People vs. Anguac

Sexual intercourse with a 17-year-old child committed through force, threats, and intimidation by the common-law spouse of her mother constitutes rape for the initial act and violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610 for subsequent acts, the controlling characterization being the ultimate facts alleged in the Information rather than its caption or cited provision.

Adelado Anguac was the common-law spouse of BBB, mother of minor AAA, with whom he resided in a hut in Palauig, Zambales. RA 7610 or the Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act punishes under Section 5(a) the engaging in or promoting child prostitution and under Section 5(b) the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse.

Adelado Anguac was the common-law spouse of BBB, mother of AAA, then 17 years old. They lived together in a hut in Palauig, Zambales, where AAA slept in a room with her siblings.

At around 9:00 p.m. on March 28, 1998, while AAA slept with her siblings, Anguac woke her by poking a knife at her and threatening to kill them all if she made noise. Despite her struggle, he removed her underwear and sexually forced himself on her while pointing the knife just below her ear, thereafter threatening her with bodily harm if she disclosed the assault. The assault was repeated five more times: in April 1998, in May 1998, twice in January 1999, and once in February 1999. Sometime in July 1999, when questioned by her aunts, AAA admitted she was pregnant as a result of Anguac's acts, and her aunts accompanied her to the police to file a complaint. On October 4, 1999, AAA gave birth to a baby boy.

When arraigned on the two Informations filed November 26, 1999, Anguac pleaded not guilty to both charges. According to the defense, AAA was away staying and working with her aunt from March 22, 1998 to March 1999 when the molestations allegedly occurred. Anguac described AAA as a problem child who cut classes and kept company with boys, while BBB corroborated that AAA was away with her aunt and testified that Anguac treated AAA like his own daughter.

The trial and appellate courts both found AAA categorical and unfaltering in her testimony on the March 28, 1998 rape and the five subsequent assaults, without improper motive to falsely accuse Anguac, and rejected the denial and alibi as self-serving.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witness: Petitioner argued that undue credence was given to AAA's testimony, maintaining that she had an axe to grind against him and her mother for sending her away to work at her aunt's house to pay off a big loan they incurred.
• Impossibility of Rape: Petitioner argued that rape on the night of March 28, 1998 was well-nigh impossible because AAA was sleeping in a room with her younger half-sisters and brothers lying beside or very close to her, who would necessarily have been roused.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Petitioner maintained that the charges were not sufficiently established by evidence and that he was not proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, relying on his denial and claim that AAA was away working during the relevant months.

• Credibility of Victim: Whether the testimony of AAA, the minor victim, was credible despite alleged ill motive and resentment.
• Sufficiency of Evidence and Possibility of Rape: Whether the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt notwithstanding denial and the alleged presence of siblings sleeping nearby during the assault.
• Proper Designation of RA 7610 Offense: Whether the repeated sexual intercourse charged in Criminal Case No. RTC-2757-I properly constitutes violation of Sec. 5(b), rather than Sec. 5(a), of RA 7610.

• Credibility of Victim: Yes. AAA's testimony was credited, as alleged resentment was unsupported and, even if true, does not establish ill motive to falsely charge rape or detract from a steadfast minor complainant's credibility.
• Sufficiency of Evidence and Possibility of Rape: Yes. Guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt, since rape may occur in the same small room with sleeping family members and denial cannot prevail over positive, unequivocal testimony.
• Proper Designation of RA 7610 Offense: Yes. The charge properly falls under Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610, because the character of the crime is determined by ultimate facts alleged, which describe intercourse with a child subjected to sexual abuse through coercion.

• Credibility of Victim: The appellate court found no sufficient basis for the claim that AAA was made to work to pay her mother's obligation and harbored a grudge, and motives arising from family feuds, resentment, or revenge have not prevented giving full credence to minor complainants steadfast in direct and cross-examination. Both trial and appellate courts found AAA categorical and unfaltering, and assessments of credibility, especially by the trial court with advantage of observing demeanor, carry great weight unless shown to have overlooked or misunderstood a substantial fact, which was not shown after careful review of the records.
• Sufficiency of Evidence and Possibility of Rape: Lust was characterized as no respecter of time and place, capable of commission in the unlikeliest places and by the most unlikely persons, with judicial notice that among poor couples with big families cramped in small quarters copulation occurs despite presence of others. Prior observations that rape could take place in the same room where family members slept and in a small room with several persons rendered not improbable that AAA's siblings were not awakened. Denial, as self-serving negative evidence, could not prevail over AAA's positive, straightforward, and unequivocal testimony, which alone, if credible, suffices to convict for rape.
• Proper Designation of RA 7610 Offense: While the Information in Criminal Case No. RTC-2757-I designated Sec. 5(a), its factual allegations of sexual intercourse through coercion and/or influence and by force and intimidation with a 17-year-old by her mother's common-law spouse more properly fall under Sec. 5(b), which punishes those who commit sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. Sec. 5(a) refers to engaging in or promoting, facilitating, or inducing child prostitution. Since the real nature of the crime is determined by facts alleged and not by title or designation, the defective designation did not control where the facts adequately described the nature and cause of accusation.

• Credibility of Witnesses; Deference to Trial Court — Findings of the trial court on credibility of witnesses, particularly the victim, carry great weight because of its advantage in observing demeanor, and will remain undisturbed on appeal unless shown to have overlooked, misapplied, or misunderstood some fact or circumstance of substance affecting the result. Applied to affirm the uniform findings that AAA was categorical, unfaltering, and without improper motive.
• Ill Motive and Minor Complainants in Rape — Motives such as those arising from family feuds, resentment, or revenge do not necessarily detract from credibility nor prevent giving full credence to testimony of minor complainants who remained steadfast throughout direct and cross-examination. Applied to reject the claim that AAA falsely accused Anguac due to resentment over being sent to work.
• Rape in Presence of Others — Rape can be committed even in the unlikeliest places and circumstances, including the same small room where other family members are sleeping, lust being no respecter of time and place. Applied to reject impossibility argument based on presence of AAA's sleeping siblings.
• Denial vs. Positive Testimony; Sufficiency of Victim's Sole Testimony — Denials are self-serving negative evidence which cannot prevail over positive, straightforward, and unequivocal testimony of the victim, whose sole credible testimony suffices to convict in rape. Applied to sustain conviction despite Anguac's denial and alibi.
• Determination of Crime by Facts Alleged — The character of the crime is determined neither by caption or preamble of the Information nor by specification of the provision alleged to have been violated, being conclusions of law, but by recital of ultimate facts and circumstances. Applied to treat the RA 7610 charge as Sec. 5(b) despite designation as Sec. 5(a).
• Distinction Between Sec. 5(a) and Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610 — Sec. 5(a) of RA 7610 refers to engaging in or promoting, facilitating, or inducing child prostitution, while Sec. 5(b) relates to offenders who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse, punishable by reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. Applied to classify forced intercourse with a 17-year-old subjected to coercion under Sec. 5(b).

• "Huwag kang maingay kundi papatayin ko kayong lahat" — The threat uttered by Anguac while poking a knife at AAA on March 28, 1998, establishing force, threats, and intimidation for the rape charge.
• "no respecter of time and place." — Borrowed formulation from People vs. Bernabe to explain why lust-driven rape may occur even with sleeping family members nearby, rejecting the impossibility defense.
• "the real nature of the crime charged is determined by the facts alleged in the Information and not by the title or designation of the offense contained in the caption of the Information." — The controlling rule justifying reclassification of the RA 7610 charge from Sec. 5(a) to Sec. 5(b).
• "denials are self-serving negative evidence which cannot prevail over the positive, straightforward, and unequivocal testimony of the victim." — The evidentiary rule sustaining conviction based on AAA's sole credible testimony over Anguac's denial.

• People vs. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640 — Followed as procedural basis for transferring the appeal to the Court of Appeals for intermediate disposition.
• Garcia vs. People, G.R. No. 144785, September 11, 2003, 410 SCRA 582 — Cited for the dictum that the real nature of the crime is determined by facts alleged, supporting reclassification to Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610.
• Licyayo vs. People, G.R. No. 169425, March 4, 2008, 547 SCRA 598 — Followed for the rule that character of the crime is determined by ultimate facts, not caption or cited provision.
• People vs. Bernabe, G.R. No. 141881, November 21, 2001, 370 SCRA 142 — Cited for the proposition that lust is no respecter of time and place, rejecting impossibility due to presence of others.
• People vs. Besmonte, G.R. Nos. 137278-79, February 17, 2003, 397 SCRA 513; People vs. Balmoria, G.R. No. 134539, November 15, 2000, 344 SCRA 723; People vs. Flores, G.R. Nos. 145309-10, April 4, 2003, 400 SCRA 677 — Cited as observations that rape can occur in the same room with sleeping family members or in cramped quarters.
• People vs. Alejo, G.R. No. 149370, September 23, 2002, 411 SCRA 563; People vs. Rata, G.R. Nos. 145523-24, December 11, 2003, 418 SCRA 237 — Cited to hold that resentment or family feud motives do not prevent crediting steadfast minor complainants.
• People vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. Nos. 135554-56, June 21, 2002, 383 SCRA 410 — Cited for deference to trial court credibility findings absent overlooked substantial fact.
• People vs. Bascugin, G.R. No. 144195, May 25, 2004, 429 SCRA 140; People vs. Capili, G.R. No. 142747, March 12, 2002, 379 SCRA 203 — Cited for denial as self-serving and sufficiency of sole credible testimony of rape victim.
• People vs. Layco, Sr., G.R. No. 182191, May 8, 2009 — Followed to increase exemplary damages in rape to PhP 30,000.
• People vs. Abellera, G.R. No. 166617, July 3, 2007, 526 SCRA 329 — Followed as prevailing jurisprudence to increase moral damages for Sec. 5(b) violation to PhP 50,000.

• Section 5(b), Republic Act No. 7610 — Punishes with reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua those who commit sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse, with proviso for victims under 12; applied to the five subsequent assaults committed through coercion and intimidation against 17-year-old AAA.
• Section 5(a), Republic Act No. 7610 — Refers to engaging in or promoting, facilitating, or inducing child prostitution; held inapplicable because the Information alleged actual sexual congress by force, which falls under Sec. 5(b).
• Revised Penal Code on Rape — Applied to Criminal Case No. RTC-2756-I for March 28, 1998 intercourse without consent through force, threats, and intimidation, punished by single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua.
• Section 1, Act No. 4103, as amended by Act No. 4225 (Indeterminate Sentence Law) — Applied to impose indeterminate sentence for RA 7610 violation punished by special law, with maximum not exceeding maximum fixed by law and minimum not less than minimum prescribed, resulting in 12 years minimum to 14 years (reclusion temporal medium) maximum.

Quisumbing, Chairperson, Ynares-Santiago, Leonardo-De Castro, and Brion, JJ., concur.