People vs. XXX278240

Rape may be committed through fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority even in the absence of force, threat, intimidation, or victim resistance, and Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 applies only when the child actively participates or indulges in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct due to money, profit, any other consideration, or the coercion or influence of an adult—not when the child is entirely passive and deceived into submission.

AAA278240 was a 15-year-old minor who suffered from almuranas (hernia). Her grandmother, CCC278240, sought the services of XXX278240, a well-known albularyo (quack doctor) in their community, to treat the condition. The parties stipulated during pre-trial that XXX278240 was an albularyo, that he went to AAA278240's house on October 13 and 16, 2010 to treat her illness, and that AAA278240's Certificate of Live Birth confirmed she was 15 years old at the time of the incidents. The Informations charged XXX278240 under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(c) (rape through sexual intercourse by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority) and Article 266-A, paragraph 2 (rape by sexual assault) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, in relation to Republic Act No. 7610.

Sometime in September 2010, AAA278240, then 15 years old, informed her grandmother, CCC278240, that she had almuranas or hernia. CCC278240 decided to consult XXX278240, a well-known albularyo in their community, for treatment. At around 8:30 a.m. on October 13, 2010, XXX278240 arrived at AAA278240's house. She was eating with her siblings and grandmother when he directed her to take a bath and proceed to her room for treatment. Inside the room, XXX278240 ordered AAA278240 to remove her shorts and underwear, lie down on the bed, and spread her legs. Despite her reluctance, she complied. He applied oil to her vagina and inserted the index and middle fingers of his right hand. He then told her that because her hernia was already severe, he would push it with his penis, removed his fingers, and forcibly inserted his penis. After finishing, he told her to dress, gave her oil to apply on her genitalia, warned her not to tell anyone that he used his penis, and left. AAA278240 felt pain and her vagina bled.

At around 9:00 a.m. on October 16, 2010, XXX278240 returned for a follow-up check-up. AAA278240 agreed out of fear of dying and a desire to be healed. He assured her the treatment would be quicker as it was their last session. Again, he directed her to take a bath and go to her room, where he made her lie naked on the papag with her legs spread. He applied oil to her vagina and inserted two fingers, moving them sideways for about a minute. He then removed his fingers, blew on her vagina, pulled down his shorts, and inserted his penis while mashing her breasts. AAA278240 attempted to push him away, but he laughed at her. Afterward, he declared that she was cured and hurriedly left. The following day, AAA278240 confided the incidents to her sister, who told their grandmother. On October 28, 2010, CCC278240 accompanied AAA278240 to the police station to report the incidents. Dr. Brenda Tumacder examined AAA278240 on the same day and found healed hymenal lacerations at the 5 o'clock, 6 o'clock, and 7 o'clock positions, evidencing sexual abuse.

For his part, XXX278240 admitted being an albularyo and going to AAA278240's house on the dates in question, but denied any sexual abuse. He claimed that the house was a nipa hut with no rooms, that AAA278240's relatives were present and about half a meter away during the treatment, and that she was always seated. He stated that on October 13 he merely massaged her stomach and prescribed sambong for two days. His assistant, Joel Soriano, corroborated his account, testifying that he was present during the healing sessions and described the house as having two windows, an open door, and one papag. The RTC found XXX278240 guilty beyond reasonable doubt on all four counts, crediting AAA278240's testimony and the medico-legal findings, and the CA affirmed with modification.

• Inconsistencies in Prosecution Testimonies: Petitioner argued that the prosecution witnesses' testimonies were inherently unreliable, replete with inconsistencies and contradictions on material and substantial points that struck at the core of the prosecution's version of events and engendered reasonable doubt.
• Absence of Resistance: Petitioner contended that the victim's purported lack of resistance undermined the credibility of the charge, asserting that the records were bereft of evidence showing he threatened her or was armed with a weapon, and that such absence of resistance lent support to his claim that no crime was committed.
• Denial and Alibi: Petitioner maintained that his defenses of denial and alibi deserved greater weight than the prosecution's evidence, insisting that when measured against the alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, his defenses appeared more plausible and sufficient to overcome the presumption of guilt.
• Improbability of Commission: Petitioner asserted it would have been impossible for him to commit the alleged sexual abuses because the victim's relatives were just outside the bedroom, and the high probability of being caught would have deterred him.

• Guilt Established Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Respondent countered that the prosecution successfully established petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, arguing that he deliberately exploited his reputation as an albularyo to induce and deceive the victim into believing he possessed the ability to cure her illness, thereby placing her in a vulnerable situation.
• Fraudulent Machination Vitiated Consent: Respondent argued that the victim initially submitted under the false belief that the acts were part of a legitimate healing process, but such submission was not the product of free and voluntary consent—it was the result of deceit and abuse of authority, as petitioner persistently represented his sexual acts as necessary components of her treatment.
• Credibility of Victim's Testimony: Respondent maintained that the victim's testimony was affirmative, clear, and candid, bearing the hallmarks of truth and credibility, and that the alleged inconsistencies were minor and immaterial, relating only to collateral matters and not to the essential elements of the crime.
• Weakness of Denial: Respondent submitted that petitioner's defense of denial could not prevail over the prosecution's positive and convincing evidence.

• Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the accused-appellant's guilt for two counts of rape through sexual intercourse and two counts of rape by sexual assault.
• Applicability of Republic Act No. 7610: Whether Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 was properly applied in convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant.

• Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence: Yes. The accused-appellant's guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt through the victim's clear, credible, and consistent testimony, corroborated by medico-legal findings of hymenal lacerations, and the defenses of denial and alibi were insufficient to overcome the positive identification by the victim.
• Applicability of Republic Act No. 7610: No. Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 was improperly applied because the victim did not actively participate in, consent to, or indulge in the sexual act; her submission was procured through fraudulent machination and deceit, and the crimes were properly penalized under the Revised Penal Code alone.

• Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence: The Court applied the three guiding principles in reviewing rape cases: that accusations can be made with facility, that the complainant's testimony must be scrutinized with extreme caution, and that the prosecution's evidence must stand on its own merits. The Court accorded the highest respect to the RTC's factual findings, which were affirmed by the CA, as the trial court had the firsthand opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor. AAA278240's testimony was clear, unequivocal, and consistent on material points—she positively identified XXX278240 as the man who inserted his fingers and penis into her vagina on two separate occasions, and her recollection of pain and bleeding corroborated the medico-legal report showing healed hymenal lacerations at the 5 o'clock, 6 o'clock, and 7 o'clock positions. The Court applied the jurisprudential guideposts from People vs. Agao for establishing genital contact, including the victim's testimony of pain, bleeding, and hymenal lacerations. For rape by sexual assault, the Court applied Lutap vs. People, requiring evidence of at least the slightest penetration. The medico-legal report was corroborative in nature; the prime consideration was the victim's testimony, which alone was sufficient to sustain conviction. The Court rejected the argument that lack of resistance negated rape, holding that Article 266-A recognizes rape through fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority even without force, threat, or intimidation. Citing People vs. Quintos, the Court ruled that when a person becomes a victim of fraudulent machination, her consent is invalid and her lack of resistance cannot be construed as voluntary participation. The Court also rejected the argument that the presence of relatives nearby made commission improbable, holding that lust is no respecter of time and place. Finally, the Court held that denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses that cannot prevail over the victim's positive and credible testimony, citing People vs. Moreno for the requirement that alibi must prove physical impossibility of being at the locus delicti.

• Applicability of Republic Act No. 7610: The Court found that the CA's application of Republic Act No. 7610 did not conform with recent jurisprudence. Citing People vs. Gramatica, the Court clarified that Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 applies only when the child actively participates or indulges in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct due to money, profit, any other consideration, or the coercion or influence of an adult. The statutory term "indulges" necessarily connotes participation, awareness, and a degree of volition on the part of the minor, albeit legally defective due to the child's age and surrounding circumstances of exploitation. The provision was intended to penalize acts of sexual exploitation where the child is induced to engage in sexual activity as a consequence of consideration or undue influence—not instances where the child is entirely passive, unconscious, asleep, or otherwise unaware. Here, AAA278240 yielded to the acts under the mistaken belief that they formed part of a legitimate healing procedure; such submission was procured through fraudulent machination and deceit, not through the coercion or influence contemplated by Section 5(b). Because the evidence showed that she did not actively participate in, consent to, or indulge in the sexual act, the application of Section 5(b) was improper, and the crimes, penalties, and civil liabilities were properly determined under the Revised Penal Code alone.

• Credibility of the victim's testimony in rape cases — The accused may be convicted solely on the victim's testimony provided it is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. The evaluation of witness credibility is best left to the trial court, which had the opportunity to observe witnesses' demeanor; such findings, when affirmed by the CA, are accorded the highest degree of respect and are conclusive and binding on the Supreme Court.
• Rape through fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority — Article 266-A(1)(c) of the Revised Penal Code recognizes that rape may be committed through fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority, even in the absence of force, threat, intimidation, or victim resistance. Consent obtained through deceit or misrepresentation vitiates voluntariness and cannot serve as a defense; the victim's lack of resistance cannot be construed as voluntary participation when her actions are grounded on incomplete or deceptive information.
• Jurisprudential guideposts for genital contact — When the necessary genital contact is not explicitly described through the victim's testimony, courts may anchor findings of penile penetration on surrounding circumstances: (i) the victim testifies that she felt pain in her genitals; (ii) there is bleeding; (iii) the labia minora was observed to be gaping, red, or discolored; (iv) hymenal tags are no longer visible; or (v) the sex organ sustained any other type of injury.
• Scope of Section 5(b), Republic Act No. 7610 — Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 applies only when the child actively participates or indulges in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct due to money, profit, any other consideration, or the coercion or influence of an adult. The term "indulges" connotes participation, awareness, and a degree of volition on the part of the minor. The provision does not apply when the child is entirely passive, unconscious, asleep, or otherwise unaware of the sexual act, or when submission is procured through fraudulent machination rather than through the coercion or influence contemplated by the statute.
• Weakness of denial and alibi — Denial is inherently weak and cannot outweigh positive testimony. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove he was at some other place at the time of the crime and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or its immediate vicinity, with strict requirements of time and place.
• Rape is no respecter of time and place — Neither the presence of other people nor the high risk of being caught is a sufficient and effective obstacle to deter the commission of rape.

• "Contrary to accused-appellant's claim, resistance is not necessary to establish rape, especially when the victim is manipulated. Here, AAA278240 was induced to submit to accused-appellant due to the false pretense that it would cure her illness." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi on how fraudulent machination dispenses with the need for resistance, a key element in cases involving deceit-based rape under Article 266-A(1)(c).
• "when a person becomes a victim of fraudulent machination or manipulation, she does not have full control over her decisions. Her actions are grounded on incomplete or deceptive information regarding the circumstances. Consequently, any consent she appears to give is invalid or not truly her own, and her lack of resistance cannot be construed as voluntary participation." — This formulation from People vs. Quintos, as quoted and applied, defines the doctrinal relationship between fraudulent machination and the invalidity of apparent consent.
• "Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 applies only when the child actively participates or indulges in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct due to money, profit, any other consideration, or the coercion or influence of an adult." — This is the canonical formulation of the scope of Section 5(b) of RA 7610 as clarified in People vs. Gramatica, distinguishing between active participation induced by consideration or influence and passive submission procured through deceit.
• "the statutory term 'indulges' necessarily connotes participation, awareness, and a degree of volition on the part of the minor, albeit one that is legally defective due to the child's age and the surrounding circumstances of exploitation." — This passage defines the statutory term "indulges" in Section 5(b) of RA 7610, establishing the threshold of child participation required for the provision's applicability.

• People vs. Agao, 930 Phil. 559 (2022) — Followed. Established the jurisprudential guideposts for determining genital contact in rape cases when penile penetration is not explicitly described, including pain, bleeding, hymenal lacerations, and other genital injuries. The Court applied these guideposts to corroborate AAA278240's testimony of penile and digital penetration.
• People vs. Quintos, 746 Phil. 809 (2014) — Followed. Held that consent obtained through fraudulent machination or manipulation is invalid, and the victim's lack of resistance cannot be construed as voluntary participation. The Court applied this principle to reject the accused-appellant's argument that the victim's failure to resist negated rape.
• People vs. Gramatica, G.R. No. 260233, August 12, 2025 — Followed. Clarified the proper scope of Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610, holding that it applies only when the child actively participates or indulges in sexual conduct due to consideration or undue influence. The Court relied on this ruling to strike down the CA's application of RA 7610 and to confine the penalty and damages to those prescribed by the Revised Penal Code.
• Lutap vs. People, 825 Phil. 10 (2018) — Followed. Held that for rape by sexual assault using fingers, there must be evidence of at least the slightest penetration of the sexual organ and not merely a brush or graze of its surface. The Court applied this standard to the digital penetration element.
• People vs. Moreno, 872 Phil. 17 (2020) — Followed. Held that denial is inherently weak and cannot outweigh positive testimony, and that alibi requires proof of physical impossibility of presence at the locus delicti. The Court applied this to reject the accused-appellant's defenses.
• People vs. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2003) — Followed. Provided the framework for awarding civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages in rape cases. The Court applied the reduced amounts of PHP 75,000.00 each for the two counts of rape through sexual intercourse.
• People vs. Tulagan, 849 Phil. 197 (2019) — Followed. Provided the framework for awarding damages in rape by sexual assault cases. The Court applied the amounts of PHP 30,000.00 each for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages for the two counts of sexual assault.

• Article 266-A, Paragraph 1(c), Revised Penal Code (as amended by Republic Act No. 8353) — Defines rape through sexual intercourse committed "by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority." Applied to convict the accused-appellant of two counts of rape through sexual intercourse, as he deceived the victim into submitting to penile penetration under the false pretense of medical treatment.
• Article 266-A, Paragraph 2, Revised Penal Code (as amended by Republic Act No. 8353) — Defines rape by sexual assault, committed by inserting any instrument or object into the genital orifice of another person under the circumstances enumerated in paragraph 1. Applied to convict the accused-appellant of two counts of rape by sexual assault for inserting his fingers into the victim's vagina.
• Article 266-B, Revised Penal Code — Prescribes the penalty for rape. Applied to impose reclusion perpetua for each count of rape through sexual intercourse, and to determine the indeterminate penalty for rape by sexual assault.
• Section 5(b), Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act) — Penalizes child prostitution and other sexual abuse. Held inapplicable in this case because the victim did not actively participate in or indulge in the sexual act; her submission was procured through fraudulent machination, not through the coercion or influence contemplated by the provision. The crimes were penalized solely under the Revised Penal Code.
• Republic Act No. 8353 (Anti-Rape Law of 1997) — Amended the Revised Penal Code provisions on rape, expanding the definition to include rape by sexual assault and reclassifying rape as a crime against persons. Applied as the amending law for Article 266-A and 266-B.
• Republic Act No. 8505 (Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act of 1998) — Mandates referral of rape victims to appropriate rape crisis centers for assistance. The Court directed the RTC to inform the DSWD, which was in turn duty-bound to refer the victim to the appropriate rape crisis center.

Leonen, SAJ. (Chairperson), Lazaro-Javier, Kho, Jr., and Villanueva, JJ., concurred. No separate concurring opinions were noted.