People of the Philippines vs. XXX271812

In rape committed by close kin — including the common-law spouse of the victim-survivor's mother — moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence or intimidation, such that actual force or physical resistance need not be proven. However, minority and relationship, even if proven during trial, cannot be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance where only minority was alleged in the Information.

XXX271812 was the common-law spouse of CCC271812, the mother of AAA271812, and the family was temporarily residing at the house of BBB271812, XXX271812's brother, in Ifugao. The charge arose under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, which defines rape by carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat, or intimidation, among other circumstances, and Article 266-B, which provides the penalties and qualifying circumstances. The case also implicated Republic Act No. 8505, the Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act of 1998, and Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 on the use of fictitious names to protect the identities of victims of sexual violence.

Sometime in August 2018, AAA271812 was staying at the house of her uncle, BBB271812, in Ifugao, together with her stepfather XXX271812, her mother CCC271812, and her siblings DDD, EEE, and FFF. XXX271812 was the common-law spouse of CCC271812. While AAA271812 was sleeping inside the room with her siblings, XXX271812 dragged her outside the house, laid her on the ground, pulled down her short pants and panties, and inserted his penis into her vagina. After raping her, he held her neck tightly, pointed a knife at her, and threatened to kill her if she reported the incident to anyone. AAA271812 later related the incident to BBB271812 and his wife, GGG271812. She also disclosed that XXX271812 had begun sexually abusing her since she was nine years old, when the family was still in Tarlac, but she did not reveal this earlier because she feared he would kill her.

The Medico Legal Certificate issued by Dr. Laurice G. Guillen stated AAA271812's date of birth and indicated a finding of "healed hymenal lacerations at 9 and 4 o'clock positions." In her Sworn Statement, AAA271812 narrated that XXX271812 pulled her outside the house while her siblings were in deep sleep, removed her short pants and panty, laid her on the ground, and inserted his penis into her vagina, and that after raping her he held her neck tightly, pointed a knife at her, and threatened to kill her if she revealed the incident. In open court, she testified that XXX271812 removed her short pants and underwear and inserted his penis into her vagina inside the house, and confirmed that the incident occurred sometime in August 2018.

XXX271812 vehemently denied the accusation. He admitted that he was at BBB271812's house with CCC271812, their children, and AAA271812 around August 2018 to seek financial help as he was ill, and claimed that since he was always with CCC271812, it would not have been possible for him to have committed the act. He also testified that in 2018 AAA271812 was already 17 years old since her features were developed, and that he initially did not want her to stay with them because of her character of sleeping with different men. CCC271812 corroborated his testimony, adding that he could not have committed the crime as he loved and treated AAA271812 like his own child, and that it was another man who raped her daughter; she testified that AAA271812 was born on a date she supplied.

The RTC gave full credence to AAA271812's testimony, finding that XXX271812 forcibly laid her on the ground and had sex with her against her will and consent, and that after satisfying his lust he choked her and threatened to kill her if she revealed the incident. It held that, given XXX271812's moral ascendancy as CCC271812's common-law spouse, the use of actual force was no longer necessary to satisfy the third element of rape, especially since AAA271812 was a minor at the time. The CA concurred, finding that AAA271812's testimony proved carnal knowledge through force, threat, and intimidation, and that XXX271812 undeniably possessed moral ascendancy over her as the common-law spouse of her mother.

• Failure to Prove Force, Threat, or Intimidation: Petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to prove the second element of the crime, namely the presence of force, threat, or intimidation.
• Erroneous Appreciation of Moral Ascendancy: Petitioner maintained that it was erroneous for the RTC to appreciate moral ascendancy in the case.
• Credibility of the Victim-Survivor: Petitioner poked holes in AAA271812's testimony and averred that she was not a credible witness, raising the following points: (1) her testimony was not corroborated by any other evidence; (2) it was unnatural for her siblings not to have been awoken; (3) there were no bruises on her neck; (4) she did not shout during or after the incident; (5) it took about a month for her to report the incident; and (6) her testimony was riddled with inconsistencies.
• Defense of Denial: Petitioner contended that the RTC erred when it did not give credence to his defense of denial.

• All Elements Proven: Respondent countered that all the elements of rape were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Unmeritorious Arguments: Respondent argued that the arguments raised by XXX271812 were unmeritorious and could not serve as grounds for his acquittal.
• Credibility and Denial: Respondent posited that AAA271812's categorical testimony prevailed over the accused's defense of denial.

• Conviction for Rape: Whether the courts a quo correctly affirmed XXX271812's conviction for rape through force or intimidation under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Credibility of the Victim-Survivor vis-à-vis Denial: Whether AAA271812's testimony was credible and sufficient to sustain the conviction notwithstanding the accused's defense of denial and the alleged weaknesses in her account.
• Penalty and Damages: Whether the penalty and the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages were proper.

• Conviction for Rape: Yes. All the elements of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 were established, and the moral ascendancy of XXX271812 as the common-law spouse of AAA271812's mother substituted for force, threat, and intimidation.
• Credibility of the Victim-Survivor vis-à-vis Denial: Yes. AAA271812's testimony was straightforward, convincing, and consistent with human nature, and the defense of denial, being inherently weak and unsubstantiated, could not prevail over her positive and categorical testimony.
• Penalty and Damages: Modified. The penalty is reclusion perpetua, with the phrase "without eligibility for parole" deleted, and the civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages are increased to PHP 150,000.00 each, with legal interest at 6% per annum from finality.

• Conviction for Rape: Article 266-A, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, defines rape by carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat, or intimidation, among other circumstances, and the elements of rape by sexual intercourse are (1) the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim-survivor and (2) the act was accomplished through force, intimidation, or any of the other enumerated circumstances. The prosecution established that XXX271812 had sexual intercourse with AAA271812, who was a minor born sometime in October 2003, and that she positively identified him and gave a detailed account of how he pulled her aside, removed her shorts and underwear, forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina, and threatened to kill her if she reported the incident. As CCC271812's common-law spouse, XXX271812 had moral ascendancy over AAA271812, and pursuant to standing jurisprudence, this moral ascendancy substituted the element of force, threat, and intimidation. In rape committed by close kin, such as the victim-survivor's father, stepfather, uncle, or the common-law spouse of her mother, it is not necessary that actual force or intimidation be employed, because moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence or intimidation. As to age, the Court applied the controlling guidelines on appreciating age, and since AAA271812's certificate of live birth was not presented because she had no birth certificate, CCC271812's testimony that AAA271812 was born on a date she supplied was sufficient to prove the latter's age, making AAA271812 around 14 years old at the time of the commission of the rape.
• Credibility of the Victim-Survivor vis-à-vis Denial: The contentions of XXX271812 were rejected. First, there is no legal requirement that the testimony of a child victim-survivor in rape cases be corroborated by other evidence, because witnesses are weighed, not numbered, and the testimony of a single credible witness may suffice for conviction if otherwise trustworthy and reliable. Second, rape can be committed in places where people congregate, inside a house where there are other occupants, and even in the same room where other members of the family are sleeping, because the presence of other people does not deter the commission of rape, for lust is no respecter of time and place. Third, the absence of physical injuries, even fresh lacerations, does not negate rape, and it is of no moment that AAA271812 did not sustain bruises when XXX271812 held her neck tightly, since it is not an element of rape; in any case, the Medico Legal Certificate revealing healed hymenal lacerations at the 9 o'clock and 4 o'clock positions corroborated her credible disclosure of sexual abuse. Fourth, resistance is not an element of rape, and lack of active resistance must never be equated to consent, especially where the victim-survivor is a minor; children are often not taught how to respond when the peril comes from a person so familiar, and their silence, accommodation, or helplessness should not be deemed inconsistent with what is normal. Fifth, delay or failure to immediately report rape does not by itself cast doubt on the credibility of the victim-survivor or negate the commission of the crime, particularly in the face of threats of physical violence. Lastly, minor inconsistencies in the testimony of a child victim-survivor do not impair credibility when they refer to trivial matters that do not alter the essential fact of the commission of rape; the inconsistencies referred to by XXX271812 did not pertain to the rape itself but to matters merely incidental to it. The factual findings of the RTC are entitled to the highest degree of respect, and the assessment of a witness's credibility is best left to the trial court, which has the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor, conduct, and attitude of the witnesses during their testimonies. The defense of denial is inherently weak and must be substantiated by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility, and XXX271812's claim that he was ill could not prevail over AAA271812's positive, candid, and categorical testimony.
• Penalty and Damages: Although AAA271812's minority and relationship to the assailant were sufficiently proven by the prosecution, these circumstances could not be appreciated as qualifying circumstances because only minority was alleged in the Information. The conviction for rape through force or intimidation under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 was thus upheld, but the penalty was modified by deleting the phrase "without eligibility for parole." The awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages were increased from PHP 100,000.00 to PHP 150,000.00 each, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence. As noted by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, while minority and relationship cannot be appreciated to qualify the crime, the evidence on record nevertheless established that the victim was a minor and that the accused stood in a parental relationship to her, and these circumstances, having been proven during trial, justify the award of increased civil indemnity and damages, in line with recent jurisprudence recognizing the heightened psychological and emotional harm suffered by child victims of sexual abuse committed by a parental figure. Finally, as part of the government's efforts to provide comprehensive services to meet the needs of rape victims and their families, the Court directed the Department of Social Welfare and Development, through the RTC, to refer AAA271812 to the proper rape crisis center for necessary assistance, which may include psychological counseling, medical and health services, ensuring her privacy and safety, providing services for her family, and adopting programs for her recovery.

• Moral Ascendancy in Rape by Close Kin — In rape committed by close kin, such as the victim-survivor's father, stepfather, uncle, or the common-law spouse of her mother, it is not necessary that actual force or intimidation be employed; moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence or intimidation. The moral ascendancy of the common-law father of a minor substitutes force and intimidation in rape, and when the offender has moral ascendancy over the victim-survivor, physical resistance no longer needs to be proven. In this case, XXX271812's moral ascendancy as the common-law spouse of AAA271812's mother substituted the element of force, threat, and intimidation.
• Elements of Rape by Sexual Intercourse — Under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, the elements of rape by sexual intercourse are: (1) the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim-survivor; and (2) the act was accomplished (a) through the use of force or intimidation, or (b) when the victim-survivor is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or (c) when the victim-survivor is under 12 years of age or is demented. The gravamen of the crime is carnal knowledge of a woman by force or intimidation and against her will or without her consent.
• Elements of Qualified Rape — The crime of rape becomes qualified when the victim-survivor 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-survivor. The elements of qualified rape are: (1) sexual congress; (2) with a woman; (3) done by force and without consent; (4) the victim-survivor is under 18 years of age at the time of the rape; and (5) the offender is a parent (whether legitimate, illegitimate, or adopted) of the victim-survivor. In this case, although minority and relationship were proven, they could not be appreciated as qualifying circumstances because only minority was alleged in the Information.
• Guidelines in Appreciating Age — The Court laid down controlling guidelines: (1) the best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth; (2) in its absence, similar authentic documents such as a baptismal certificate and school records showing the date of birth would suffice; (3) if the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of the victim-survivor's mother or a member of the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under specified circumstances; (4) in the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the testimony of the victim-survivor's mother or relatives concerning age, the complainant's testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused; and (5) it is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the offended party, and the failure of the accused to object to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken against him. Here, because AAA271812 had no birth certificate, CCC271812's testimony as to her date of birth was sufficient to prove her age.
• Credibility of a Single Witness — There is no legal requirement that the testimony of a child victim-survivor in rape cases be corroborated by other evidence. The prosecution is not obliged to present a specific number of witnesses, and the testimony of a single credible witness may suffice for conviction if otherwise trustworthy and reliable, for there is no law which requires that the testimony of a single witness needs corroboration except where the law expressly mandates otherwise.
• Rape May Be Committed Even in the Presence of Others — Rape can be committed in places where people congregate, in parks, along the roadside, within school premises, inside a house where there are other occupants, and even in the same room where other members of the family are sleeping. The presence of other people does not deter the commission of rape, for lust is no respecter of time and place.
• Absence of Physical Injuries Does Not Negate Rape — The absence of physical injuries, even fresh lacerations, does not negate rape, and the lack of bruises is of no moment because it is not an element of the crime.
• Resistance Is Not an Element of Rape — A victim-survivor has no burden to prove that she did all within her power to resist the force or intimidation employed upon her. Lack of active resistance must never be equated to consent, especially where the victim-survivor of rape or sexual violence is a minor.
• Delay in Reporting Rape — Delay or failure to immediately report rape does not by itself cast doubt on the credibility of the victim-survivor or negate the commission of the crime. Delay in reporting rape incidents, in the face of threats of physical violence, cannot be taken against the victim-survivor because it is not an indication of a fabricated charge and does not necessarily cast doubt on the credibility of the complainant.
• Minor Inconsistencies Do Not Impair Credibility — Minor inconsistencies in the testimony of a child victim-survivor do not impair credibility, especially when these inconsistencies refer to trivial matters that do not alter the essential fact of the commission of rape. In the resolution of rape cases, the victim-survivor's credibility becomes the primordial consideration, and when her testimony is straightforward, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things, unflawed by any material or significant inconsistency, it passes the test of credibility, and the accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof.
• Trial Court's Assessment of Credibility — The trial court's assessment of the witnesses' credibility is given great weight and is even conclusive and binding, because it has the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor, conduct, and attitude of the witnesses during their testimonies and is in the best position to weigh conflicting testimonies.
• Defense of Denial — Denial is an inherently weak defense which must be substantiated by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. An unsubstantiated denial is a self-serving assertion that deserves no weight in law.
• Use of the Term "Victim-Survivor" — In lieu of the conventional term "victim" when referring to individuals who have endured sexual violence, the term "victim-survivor" shall be adopted. This deliberate choice of words recognizes the harm and suffering inflicted while affirming the agency, resiliency, and continuing dignity of those who survive such violence.

• "In rape committed by close kin, such as the victim-survivor's father, stepfather, uncle, or the common-law spouse of her mother, it is not necessary that actual force or intimidation be employed; moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence or intimidation." — This passage states the ratio decidendi on the element of force or intimidation, establishing that moral ascendancy substitutes for violence in rape committed by close kin, which was the decisive ground for upholding the conviction.
• "Lack of active resistance must never be equated to consent." — This passage defines the controlling principle on the victim-survivor's conduct, rejecting the accused's contention that the absence of shouting or resistance negated the commission of rape.
• "The presence of other people does not deter the commission of rape, for lust is no respecter of time and place." — This passage addresses the accused's argument that the presence of the victim-survivor's sleeping siblings made the commission of the crime unnatural, and is a frequently cited formulation in rape jurisprudence.
• "The best evidence to prove age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party." — This passage is the first of the controlling guidelines on appreciating age, which the Court applied in holding that CCC271812's testimony sufficed to prove AAA271812's age in the absence of a birth certificate.

• People of the Philippines vs. Arraz, 952 Phil. 685 (2024) — Cited for the definition of rape and its appurtenant penalty under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, and for the elements of rape by sexual intercourse.
• People of the Philippines vs. XXX, 945 Phil. 225 (2023) — Cited for the elements of qualified rape and for the pronouncement on the responses of child victim-survivors to sexual abuse by familiar persons, which the Court echoed in rejecting the accused's attack on the victim-survivor's credibility.
• People of the Philippines vs. AAA, 950 Phil. 830 (2024) — Cited for the rule that the moral ascendancy of the common-law father of a minor substitutes force and intimidation in rape, and that physical resistance no longer needs to be proven.
• People vs. Pruna, 439 Phil. 440 (2002) — Cited, through People of the Philippines vs. XXX and People vs. Sariego, as the source of the controlling guidelines in appreciating age either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance.
• People vs. Quinto, 873 Phil. 679 (2020) — Cited for the rule that witnesses are weighed, not numbered, and that the testimony of a single witness may suffice for conviction if otherwise trustworthy and reliable.
• People vs. Morante, 699 Phil. 575 (2012) — Cited for the rule that inconsistencies in the victim-survivor's testimony do not impair her credibility, especially if they refer to trivial matters that do not alter the essential fact of the commission of rape.
• People of the Philippines vs. Santiago, 898 Phil. 858 (2021) — Cited for the rule that the trial court's assessment of a witness's credibility is accorded great respect because it is in the best position to evaluate them through firsthand observation.
• People vs. Ampo, 848 Phil. 97 (2019) — Cited for the rule that the trial court can better determine a witness's credibility because it is in the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies.
• People vs. ABC260708, 950 Phil. 199 (2024) — Cited as the basis for increasing the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to PHP 150,000.00 each, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence.

• Article 266-A, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code (as amended by Republic Act No. 8353) — Defines and penalizes the crime of rape, including rape by carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat, or intimidation. The Court applied this provision in upholding the conviction, finding that all its elements were established.
• Article 266-B, Revised Penal Code — Provides the penalties for rape and enumerates the qualifying circumstances, including when the victim-survivor 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-survivor. The Court held that although minority and relationship were proven, these circumstances could not qualify the crime because only minority was alleged in the Information.
• Section 40, Rule 130, Rules on Evidence — Cited in the guidelines on appreciating age as the basis for the sufficiency of the testimony of the victim-survivor's mother or a member of the family qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree, which the Court applied in finding CCC271812's testimony sufficient to prove AAA271812's age.
• Republic Act No. 8505, Section 3 (Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act of 1998) — The basis for the Court's directive to the Department of Social Welfare and Development, through the RTC, to refer AAA271812 to the appropriate rape crisis center for necessary assistance to be rendered to her and her family.
• Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 — Provides the protocols and procedures in the promulgation, publication, and posting on the websites of decisions, final resolutions, and final orders using fictitious names or personal circumstances, pursuant to which the identities of the victim-survivor and her immediate family or household members were withheld.

• Caguioa, Acting C.J. (Chairperson)
• Inting, J.
• Gaerlan, J.
• Singh, J.