327 Cases Penned by Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier: 2025 Bar Examination
Can a minor offender who committed heinous crimes be
convicted of multiple counts of rape when the victim testified to multiple
penetrations occurring on the same day without significant intervals, and what
are the implications of the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority on
sentencing?
.png "PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. XXX265439, G.R. No. 265439, November 13, 2023")
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. XXX265439, G.R. No.265439, November 13, 2023
FACTS OF THE CASE:
On February 18 and 19, 2010, in Quezon Province, 17-year-old
XXX265439 committed acts of sexual abuse against his 9-year-old niece,
AAA265439. The prosecution established that on February 18, 2010, around 4:00
p.m., XXX265439 arrived at his brother's house where he found AAA265439 and her
younger brother watching television. He strategically gave the younger brother
PHP1.00 and ordered him to move to another part of the house, creating an
opportunity to be alone with AAA265439. XXX265439 then removed both his and
AAA265439's clothing and inserted his penis into her vagina against her will.
The child remained silent due to fear of harm.
The following day, February 19, 2010, XXX265439 returned and
threatened to kill AAA265439 if she reported the previous day's incident. He
again proceeded to sexually assault her by inserting his penis into her vagina.
During this second incident, AAA265439's mother, BBB265439, arrived and
witnessed XXX265439 hurriedly leaving AAA265439's room while the child was
pulling up her underwear and shorts. Suspicious of what had transpired,
BBB265439 confronted and physically attacked XXX265439 with a bamboo stick.
The incident was reported to Barangay Captain CCC265439, who
dispatched barangay police to investigate. XXX265439 voluntarily went with the
police for questioning. Medical examination by Dr. Luisa V. Escondo revealed a
cut/lacerated wound at the 9 o'clock position on AAA265439's hymenal area,
corroborating the sexual assault.
XXX265439 was charged with three counts of qualified
statutory rape under separate Informations dated June 16, 2010. He pleaded not
guilty during arraignment, claiming that BBB265439 had been physically abusing
him since 2004 and denying that he was ever alone with AAA265439.
Lower Court Decisions: The Regional Trial Court, by
Judgment dated August 7, 2018, found XXX265439 guilty of three counts of rape
in relation to Republic Act No. 7610. The court considered the privileged
mitigating circumstance of minority and sentenced him to reclusion temporal in
its medium period (14 years, 8 months, and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months) for
each count, plus civil indemnity of PHP100,000.00, moral damages of
PHP100,000.00, and exemplary damages of PHP30,000.00 for each count.
The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated July 9, 2021,
denied XXX265439's appeal but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua for
each case and reduced the damages to PHP75,000.00 each in accordance with
People v. Jugueta.
ISSUE:
Is XXX265439 guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three
counts of qualified statutory rape?
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT:
The Supreme Court PARTIALLY GRANTED the appeal. While
affirming the conviction for statutory rape, the Court made significant
modifications to the lower courts' rulings.
The Court found that while all elements of statutory rape
were proven beyond reasonable doubt for the February 18 and 19, 2010 incidents,
the qualifying circumstance of relationship was insufficiently alleged in the
Informations. The Informations merely stated that XXX265439 had carnal
knowledge of "his niece" but failed to specifically allege that he
was "a relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil
degree" as required by law.
Crucially, the Court determined that XXX265439 could only be
convicted of two counts of statutory rape, not three. Although AAA265439
testified that she was penetrated twice on February 19, 2010, there was no
indication of significant intervals between the penetrations, distinguishing
this case from People v. Lucena where separate criminal intents were
established.
The Court affirmed that XXX265439 acted with discernment
despite his minority, as evidenced by his calculated actions: giving money to
remove the younger brother, threatening the victim the following day, and
understanding the consequences of his actions.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
ACCORDINGLY, the Appeal is PARTLY GRANTED.
- In
Criminal Case No. 11081-G, XXX265439 is found GUILTY of STATUTORY RAPE
and sentenced to imprisonment for an indeterminate period of six years of
prision correccional, as minimum, to 15 years and four months of reclusion
temporal, as maximum.
- In
Criminal Case No. 11082-G, XXX265439 is found GUILTY of STATUTORY RAPE
and sentenced to imprisonment for an indeterminate period of six years of
prision correccional, as minimum, to 15 years and four months of reclusion
temporal, as maximum.
- In
Criminal Case No. 11083-G, XXX265439 is ACQUITTED of qualified
statutory rape on reasonable doubt.
The case is REMANDED to the court of origin to effect
the imposition of sentence in an agricultural camp or training facility.
XXX265439 is ordered to pay AAA265439 PHP75,000.00 each as civil indemnity,
moral damages, and exemplary damages for each count, with 6% interest per annum
from finality until fully paid.
Should the law differentiate between multiple
penetrations occurring within a single criminal episode versus those separated
by significant time intervals when determining the number of rape counts,
especially when dealing with juvenile offenders whose cognitive development may
affect their criminal intent?
IMPORTANT DOCTRINES:
- Elements
of Qualified Statutory Rape: "The prosecution must allege and
prove the following elements: (1) The accused had carnal knowledge of the
offended party, a girl; (2) The offended party was under twelve (12) years
of age at the time of the rape; and (3) The offender is a parent, ascendant,
step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the
third civil degree." - This establishes the specific requirements
for the more serious qualified form of statutory rape.
- Specificity
in Allegations: "The circumstance that accused-appellant is 'a
relative of the victims by consanguinity or affinity within the third
civil degree' must be alleged in the Information." - General
allegations of relationship are insufficient; specific legal relationships
must be precisely stated.
- Discernment
in Juvenile Cases: "Discernment is the mental capacity of a
minor to fully appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act, which must
be determined depending on the facts of each case." - Age alone
does not determine criminal responsibility; the ability to understand
consequences is crucial.
- Multiple
Counts Analysis: "There is no indication that there was a
significant interval between the two penetrations described by
AAA265439." - Continuous acts without significant breaks may
constitute a single criminal episode rather than separate crimes.
- Credibility
of Child Witnesses: "A victim of tender age would not have
narrated such sordid details had she not experienced them. Courts in
general accord full weight and credence to the testimonies of child
victims, considering that their youth and immaturity are generally badges
of truth and sincerity." - Children's testimonies in sexual abuse
cases carry presumptive credibility due to their innocence.
CLASSIFICATION: Criminal Law
From <https://claude.ai/chat/9c113bf6-1e6f-4992-b1c9-889238feb5bf>
Looking for a reliable and affordable study companion for the 2025 Bar Exams? The Law Requisites PH offers expertly curated digital case digests designed specifically for bar examinees, law students, and legal professionals. With concise, organized content tailored to support your review and legal practice, you can now access these powerful tools for only ₱499. Start strengthening your preparation today by visiting https://beacons.ai/thelawrequisitesph. Your bar success begins with the right resources—get yours now!
No comments:
Post a Comment