People vs. Padlan

Statutory rape is committed when the offended party is under twelve years of age and the accused has carnal knowledge of her, regardless of force, threat, or intimidation; and acts of lasciviousness against a child under twelve, when the Information alleges Art. 336, RPC in relation to Sec. 5(b), Art. III of RA 7610, is penalized under RA 7610 with reclusion temporal in its medium period.

Padlan lived with AAA’s family from August 15, 2003 after Alvin Padlan, who had adopted him, left him under BBB’s care upon leaving for Masbate. The charges were framed under the RPC’s rape and acts of lasciviousness provisions, read with RA 7610, the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act.

AAA was a nine-year-old girl from Meycauayan, Bulacan, and Padlan was the man who had been left in her family’s household. On August 7, 2005, at about 1:00 p.m., while AAA was sleeping inside their house, Padlan woke her and asked her to stand up. According to AAA, Padlan touched and caressed her vagina, removed her clothes and his own, told her to lie down, and inserted his penis into her vagina. The insertion lasted about one and a half hours by her account, was painful enough to make her shout “Aray!”, and Padlan withdrew his penis and inserted his finger into her vagina; she put her clothes back on after he removed his finger. She did not report the incident because Padlan threatened to kill her mother if she did.

In the evening of September 27, 2005, Padlan called AAA and told her that BBB wanted her to go to a certain Ate Sharon to borrow money, warning that BBB would spank her if she did not obey. AAA followed Padlan to Ate Sharon’s house; when they reached an aratiles tree along the way, Padlan stopped her, told her to lie down on the ground, removed her shorts and underwear, and inserted his penis into her vagina. After Padlan finished, AAA went home by herself.

The following day, September 28, 2005, AAA was sleeping in her sister’s bedroom while BBB was gathering kangkong. AAA was roused when she felt Padlan touching and rubbing her vagina; she opened her eyes, saw Padlan, and quickly ran to her mother. The next day, AAA complained to BBB about vaginal pain; BBB examined AAA and saw that her vagina was swollen and had pus. When asked who was responsible, AAA told BBB what Padlan had done. BBB confronted Padlan, and according to BBB, Padlan admitted that he raped AAA twice. AAA’s older brother reported the incidents to the police; Padlan was apprehended and AAA was brought to Camp Crame for medical examination.

Padlan denied the charges and relied on alibi. He claimed that on August 7, 2005, at around 12:00 noon, he went to Nueva Ecija with his employer to buy vegetables for resale in Bulacan and returned to the Bulacan public market at about 2:00 a.m. the following morning. On September 27, 2005, he said he was resting inside AAA’s house after selling vegetables, took a bath after about an hour, and collected payments at the market until 12:00 midnight. On September 28, 2005, at around 11:00 a.m., he rested at home after selling vegetables, took a bath, ate, and watched television; he denied any encounter with AAA and said he was surprised by the accusation.

The RTC found AAA’s testimony credible because it was given in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous, and frank manner despite her young age, and the CA affirmed. The prosecution presented AAA’s birth certificate, which stated her date of birth as August 20, 1996, and the defense did not dispute that she was nine years old at the time of the incidents.

• Burden of Proof and Presumption of Innocence: Petitioner-appellant argued that the trial court erred in finding him guilty despite the prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and to overcome the presumption of his innocence.
• Credibility and Alibi: Petitioner-appellant challenged AAA’s credibility and insisted that he was in a different place at the time of the alleged crimes; he prayed for acquittal.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Whether the trial court erred in finding Padlan guilty of two counts of rape and one count of acts of lasciviousness despite the prosecution’s alleged failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Proper Penalty for Acts of Lasciviousness: Whether the penalty for acts of lasciviousness should be imposed under Art. 336, RPC alone or under Sec. 5(b), Art. III of RA 7610, given the Information’s allegations.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: No. The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of statutory rape in Criminal Case Nos. 2755-M-2005 and 2756-M-2005 and of acts of lasciviousness in Criminal Case No. 2757-M-2005; AAA’s positive testimony prevailed over Padlan’s denial and alibi.
• Proper Penalty for Acts of Lasciviousness: The penalty must be under Sec. 5(b), Art. III of RA 7610. The Information alleged Art. 336, RPC in relation to Sec. 5(b), Art. III of RA 7610 and stated that AAA was a nine-year-old minor, so the proper penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Under Art. 266-A, RPC, rape is committed by carnal knowledge when the offended party is under twelve years of age, even without force, threat, or intimidation. People vs. Gutierrez holds that statutory rape requires only that the offended party is under twelve and the accused had carnal knowledge of her. AAA’s birth certificate showed she was born August 20, 1996, making her nine at the time; the defense did not dispute her age. AAA categorically testified that Padlan inserted his penis into her vagina on August 7, 2005 and September 27, 2005, and that he touched her vagina on September 28, 2005. The SC upheld the RTC and CA credibility findings: AAA narrated the events clearly and candidly, a girl of tender years is unlikely to impute so serious a crime if untrue, and no improper motive was shown. Padlan’s denial and alibi were uncorroborated self-serving statements; alibi requires proof that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene, and the distance from Meycauayan to Nueva Ecija did not establish impossibility, especially since facility of access matters. His claim that he was resting in AAA’s house on September 27-28 placed him at the scene.
• Proper Penalty for Acts of Lasciviousness: The Information in Criminal Case No. 2757-M-2005 specifically alleged acts of lasciviousness under Art. 336, RPC in relation to Sec. 5(b), Art. III of RA 7610, and stated that AAA was a nine-year-old minor and that Padlan touched her vagina. To be liable under Sec. 5(b), Art. III of RA 7610, the elements of acts of lasciviousness under Art. 336, RPC must be met: the offender commits an act of lasciviousness or lewdness; it is done through force, threat, or intimidation, when the offended party is deprived of reason or unconscious, by fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority, or when the offended party is under twelve years of age or demented; and the offended party is another person of either sex. In addition, sexual abuse under Sec. 5(b), Art. III of RA 7610 requires that the accused commits sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; the act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and the child is below eighteen years of age. Sec. 2(h) of the IRR defines lascivious conduct as intentional touching of the genitalia, among others, with intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify sexual desire. People vs. Aycardo explains that a child need not be exploited in prostitution; a child is deemed subjected to other sexual abuse when he or she indulges in lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult. The SC found the elements sufficiently alleged and proven. The RTC erred in not applying Sec. 5(b), Art. III of RA 7610 because the Information did specify that provision. The proper penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period. Under the ISL, because the offense is in a special law but the penalty is taken from the RPC nomenclature, People vs. Simon applies; following People vs. Santos, the minimum is reclusion temporal minimum and the maximum is reclusion temporal medium, absent mitigating or aggravating circumstances. The SC imposed 12 years, 10 months, and 21 days of reclusion temporal as minimum to 15 years, 6 months, and 20 days of reclusion temporal as maximum, plus damages and fine.

• Statutory Rape — Rape is statutory when the offended party is under twelve years of age and the accused has carnal knowledge of her, regardless of force, threat, intimidation, deprivation of reason, or fraud. The SC applied it because AAA was nine years old, her birth certificate showed her date of birth, and she testified to two acts of penile insertion.
• Credibility of a Child Rape Victim — A girl of tender years who barely understands sex and sexuality is unlikely to impute a crime so serious as rape if her claim is not true; the trial court’s credibility finding, affirmed by the CA, stands absent overlooked facts that could materially affect the outcome. The SC upheld AAA’s categorical, straightforward, spontaneous, and frank testimony and found no improper motive.
• Alibi — Alibi is an inherently weak defense that cannot prevail over positive and categorical testimony and identification; for it to prosper, the accused must prove that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the scene at the time of the crime. Physical impossibility refers not only to geographical distance but also to the facility of access between the two places. The SC rejected Padlan’s alibi because his employer was not presented, the distance to Nueva Ecija did not prove impossibility, and his own testimony placed him at AAA’s house on September 27-28, 2005.
• Acts of Lasciviousness under Sec. 5(b), Art. III, RA 7610 — The elements of Art. 336, RPC must be established, plus the requisites for sexual abuse under Sec. 5(b), Art. III, RA 7610: the accused commits sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; the act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and the child is below eighteen years of age. A child need not be exploited in prostitution; coercion or influence by an adult suffices. The SC applied it because the Information alleged Art. 336, RPC in relation to Sec. 5(b), Art. III, RA 7610, stated AAA was a nine-year-old minor, and alleged that Padlan touched her vagina.
• Penalty for Acts of Lasciviousness when the Victim is Under Twelve — Under Sec. 5(b), Art. III, RA 7610, the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve years of age is reclusion temporal in its medium period. Under the ISL, when a special law adopts a penalty from the RPC nomenclature, the RPC’s legal effects apply; absent mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the minimum is one degree lower than the prescribed penalty and the maximum is the medium period of the imposable penalty. The SC imposed an indeterminate sentence of reclusion temporal minimum as minimum to reclusion temporal medium as maximum.
• Damages in Rape with Reclusion Perpetua — Under People vs. Jugueta, when rape is punishable by reclusion perpetua, the proper damages are ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱75,000.00 as moral damages, and ₱75,000.00 as exemplary damages. The SC applied this to the two rape convictions.

• “[A] girl of tender years, who barely understands sex and sexuality, is unlikely to impute to any man a crime so serious as rape, if what she claims is not true.” — The SC used this to explain why AAA’s testimony deserved full weight and credence.
• “Physical impossibility refers not only to the geographical distance between the place where the accused was and the place where the crime was committed when the crime transpired, but more importantly, the facility of access between the two places.” — The SC rejected Padlan’s alibi because distance alone did not prove physical impossibility.
• “Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610 punishes sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct not only with a child exploited in prostitution, but also with a child subjected to other sexual abuses.” — The SC quoted People vs. Aycardo to hold that AAA need not be a child exploited in prostitution for RA 7610 to apply.
• “The proper imposable penalty for acts of lasciviousness under the circumstances is reclusion temporal in its medium period which ranges from fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months.” — The SC corrected the RTC and CA penalty and applied Sec. 5(b), Art. III, RA 7610.

• People vs. Gutierrez, 731 Phil. 352, 357 (2014) — Controlling precedent on the elements of statutory rape: the offended party is under twelve and the accused had carnal knowledge of her.
• People vs. Veloso, 703 Phil. 541, 553 (2013) — Relied on for the rule that a girl of tender years is unlikely to impute a serious crime like rape if her claim is not true.
• People vs. Viojela, 697 Phil. 513, 529 (2012) — Relied on for the rule that physical impossibility in alibi refers not only to distance but also to facility of access between the two places.
• People vs. Quimvel, G.R. No. 214497, April 18, 2017 — Relied on for the elements of acts of lasciviousness under Art. 336, RPC and the requisites for sexual abuse under Sec. 5(b), Art. III, RA 7610.
• People vs. Aycardo, G.R. No. 218114, June 5, 2017 — Relied on for the rule that a child need not be exploited in prostitution for RA 7610 to apply; a child subjected to other sexual abuse is covered.
• People vs. Simon, 304 Phil. 725, 756 (1994) — Relied on for the rule that when an offense is defined in a special law but the penalty is taken from the RPC nomenclature, the RPC’s legal effects apply.
• People vs. Santos, 753 Phil. 637, 651 (2015) — Relied on for the ISL computation in acts of lasciviousness under Sec. 5(b), Art. III, RA 7610: minimum from reclusion temporal minimum and maximum from reclusion temporal medium.
• People vs. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331, 373 — Relied on for the damages in rape punishable by reclusion perpetua: ₱75,000.00 each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages.

• Article 266-A, Revised Penal Code (as amended by RA 8353) — Defines rape, including carnal knowledge of a woman under twelve years of age even without force, threat, or intimidation; applied to the two rape convictions.
• Article 266-B, Revised Penal Code — Provides the penalty for rape; the SC sentenced Padlan to reclusion perpetua for each count.
• Article 336, Revised Penal Code — Defines acts of lasciviousness; its elements were applied to the acts of lasciviousness charge.
• Section 5(b), Article III, Republic Act No. 7610 — Punishes sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; when the victim is under twelve, the penalty for lascivious conduct is reclusion temporal in its medium period; applied to Criminal Case No. 2757-M-2005.
• Section 2(h), Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 7610 — Defines lascivious conduct as intentional touching of the genitalia, among others, with intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify sexual desire; applied to Padlan’s touching of AAA’s vagina.
• Section 1, Republic Act No. 4103 (Indeterminate Sentence Law) — Provides that for an offense punished under a special law, the maximum term shall not exceed the maximum fixed by the law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum prescribed; applied with People vs. Simon and People vs. Santos to fix the indeterminate penalty for acts of lasciviousness.