People vs. XXX

The credible testimony of a child victim, especially when sustained by both the RTC and the CA, prevails over the accused’s uncorroborated denial and alibi; and for acts of lasciviousness against a victim 12 years old and under 18, the offense is “Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of RA 7610,” without reference to the RPC, with the penalty of reclusion temporal medium to reclusion perpetua. For a victim under 12, the offense is Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of RA 7610, with the penalty under RA 7610.

Accused-appellant XXX is the legitimate father of AAA, a minor. The legal backdrop includes Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610, its Implementing Rules and Regulations, and the RPC provisions on rape and acts of lasciviousness.

AAA, then a minor and the daughter of accused-appellant XXX, testified as the prosecution’s lone witness. According to her, on January 6, 2005, when she was eleven years old, she was at the house of her cousin, Ate Brenda, watching television. Her father came, called her, and brought her to the bathroom of Ate Brenda’s house; inside, he embraced her and touched her breast, then gave her twenty pesos (P20.00) with a warning not to tell anybody what he did, and left.

On June 12, 2005, around 8:00 o’clock in the evening, when AAA was twelve years old, she was at home taking a bath when her father suddenly appeared, covered her mouth, and warned her not to tell anybody what he was doing to her. He then touched her private part and her breast, warned her again, and left. On August 20, 2005, while AAA was at the back of their house watching over her five-year-old brother who was then taking a dump, her father suddenly appeared, ordered her sibling to go inside the house, embraced her, touched her breast, and left.

On February 28, 2007, around 9:00 o’clock in the evening, when AAA was thirteen years old, she was sleeping at their house with her other siblings. She was awakened when someone touched her shoulders; it was her father. He put off the light, removed his pants and underwear, held AAA’s hands, and forcibly removed her shorts and panty. He then forced her to lie down, inserted his penis into her vagina, and started pumping. He warned her not to tell anybody what happened; after satisfying himself, he left, and AAA cried.

On March 7, 2007, at about 10:00 o’clock in the evening, when AAA was thirteen years old, she was home and her father again fondled her breast. This time, AAA’s mother saw it and confronted the accused, but he just left. After this incident, AAA told her aunt about what her father did, and her aunt reported the matter to their barangay captain, who accompanied them to the police station.

For his defense, accused-appellant offered denial and alibi. He testified that he was a porter at the Lemery Public Market, working from 6:00 o’clock in the evening until 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon of the following day, and that on the dates he allegedly molested and raped AAA, he was at the market carrying fruits and vegetables with his brother. He also claimed that he never went to the house of BBB; that he had seven children and, with his wife, lived in the house of his wife’s cousin from November 2006 until his arrest in 2007; and that the house measured about five meters by four meters, had one small bedroom filled with old clothes, containers, and fruit boxes, so he slept outside the room while his wife and children slept inside. On appeal, he argued that the cramped space made it physically impossible for him to rape AAA without her mother and siblings hearing, and that the prosecution’s failure to present the physician who examined AAA was fatal.

The RTC found AAA’s testimony clear, convincing, and without any indication that it was rehearsed or coached; it observed that AAA had no ill motive to implicate accused-appellant and was more predisposed to believe a young and immature victim who chose to testify despite vulnerability and embarrassment. The RTC ruled that accused-appellant’s uncorroborated denial and alibi could not overcome AAA’s positive testimony. The CA found that the prosecution established that accused-appellant touched AAA’s breast and private parts on several occasions to satisfy his sexual desires, his relationship to AAA, and AAA’s minority and coverage under RA 7610; it rejected the alibi as uncorroborated, held that his moral ascendancy and influence over AAA was sufficient to instill fear and intimidation, and ruled that the physician’s testimony was merely corroborative and dispensable.

• Credibility of AAA: Accused-appellant argued that the RTC gravely erred in finding him guilty of rape despite the prosecution’s failure to overthrow the constitutional presumption of innocence in his favor and despite the incredibility of AAA’s testimony.
• Denial: Accused-appellant argued that the RTC gravely erred in not giving credence to his defense of denial.
• Alibi: Accused-appellant maintained that during the alleged commission of the crimes he was working as a porter at the Lemery Public Market, carrying fruits and vegetables with his brother.
• Physical Impossibility: Accused-appellant argued that the size and configuration of their house and the sleeping positions of the household made it physically impossible for him to rape AAA without her mother and siblings hearing.
• Medico-Legal Testimony: Accused-appellant contended that the prosecution’s failure to present in evidence the testimony of the physician who medically checked AAA was fatal.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Whether accused-appellant’s guilt for the crimes charged was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Nomenclature of Lascivious Conduct: Whether the offense of lascivious conduct should be denominated as “Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of RA 7610” or as “Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of RA 7610,” depending on the victim’s age.
• Penalties: Whether the penalties imposed by the CA for lascivious conduct, acts of lasciviousness, and qualified rape are correct.
• Damages: Whether the damages awarded to AAA should be increased in conformity with People vs. Tulagan and People vs. Panes.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Yes. The SC affirmed the conviction, holding that AAA’s credible testimony, sustained by the RTC and CA, prevailed over accused-appellant’s uncorroborated denial and alibi; the physician’s testimony was merely corroborative.
• Nomenclature of Lascivious Conduct: For Criminal Cases Nos. 20-2007, 34-2007, and 35-2007, the offense is “Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of RA 7610”; for Criminal Case No. 33-2007, it is “Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of RA 7610.” Qualified rape in Criminal Case No. 32-2007 was correctly convicted.
• Penalties: Modified. Criminal Cases Nos. 20-2007, 34-2007, and 35-2007 carry reclusion perpetua; Criminal Case No. 32-2007 carries reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole; Criminal Case No. 33-2007 carries an indeterminate sentence of 14 years and 8 months of reclusion temporal as minimum to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal as maximum.
• Damages: Increased. Civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages were raised to P75,000.00 each in Criminal Cases Nos. 20-2007, 34-2007, and 35-2007; P100,000.00 each in Criminal Case No. 32-2007; and P50,000.00 each in Criminal Case No. 33-2007, with 6% per annum interest from finality; the fine was deleted.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The SC gave utmost respect to the RTC’s factual determination, especially because the CA affirmed it. RTCs are better positioned to observe the demeanor and deportment of witnesses, making their credibility assessment superior to appellate tribunals; absent a showing that the RTC and CA overlooked a material fact or misappreciated a circumstance of consequence, the SC had no ground to reverse their uniform findings. AAA’s testimony was credible, and no ill motive was attributed to her; accused-appellant himself testified that he could think of no reason why AAA would accuse him. His alibi was not categorical because AAA’s testimony indicated that her father “most of the time” went to work at six o’clock in the evening and returned at two o’clock in the afternoon of the following day, which did not unequivocally place him away from the house during the crimes. His denial was a negative defense, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence and uncorroborated, so it could not outweigh AAA’s positive and affirmative testimony. The physician’s testimony was merely corroborative and not essential to conviction. The SC sustained the conviction and agreed with the CA’s legal conclusion.
• Nomenclature of Lascivious Conduct: Under People vs. Tulagan, if the victim is 12 years old and under 18, or 18 and above under special circumstances, the crime is “Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of RA 7610,” with the penalty of reclusion temporal medium to reclusion perpetua, and the nomenclature should not refer to the RPC. If the victim is under 12, even if the victim consents, the crime is statutory acts of lasciviousness, prosecuted under Article 336 of the RPC but penalized under Section 5(b) of RA 7610. AAA was 13 in Criminal Case No. 20-2007, 12 in Criminal Cases Nos. 34-2007 and 35-2007, and 11 in Criminal Case No. 33-2007. Thus, Criminal Cases Nos. 20-2007, 34-2007, and 35-2007 are “Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of RA 7610”; Criminal Case No. 33-2007 is “Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of RA 7610.” Qualified rape in Criminal Case No. 32-2007 was correctly convicted.
• Penalties: Under Articles 64 and 65 of the RPC, the presence of an aggravating circumstance warrants imposition of the penalty in its maximum period. The imposable penalty for lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 is reclusion temporal medium to reclusion perpetua. Since relationship was duly proven and no mitigating circumstance offset it, the maximum penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed in Criminal Cases Nos. 20-2007, 34-2007, and 35-2007. No “without eligibility for parole” qualification was needed for these because, under A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC, when the death penalty is not warranted, persons penalized with an indivisible penalty are understood not to be eligible for parole. In Criminal Case No. 32-2007, reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole was correct because Article 266-B imposes death for qualified rape. In Criminal Case No. 33-2007, Section 5(b) of RA 7610 imposes reclusion temporal medium when the victim is under 12; with relationship as an aggravating circumstance, the penalty is imposed in its maximum period. The CA correctly set the maximum term at 17 years and 4 months, but its minimum term of 16 years, 5 months, and 11 days was still within the maximum period of reclusion temporal medium, which was incorrect. Because the penalty was provided by a special law but its technical nomenclature was taken from the RPC, the Indeterminate Sentence Law was applied using RPC rules; the minimum term should come from the penalty next lower to reclusion temporal medium, which is reclusion temporal minimum (12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months). Pursuant to Article 64, paragraph 7, and considering the gravity of the offense, the SC imposed 14 years and 8 months as the minimum term.
• Damages: To conform to People vs. Tulagan and People vs. Panes, the SC increased the damages. In Criminal Case No. 20-2007, civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages were each raised to P75,000.00. In Criminal Case No. 32-2007, civil indemnity and moral damages remained P100,000.00 each, while exemplary damages were raised to P100,000.00. In Criminal Case No. 33-2007, civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages were each raised to P50,000.00. In Criminal Cases Nos. 34-2007 and 35-2007, civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages were each raised to P75,000.00. The fine was deleted to mirror Tulagan, and legal interest of 6% per annum was imposed on all damages from the date of finality until fully paid.

• Credibility of child victim and deference to RTC findings — RTCs are best positioned to observe witnesses’ demeanor and deportment, so their credibility assessment is superior to appellate tribunals; factual findings affirmed by the CA are entitled to great weight and respect, if not conclusiveness, absent overlooked material facts. The SC applied this by upholding AAA’s testimony over accused-appellant’s defenses.
• Denial and alibi — Denial is a negative defense; alibi must be categorical and unequivocal, and both must be supported by clear and convincing evidence and corroboration to overcome a credible witness’s positive testimony. The SC rejected accused-appellant’s defenses because his alibi was uncorroborated and not categorical, and his denial was self-serving.
• Medico-legal testimony in rape prosecutions — Expert medical testimony is merely corroborative and not indispensable to conviction. The SC held that the prosecution’s failure to present the physician did not weaken the conviction.
• Nomenclature of lascivious conduct under RA 7610 and the RPC — Under People vs. Tulagan: (1) if the victim is 12 years old and under 18, or 18 and above under special circumstances, the crime is “Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of RA 7610,” with penalty reclusion temporal medium to reclusion perpetua, and no reference to the RPC; (2) if the victim is under 12, even with consent, the crime is statutory acts of lasciviousness, prosecuted under Article 336 of the RPC but penalized under Section 5(b) of RA 7610. The SC applied this to re-label the cases.
• Aggravating relationship and penalty — Under Articles 64 and 65 of the RPC, an aggravating circumstance without a mitigating one warrants the maximum period. Relationship, duly proven, raised the penalty for lascivious conduct under RA 7610 to reclusion perpetua and for qualified rape to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole because Article 266-B imposes death.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law for special laws with RPC nomenclature — When a special law provides the penalty but its technical nomenclature is taken from the RPC, the ISLaw is applied using RPC rules; the maximum term is within the maximum period of the imposable penalty, and the minimum is within the penalty next lower. The SC applied this to Criminal Case No. 33-2007.
• “Without eligibility for parole” qualification — Under A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC, when the death penalty is not warranted, it is understood that convicted persons penalized with an indivisible penalty are not eligible for parole, so the phrase need not be appended. The SC applied this to the reclusion perpetua sentences for lascivious conduct, while retaining it for qualified rape because Article 266-B imposes death.
• Damages in sexual abuse and rape cases — In conformity with People vs. Tulagan and People vs. Panes, civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages are increased to the amounts set by prevailing jurisprudence, and fines may be deleted. The SC increased the awards and imposed 6% interest.

• “It is settled that trial courts are better hoisted to observe the demeanor and deportment of witnesses on the stand, making their assessment of a witness’s credibility far superior to that of appellate tribunals.” — The SC used this to justify deference to the RTC’s credibility findings, which the CA had affirmed.
• “Unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, denials are negative defenses, which cannot be given greater evidentiary weight than a credible witness’s positive and affirmative testimony.” — The SC relied on this to reject accused-appellant’s denial and alibi against AAA’s positive testimony.
• “Whereas if the victim is 12 years old and under 18 years old, or 18 years old and above under special circumstances, the nomenclature of the crime should be “Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610” with the imposable penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua, but it should not make any reference to the provisions of the RPC.” — Under People vs. Tulagan, the SC used this rule to denominate the offense for a victim 12 to under 18 without reference to the RPC.
• “Even if such party consents to the lascivious conduct, the crime is always statutory acts of lasciviousness. The offender will be prosecuted under Article 336 of the RPC, but the penalty is provided for under Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610.” — Under Tulagan, the SC applied this to Criminal Case No. 33-2007 because AAA was 11 years old.

• People vs. Tulagan, G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019 — Controlling precedent on the nomenclature, penalties, and damages for lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 and acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC; the SC expressly conformed to and mirrored it.
• People vs. Panes, G.R. No. 215730, September 11, 2017 — Precedent on the amount of damages for convictions of qualified rape; relied on in increasing the damages.
• Cruz vs. People, G.R. No. 166441, October 8, 2014, 737 SCRA 567 — Supporting precedent on the RTC’s factual findings and credibility assessment being entitled to respect.
• People vs. Taguibuya, G.R. No. 180497, October 5, 2011, 658 SCRA 685 — Quoted precedent on the RTC’s superior position to observe witnesses and assess credibility.
• People vs. Taguilid, G.R. No. 181544, April 11, 2012, 669 SCRA 341 — Supporting precedent on upholding the credibility of a child rape victim absent evidence of ill motive.
• People vs. Adajar, G.R. No. 231306, June 17, 2019 — Supporting precedent on denial as a negative defense that cannot outweigh credible positive testimony.
• People vs. Cabilida, Jr., G.R. No. 222964, July 11, 2018 — Supporting precedent that medico-legal testimony is merely corroborative in rape prosecutions.
• People vs. Moya, G.R. No. 228260, June 10, 2019 — Supporting precedent on the rule that reclusion perpetua need not be qualified with “without eligibility for parole” when the death penalty is not warranted under A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC.

• Section 5(b), Article III, RA 7610 — Defines lascivious conduct against a child and supplies the penalty; applied to Criminal Cases Nos. 20-2007, 34-2007, and 35-2007 as “Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of RA 7610,” and as the penalty provision for Criminal Case No. 33-2007.
• Article 336, Revised Penal Code — Defines acts of lasciviousness; applied to Criminal Case No. 33-2007 because AAA was under 12, in relation to Section 5(b) of RA 7610.
• Article 266-B, Revised Penal Code — Imposes the penalty of death for qualified rape; cited to explain why the reclusion perpetua in Criminal Case No. 32-2007 was correctly qualified with “without eligibility for parole.”
• Articles 64 and 65, Revised Penal Code — Provide rules for applying penalties with three periods; applied to impose the maximum period because relationship was an aggravating circumstance, and to divide reclusion temporal medium into three periods for Criminal Case No. 33-2007.
• Section 1, Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended — Requires an indeterminate sentence with a maximum term properly imposable under the RPC and a minimum within the penalty next lower; applied to Criminal Case No. 33-2007, fixing the minimum at 14 years and 8 months of reclusion temporal.
• A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC — Provides that when the death penalty is not warranted, convicted persons penalized with an indivisible penalty are not eligible for parole; applied to the reclusion perpetua sentences for lascivious conduct, while the qualified rape sentence retained the “without eligibility for parole” phrase.