People vs. XXX258054

Out-of-court statements of a child victim describing sexual abuse are admissible under the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness when the child is unavailable and the hearsay testimony is corroborated by other admissible evidence, provided the time, content, and circumstances supply sufficient indicia of reliability; spontaneous declarations made by a child immediately after a startling occurrence like rape are likewise admissible as part of the res gestae. Conviction for qualified rape requires conclusive proof of minority, which may be satisfied by the victim’s testimony and the accused’s express and clear admission when the best evidence (birth certificate) is not presented.

XXX258054, the biological father of 14-year-old AAA258054, was accused of raping her on the evening of May 24, 2018 by force and with the use of a knife. After the incident, AAA258054 immediately disclosed the abuse to her aunt CCC258054 and later to her cousin GGG258054. She gave a sworn statement to the police and underwent a medical examination that revealed deep-healed hymenal lacerations. Prior to trial, the victim’s mother BBB258054 sent AAA258054 to the province to prevent her from testifying, rendering her unavailable. The prosecution relied on her out-of-court narrations, the testimony of her relatives, and the findings of the medico-legal officer to prove the charge.

• Nature of the Charge: On July 20, 2018, XXX258054 was charged with qualified rape under Article 266-A(1)(a) in relation to Article 266-B(1) of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that on May 24, 2018, with lewd design, force, and intimidation and with the use of a knife, he had carnal knowledge of his 14-year-old daughter, AAA258054, against her will.

• Pre-Trial Stipulations: During pre-trial, the parties stipulated that AAA258054 was 14 years old and that XXX258054 was her biological father. The accused pleaded not guilty.

• Victim’s Unavailability: AAA258054 did not testify at trial. Her mother, BBB258054, sent her to a province after the filing of the complaint to prevent her from testifying against her father. The prosecution invoked the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness and offered the Sinumpaang Salaysay and Sexual Abuse Protocol in lieu of her direct testimony.

• Immediate Disclosure to CCC258054: At past midnight on May 25, 2018, CCC258054 (XXX258054’s older sister) was awakened by other siblings and a sister-in-law, who asked her to check on AAA258054, who was crying. AAA258054 confided to CCC258054 that her father — a drunkard who used shabu — had been sexually abusing her since she was 10 years old. She recounted that he touched her delicate body parts, entered the bathroom while she bathed, kissed her vagina, and inserted his fingers into her vagina. He hurt her whenever she refused. The last incident occurred just before midnight in their house, where XXX258054 had carnal knowledge of her against her will.

• Police Complaint and the Sinumpaang Salaysay: CCC258054 accompanied AAA258054 to the barangay hall and the police station. Crying, AAA258054 told the police what happened and executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay. She narrated that on the evening of May 24, 2018, her father made her undress, punched her mouth, slapped her, hit her with a hanger, laid her on the bed, removed her shorts, and inserted his penis into her vagina. She resisted, but he stopped and left only after she made a commotion.

• Medical Examination and Findings: Following the complaint, AAA258054 was referred to the crime laboratory. Police Chief Inspector Reah Cornelio, Medico-Legal Officer, examined her on May 28, 2018. Before the examination, AAA258054 completed a Sexual Abuse Protocol where she wrote a brief account of the abuse, including that her father threatened her with a knife. During an interview with PCINSP Cornelio, AAA258054 repeated that her father, holding a kitchen knife, forced her to undress and have sexual contact; she clarified that his penis was inserted into her genital area. Physical examination revealed deep-healed hymenal lacerations at the 4, 8, and 9 o’clock positions. The medico-legal officer testified that the lacerations could have been caused by a penetrating blunt object like an erect penis or finger and that the findings were consistent with AAA258054’s narration; she explained that for a 14-year-old with good hygiene, lacerations can heal completely in around three days.

• Corroboration by GGG258054: GGG258054 (the daughter of XXX258054’s brother) testified that around 1:00 a.m. on May 25, 2018, she heard her mother FFF258054 exclaiming. Her mother told her that AAA258054 had been raped by her father. When AAA258054 returned home after reporting to the barangay, she spoke with GGG258054, CCC258054, and cousin HHH258054. Crying, AAA258054 narrated that her twin sister summoned her home that evening because their father was looking for her. In their house — which had no electricity — her father removed his clothes and forced her to undress and lie down. She tried to resist, but he threatened her with a kitchen knife and told her not to make noise. Unable to do anything, she was made to lie on the bed, and he inserted his penis into her vagina.

• Defense of Denial and Alibi: XXX258054 denied the charge. He claimed that on the evening of the alleged rape, he was sleeping in the house of his eldest daughter YYY258054, where he had been staying for about a month because the electricity in his own house was disconnected. He said he was beside his youngest daughter ZZZ258054 (AAA258054’s twin). YYY258054 and her common-law partner WWW258054 corroborated his account, testifying that they saw him asleep at the time. AAA258054, according to XXX258054, lived with CCC258054. He expressed surprise at the accusation.

• Hearsay Evidence: Petitioner contended that the prosecution relied entirely on hearsay because the victim did not testify and that her Sinumpaang Salaysay and the testimonies of other witnesses were therefore inadmissible and insufficient to prove guilt.

• Inconsistencies: Petitioner argued that the prosecution witnesses’ accounts and the contents of the Salaysay contained inconsistencies that undermined their credibility and warranted acquittal.

• Alibi: Petitioner maintained that his alibi — corroborated by YYY258054 and WWW258054 on material points — established that he was asleep in a different house at the time of the alleged incident and could not have committed the crime.

• Admissibility under Rule on Examination of a Child Witness: The People countered that the victim’s out-of-court statements were admissible under Section 28 of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness because AAA258054 was unavailable and her statements were corroborated by other evidence.

• Res Gestae: The People also argued that AAA258054’s statements to CCC258054 and GGG258054 were made immediately after a startling event and thus admissible as part of the res gestae, an exception to the hearsay rule.

• Sufficiency of Proof: The prosecution maintained that the elements of qualified rape — including the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship — were proven beyond reasonable doubt through the admissible out-of-court declarations and the medical findings, and that the minor inconsistencies did not affect the essential elements of the crime.

• Admissibility of Out-of-Court Statements: Whether the victim’s Sinumpaang Salaysay, the Sexual Abuse Protocol, and her oral disclosures to relatives and the medico-legal officer were admissible under the unavailable child doctrine and/or as res gestae, and whether they were sufficient to prove carnal knowledge by force and intimidation.

• Qualifying Circumstances: Whether the prosecution proved the victim’s minority and her relationship to the accused with the degree of proof required for a conviction of qualified rape.

• Credibility of Evidence versus Denial and Alibi: Whether the alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence justified rejection of the victim’s account, and whether the accused’s denial and alibi were sufficient to overturn the conviction.

• Penalty and Damages: Whether the Court of Appeals correctly imposed reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and the amounts of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages.

• Admissibility of Out-of-Court Statements: The victim’s extrajudicial statements were properly admitted under both the unavailable child doctrine and the res gestae exception. Under Section 28 of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, a child’s hearsay statement describing abuse is admissible when the child is unavailable — as here, where the mother deliberately prevented her attendance — and the statement is corroborated by other admissible evidence, after considering factors such as the statement’s spontaneity, timing, and absence of motive to lie. The Sinumpaang Salaysay, the Sexual Abuse Protocol, and the narratives related by CCC258054 and GGG258054 were corroborated by the medico-legal findings of deep-healed lacerations and by each other, forming a consistent picture of sexual assault. Independently, the declarations made by AAA258054 to CCC258054 immediately after the rape qualified as res gestae: the rape was a startling occurrence; the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive; and they concerned the occurrence and its immediate circumstances. Through these statements, the prosecution proved that XXX258054 had carnal knowledge of AAA258054 by force and intimidation.

• Qualifying Circumstances: Minority and relationship were established beyond reasonable doubt. The best evidence — the original or certified true copy of the birth certificate — was not produced, but the victim’s own statement in her Salaysay indicated she was 14 years old, and the accused expressly and clearly admitted her age during his direct examination, satisfying the guidelines in People v. Pruna. As to relationship, the accused admitted in open court that AAA258054 was his daughter, which under prevailing jurisprudence is sufficient and conclusive proof. Since both the victim’s minority and the father-daughter relationship were proven, the crime was properly classified as qualified rape.

• Credibility of Evidence versus Denial and Alibi: The minor inconsistencies cited by the accused — such as which aunt the victim first confided in and the exact timing of her disclosure — were immaterial and had no bearing on the elements of the crime. The absence of other physical injuries did not negate rape because such injuries are not an element. The defense of alibi was inherently weak and failed because the houses were in the same locality, making it not physically impossible for XXX258054 to have gone home and committed the crime; the corroborating witnesses were not disinterested, as they were close family members who stood to benefit from his acquittal.

• Penalty and Damages: The Court of Appeals correctly sentenced XXX258054 to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, because qualified rape is punishable by death under Article 266-B, and the phrase “without eligibility for parole” is used in indivisible penalties when the original imposable penalty is death but reduced due to Republic Act No. 9346. Civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages were each increased to PHP 150,000.00 to deter parents with aberrant sexual behavior, and all awards were made subject to 6% legal interest per annum from finality of judgment.

• Unavailable Child Doctrine (Section 28, Rule on Examination of a Child Witness) — A child’s hearsay statement describing child abuse or attempted abuse is admissible if (1) the child is unavailable to testify due to death, physical infirmity, lack of memory, mental illness, exposure to psychological injury, or absence from the hearing where the proponent cannot procure attendance by process or other reasonable means; and (2) the hearsay testimony is corroborated by other admissible evidence. In assessing reliability, the court considers the time, content, and circumstances of the statement, including whether there is a motive to lie, the general character of the child, whether more than one person heard the statement, spontaneity, timing, the relationship between the child and the witness, and whether the circumstances negate misrepresentation. The doctrine ensures that cases of child abuse can be tried despite the victim’s unavailability, while safeguarding due process through the requirement of corroboration. Here, the victim was absent because her mother sent her away, her statements to multiple witnesses were consistent and corroborated by medical evidence, and indicia of reliability were present.

• Res Gestae — A declaration is admissible as part of the res gestae when: (1) the principal act is a startling occurrence; (2) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (3) the statements concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances. The spontaneous statements of a child victim to a relative immediately after a sexual assault satisfy these requisites. In this case, AAA258054’s disclosures to CCC258054 moments after the rape were uttered while she was still crying, without opportunity to fabricate, and directly related to the startling event.

• Proof of Minority in Qualified Rape — Minority must be proved conclusively and indubitably. The best evidence is the original or certified true copy of the birth certificate; in its absence, similar authentic documents (e.g., baptismal certificate, school records) may be used. If those are unavailable, credible testimony of the victim’s mother or a family member may suffice under certain circumstances. When both documentary evidence and testimony of a qualified relative are unavailable, the victim’s own testimony may be admitted provided the accused expressly and clearly admits the age. Here, the victim indicated her age in her extrajudicial statement, and the accused expressly admitted she was 14 years old during his direct examination, thus establishing minority in accordance with People v. Pruna.

• Proof of Relationship — An admission in open court of the accused’s relationship with the victim (e.g., as father) is sufficient and conclusive to prove the qualifying circumstance of relationship in rape cases. Such admission dispenses with the need for further documentary proof.

• “With the best interests of the child in mind, an exception to the general rule that hearsay evidence is inadmissible was created in Section 28 of the Rule to ensure that cases of child abuse or attempted child abuse could still be tried notwithstanding the unavailability of the child. It seeks to ascertain truth and prevent miscarriage of justice that may result from the unavailability of the child — including the child’s enforced absence from the hearing to prevent them from testifying against their abuser, as in the present case.”

• “Through the doctrine of unavailable child, child victims can secure justice for abuses perpetrated against them even if they are unable to testify in court. The requirement that other admissible evidence corroborate the child’s hearsay testimony ensures that the accused’s right to due process is not violated. Moreover, the prosecution still has to discharge the burden of proving the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.”

• “Denial is an inherently weak defense and is generally viewed upon with disfavor because it is easily concocted but difficult to disprove. For an alibi to prosper, it must be proved that the accused was in another place during the commission of the crime, rendering it physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime. Moreover, an alibi must be corroborated by disinterested witnesses.”

• People v. BBB, G.R. No. 252507, April 18, 2022 — The Court applied the unavailable child doctrine where a trafficking victim could not testify due to post-traumatic stress disorder, affirming conviction based on letters and testimonies of interviewers. Followed as precedent for admitting hearsay under the Child Witness Rule.

• People v. Pablo, G.R. No. 244840, January 20, 2021; People v. Loma, 887 Phil. 117 (2020); People v. Villarama, 445 Phil. 323 (2003) — These cases were cited to illustrate that spontaneous statements of a child victim to a relative shortly after a sexual assault are admissible as part of the res gestae. The factual parallels supported the admission of AAA258054’s declarations.

• People v. Pruna, 439 Phil. 440 (2002) — Laid down the guidelines for proving the age of the victim; the Court relied on the alternative mode where the accused clearly admits the victim’s age when the best evidence is not presented.

• People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Provided the basis for the interest rate of 6% per annum on monetary awards from finality of judgment.

• Article 266-A(1)(a) in relation to Article 266-B(1) of the Revised Penal Code (as amended by Republic Act No. 8353) — Defines and penalizes rape committed through force, threat, or intimidation. Article 266-B(1) imposes the death penalty when the victim is under 18 and the offender is a parent. The provisions were applied to convict accused-appellant of qualified rape.

• Section 28, A.M. No. 004-07-SC (Rule on Examination of a Child Witness) — Allows the admission of a child’s hearsay statement describing abuse if the child is unavailable and the statement is corroborated. The provision served as the primary ground for admitting AAA258054’s out-of-court declarations.

• Republic Act No. 9346 — Prohibits the imposition of the death penalty. Because of this law, the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, consistent with the guidelines on the use of that phrase in indivisible penalties.

Leonen, SAJ (Chairperson), J. Lopez, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concurred. Lazaro-Javier, J., was on official business and did not participate.

None. The decision was unanimous among the participating justices.