People vs. Talib-og

In prosecutions for rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code where the victim is a minor, the penalty under Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610 (reclusion temporal in its medium period) shall be imposed instead of the penalty under the Revised Penal Code (prision mayor), provided the Information clearly alleges facts constitutive of lascivious conduct against a child, notwithstanding that the accused was specifically charged under the Revised Penal Code.

Andres Talib-og y Tuganan, a family friend residing less than a kilometer from the victim's home, sexually abused AAA, a ten-year-old girl, on four separate occasions between October and November 2004. The abuse occurred while the victim was sleeping or alone at home, involving both digital penetration and sexual intercourse under circumstances of threat and intimidation.

• The Charges: Four Informations were filed against accused-appellant Andres Talib-og y Tuganan. Criminal Case Nos. 12890 and 13001 charged statutory rape for acts committed on November 28 and November 13, 2004, respectively, alleging carnal knowledge of AAA, a ten-year-old minor. Criminal Case Nos. 13002 and 13003 charged rape by sexual assault for acts committed on October 25 and October 28, 2004, respectively, alleging that accused-appellant inserted his middle right finger into the victim's vagina.

• The Prosecution Evidence: AAA testified that she was born on March 16, 1994, and was ten years old at the time of the incidents. On October 25, 2004, around 8:00 p.m., accused-appellant removed her panty while she was sleeping, held her feet, made her lie down, covered her mouth with his left hand, and inserted his right hand finger into her vagina. She recognized him by the light from a lamp in their house. On October 28, 2004, around 10:00 p.m., accused-appellant again inserted his middle finger into her vagina while she slept. On November 13, 2004, around 10:00 p.m., accused-appellant inserted his penis into her vagina and made pumping motions, covering her mouth to prevent her from shouting; he left through the back of the house when her father arrived. On November 28, 2004, around 11:00 p.m., after her father came home drunk, AAA retreated to a neighbor's bodega to sleep; accused-appellant followed, removed her underwear, and inserted his penis into her vagina. After the fourth incident, AAA reported the abuse to her aunt, leading to a barangay report, police questioning, medical examination, and DSWD intervention.

• The Defense: Accused-appellant interposed the defense of denial. He claimed he was asleep in his house during three of the four incidents. Regarding the November 28, 2004 incident, he claimed he went to the bodega to get a sack, saw someone sleeping, woke the person, and told her to go home, but did not recognize who it was. He alleged a quarrel with AAA's father as the motive for the false accusations.

• Lower Court Findings: The RTC found AAA's testimony direct, positive, and straightforward, sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The CA affirmed these factual findings, noting that the trial court's assessment of witness credibility is entitled to great weight.

• Credibility of the Victim: Petitioner argued that AAA's testimony was not in conformity with human experience, pointing out that she had every opportunity to flee from him but chose not to, and that her actuations before, during, and after the alleged incidents were inconsistent with the behavior of a rape victim.

• Motive and Denial: Petitioner maintained that he had a quarrel with AAA's father, which provided the motive for the false accusations against him. He argued that his defense of denial should prevail over the prosecution's evidence, which he characterized as insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Respondent countered that the prosecution sufficiently established all elements of statutory rape and rape by sexual assault through AAA's credible testimony. For statutory rape, the victim's age below twelve and the fact of carnal knowledge were proven; for rape by sexual assault, the insertion of a finger into the genital orifice was established.

• Applicability of RA 7610: Respondent argued that for the two counts of rape by sexual assault, the penalty under Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610 (reclusion temporal in its medium period) should be imposed instead of the penalty under Article 266-A of the RPC, citing People v. Chingh and Ricalde v. People.

• Credibility of the Victim: Whether the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to alleged inconsistencies in AAA's testimony and her failure to immediately report the incidents or flee from her attacker.

• Applicable Penalty for Rape by Sexual Assault: Whether the penalty for rape by sexual assault committed against a minor should be prision mayor under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of the RPC or reclusion temporal in its medium period under Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610.

• Award of Damages: Whether the award of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages should be modified in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.

• Credibility of the Victim: The conviction was affirmed. AAA's direct, positive, and straightforward narration of the incidents in detail prevails over accused-appellant's unsubstantiated allegations of denial. Factual findings of trial courts regarding the credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight and respect and are binding upon the Supreme Court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. No cogent reason exists to deviate from the lower courts' assessment.

• Applicable Penalty for Rape by Sexual Assault: The penalty under Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610 (reclusion temporal in its medium period) applies to rape by sexual assault when the victim is a minor. Inserting a finger into a minor's vagina constitutes lascivious conduct under RA 7610. To impose the lesser penalty of prision mayor under the RPC would create an absurdity wherein acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 in relation to RA 7610 are punished more severely (reclusion temporal in its medium period) than rape by sexual assault. Although accused-appellant was not specifically charged under RA 7610, Ricalde v. People instructs that as long as the Information clearly alleges facts constitutive of the offense, there is no violation of the right to due process. The Informations here clearly indicated the insertion of a finger into the vagina of a ten-year-old minor, constituting lascivious conduct.

• Award of Damages: The award was modified. For the two counts of statutory rape, civil indemnity and moral damages were increased to P75,000.00 each, and exemplary damages of P75,000.00 were awarded for each count. For the two counts of rape by sexual assault, civil indemnity and moral damages of P30,000.00 each were maintained, with exemplary damages of P30,000.00 added for each count, pursuant to People v. Marmol and current jurisprudence.

• Statutory Rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the RPC — The elements are: (1) the offended party is under twelve years of age; and (2) the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim, regardless of whether there was force, threat, intimidation, or grave abuse of authority. It is sufficient that the age of the victim is proven and that there was sexual intercourse.

• Rape by Sexual Assault under Article 266-A(2) of the RPC — The crime is committed by any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1, commits an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.

• Application of RA 7610 to Rape by Sexual Assault (The Chingh Doctrine) — Despite the passage of Republic Act No. 8353 (The Anti-Rape Law of 1997), Republic Act No. 7610 remains good law and must be applied when the victims are children. When the victim is below twelve years of age, the penalty for rape by sexual assault shall be that provided in Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 (reclusion temporal in its medium period) rather than the penalty under the RPC (prision mayor), because inserting a finger into a minor's vagina constitutes lascivious conduct, and imposing the RPC penalty would result in the absurd situation where acts of lasciviousness are punished more severely than rape by sexual assault.

• Due Process in Application of RA 7610 (The Ricalde Doctrine) — Although the accused was charged specifically under the RPC for rape by sexual assault, the penalty under RA 7610 may be applied without violating the right to due process as long as the Information clearly alleges facts constitutive of the offense under RA 7610, since the accused is sufficiently apprised of the charge against him.

• "The Court is not unmindful to the fact that the accused who commits acts of lasciviousness under Article 336, in relation to Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, suffers the more severe penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period than the one who commits Rape Through Sexual Assault, which is merely punishable by prision mayor. This is undeniably unfair to the child victim. To be sure, it was not the intention of the framers of R.A. No. 8353 to have disallowed the applicability of R.A. No. 7610 to sexual abuses committed to children. Despite the passage of R.A. No. 8353, R.A. No. 7610 is still good law, which must be applied when the victims are children or those persons below eighteen (18) years of age..."

• "From the foregoing, it can be easily discerned that if the courts would not opt to impose the higher penalty provided in R.A. No. 7610 in cases of rape by sexual assault, wherein the victims are children, an accused who commits acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC, in relation to Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. 7610, suffers the more severe penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period, than the one who commits rape by sexual assault which is punishable by prision mayor."

• "Although accused-appellant was not specifically charged for an offense under R.A. 7610, Ricalde instructs that as long as the Information is clear about the facts constitutive of the offense, there is no violation of the right of the accused to due process."

• People v. Chingh, 661 Phil. 208 (2011) — Established that the penalty under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 shall be imposed in convictions for rape by sexual assault when the victim is a minor, rather than the penalty under Article 266-A(2) of the RPC.

• Ricalde v. People, 751 Phil. 793 (2015) — Held that applying the penalty under RA 7610 to a conviction for rape by sexual assault does not violate due process even if the Information specifically charges under the RPC, provided the facts constitutive of the offense are clearly alleged.

• People v. Bagsic, G.R. No. 218404, December 13, 2017 — Reiterated the rationale behind modifying the penalty for rape by sexual assault committed against minors to avoid the absurdity where acts of lasciviousness are punished more severely.

• People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Cited by the Court of Appeals for the modification of damages awarded in rape cases.

• People v. Ronquillo, G.R. No. 214762, September 20, 2017 — Cited for the elements of statutory rape and the award of exemplary damages.

• People v. Marmol, 800 Phil. 813 (2016) — Cited for the award of exemplary damages in cases of rape by sexual assault.

• Article 266-A, paragraphs 1 and 2, Revised Penal Code (as amended by Republic Act No. 8353) — Defines rape by sexual intercourse (statutory rape when victim is under 12) and rape by sexual assault.

• Section 5(b), Article III, Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act) — Imposes the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua for those who commit acts of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse; provides that when the victim is under twelve years of age, the penalty for lascivious conduct shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period.

• Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103, as amended) — Applied in determining the minimum and maximum terms of the indeterminate penalty for the counts of rape by sexual assault.

Bersamin, C.J., Del Castillo, Jardeleza, and Gesmundo, JJ.