People vs. BBB254878

The use of specific familial terms such as "niece" or "uncle" in an Information is sufficient to allege the special qualifying circumstance of relationship in rape, even without specifying that the relationship is within the third civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, provided the description clearly and categorically identifies the familial tie and apprises the accused of the accusation.

Accused-appellant was charged with Statutory Rape in relation to Republic Act No. 7610 for incidents that occurred in September 2010 and 2011. The Information alleged that he had carnal knowledge of AAA, an 8-year-old minor and his own niece. Upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty, and trial on the merits ensued.

According to the prosecution, AAA positively identified her maternal uncle in open court as the person who sexually abused her. She testified that in September 2010, while visiting her maternal grandmother, accused-appellant inserted his toe into her vagina during dinner. When her grandfather left, he dragged her to a hut, undressed her, and inserted his penis into her vagina three times, warning her that her parents would be killed if she told anyone. In 2011, while staying at her grandfather's house, accused-appellant again dragged her to a nipa hut and raped her. Dr. Ma. Theresa Tabungar, a Child Protection Specialist, examined AAA and found a hymenal laceration consistent with penetration by a blunt object, such as a penis. The relationship between the parties was established through the testimonies of AAA, her mother CCC, and the accused-appellant himself, who admitted during cross-examination that CCC was his sister and that they shared a common father.

Accused-appellant denied the accusations, claiming he was working as a welder from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and would either stay at his father's house or sleep at the shop. The RTC gave full credence to AAA's positive testimony, rejected the defense of alibi and denial, and convicted him of Statutory Rape qualified by relationship. On appeal, the CA affirmed the factual findings but downgraded the conviction to simple Statutory Rape, reasoning that the Information failed to specifically state the civil degree of relationship, precluding the appreciation of the qualifying circumstance.

• Credibility of Testimony: Accused-appellant contended that AAA's testimony was incredible because she failed to shout for help from the time he allegedly inserted his toe into her vagina during dinner until he dragged her to the hut to rape her.
• Denial and Alibi: Accused-appellant denied the accusations and interposed the defense of alibi, claiming he was at work as a welder or staying at his father's house or the shop during the time of the incident.

• Sufficiency of Information: Whether the Information sufficiently alleged the qualifying circumstance of relationship despite not specifying that the accused is the victim's relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity or affinity.
• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Whether the accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Statutory Rape or Qualified Rape of a minor.

• Sufficiency of Information: Yes. The use of specific familial terms like "own niece" is adequate to inform the accused of the nature of the relationship, satisfying the requirements of the law and due process without needing to specify the exact civil degree.
• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Yes. The accused is guilty of Qualified Rape of a minor, as the elements of minority and carnal knowledge were proven, and the qualifying circumstance of relationship was properly alleged and established.

• Sufficiency of Information: The CA erred in downgrading the conviction simply because the Information did not state the relationship was within the third civil degree. The Information explicitly described AAA as accused-appellant's "own niece." Jurisprudence dictates that the mere allegation of specific familial terms like "niece" or "uncle" is specific enough to satisfy the special qualifying circumstance of relationship. This description directly and in layman's terms conveys the nature of the relationship, ensuring the accused is properly apprised of the accusation and can prepare a defense, fulfilling the principles of fairness and due process.
• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The elements of Statutory Rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code are: (a) the offended party is under 12 years of age; and (b) the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim. AAA's age was established by her Certificate of Live Birth, and her straightforward testimony identified accused-appellant as the perpetrator who dragged her to a hut and inserted his penis into her vagina. This was corroborated by Dr. Tabungar's medical finding of hymenal laceration. The failure of AAA to shout or immediately report the incident does not negate rape, as there is no standard rational reaction expected from a young victim, and she was threatened by the accused. The defense of alibi failed because it was not physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. Since the elements of both Statutory Rape and the qualifying circumstance of relationship were present, the proper nomenclature is Qualified Rape of a minor.

• Sufficiency of Allegation of Relationship in Rape — The use of specific familial terms, such as "niece" or "uncle," in the Information is adequate to inform the accused of the nature of the relationship between him and the victim, thereby meeting the requirements of the law for the special qualifying circumstance of relationship, even without specifying the exact civil degree of consanguinity or affinity.
• Nomenclature for Qualified Statutory Rape — When the elements of both Statutory Rape and Qualified Rape are present (i.e., the twin circumstances of minority and relationship), the crime shall be denominated as QUALIFIED RAPE of a minor, not qualified statutory rape.
• Credibility of Young Victims — The lone testimony of a rape victim, when found to be credible, natural, and consistent with human nature, is enough to sustain a conviction, especially when the victim is of tender age and could hardly concoct a story of sexual abuse.
• Behavior of Rape Victims — There is no clear-cut behavior expected of a person being raped; the failure to shout or seek help does not negate rape, and belated reporting is immaterial, especially when accompanied by threats.

• "While there is diverse jurisprudence on the matter, the use of specific familial terms, like niece or uncle, is adequate to inform the accused of the nature of the relationship between him and the victim, thereby meeting the requirements of the law." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi on the sufficiency of the Information in alleging the qualifying circumstance of relationship.
• "It is unreasonable to demand a standard rational reaction to an irrational experience, especially from a young victim." — This defines the Court's stance on the credibility and expected behavior of child victims of rape, frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence.

• People vs. ABC260708, G.R. No. 260708, January 23, 2024 — Followed to clarify the proper nomenclature of the crime as "Qualified Rape of a minor" when both statutory rape and qualifying circumstances are present.
• People vs. Abat, 731 Phil. 304 (2014) — Followed to support the ruling that an Information alleging the victim is the accused's "niece" sufficiently alleges the qualifying circumstance of relationship.

• Article 266-A, paragraph 1(d), Revised Penal Code — Defines Statutory Rape, requiring the offended party to be under 12 years of age and the accused to have carnal knowledge of the victim regardless of force, threat, or intimidation.
• Article 266-B, Revised Penal Code — Imposes the death penalty for rape when the victim is under 18 and the offender is a relative within the third civil degree; reduced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346.
• Republic Act No. 9346 — Prohibits the imposition of the death penalty in the Philippines, reducing the penalty for Qualified Rape to reclusion perpetua.
• Republic Act No. 8505 — Directs the DSWD to refer the rape victim to the appropriate rape crisis center for necessary assistance.

Gesmundo, C.J., Leonen, SAJ., M. Lopez, Gaerlan, J. Lopez, Marquez, and Singh, JJ., concurred. Caguioa, J., filed a concurring opinion.

• Dimaampao, J. — Filed a concurring and dissenting opinion, joined by Kho, Jr., J. The text of the separate opinion is not provided in the source text, precluding a summary of the specific points of disagreement.