3, 2014, AAA was brought to the Rizal Provincial Crime Laboratory Office for a medico-legal examination, which revealed a "deep healed laceration at 3, 6 and 9 o'clock positions" of the hymen and "clear evidence of application of blunt trauma to the hymen."

XXX denied having sexual intercourse with AAA. He claimed that another person, DDD, raped AAA, for which BBB filed a complaint against DDD, but the complaint did not prosper. XXX admitted that in 2013 AAA lived in the same house with him, BBB, and their two children, but he claimed there was no instance when he was left alone inside the house with AAA. He surmised that the rape complaints were filed against him as retaliation because of the way he disciplined AAA, as he was strict.

The RTC convicted XXX, and the CA affirmed, finding that the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that XXX sexually abused AAA on several occasions in 2013 and touched her breasts and vagina on October 30, 2014. In its analysis, the Supreme Court found AAA's testimony clear, straightforward, and unequivocal. It also noted that AAA's mother testified that she did not believe her daughter and that she loved XXX more than her own daughter, which explained why the mother did nothing despite knowledge of the abuse.

• Defective Information / Right to be Informed: XXX argued that his constitutional right was violated when the date of the alleged qualified rape was described merely as "sometime [in] the year of 2013."
• Credibility of AAA: XXX contended that AAA failed to properly recollect past events, having testified when she was only 16 years old, and thus could not be given credibility; her testimony was incredible and inconsistent.
• Failure to Prove Elements: XXX argued that the prosecution failed to prove all the elements of the crimes charged beyond reasonable doubt. He denied having sexually abused AAA and alleged that he was never alone in the house with her.
• Inconsistencies with Salaysay: XXX asserted that AAA's open-court testimony that the first incident occurred in March 2014 contradicted her Salaysay and the Information, which stated that the abuse began in 2013; that her Salaysay stated he merely touched her vagina on October 30, 2014, while her direct testimony added that he tried to insert his penis; and that her claim that her mother did nothing despite knowledge of the abuse was too incredible to believe.

• Waiver / Procedural Defect: The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, retorted that XXX raised the supposed defect in the Information for the first time on appeal; he failed to move to quash the Information, voluntarily entered his plea during arraignment, and actively participated during trial.
• Time Not Essential: The People argued that jurisprudence holds that the time of commission of rape is not an essential element of the crime.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: The People maintained that the prosecution successfully discharged its burden of proving XXX's guilt beyond reasonable doubt because it sufficiently established the existence of all the elements of the crimes charged.

• Defective Information / Right to be Informed: Whether the Information in Criminal Case No. 17352-16, which alleged that the rape occurred "sometime [in] the year of 2013," violated accused-appellant's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
• Credibility of AAA / Inconsistencies: Whether AAA's testimony was credible and sufficient to establish rape beyond reasonable doubt despite alleged inconsistencies between her Salaysay and her open-court testimony, her claimed failure to recollect past events, and her mother's disbelief of her account.
• Elements of Rape / Moral Ascendancy: Whether the prosecution established all the elements of rape through AAA's testimony, considering that accused-appellant did not employ threat but exercised moral ascendancy as the common-law father of a minor.
• Qualified Rape / Stepdaughter Relationship: Whether accused-appellant could be convicted of qualified rape under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code where the Information alleged that AAA was his stepdaughter but the prosecution failed to establish that relationship, showing only that he was the live-in partner of AAA's mother.
• Sexual Abuse under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610: Whether accused-appellant could be convicted of sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 for the October 30, 2014 incident where AAA did not actively participate and was unwilling from the outset.
• Penalties and Damages: Whether the penalties and damages imposed should be modified in light of the proper crimes established.

• Defective Information / Right to be Informed: No. The phrase "sometime [in] the year of 2013" alleges a definite year, not "on or about 2013"; any defect was waived for failure to move to quash under Rule 117, Section 9.
• Credibility of AAA / Inconsistencies: Yes. AAA's testimony was clear, straightforward, and unequivocal; inconsistencies between her Salaysay and open-court testimony did not discredit her, and her mother's disbelief was explained by the mother's preference for accused-appellant.
• Elements of Rape / Moral Ascendancy: Yes. Carnal knowledge was established through AAA's testimony; the moral ascendancy of the common-law father of a minor substitutes force and intimidation in rape.
• Qualified Rape / Stepdaughter Relationship: No. The stepdaughter relationship was not established because accused-appellant was merely the live-in partner of AAA's mother; the Information also did not properly allege the qualifying relationship, so only simple rape was established.
• Sexual Abuse under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610: No. Under Gramatica vs. People, sexual abuse requires that the minor engage in lascivious conduct through defective consent; AAA was unwilling from the outset, so accused-appellant is liable only for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336.
• Penalties and Damages: Modified. Simple rape carries reclusion perpetua, with PHP 75,000.00 each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages; acts of lasciviousness carry an indeterminate penalty of six months of arresto mayor to four years and two months of prision correccional, with PHP 150,000.00 each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages; the phrase "without eligibility for parole" was deleted.

• Defective Information / Right to be Informed: Rule 110, Section 11 of the Rules of Court requires that the time of the commission of the offense be alleged as near to the actual date as the Information will permit. In People vs. Ladrillo, the phrase "on or about the year 1992" was held defective because it encompassed not only 1992 but also 1991 and 1993, thereby preventing the accused from intelligently preparing a defense. In People vs. Santos, however, an Information stating "on or about and sometime in the year 1988" was held to allege a definite year, i.e., 1988. Here, "sometime [in] the year of 2013" alleges that the rape occurred in a definite year, 2013, and not on or about 2013. At any rate, accused-appellant waived his objection to the alleged defect for failure to move for quashal or to allege such ground in a motion to quash, as required by Rule 117, Section 9.
• Credibility of AAA / Inconsistencies: AAA initially mentioned that the first incident happened in March 2014, but later in her testimony confirmed that the molestation began in 2013; on cross-examination, defense counsel even relied on her Salaysay to the effect that the abuse began in 2013. She could no longer recall the month of the 2013 incidents. As to the October 30, 2014 incident, her Salaysay stated that accused-appellant merely touched her vagina, while her direct testimony added that he tried to insert his penis; under People vs. Nelmida, inconsistencies between a sworn statement and direct testimony in open court do not necessarily discredit the witness. An affidavit is taken ex-parte, is often incomplete, and is generally inferior to open-court testimony; testimonies during trial are more exact and elaborate. The additional information in AAA's direct testimony rendered the act more lascivious than initially narrated and would have made accused-appellant liable for attempted rape were it not for the allegations in the Information in Criminal Case No. 15983-14. The fact that AAA's mother did nothing despite knowledge of the abuse did not negate its occurrence; the mother testified that she did not believe her daughter and would do anything in accused-appellant's favor, and on re-direct examination she stated that she loved accused-appellant more than her own daughter. AAA had also been hesitant to tell her mother for fear that her mother might leave her. Jurisprudence holds that no woman, least of all a child, would concoct a story of rape, allow examination of her private parts, and subject herself to public trial or ridicule if she had not in truth been a victim. AAA even risked estranging her own mother when she testified against accused-appellant. These circumstances lent credence to her candid and straightforward testimony.
• Elements of Rape / Moral Ascendancy: Article 266-A(1)(a) of the Revised Penal Code punishes rape committed by a man who has carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat, or intimidation. AAA testified that accused-appellant inserted his penis into her vagina, that she felt pain, that she was afraid, and that she did not fight him off because she was afraid. Although accused-appellant did not employ threat, the moral ascendancy of the common-law father of a minor substitutes force and intimidation in rape, as held in People vs. AAA. The prosecution therefore established all the elements of rape through AAA's clear, straightforward, and unequivocal testimony.
• Qualified Rape / Stepdaughter Relationship: Article 266-B(1) of the Revised Penal Code imposes the death penalty when the crime of rape is committed with the qualifying circumstance that the victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. While the Information in Criminal Case No. 17352-16 alleged that AAA was accused-appellant's stepdaughter, the prosecution failed to establish such relationship. A stepfather is the husband of one's mother by virtue of a marriage subsequent to that of which the person spoken of is the offspring; it presupposes a legitimate relationship between the accused and the victim's mother, as held in People vs. Radam, Jr. The records showed that accused-appellant was only the live-in partner of AAA's mother. Although the prosecution proved the common-law relationship, the Information did not properly allege the qualifying circumstance of relationship, which affected accused-appellant's right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, as held in People vs. De Guzman. Consequently, accused-appellant could only be held liable for rape and not qualified rape.
• Sexual Abuse under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610: In Gramatica vs. People, the Court held that minors subjected to sexual abuse under Republic Act No. 7610 are those who indulge or engage in, or in other words consent, albeit defectively, to lascivious conduct due to the employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement, or coercion of an adult. The word "engage" suggests active participation by the child, who is not merely a passive victim but engages in the conduct because of the adult's acts. Section 2(g) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 7610 defines sexual abuse as including the employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement, or coercion of a child to engage in, or assist another person to engage in, sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, or the molestation, prostitution, or incest with children. The use of the word "engage" indicates the legislature's intent for Republic Act No. 7610 to cover situations where a child consents, albeit with the consent being defective; it is not designed to cover acts where the minor is completely unconscious, overpowered, or unwilling from the outset. Here, there was no proof that AAA actively participated; in fact, she was unwilling from the outset. It could not be said that she engaged in lascivious conduct, which negated a finding of sexual abuse under Republic Act No. 7610. Accused-appellant could only be held liable for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Penalties and Damages: The penalty for rape is reclusion perpetua under Article 266-B, in relation to Article 266-A. In the absence of any modifying circumstance, accused-appellant was correctly sentenced to reclusion perpetua, pursuant to A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC. However, the phrase "without eligibility for parole" was deleted because it is only employed when emphasizing that the accused should have been sentenced to death were it not for Republic Act No. 9346, which was not the case. Civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages were awarded at PHP 75,000.00 each pursuant to People vs. Jugueta. As to acts of lasciviousness, Article 336 prescribes prision correccional. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the indeterminate minimum penalty was fixed anywhere within the full range of the penalty one degree lower, i.e., arresto mayor (one month and one day to six months), and the indeterminate maximum penalty was fixed anywhere within the range of prision correccional in its medium period (two years, four months, and one day to four years and two months), there being no modifying circumstances. The Court sentenced accused-appellant to six months of arresto mayor as minimum to four years and two months of prision correccional as maximum. Because the penalty imposed was considerably lower than that which would have been imposed had the conviction for sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 been affirmed, an award of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages in the amount of PHP 150,000.00 each was justified. All monetary awards earn 6% legal interest per annum from the date of finality of the Decision until fully paid.

• Sufficiency of the date in an Information — An Information alleging that the offense occurred "sometime [in] the year of 2013" alleges a definite year and does not violate the accused's right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. This differs from "on or about the year 1992," which may be defective because it encompasses multiple years. Failure to move to quash waives the objection under Rule 117, Section 9.
• Qualified rape and the qualifying relationship — The qualifying circumstance of relationship in qualified rape must be both properly alleged in the Information and proved beyond reasonable doubt. A stepfather is the husband of the victim's mother by virtue of a subsequent marriage; a mere live-in partner or common-law spouse is not a stepfather. If the relationship is not properly alleged or proved, the accused can be convicted only of simple rape.
• Moral ascendancy as substitute for force or intimidation — In rape, the moral ascendancy of the common-law father of a minor substitutes force and intimidation, such that the absence of an express threat does not negate the crime.
• Credibility and inconsistencies between an affidavit and open-court testimony — Inconsistencies between a sworn statement and direct testimony do not necessarily discredit the witness. An affidavit is taken ex-parte, is often incomplete, and is generally inferior to open-court testimony, which is more exact and elaborate. Additional details in open-court testimony may be considered and may even render the act more serious.
• No woman or child would concoct a rape story — Jurisprudence recognizes that no woman, least of all a child, would concoct a story of rape, allow examination of her private parts, and subject herself to public trial or ridicule unless she had in truth been a victim and was impelled to seek justice.
• Sexual abuse under Republic Act No. 7610 requires that the minor "engage" in lascivious conduct — Sexual abuse under Republic Act No. 7610 covers situations where a minor indulges or engages in, or consents albeit defectively to, sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct as a result of coercion or undue influence exerted by an adult. The word "engage" suggests active participation by the child. The law is not designed to cover acts where the minor is completely unconscious, overpowered, or unwilling from the outset; such acts fall under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code for acts of lasciviousness.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law for acts of lasciviousness — For acts of lasciviousness under Article 336, the penalty is prision correccional. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum is fixed within the penalty one degree lower, arresto mayor, and the maximum within prision correccional in its medium period, absent modifying circumstances.
• Damages for simple rape and acts of lasciviousness — For simple rape, civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages are awarded at PHP 75,000.00 each under People vs. Jugueta. For acts of lasciviousness, where the penalty is considerably lower than the original Section 5(b) conviction, PHP 150,000.00 each is justified.

• "Here, the phrase 'sometime [in] the year of 2013' alleges that the rape occurred in a definite year, i.e., 2013, and not on or about 2013." — This resolves the defective Information issue by distinguishing People vs. Ladrillo and applying People vs. Santos.
• "While the Information in Criminal Case No. 17352-16 alleged that AAA is accused-appellant's stepdaughter, the prosecution failed to establish such relationship. A stepfather is the husband of one's mother by virtue of a marriage subsequent to that of which the person spoken of is the offspring. It presupposes a legitimate relationship between the accused and the victim's mother." — This is the ratio for reducing the qualified rape conviction to simple rape.
• "Although accused-appellant did not employ threat, this Court has held that the moral ascendancy of the common law father of a minor substitutes force and intimidation in rape." — This establishes that rape was proved despite the absence of an express threat.
• "Indeed, the use of the word 'engage' clearly indicates the legislature's intent for Republic Act No. 7610 to cover situations where a child consents, albeit with the consent being defective. It is not designed to cover acts where the minor is completely unconscious, overpowered, or unwilling from the outset." — This is the controlling interpretation of Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 that led to conviction only for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336.

• People vs. Ladrillo, 377 Phil. 904 (1999) — Held that the phrase "on or about the year 1992" violates Rule 110, Section 11 and the right to be informed because it encompasses multiple years; distinguished in this case.
• People vs. Santos, 390 Phil. 150 (2000) — Held that "on or about and sometime in the year 1988" alleges a definite year; followed to uphold the "sometime [in] the year of 2013" allegation.
• People vs. Radam, Jr., 434 Phil. 87 (2002) — Defined a stepfather as the husband of the mother by a subsequent marriage and required a legitimate relationship; applied to find no stepfather relationship.
• People vs. De Guzman, 866 Phil. 670 (2019) — Held that the qualifying relationship must be properly alleged in the Information; applied to preclude qualified rape.
• People vs. AAA, 950 Phil. 830 (2024) — Held that the moral ascendancy of the common-law father of a minor substitutes force and intimidation in rape; applied to affirm the rape conviction.
• People vs. Nelmida, 694 Phil. 529 (2012) — Held that inconsistencies between a sworn statement and open-court testimony do not necessarily discredit the witness; applied to AAA's testimony.
• People vs. Alborida, 412 Phil. 81 (2001) — Cited for the principle that no woman, least of all a child, would concoct a story of rape; supported AAA's credibility.
• People vs. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Provided the guidelines for damages; applied to award PHP 75,000.00 each for simple rape.
• Gramatica vs. People, G.R. Nos. 260233 & 266039, August 12, 2025 — Clarified that sexual abuse under Republic Act No. 7610 requires that the minor "engage" in lascivious conduct through defective consent; controlling for reducing the Section 5(b) conviction to acts of lasciviousness.

• Rule 110, Section 11, Rules of Court — Requires that the time of commission of the offense be alleged as near to the actual date as the Information will permit; discussed in resolving the defective Information issue.
• Rule 117, Section 9, Rules of Court — Provides that objections to defects in the Information are waived if not raised in a motion to quash; applied to accused-appellant's failure to object to the date allegation.
• Article 266-A(1)(a), Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 — Defines rape through carnal knowledge by force, threat, or intimidation; applied to convict accused-appellant of simple rape.
• Article 266-B(1), Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 — Provides the qualifying circumstance for qualified rape when the victim is under 18 and the offender is a step-parent or common-law spouse of the parent; not applied because the stepdaughter relationship was not established or properly alleged.
• Article 336, Revised Penal Code — Punishes acts of lasciviousness; applied after the Court found that sexual abuse under Republic Act No. 7610 was not established.
• Article 64(1), Revised Penal Code — Governs the application of penalties when there are no modifying circumstances; used in fixing the indeterminate penalty for acts of lasciviousness.
• Section 5(b), Republic Act No. 7610 — Penalizes lascivious conduct upon a child by coercion, persuasion, inducement, enticement, or other means; not applied because AAA did not engage in lascivious conduct through defective consent.
• Section 2(g), Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 7610 — Defines sexual abuse to include the employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement, or coercion of a child to engage in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; cited in Gramatica vs. People.
• Republic Act No. 8353 — The Anti-Rape Law of 1997, which amended the Revised Penal Code provisions on rape.
• Republic Act No. 9346 — Abolished the death penalty; mentioned in relation to the deletion of the phrase "without eligibility for parole."
• A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC — Guidelines on the use of the phrase "without eligibility for parole"; applied to delete the phrase from the rape penalty.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied to fix the minimum and maximum terms for acts of lasciviousness.

Hernando (Acting Chairperson) and Zalameda, JJ., concurred. Gesmundo, C.J. and Marquez, J., were on official business.