People vs. YYY

A claim of minority as a privileged mitigating circumstance must be supported by documentary evidence such as a birth certificate or other pertinent documents, and testimonial evidence is admissible only upon concurrence of three conditions: (1) absence of any documentary evidence of date of birth; (2) testimony of the accused and/or relative on minority without prosecution objection; and (3) lack of any contrary evidence. Statutory rape is qualified when the victim is below seven years old, and the phrase "without eligibility for parole" should qualify reclusion perpetua only where the death penalty would have been imposed but for RA 9346.

YYY was the uncle of victims AAA and BBB, being the first cousin of their father. The crimes were committed in Camarines Sur in January 2007. The prosecution was anchored on Article 266-A, paragraph (1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 (the Anti-Rape Law of 1997), which defines statutory rape as carnal knowledge of a person under twelve years of age. The case also implicated Republic Act No. 9344 (the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006) on the question of accused-appellant's claimed minority, Republic Act No. 9346 (the Anti-Death Penalty Law) on the reduction of the death penalty, and Republic Act No. 7610 on the special protection of children against abuse.

Five separate Informations were filed before Branch 63 of the Regional Trial Court in Camarines Sur charging accused-appellant YYY with five counts of Statutory Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph (1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, committed against siblings AAA and BBB, who were two years old and eight years old, respectively, at the time of the alleged incidents. YYY was the victims' uncle, being the first cousin of their father. When arraigned on August 25, 2009, YYY pleaded not guilty to all charges.

According to the prosecution, on January 24, 2007, AAA and BBB were on the second floor of accused-appellant's house. Accused-appellant removed his clothes and BBB's shorts and panty, placed himself on top of BBB, and inserted his penis into her vagina. BBB kept pushing him until he stopped. Thereafter, accused-appellant undressed AAA and laid on top of her. BBB tried to pull accused-appellant from AAA, who was already crying, and accused-appellant then left. On January 25, 2007, while the victims' parents were away harvesting copra, accused-appellant entered their house, undressed BBB, spread her legs, and inserted his penis into her vagina. BBB felt pain and kicked accused-appellant. Accused-appellant then proceeded toward AAA, undressed her, and laid on top of her; BBB kicked accused-appellant when he tried to insert his penis into AAA's vagina, and he left. The next day, January 26, 2007, BBB was at accused-appellant's house looking for his mother. Accused-appellant pushed BBB inside, placed her on top of a table, removed her shorts and panty, spread her legs, and inserted his penis into her vagina, though he was not able to fully penetrate as BBB kept pushing him until he got up and left. After several days, AAA informed her mother what accused-appellant had done to them. AAA testified that accused-appellant inserted his penis into her vagina, causing pain, but declared that the incident happened only once. The victims' mother corroborated that AAA was the one who informed her of the incident.

Medico-Legal Report Nos. BRO-MG-08-111 and BRO-MG-08-110, issued by Dr. Raoul V. Alcantara, noted that both AAA and BBB had no recent extragenital physical injury and no sign of either recent or previous injury to the hymen. For his defense, accused-appellant denied the allegations and insisted that on January 24, 25, and 26, 2007, he was working as a stay-in store helper. He claimed the cases were filed because of a quarrel between his parents and the victims' parents over a parcel of land. The RTC gave full weight and credit to the testimonies of AAA and BBB, finding their statements clear, simple, spontaneous, and straightforward, and held that accused-appellant's bare denial could not prevail over their positive identification. The RTC convicted accused-appellant of four counts of Statutory Rape but acquitted him in Criminal Case No. 09-1413, based on AAA's spontaneous statement that the attack on her happened only once. The CA affirmed the conviction but modified the damages, increasing the awards for the crime against AAA to P100,000.00 each for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, on the ground that AAA was below seven years old when the crime was committed.

• Claim of Minority: Accused-appellant argued that the RTC erred in convicting him despite the prosecution's failure to prove that he acted with discernment, considering that he was only 17 years old at the time of the commission of the crimes.
• Insufficiency of Evidence: Accused-appellant maintained that the prosecution's evidence against him was insufficient to sustain a conviction.
• Defense of Denial and Alibi: Accused-appellant argued that his defense of denial was credible, asserting that he was working as a stay-in store helper on the dates of the alleged crimes, and that the cases were motivated by a quarrel between his parents and the victims' parents over a parcel of land.

• Claim of Minority: Whether accused-appellant's claim that he was 17 years old at the time of the commission of the crimes was sufficient to establish minority as a privileged mitigating circumstance.
• Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence: Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt for the crimes charged.
• Credibility of Defense: Whether accused-appellant's defense of denial and alibi can prevail over the positive identification by the victims.
• Proper Nomenclature and Penalty: Whether the crime committed against AAA should be designated as Qualified Statutory Rape, and whether the phrase "without eligibility for parole" was properly imposed on all counts.

• Claim of Minority: No. The claim of minority was purely self-serving and unsupported by documentary evidence or corroborating testimony, failing to satisfy the conditions under Section 7 of RA 9344 for accepting testimonial evidence of age.
• Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence: Yes. All elements of Statutory Rape were proven beyond reasonable doubt — the victims' ages were established by birth certificates, and carnal knowledge was established by the credible and consistent testimonies of AAA and BBB.
• Credibility of Defense: No. Denial and alibi cannot prevail over the victims' unwavering positive identification; the alibi was further undermined by the proximity of the locations, only six to seven kilometers apart within the same municipality.
• Proper Nomenclature and Penalty: Yes, the crime against AAA was correctly redesignated as Qualified Statutory Rape because AAA was below seven years old. The phrase "without eligibility for parole" was properly retained only for the Qualified Statutory Rape count and removed from the three Statutory Rape counts, pursuant to A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC.

• Claim of Minority: Under Section 7 of RA 9344, the age of a child must first be determined from the birth certificate, baptismal certificate, or other pertinent documents. Only in the absence of these documents may age be based on information from the child or testimonies of other persons. The Court has accepted testimonial evidence of minority only upon concurrence of three conditions: (1) absence of any documentary evidence of date of birth; (2) testimony of the accused and/or relative on minority without prosecution objection; and (3) lack of any contrary evidence. Here, accused-appellant failed to show that pertinent documents could not be obtained, nor did he offer any explanation for failing to secure them. His mother ZZZ and a neighbor testified but neither emphasized his age or date of birth. The defense never raised minority during trial as a mitigating circumstance. The claim was therefore self-serving and unsupported by any shadow of proof.

• Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence: Statutory Rape under Article 266-A of the RPC requires that the offended party be under 12 years of age and that the accused had carnal knowledge of her, regardless of force, threat, or intimidation. BBB was eight years old and AAA was two years old when the crimes were committed, their ages being uncontested and supported by birth certificates presented and admitted in court. Both victims positively identified accused-appellant as the perpetrator. BBB consistently testified that she was raped three times and that accused-appellant inserted his penis into her vagina. AAA testified that accused-appellant inserted his penis into her vagina, causing pain, though she stated it happened only once — which led to the acquittal in Criminal Case No. 09-1413. Both victims testified that the insertion caused pain and that full penetration was not achieved. The Court emphasized that complete or total penetration is not necessary to consummate rape; the slightest penetration is sufficient. The medico-legal report showing no hymenal laceration was not indispensable, being merely corroborative in nature; the victim's credible testimony is the prime consideration in rape prosecution.

• Credibility of Defense: The Court found no reason to deviate from the RTC and CA findings on the credibility of AAA and BBB. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. BBB was 11 years old and AAA was six years old when they testified, ages at which they could hardly concoct a horrible story that would haunt them for life. The lone testimony of a rape victim, when credible, natural, and consistent with human nature, suffices to sustain a conviction. Accused-appellant's denial was unsubstantiated and could not prevail over the victims' positive identification. His alibi failed because the situs criminis was only six to seven kilometers from the place he claimed to be, both barangays belonging to the same municipality and being easily accessible. It was not impossible for accused-appellant to have been at the crime scene. Positive identification prevails over alibi, which is inherently unreliable and easily fabricated.

• Proper Nomenclature and Penalty: When sexual intercourse is committed with a child below seven years old, the proper designation is "qualified statutory rape." Rape is qualified when the victim is a child below seven years old, under Article 266-B of the RPC. Since AAA was merely two years old, the nomenclature was corrected from Statutory Rape to Qualified Statutory Rape. The penalty for Qualified Statutory Rape is death, but because RA 9346 prohibits the death penalty, the sentence is reduced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. For the three counts of Statutory Rape against BBB, the penalty is reclusion perpetua, but the phrase "without eligibility for parole" should not be appended, because under A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC, that phrase is used only where the death penalty would have been imposed but for RA 9346. Where the death penalty is not warranted, it is understood that persons penalized with an indivisible penalty are not eligible for parole, and the phrase need not be stated.

• Determination of Age under RA 9344 — The age of a child must first be determined from the child's birth certificate, baptismal certificate, or other pertinent documents. Only in the absence of such documents may age be based on information from the child, testimonies of other persons, physical appearance, and other relevant evidence. In case of doubt, the doubt is resolved in favor of the child. The Court accepts testimonial evidence of minority only upon concurrence of three conditions: (1) absence of any documentary evidence of date of birth; (2) testimony of the accused and/or relative on minority without prosecution objection; and (3) lack of any contrary evidence showing the testimonies are untrue. In this case, the defense failed to satisfy any of these conditions.

• Elements of Statutory Rape — Statutory Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph (1)(d) of the RPC is committed when: (1) the offended party is under 12 years of age; and (2) the accused has carnal knowledge of her, regardless of whether there was force, threat, or intimidation, whether the victim was deprived of reason or consciousness, or whether it was done through fraud or grave abuse of authority. The absence of free consent is conclusively presumed when the victim is below 12, as the law presumes the victim does not possess discernment and is incapable of giving intelligent consent.

• Qualified Statutory Rape — When sexual intercourse is committed with a child below seven years old, the proper designation of the crime is always "qualified statutory rape." The penalty is death, but in view of RA 9346, it is reduced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.

• Degree of Penetration — A complete or total penetration of the private organ is not necessary to consummate the crime of rape. The slightest penetration is sufficient.

• Medico-Legal Report as Corroborative — A medico-legal report is not indispensable to the prosecution of a rape case, it being merely corroborative in nature. The prime consideration in the prosecution of rape is the victim's testimony, not necessarily the medical findings.

• Credibility of Child Victims — When the offended parties are young and immature girls, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, considering their vulnerability and the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed if the matter about which they testified were not true. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. The lone testimony of a rape victim, when found credible, natural, and consistent with human nature, is enough to sustain a conviction.

• Alibi as a Weak Defense — For alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that the accused was somewhere else during the commission of the crime; it must also be shown that it would have been impossible for him to be anywhere within the vicinity of the crime scene. Positive identification prevails over alibi, which is inherently unreliable and easily fabricated.

• Guidelines for "Without Eligibility for Parole" (A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC) — (1) In cases where the death penalty is not warranted, there is no need to use the phrase "without eligibility of parole" to qualify reclusion perpetua; it is understood that convicted persons penalized with an indivisible penalty are not eligible for parole. (2) When circumstances warrant the death penalty but it is not imposed because of RA 9346, the qualification "without eligibility for parole" shall be used to qualify reclusion perpetua.

• "A complete or total penetration of the private organ is not necessary to consummate the crime of rape. A slightest penetration is sufficient." — This passage articulates the controlling rule on the degree of penetration required for consummated rape, directly addressing the defense's argument that the victims' testimony of incomplete penetration should negate conviction.

• "No young girl would usually concoct a tale of defloration, publicly admit to having been ravished and her honor being tainted, allow the examination of her private parts, and undergo all the trouble and inconvenience, not to mention the trauma and scandal of a public trial, had she not in fact been raped and been truly moved to protect and preserve her honor and motivated by the desire to obtain justice for the wicked acts committed against her." — This is the canonical formulation of the rationale for according credence to the testimony of young rape victims, frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence on victim credibility.

• "It is elementary that a medico-legal report is not indispensable to the prosecution of the rape case, it being merely corroborative in nature." — This statement defines the evidentiary weight of medico-legal reports in rape prosecutions, clarifying that the absence of physical findings does not negate a conviction sustained by credible victim testimony.

• "if sexual intercourse is committed with a child below seven years old, the proper designation of the crime is always 'qualified statutory rape.'" — This passage establishes the rule for qualifying statutory rape based solely on the victim's age, without requiring any additional relationship or circumstance.

• People vs. Fetalco, G.R. No. 241249, July 28, 2020 — Cited for the elements of Statutory Rape under Article 266-A of the RPC and for the proposition that a medico-legal report is merely corroborative.
• Sierra vs. People, 609 Phil. 446 (2009) — Cited for the three conditions under which testimonial evidence of an accused's minority may be given evidentiary weight in the absence of documentary proof.
• People vs. Agan, G.R. No. 228947, June 22, 2020 — Cited for the rule that the slightest penetration is sufficient to consummate rape, dispensing with the need for complete or total penetration.
• People vs. Pablo, G.R. No. 244840, January 20, 2021 — Cited for the rule that sexual intercourse with a child below seven years old is properly designated as "qualified statutory rape," and for the reduction of the death penalty to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole under RA 9346.
• People vs. Gozo, 836 Phil. 932 (2018) — Cited for the guidelines under A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC on the proper use of the phrase "without eligibility for parole" in indivisible penalties.
• People vs. Jagdon, Jr., G.R. No. 242882, September 9, 2020 — Cited for the penalty and damages for Statutory Rape in relation to Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610.

• Article 266-A, paragraph (1)(d), Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 8353 — Defines Statutory Rape as carnal knowledge of a person under 12 years of age. Applied to convict accused-appellant of three counts of Statutory Rape against BBB, who was eight years old.
• Article 266-B, Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 8353 — Provides the penalty for rape and qualifies rape when the victim is a child below seven years old. Applied to redesignate the crime against AAA as Qualified Statutory Rape and to impose the corresponding penalty.
• Section 7, Republic Act No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006) — Governs the determination of a child's age, requiring documentary evidence first and allowing testimonial evidence only in the absence of documents. Applied to reject accused-appellant's claim of minority for failure to present any documentary proof.
• Rule 35.b, IRR of RA 9344 — Outlines measures for law enforcers to determine the age of a child, prioritizing documentary evidence. Applied to emphasize that testimonial evidence of age is a last resort.
• Republic Act No. 9346 (Anti-Death Penalty Law) — Prohibits the imposition of the death penalty. Applied to reduce the penalty for Qualified Statutory Rape from death to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.
• Section 5(b), Article III, Republic Act No. 7610 — Provides for the penalty of reclusion perpetua for acts of sexual abuse against children. Applied in relation to Article 266-B of the RPC for the Statutory Rape counts against BBB.
• A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC — Provides guidelines for the proper use of the phrase "without eligibility for parole" in indivisible penalties. Applied to remove the phrase from the three Statutory Rape counts while retaining it for the Qualified Statutory Rape count.

Perlas-Bernabe (Chairperson), Hernando, Carandang, and Gaerlan, JJ., concurred.