People of the Philippines vs. ZZZ

A conviction for statutory rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, requires proof only that the offended party was under 12 years old and that the accused had carnal knowledge of her; consent, force, and intimidation are immaterial.

ZZZ was charged with statutory rape of AAA, a seven-year-old minor, under Article 266-A(1)(d) in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353. The statutory backdrop includes Republic Act No. 11648, which later increased the age for statutory rape from 12 to 16 years, and Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, which gives penal laws retroactive effect when favorable to the accused. The text states that ZZZ and AAA were [redacted] for 10 years at [redacted] Cotabato, but the nature of their relationship is not disclosed in the provided text.

On June 17, 2020, at around 7:30 a.m., AAA, then seven years old, was left alone in their house in Cotabato because her mother went to the barangay to get rice ration and her father BBB was tapping rubber. AAA was playing by the road just outside their house when ZZZ arrived. According to the prosecution, ZZZ held AAA's hand, dragged her inside the house, closed the door, and pulled down her short pants, exposing her private parts since she was not wearing underwear. ZZZ then opened the zipper of his pants, took out his penis, knelt behind AAA, positioned her in a bent-forward position, and inserted his penis into her vagina; AAA felt pain as a result.

AAA cried for help when she saw BBB arrive. BBB, who had just returned from tapping rubber, testified that when he went to the living room, he saw ZZZ kneeling behind AAA, both naked waist down, with ZZZ making push-and-pull movements. BBB slapped ZZZ; ZZZ threw a stone at BBB, who ran toward the kitchen to get a bolo, but ZZZ escaped. At 7:50 a.m., BBB reported the incident to the barangay captain, who went back to the house, took pictures of the crime scene, and later apprehended ZZZ. At 8:49 a.m., police arrived and ZZZ was turned over to PSSg Jawod.

AAA was brought for medical examination and was examined by Dr. Flora Mae Sumugat-Espenorio. The Medico-Legal Case Record showed that AAA suffered “hymenal laceration on 5 o'clock position [secondary] to vaginal penetration of a blunt object.” The prosecution also presented judicial affidavits, an affidavit of apprehension, the medico-legal case record, an extract copy of the police blotter, AAA's birth certificate, and pictures.

In defense, ZZZ denied the charge. He is deaf-mute and testified in open court assisted by his mother. He admitted going to AAA's house, as he usually did, to drink a glass of tuba. Upon reaching the house, he went directly to the kitchen to look for tuba and saw AAA sitting by the door in the sala. Not long thereafter, BBB arrived and got angry because ZZZ had entered his house without permission, prompting ZZZ to run away and go home. Later, ZZZ was shocked when the barangay captain came to his house and brought him to the latter's house; the police came to arrest him thereafter.

The RTC found that AAA's certificate of live birth indicated she was born on January 28, 2013, making her seven years old on June 17, 2020. The CA found AAA's testimony credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things; despite intense cross-examination and her tender age, she remained steadfast and never wavered in her account. The CA also found her testimony corroborated by BBB's eyewitness account and by the medico-legal findings of Dr. Sumugat-Espenorio. The CA treated the alleged inconsistencies cited by ZZZ as minor details that were not fatal to the case and found ZZZ's denial unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence.

• Lack of Penile Penetration: Accused-appellant ZZZ argued that the relative positions of the parties—AAA bending forward while he was sitting down and doing nothing, and his not removing his brief and shorts—raised serious doubts as to whether he succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her; considering AAA's tender age, the impossibility of penile penetration was not hard to discern.
• Inconsistencies Between AAA and BBB: ZZZ argued that AAA's testimony differed from BBB's because AAA claimed he never removed his clothing and did nothing, while BBB claimed he was completely naked and made push-and-pull movements; BBB also testified that ZZZ's penis was not yet inserted because BBB already arrived.
• Absence of Penetration Confirmed by BBB: ZZZ argued that BBB's testimony confirmed the absence of penile penetration, and that what angered BBB, leading him to slap ZZZ, was ZZZ's act of undressing AAA.

• Applicable Version of Article 266-A: Whether Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, or as further amended by Republic Act No. 11648, applies to the crime committed on June 17, 2020.
• Elements of Statutory Rape: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of statutory rape, namely, that AAA was under 12 years of age and that ZZZ had carnal knowledge of her.
• Alleged Inconsistencies: Whether the alleged inconsistencies between the testimonies of AAA and BBB are fatal to the prosecution's case and destroy their credibility.
• Defense of Denial: Whether ZZZ's defense of denial can prevail over the positive testimony of AAA and BBB and the medical evidence.
• Penalty and “Without Eligibility for Parole”: Whether the CA correctly imposed reclusion perpetua and deleted the phrase “without eligibility for parole.”
• Damages: Whether the CA correctly reduced the awards to PHP 75,000.00 each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, with 6% interest per annum from finality.

• Applicable Version of Article 266-A: Article 266-A as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 applies. The crime was committed on June 17, 2020, and Republic Act No. 11648 had no favorable effect on accused-appellant, so the later amendment was not applied.
• Elements of Statutory Rape: Yes. Both elements were established: AAA was under 12 years old, and ZZZ had carnal knowledge of her, as proven by AAA's testimony, BBB's eyewitness account, and the medico-legal findings.
• Alleged Inconsistencies: No. The alleged inconsistencies pertained to minor details and did not destroy credibility because the witnesses corroborated each other on material points.
• Defense of Denial: No. Denial is self-serving and cannot prevail over positive testimony and medical evidence.
• Penalty and “Without Eligibility for Parole”: Yes. Reclusion perpetua is the penalty under Article 266-B, and the phrase “without eligibility for parole” was correctly deleted under A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC.
• Damages: Yes. PHP 75,000.00 each for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages is correct under People vs. Jugueta, with 6% interest per annum from finality.

• Applicable Version of Article 266-A: Article 266-A was amended by Republic Act No. 8353 and further amended by Republic Act No. 11648, which increased the age for statutory rape from 12 to 16 years. Under Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, penal laws have retroactive effect insofar as they favor the accused. Because the crime was committed on June 17, 2020, and Republic Act No. 11648 had no favorable effect on ZZZ, Article 266-A as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 and prior to its amendment by Republic Act No. 11648 was applied. Republic Act No. 11648 did not amend Article 266-B.
• Elements of Statutory Rape: Article 266-A(1)(d) defines statutory rape. The elements are: (1) the offended party is under 12 years of age; and (2) the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim regardless of whether there was force, threat, or intimidation or grave abuse of authority. Consent is immaterial, and the law presumes that the victim does not and cannot have a will of her own on account of her tender years. The only subjects of inquiry are the age of the victim and whether carnal knowledge took place. Here, carnal knowledge was proven by AAA's positive testimony detailing the act, BBB's eyewitness account that ZZZ was kneeling behind AAA, both naked waist down, and making push-and-pull movements, and the medico-legal finding of hymenal laceration on the 5 o'clock position secondary to vaginal penetration of a blunt object. AAA's age was proven by her certificate of live birth showing she was born on January 28, 2013, making her seven years old on June 17, 2020.
• Alleged Inconsistencies: ZZZ argued that AAA said he did nothing and did not remove his clothing, while BBB said he was completely naked and made push-and-pull movements, and that BBB said the penis was not yet inserted. The alleged inconsistencies pertained to minor details and were not fatal. As long as the testimonies of the witnesses corroborate one another on material points, minor inconsistencies cannot destroy their credibility. The material points—carnal knowledge and identity of the perpetrator—were established by AAA's narration, BBB's eyewitness account, and the medical findings.
• Defense of Denial: Denial is self-serving negative evidence and cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. It is disfavored because it can easily be concocted and is a common defense in rape prosecutions; to prosper, it must be proved with strong and convincing evidence. ZZZ's denial could not stand against the categorical identification by AAA and BBB and the medico-legal examination showing hymenal laceration.
• Penalty and “Without Eligibility for Parole”: Article 266-B imposes reclusion perpetua for statutory rape. The CA correctly affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua. It also correctly deleted the qualification “without eligibility for parole” under A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC: where the death penalty is not warranted, there is no need to use the phrase to qualify reclusion perpetua, because convicted persons penalized with an indivisible penalty are not eligible for parole. The qualification is used only when circumstances warrant the death penalty but it is not imposed because of Republic Act No. 9346. Since the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, not death reduced to reclusion perpetua, the deletion was proper.
• Damages: Under People vs. Jugueta, where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, other than death penalty reduced to reclusion perpetua because of Republic Act No. 9346, the amounts are PHP 75,000.00 as civil indemnity, PHP 75,000.00 as moral damages, and PHP 75,000.00 as exemplary damages. The CA correctly modified the RTC's awards of PHP 100,000.00 each. Interest on all monetary awards at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality until full payment was also properly imposed.

• Statutory Rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) — Statutory rape is committed when the offended party is under 12 years of age and the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim, regardless of whether force, threat, intimidation, or grave abuse of authority was present. Consent is immaterial because the law presumes that a child under 12 cannot have a will of her own. In this case, AAA was seven years old and carnal knowledge was proven by testimony and medical evidence.
• Retroactivity of Penal Laws Favorable to the Accused — Under Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, penal laws have retroactive effect insofar as they favor the accused who is not a habitual criminal. Republic Act No. 11648 increased the age for statutory rape from 12 to 16 years, but it was not applied because the crime was committed on June 17, 2020 and the amendment had no favorable effect on ZZZ.
• Credibility and Minor Inconsistencies — As long as the testimonies of witnesses corroborate one another on material points, minor inconsistencies cannot destroy their credibility; inconsistencies on minor details do not undermine the integrity of a prosecution witness. The alleged inconsistencies between AAA and BBB were treated as minor and not fatal.
• Denial as a Weak Defense — Mere denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of a witness. Denial is self-serving negative evidence and cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. It must be proved with strong and convincing evidence. ZZZ's denial failed against the positive identification and medical findings.
• Medical Findings Corroborating the Rape Victim's Testimony — When a rape victim's straightforward and truthful testimony conforms with the medical findings of the examining doctor, the same is sufficient to support a conviction for rape. AAA's narration was corroborated by the finding of hymenal laceration secondary to vaginal penetration of a blunt object.
• Guidelines on “Without Eligibility for Parole” — Under A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC, where the death penalty is not warranted, there is no need to use the phrase “without eligibility for parole” to qualify reclusion perpetua; convicted persons penalized with an indivisible penalty are not eligible for parole. The phrase is used only when circumstances warrant the death penalty but it is not imposed because of Republic Act No. 9346. The deletion of the phrase was proper because the penalty imposed was reclusion perpetua.
• Damages in Rape Cases under People vs. Jugueta — Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, other than death penalty reduced to reclusion perpetua because of Republic Act No. 9346, the civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages are PHP 75,000.00 each. The CA correctly reduced the awards to these amounts.
• Interest on Monetary Awards — Monetary awards in rape cases earn interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid. The CA correctly imposed such interest.

• "In every prosecution for statutory rape, consent is immaterial and force and intimidation are not necessary. The law presumes that the victim does not and cannot have a will of her own on account of her tender years. Thus, the only subject of inquiry is the age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge took place." — This passage states the ratio decidendi for statutory rape: the prosecution need only prove the victim's age and carnal knowledge, making consent and force immaterial.
• "As long as the testimonies of the witnesses corroborate one another on material points, minor inconsistencies therein cannot destroy their credibility. Inconsistencies on minor details do not undermine the integrity of a prosecution witness." — This passage defines the Court's treatment of the alleged inconsistencies between AAA and BBB and explains why they did not warrant reversal.
• "mere denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of a witness. The defense of denial is treated as a self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters." — This passage states the doctrine rejecting ZZZ's defense of denial in light of the positive testimony and medical evidence.
• "when a rape victim's straightforward and truthful testimony conforms with the medical findings of the examining doctor, the same is sufficient to support a conviction for rape." — This passage explains why AAA's testimony, corroborated by the medico-legal finding of hymenal laceration, sufficed to establish carnal knowledge.

• People vs. Dalaguet, 926 Phil. 713 (2022) — Cited for the rule that Republic Act No. 11648 increased the age for determining statutory rape from 12 to 16 years, and for the retroactivity analysis under Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code.
• People vs. Ronquillo, 818 Phil. 641 (2017) — Cited for the elements of statutory rape and the rule that consent is immaterial and force and intimidation are not necessary.
• People vs. Moreno, 872 Phil. 17 (2020) — Cited for the rule that minor inconsistencies do not destroy credibility as long as the witnesses corroborate one another on material points.
• People vs. Gratela, 868 Phil. 8 (2020) — Cited for the rule that a rape victim's straightforward and truthful testimony conforming with the examining doctor's medical findings is sufficient to support a conviction for rape.
• People vs. Ulanday, 785 Phil. 663 (2016) — Cited for the rule that denial is self-serving negative evidence and cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than credible affirmative testimony.
• People vs. AAA, 899 Phil. 504 (2021) — Cited for the rule that the defense of denial is disfavored and must be proved with strong and convincing evidence.
• People vs. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Cited for the amounts of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages in rape cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua.
• Lara's Gifts & Decors, Inc. vs. Midtown Industrial Sales, Inc., 929 Phil. 754 (2022) — Cited for the imposition of interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum on monetary awards from the date of finality until full payment.

• Article 266-A, Revised Penal Code (as amended by Republic Act No. 8353): Defines rape. Paragraph 1(d) defines statutory rape when the offended party is under 12 years of age, even though none of the circumstances of force, threat, intimidation, or grave abuse of authority is present. It was applied because AAA was seven years old when ZZZ had carnal knowledge of her.
• Article 266-B, Revised Penal Code (as amended by Republic Act No. 8353): Provides that rape under paragraph 1 of Article 266-A shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. It was applied in affirming ZZZ's penalty.
• Article 266-A, Revised Penal Code (as further amended by Republic Act No. 11648): Increased the age for determining statutory rape from 12 to 16 years and introduced exceptions. It was not applied because the crime was committed on June 17, 2020, and the amendment had no favorable effect on ZZZ.
• Article 22, Revised Penal Code: Provides that penal laws shall have retroactive effect insofar as they favor the accused who is not a habitual criminal. It was applied in choosing Article 266-A as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 over the version further amended by Republic Act No. 11648.
• A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC: Provides guidelines on the proper use of the phrase “without eligibility for parole” in indivisible penalties. It was applied to delete the phrase from the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed on ZZZ.
• Republic Act No. 9346: Mentioned in the guidelines as the law that reduces the death penalty to reclusion perpetua and as the basis for using the qualification “without eligibility for parole.” It was not directly applied because the death penalty was not warranted.
• Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 / Republic Act No. 8505: Cited in the footnote for the confidentiality of the private offended party's name and personal circumstances. It was applied by using the anonymized names AAA, BBB, and ZZZ.

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