Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
SUPREME COURT and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
Manila above-named accused, by means of force, threat or
FIRST DIVISION intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
G.R. No. 208469 August 13, 2014 and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one AAA, a
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, twelve (12) year old minor, against her will.
vs. CONTRARY TO LAW: (Article 266-A, par. (1)(a), in relation
SAMUEL "TIW-TIW" SANICO, Accused-Appellant. to Article 266-B, par. 6(10) of R.A. [No.] 8353 in
R E S O L U T I O N relation toR[.]A[.] [No.] 7610) (Citation omitted)
REYES, J.: The accused-appellant went into hiding but was
For review is the Decision rendered by the Court of subsequently arresJted in his hometown in Leyte on May
Appeals (CA) on November 19, 2012 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13, 2008. He was arraigned on August 26, 2008, during
00769-MIN affirming, but with modifications as to the which heentered a not guilty plea.
penalties, damages and interests imposed, the conviction During the pre-trial, the prosecution and the defense
by the Regional Trial Court (R TC) of Butuan City, Branch stipulated on the following: (a) the identity of the
1, of Samuel "Tiw-Tiw" Sanico (accused-appellant) for one accused-appellant and the fact of his arrest in Leyte;
count of rape under paragraph 1(a) of Article 266-A of (b) AAA was more than 12 but less than 13 years of age at
the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act the time the acts complained of were allegedly committed
(R.A.) No. 8353, and lascivious conduct under Article by the accused-appellant; and (c) the incident on April
336 of the same code, in relation to R.A. No. 7610, 19, 2006 occurred in AAA’s residence.
otherwise known as "The Special Protection of Children In the joint trial that ensued, the prosecution offered
Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination the testimonies of AAA, her mother BBB, and Dr. Roslyn
Act." D.Orais (Dr. Orais), medico-legal officer of the National
Antecedents Bureau of Investigation, Caraga Region. On the other
Two separate Informations were filed against the accused- hand, the accused-appellant was the defense’s lone
appellant before the RTC, viz: witness. Version of the Prosecution
In Criminal Case No. 12021 for Acts of Lasciviousness As indicated in her birth certificate, AAA was born on
That at more or less 1:00 P.M. of April 19, 2006 at XXX June 14, 1993. Her mother BBB works as a cook, while her
City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this father is a "trisikad" driver. AAA was 12 years old when
Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, with lewd the acts complained of were allegedly committed by the
design, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and accused-appellant, but was already 15 years of age at the
feloniously commit acts of lasciviousness upon the person time she testified in court.
of AAA, a twelve (12) year [old] minor, by touching her The accused-appellant was a pig butcher and ice cream
breast against her will, to the damage and prejudice of vendor. He and his children rented a room for about ten
the latter in such amount as may be proven in Court. (10) to eleven (11) years in the house where AAA lives
CONTRARY TO LAW: (Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, with her family. Thereafter, the accused-appellant’s
as amended in relation to R.A. [No.] 7610) (Citation family moved to their own house built near AAA’s
omitted) residence.
In Criminal Case No. 12022 for Rape
AAA claimed that the accused-appellant raped her in 2005, laceration was possibly caused by "an injury secondary to
but she could not recall the exact month and date. She intravaginal penetration by a blunt object". No human
remembered though that she was raped at around 2:00 spermatozoa was found in AAA’s vagina. Dr. Orais,
p.m.while she was washing dishes in the kitchen. There however, explained that even in the presence of seminal
was nobody else in the house except her and the accused- fluid, there are cases whenno sperm can be found. Dr.
appellant. He approached and held her hands tightly. She Orais likewise noted no physical or extra-genital
boxed the accused-appellant, but he pushed her. injurieson AAA, but found ample evidence of sexual
Thereafter, he threatened to kill her if she would shout. intercourse having occurred more than one but less than
Knowing that the accused-appellant was a pig butcher, AAA four month/s ago. Dr. Orais also testified that AAA was
was overcome by fear. He then succeeded in removing her at times uncooperative, timid, and emotionally
clothes and undergarments and pushing her against the restrained.
wall. He took off his short pants and briefs and inserted BBB testified that it was CCC who saw the accused-
his penis into her vagina for two to three minutes. She appellant touching AAA’s breast. BBB sought payment of
felt pain. The accused-appellant then pulled up his short moral damages.
pants and laid down in the sofa. Version of the Defense
AAA alleged that she was again raped for six or seven The accused-appellant was the lone witness for the
times, but she endured the harrowing experiences in defense. At the time he testified in court, he was 53
silence due to the accused-appellant’s threat to kill years old. He stated that for years, he had lived in the
her. She also dreaded the possibilities of quarrels and house of AAA’s family, but was no longer a resident
deaths, which would ensue if her parents find out. therein when the acts complained ofwere allegedly
On April 19, 2006, at around 1:00 p.m., AAA was napping committed.
in a room with her niece. AAA woke up when she felt that On April 19, 2006, the accused-appellant had a drinking
the accused-appellant was touching her. AAA rose and spree with CCC in the latter’s house lasting from 8:00
repeatedly boxed the accused-appellant, but the latter a.m. to 12:00 p.m. As the two were both drunk, the
held her tightly, pulled up her clothes and mashed her accused-appellant slept in the salawhile CCC did so in
breast. Her father, CCC, was just in another room atthat his room. The accused-appellant woke up from slumber when
time, but out of fear, AAA kept quiet. When the accused- AAA touched the former’s pocket to search for money.She
appellant took off his short pants and inserted his penis got some coins and bills. The accused-appellant, in turn,
into AAA’s vagina, the latter resisted. Being merely touched AAA’s chest and asked the latter to remove her
built out of wood, the house shook, which caused CCC short pants. AAA complied. As the accused-appellant was
towake up. CCC lost consciousness for a short period of touching AAA’s breast, CCC woke up. Upon seeing what was
time when he caught the accused-appellant performing taking place, CCC got a boloto hack the accused-
lascivious acts on AAA. The accused-appellant then seized appellant, but the latter escaped.
the opportunity to flee. The accused-appellant testified that he had never
At around 4:00 p.m. on the same day, Dr. Orais performed inserted his penis in AAA’s vagina. He admitted touching
a medico- genital examination on AAA and found the latter AAA on April 19, 2006 but he did so only because the
to have suffered from sexual abuse. AAA’s hymen was latter initiated it. He also claimed that he was very
"coaptated" or slightly open and bore "old healed close to AAA and he treated her as if she were his own
laceration at 3 and 9 o’clock positions". The hymenal child.
The Ruling of the RTC (4/5) of his preventive imprisonment pursuant to Article
On October 13, 2009, the RTC rendered an Omnibus 29 as amended of the [RPC].
Judgment convicting the accused-appellant of one count of SO ORDERED.
rapeand of acts of lasciviousness. The RTC found AAA’s The Parties’ Arguments Before the CA
testimony of what had transpired as sincere and truthful, The accused-appellant challenged the above disquisition
noting though that a specific allegation as to the exact before the CA. He argued that while the time of the
date and month of the commission of rape in 2005 was commission of the crime is not an essential element of
absent. The trial court thus pointed out the settled rape, a complainant’s inability to give the exact dates,
doctrine that in a prosecution for rape, the material during which she was allegedly raped, puts her
fact or circumstance to be considered is the occurrence credibility in question.
of rape, not the time of its commission, the latter not AAA alleged that she was raped on April 19, 2006, at
being an element of the crime. Further, the accused- around 1:00 p.m. However, Dr. Orais, who conducted a
appellant cannotascribe any ill-motive against AAA which medical examination on AAA three hours after the
could have induced the latter to fabricate such grave incident, testified that human spermatozoa was absent in
charges. The accused-appellant’s flight after he learned AAA’s vagina and the hymenal lacerations found were
that charges were filed against him likewise worked to possibly inflicted more than a month ago.
disfavor him. If he were indeed innocent, he would have The accused-appellant admitted though that he could be
stayed to vindicate himself from the accusations. held liable for acts of lasciviousness for touching AAA’s
The dispositive portion of the RTC decision reads: breast and asking her to remove her short pants.
WHEREFORE, the prosecution having established the guilt The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), on its part,
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in the offenses as sought the dismissal of the appeal. It contended that the
charge[d], in criminal case no. 12022 for rape[,] he is accused-appellant’s denial of the charges against him
sentenced to reclusion perpetua, to pay [AAA][,] through cannot prevail over AAA’s positive testimony. Further,
her father[,] the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos the date of the commission ofrape becomes relevant only
([P]50,000.00) as civil indemnity and another Fifty when the accuracy and truthfulness of the complainant’s
Thousand Pesos ([P]50,000.00) as moral damages. In narration practically hinge thereon. Such circumstance
criminal case no 12021 for acts of lasciviousness, he is does not obtain in the case under review.
sentenced tosuffer imprisonment of 4 years, 2 months and The accused-appellant was also nonchalant in admitting
1 day to 6 years. He isfurther ordered to pay [AAA] the that he touched AAA’s breast and asked her toremove her
sum of Twenty Five Thousand Pesos ([P]25,000.00) as moral short pants. The accused-appellant’s behavior exhibited
damages and another Twenty Five Thousand Pesos no less than his lewd designs on AAA.
([P]25,000.00) as exemplary damages. The Ruling of the CA
He shall serve his sentence at Davao Prison and Penal On November 19, 2012, the CA rendered the herein assailed
Farms, Panabo City, Davao del Norte.In the service of his decision, the decretal portion of which states:
sentence[,] he shall be credited with the full time WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby
benefit of his preventive imprisonment provided he agrees DISMISSED. The October 13, 2009 Omnibus Judgment of the
in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules [RTC] of Butuan City, Branch 1, is hereby AFFIRMED with
imposed upon convicted prisoners[,] otherwise[,] if he MODIFICATION as follows:
does not[,] he shall be entitled with only four-fifths
1) In Criminal Case No. 12021, [the accused-appellant] is the review of the appellate court, which is then called
sentenced to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayoras minimum upon to render such judgment as the law and justice
to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporalas dictate, whether favorable or unfavorable to them, and
maximum. The moral and exemplary damages of [P]25,000.00 whether they are assigned as errors or not. x x x
each awarded by the court a quoare reduce[d] to x x x x
[P]15,000.00 each. He is further ordered to pay civil While we sustain [the] accused-appellant’s conviction of
indemnity of [P]20,000.00 and a fine of [P]15,000.00. acts of lasciviousness, yet, we nonetheless modify the
2) In Criminal Case No. 12022, being in accordance with penalty imposed and the damages awarded by the court a
the law and the evidence, [the accused-appellant] is quo. x x x [W]e find that the court a quo erroneously
sentenced to reclusion perpetua. In addition to the imposed the penalty [for] the crime of acts of
awards of civil indemnity of [P]50,000.00 and moral lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation
damages of [P]50,000.00, [the accused-appellant] is to RA 7610. It is important to note that [the] accused-
further ordered to pay AAA exemplary damages in the appellant was charged [with] acts of lasciviousness under
amount of [P]30,000.00. Article 336 of the RPC in relation to RA 7610 which
3) [The accused-appellant] is further ordered to pay defines sexual abuse of children and prescribes the
interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annumon penalty therefore under Article III, Section 5 thereof.
all the damages awarded in this case fromdate of finality Certainly, [the] accused-appellant was sufficiently
of this judgment until fully paid. informed of the accusation against him and he can thus be
SO ORDERED. convicted of the crime of acts of lasciviousness under RA
In additionally directing the payment of fine and civil 7610 based on the evidence presented against him. Article
indemnity, and modifying both the penalty imposed upon III, Section 5, of RA 7610 reads:
the accused-appellant and the award of damages to AAA as Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse.-
regards Criminal Case No. 12021 for lascivious conduct, Children, whether male or female, who for money or
the CA explained that: profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion
[A]n assiduous review of the arguments [the accused- or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in
appellant] proffered reveals that what was questioned by sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to
him was his conviction for the crime of rape only. In be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual
fact, in his appellant’s brief, he emphasized that he is abuse.
liable only for the charge of acts of lasciviousness The penalty of reclusion temporalin its medium period to
after having admitted that he merely touched the breast reclusion perpetuashall be imposed upon the following:
of AAA and asked the latter to remove her short pants for (a) x x x
him to see her private part. Apparently, [the] (b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or
accusedappellant no longer assailed his conviction [for] lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution
the crime of acts of lasciviousness. orsubject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the
This notwithstanding, we are constrained to review the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the
entire records of the case pursuant to the settled rule perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335,
that when an accused appeals from the sentence of the paragraph 3 for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as
trial court, he waives his constitutional safeguard amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rapeor lascivious
against double jeopardy and throws the whole case open to conduct, as the case may be; Provided, That the penalty
for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (g) "Sexual abuse"includes the employment, use,
(12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of a child
medium period, x x x. to engage in, or assist another person to engage in,
x x x x sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct or the
Paragraph (b) punishes sexual intercourse or lascivious molestation, prostitution, or incest with children;
conduct not only with a child exploited in prostitution, (h) "Lascivious conduct" means the intentional touching,
but alsowith a child subjected to other sexual abuses. It either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia,
covers not only a situation where a child is abused for anus, groin,breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the
profit, but also where one – through coercion, introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or
intimidation or influence – engages in sexual intercourse mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite
or lascivious conduct with a child. sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade,
The elements of sexual abuse under Section 5, Article III or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person,
of RA 7610 are the following: bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the
1. The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or genitals or [pubic] area of a person. x x x Indubitably,
lascivious conduct; AAA was deemed to be [a] "child subjected to other sexual
2. The said act is performed with a child exploited in abuse" as defined above. Accordingly, the imposable
prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and penalty should be the penalty prescribed under RA 7610
3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years and not the penalty under Article 336 of the RPC as
of age. imposed by the court a quo. In People v. Leonardo, the
[T]here is no doubt that [the] accused-appellant is Supreme Court ruled that the penalty to be imposed for
guilty of acts of lasciviousness under Section 5(b), violation of Section 5, Article III of RA 7610 is as
Article XIII of RA 7610 after having admitted the follows:
lascivious conduct he made with AAA. It is undisputed For acts of lasciviousness performed on a child under
that AAA was still 12 years old when the crime happened Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610, the
and as admitted by [the] accused-appellant himself, hewas penalty prescribed is reclusion temporalin its medium
touching AAA because AAA was looking for money inside his period to reclusion perpetua. Notwithstanding that
pocket and he told AAA to remove her short pants for him Republic Act No. 7610 is a special law, the [accused-]
to see her private part. x x x. appellant may enjoy the benefits of the Indeterminate
It is important to note however that a child is deemed Sentence Law.
subjected to other sexual abuse when the child indulges Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
in lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of [accused-]appellant shall be entitled to a minimum term
any adult. x x x to be taken within the range of the penalty next lower to
x x x x that prescribed by Republic Act No. 7610. The penalty
Undoubtedly, [the] accused-appellant’s acts were covered next lower in degree is prision mayor medium to reclusion
by the definitions of sexual abuse and lascivious conduct temporalminimum, the range of which is from 8 years and 1
under Section 2(g) and (h) of the Rules and Regulations day to 14 years and 8 months. On the other hand, the
on the Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases maximum term of the penalty should be taken from the
promulgated to implement the provisions of RA 7610, penalty prescribed under Section 5(b), Article III of
particularly on child abuse: Republic Act No. 7610, which is reclusion temporalin its
medium period to reclusion perpetua, the range of which April 19, 2006. The fact that only old healed lacerations
is from 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to reclusion were found does not negate rape. x x x:
perpetua. The minimum, medium and maximum term of the x x x In People v. Espinoza, it was held that healed
same is as follows: minimum – 14 years, 8 months and 1 lacerations do not negate rape. In fact, lacerations,
day to 17 years and 4 months; medium – 17 years, 4 months whether healed or fresh, are the best physical evidence
and 1 day to 20years; and maximum – reclusion perpetua. of forcible defloration.x x x. Moreover, in the present
Thus, in this case, we imposed on [the] accused-appellant case, Dr. Orais clarified to the court that even if the
the indeterminate sentence of 8 years and 1 day of alleged sexual assault took place in the year 2005 or a
prision mayoras minimum to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day year after AAA was examined, the old healed lacerations
of reclusion temporalas maximum. could still be found.
Corollarily, in view of recent jurisprudence,we deem it x x x x
proper to reduce the amount of moral and exemplary [T]he absence of spermatozoa does not disprove rape, In
damages awarded by the court a quofrom [P]25,000.00 each fact, in People v. Perez, it was held that:
to [P]15,000.00 each. [The] accusedappellant is however x x x The absence of spermatozoa is not a negation of
ordered to pay civil indemnity of [P]20,000.00 and a fine rape. The presence or absence of spermatozoa isimmaterial
of [P]15,000.00. (Citations omitted) since it is penetration, not ejaculation, which
On the other hand, in Criminal Case No. 12022, the CA constitutes the crime of rape. x x x.
affirmed the accused-appellant’s conviction for rapeand x x x x
the award by the RTC of civil indemnity and moral damages As to the award of damages, x x x the victim shall
in favor of AAA. Additionally, the CA ordered the payment likewise be entitled to exemplary damages in the amount
of ₱30,000.00 asexemplary damages. In both Criminal Case of Thirty Thousand Pesos ([P]30,000.00) as justified
Nos. 12021 and 12022, the CA likewise directed the under Article 2229 of the Civil Code to set a public
accusedappellant to pay AAA the legal interest of twelve example and serve as a deterrent against the elders who
percent (12%) per annum on all damages awarded to be abuse and corrupt the youth. (Citations omitted)
computedfrom the date of finality of the decision until Issue
full payment. The CA cited the following as reasons: The accused-appellant now comes before the court for
Indubitably, it is unimaginable for a young girl like AAA relief insisting anew on the alleged failure of the
to concoct a tale of defloration, drag herself and the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had,
rest of her family to a lifetime of shame, and make them in fact, raped AAA.
the object of gossip among their neighbors and friends if Both the accused-appellant and the OSG did not file
the accusation was indeed untrue. x x x. supplemental briefs, adopting instead their respective
x x x x arguments raised before the CA.
The contention of [the] accused-appellant that the rape The Ruling of the Court
allegedly committed on April 19, 2006 was highly We affirm the CA’s verdict convicting the accused-
implausible because of the absence of fresh lacerations appellant of the charges against him, but modify the
and spermatozoa in AAA’s vagina is untenable. It should sameby (a) reinstating the penalty and damages for
be emphasizedthat [the] accused-appellant was charged lascivious conduct imposed by the RTC in Criminal Case
[with] rape that occurred sometime in 2005 and not on No. 12021; and (b) reducing to six percent the interests
imposed upon the damages awarded to AAA in both Criminal We are aware that the Information specifically charged
Case Nos. 12021 and 12022. petitioner with Acts of Lasciviousness under the RPC,
Criminal Case No. 12021 without stating therein that it was in relation to R.A.
As aptly stated by the CA, it would be a superfluity to No. 7610. However, the failure to designate the offense
exhaustively re-evaluate the accused-appellant’s by statute or to mention the specific provision
conviction in Criminal Case No. 12021 for lasciviousness penalizing the act, or an erroneous specification of the
conduct committed on April 19, 2006. First. The RTC and law violated, does not vitiate the information if the
the CA uniformly found the accused-appellant guilty as facts alleged therein clearly recite the facts
charged. Second. The accused-appellant himself admitted constituting the crime charged. The character of the
touching AAA’s breast and directing the latter totake off crime is not determined by the caption or preamble of the
her short pants. Third. In the appeal filed before the CA information nor by the specification of the provision of
and this court, no error was ascribed on the part of the law alleged to have beenviolated, but by the recital of
RTC in convicting the accused-appellant for lascivious the ultimate facts and circumstances inthe complaint or
conduct. information.
The RTC and the CA, were however, not in agreement as to In the instant case, the body of the Information contains
the proper imposable penalty for the accused-appellant’s an averment of the acts alleged to have been committed by
lascivious conduct. The RTC applied the provisions of petitioner and unmistakably describes acts punishable
Article 336 of the RPC and sentenced the accused- under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No.
appellant to 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 6 years of 7610. (Citation omitted)
imprisonment. The CA, on the other hand, invoking Section In the accused-appellant’s case beforethe Court, the
5(b) of R.A. No. 7610, which punishes sexual abuses Information even specifically mentions R.A. No. 7610. The
committed against minors, imposed upon the accused- accused-appellant, therefore, was fairly apprised that he
appellant the indeterminate penalty of 8 years and 1 day was being charged with violation of R.A. No. 7610 as
of prision mayoras minimum to 17 years, 4 months and 1 well. Further, it was shown that the requisites of
day of reclusion temporalas maximum. Section 5(b) of the statute are present. The CA thus
In the instant appeal, the Information relative to inferred that it could not be precluded from imposing the
Criminal Case No. 12021 bears the caption "for acts of proper penalty provided for in R.A. No. 7610.
lasciviousness." It is, however, indicated that the acts The CA aptly declared that when an appeal isfiled in a
are being prosecuted pursuant to the provisions of criminal action, it opens the entire matter for review
"Article 336 of the RPC, in relation to R.A. No. 7610." and that the requisites of sexual abuse under Section
In the herein assailed decision, the CA explained that 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 are present in the accused-
during the trial, the prosecution was able to prove the appellant’s case. However, grounds exist compelling us to
existence of the requisites of sexual abuse under Section reinstate the penalty and damages imposed by the RTC in
5(b), R.A. No. 7610. The CA thus modified the penalty and Criminal Case No. 12021.
imposed instead the one provided for in R.A. No. 7610. It bears stressing that the case before the Court
In Flordeliz v. People, we allowed the imposition of a involves two separate Informations filed – one for rape
penalty provided for in R.A. No. 7610 despite the absence and another for lascivious conduct.
in the Information filed of any explicit reference to the People v. Francisco involved the issue ofunder which
saidstatute. We declared that: appellate jurisdiction the crimes of rape and lascivious
conduct fall. The court, however, had the occasion to the Court of Appeals. This Court has repeatedly
explain that: recognized that the trial court is in the bestposition to
Nor can we widen the scope of our appellate jurisdiction assess the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies
on the basis of the fact that the trial court heard two because of its unique position of having observed that
(2) distinct and separate cases simultaneously. Such elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses’
procedure [referring to the conduct of a joint trial] deportment on the stand while testifying, which
adopted by the trial court cannot and did not result in opportunity is denied to the appellate courts. Only the
the merger of the two (2) offenses. In fact, a cursory trial judge can observe the furtive glance, blush of
reading of the assailed decision of the court a conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone,
quoreveals with pristine clarity that each case was calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an
separately determined by the trial judge, as each should oath. These are significant factors in evaluating the
be separately reviewed on appeal. x x x. sincerity of witnesses, in the process of unearthing the
In the case at bench, the commission of lascivious truth. The appellate courts will generally not disturb
conduct was admitted by the accused-appellant in his such findings unless it plainly overlooked certain facts
testimony. No issue regarding his conviction for of substance and value that, if considered, might affect
lascivious conduct had been raised in his appeal before the result of the case.
the CA as well. Despite the fact that the appeal filed Moreover, "[w]e have repeatedly held that when the
was captioned as one with reference to Criminal Case Nos. offended parties are young and immature girls, as in this
12021 and 12022, the body stated in no uncertain terms case, courts are inclined to lend credence to their
that what was being assailed was merely the conviction version of what transpired, considering not only their
for rape. Effectively then, it was as if no appeal was relative vulnerability, but also the shame and
filed relative to Criminal Case No. 12021. Hence, the embarrassment to which they would be exposed if the
penalty imposed by the RTC for lascivious conduct should matter about which they testified were not true."
not be disturbed anymore.Necessarily then, the CA cannot The foregoing doctrines apply with greater force in the
impose upon the accused-appellant a graverpenalty and instant case where the accused-appellant cannot ascribe
increase the amount of damages awarded to AAA at least any ill-motive against AAA in accusing him of the
relative to Criminal Case No. 12021. This is the path offenses charged,and where the factual findings of the
more in accord with the general rule that penal laws are RTC coincide with those of the CA.
to be construed liberally in favor of the "For conviction to be had in the crime of rape, the
accused. Criminal Case No. 12022 following elements must be proven beyond reasonable
The court finds no reversible error committed by the RTC doubt: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of the
and the CA anent the accused-appellant’sconviction for victim; and (2) that said act was accomplished (a)
rape in Criminal Case No. 12022. through the use of force or intimidation, or (b) when the
In People of the Philippines v. Hermenigildo Delen y Esco victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or
Billa, the court emphatically stated that: (c) when the victim is twelve years of age, or is
It is a fundamental rule that the trial court’s factual demented."
findings, especially its assessment of the credibility of In the instant appeal, the RTC and the CA both found
witnesses, are accorded great weight and respect and AAA’s testimony that she was raped in 2005 as credible.
binding upon this Court, particularly when affirmed by AAA did not specifically refer to an exact month and date
when the sordid act was committed. Nonetheless, her the date of the finality of this judgment until fully
testimony that the accused-appellant threatened to kill paid.
her, pushed her to the wall and inserted his penis in her IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Decision dated November 19,
vagina at around 2:00 p.m., while she was alone washing 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00769-
dishes at home, was positive, clear and categorical. MIN, is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS: (a) In
To exculpate him from liability, the accused-appellant Criminal Case No. 12021, the indeterminate penalty of 4
invokes Dr. Orais’ medical findings that human years, 2 months and 1 day of imprisonment as minimum to 6
spermatozoa was absent in AAA’s vagina, and that her years as maximum imposed by the R TC upon the accused-
hymen bore old healed and not fresh lacerations possibly appellant, and the award in favor of AAA of Twenty Five
sustained more than one but less than four month/s ago. Thousand Pesos (₱25,000.00) as moral damages and Twenty
These, however, are not compelling reasons to warrant the Five Thousand Pesos (₱25,000.00) as exemplary damages,
reversal of the assailed decision. are reinstated; and
The Information in Criminal Case No. 12022 charged the (b) An interest at the rate of six percent ( 6%) per
accused-appellant for raping AAA in 2005.On the other annum on all the damages awarded to AAA in Criminal Case
hand, in Criminal Case No. 12021, the accused- Nos. 12021 to 12022 is likewise imposed upon the accused-
appellantwas indicted for committing lascivious conduct appellant to be computed from the date of the finality of
on April 19, 2006. The results of the medical examination this judgment until fully paid.
conducted on April 19, 2006 by Dr. Orais, finding that SO ORDERED.
there was no human spermatozoa found in AAA’s vagina and
that the latter’s hymen bore old healed and not fresh
lacerations, are not inconsistent with the conclusion
that the latter was raped in 2005. Repetitive as it may Republic of the Philippines
be, the rape was committed in 2005 and not shortly before SUPREME COURT
the medical examination conducted upon AAA on April 19, Manila
2006.
Interests on all the damages imposed upon the accused SECOND DIVISION
appellant reduced from 12% to 6% Prescinding from the
above, the Court finds no grounds to reverse the herein G.R. No. 198732 June 10, 2013
assailed decision convicting the accused-appellant of one
count of rape and of lascivious conduct. The Court CHRISTIAN CABALLO, Petitioner,
likewise finds no error in the penalty, civil indemnity, vs.
and damages ordered by the CA relative to Criminal Case PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
No. 12022. However, inCriminal Case No. 12021, the lesser
penalty and damages imposed by the RTC are reinstated. D E C I S I O N
Lastly, to conform to prevailing jurisprudence, an
interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annumshall PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
be imposed on all the damages awarded to AAA in both
Criminal Case Nos. 12021 and 12022, to be computed from Before the Court is a petition for review on
certiorari assailing the January 28, 2011 Decision and
September 26, 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals on March 8, 1999, a condition prejudicial to her
(CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 27399-MIN which affirmed with development, to the damage and prejudice of AAA in such
modification the April 1, 2003 Decision of the Regional amount as may be allowed by law.
Trial Court of Surigao City, Branch 30 (RTC), finding
petitioner Christian Caballo (Caballo) guilty beyond CONTRARY TO LAW.
reasonable doubt of violating Section 10(a), Article VI
of Republic Act No. 7610 (RA 7610), otherwise known as Surigao City, Philippines, May 28, 1999.
the "Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse,
Exploitation and Discrimination Act," in relation to Upon arraignment, Caballo pleaded not guilty to the
Section 2 of the Rules and Regulations on the Reporting aforesaid charges.
and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases (Rules on Child
Abuse Cases). Based on the records, the undisputed facts are as
follows:
The Facts
AAA, then 17 years old, met Caballo, then 23 years old,
On March 16, 1999, an Information was filed charging in her uncle’s place in Surigao City. Her uncle was a
Caballo of violation of Section 10(a), Article VI of RA choreographer and Caballo was one of his dancers. During
7610 which was later amended on May 28, 1999, to include that time, AAA was a sophomore college student at the
statements pertaining to the delivery of private University of San Carlos and resided at a boarding house
compJlainant AAA’s baby. The Amended Information reads: in Cebu City. On January 17, 1998, Caballo went to Cebu
City to attend the Sinulog Festival and there, visited
That undersigned Second Assistant City Prosecutor hereby AAA. After spending time together, they eventually became
accuses Christian Caballo of the crime of Violation of sweethearts. Sometime during the third week of March
Section 10 (a) of Republic Act No. 7610, committed as 1998, AAA went home to Surigao City and stayed with her
follows: uncle. In the last week of March of the same year,
Caballo persuaded AAA to have sexual intercourse with
That in or about the last week of March 1998, and on him. This was followed by several more of the same in
different dates subsequent thereto, until June 1998, in April 1998, in the first and second weeks of May 1998, on
the City of Surigao, Philippines, and within the August 31, 1998 and in November 1998, all of which
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named happened in Surigao City, except the one in August which
accused, a 23 year old man, in utter disregard of the occurred in Cebu. In June 1998, AAA becamepregnant and
prohibition of the provisions of Republic Act No. 7610 later gave birth on March 8, 1999.
and taking advantage of the innocence and lack of worldly
experience of AAA who was only 17 years old at that time, During the trial, the prosecution asserted that Caballo
having been born on November 3, 1980, did then and there was only able to induce AAA to lose her virginity due to
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit sexual abuse promises of marriage and his assurance that he would not
upon said AAA, by persuading and inducing the latter to get her pregnant due to the use of the "withdrawal
have sexual intercourse with him, which ultimately method." Moreover, it claimed that Caballo was shocked
resulted to her untimely pregnancy and delivery of a baby upon hearing the news of AAA’s pregnancy and
consequently, advised her to have an abortion. She heeded In a Decision dated January 28, 2011, the CA dismissed
Caballo’s advice; however, her efforts were unsuccessful. the appeal and affirmed with modification the RTC’s
Further, the prosecution averred that when AAA’s mother ruling, finding Caballo guilty of violating Section 5(b),
confronted Caballo to find out what his plans were for Article III of RA 7610.
AAA, he assured her that he would marry her daughter.
It ruled that while the Amended Information denominated
Opposed to the foregoing, Caballo claimed that during the crime charged as violation of Section 10(a), Article
their first sexual intercourse, AAA was no longer a VI of RA 7610, the statements in its body actually
virgin as he found it easy to penetrate her and that support a charge of violation of Section 5(b), Article
there was no bleeding. He also maintained that AAA had III of RA 7610.
(3) three boyfriends prior to him. Further, he posited
that he and AAA were sweethearts who lived-in together, On the merits of the case, it found that the evidence
for one (1) week in a certain Litang Hotel and another adduced by the prosecution clearly showed that Caballo
week in the residence of AAA’s uncle. Eventually, they persuaded, induced and enticed AAA, then a minor, to have
broke up due to the intervention of AAA’s parents. At a carnal knowledge with him. Towards this end, Caballo
certain time, AAA’s mother even told Caballo that he was repeatedly assured AAA of his love and even went on to
not deserving of AAA because he was poor. Lastly, he promise marriage to her. He also assured AAA that she
alleged that he repeatedly proposed marriage to AAA but would not get pregnant because he would be using the
was always rejected because she was still studying. "withdrawal method." Thus, it was upon these repeated
coaxing and assuring words that AAA succumbed to
The RTC’s Ruling Caballo’s evil desires which deflowered and got her
pregnant. On this score, it observed that consent is
In a Decision dated April 1, 2003, the RTC found Caballo immaterial in child abuse cases involving sexual
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section intercourse and lascivious conduct and therefore, the
10(a), Article VI of RA 7610, in relation to Section 2 of sweetheart defense remains unacceptable. It also found
the Rules on Child Abuse Cases. Accordingly, it sentenced basis to sustain the award of moral damages.
Caballo to suffer imprisonment for an indeterminate
period ranging from prision correccional, in its maximum Caballo filed a motion for reconsideration which was,
period of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day, however, denied on September 26, 2011.
as minimum, to prision mayor in its minimum period of six
(6) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day, as maximum. Hence, the instant petition.
It also ordered Caballo to pay AAA moral damages in the
amount of ₱50,000.00. The Issue
Aggrieved, Caballo elevated the case to the CA. The core of the present controversy revolves around the
interpretation of the phrase "due to the coercion or
The CA’s Ruling influence of any adult" which would thereby classify the
victim as a "child exploited in prostitution and other
sexual abuse" as found in Section 5, Article III of RA
7610. Consequently, the interpretation which the Court The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to
accords herein would determine whether or not the CA reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following: x
erred in finding Caballo guilty of violating paragraph x x x
(b) of the same proviso.
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or
In his petition, Caballo essentially argues that his lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution
promise to marry or his use of the "withdrawal method" or subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the
should not be considered as "persuasion" or "inducement" victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the
sufficient to convict him for the aforementioned offense, perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335,
asserting that these should be coupled with some form of paragraph 3 for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as
coercion or intimidation to constitute child abuse. He amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious
further alleges that he and AAA were sweethearts which conduct, as the case may be; Provided, That the penalty
thus, made the sexual intercourse consensual. for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve
(12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its
In its Comment, respondent advances the argument that medium period x x x x (Emphasis and underscoring
there was "sexual abuse" within the purview of RA 7610 as supplied)
well as the Rules on Child Abuse Cases since it was only
upon Caballo’s repeated assurances and persuasion that As determined in the case of Olivarez v. CA (Olivarez),
AAA gave in to his worldly desires. Likewise, it points the elements of the foregoing offense are the following:
out that the sweetheart theory, as relied on by Caballo,
deserves scant consideration in view of the Court’s (a) The accused commits the act of sexual
ruling in Malto v. People (Malto). intercourse or lascivious conduct;
The Court’s Ruling (b) The said act is performed with a child exploited
in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse;
The petition has no merit. and
Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 pertinently reads: (c) The child, whether male or female, is below 18
years of age.
SEC. 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. -
Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, In this case, the existence of the first and third
or any other consideration or due to the coercion or elements remains undisputed. Records disclose that
influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in Caballo had succeeded in repeatedly having sexual
sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to intercourse with AAA who, during all those instances, was
be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual still a minor. Thus, the only bone of contention lies in
abuse. the presence of the second element. On this note, the
defense submits that AAA could not be considered as a
"child exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse"
since the incidents to do not point to any form of It must be noted that the law covers not only a situation
"coercion" or "influence" on Caballo’s part. in which a child is abused for profit, but also one in
which a child, through coercion or intimidation, engages
The argument is untenable. in lascivious conduct.
To put things in proper perspective, it must be pointed We reiterated this ruling in Amployo v. People:
out that RA 7610 was meant to advance the state policy of
affording "special protection to children from all forms ... As we observed in People v. Larin, Section 5 of Rep.
of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation and Act No. 7610 does not merely cover a situation of a child
discrimination and other conditions prejudicial to their being abused for profit, but also one in which a child
development" and in such regard, "provide sanctions for engages in any lascivious conduct through coercion or
their commission." It also furthers the "best interests intimidation...
of children" and as such, its provisions are guided by
this standard. Thus, a child is deemed subjected to other sexual abuse
when the child indulges in lascivious conduct under the
Driven by the foregoing considerations, Congress crafted coercion or influence of any adult. In this case,
Article III of the same law in order to penalize child Cristina was sexually abused because she was coerced or
prostitution and other forms of sexual abuse. Section 5 intimidated by petitioner to indulge in a lascivious
thereof provides a definition of who is considered a conduct. Furthermore, it is inconsequential that the
"child exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse." sexual abuse occurred only once. As expressly provided in
As illumined in Olivarez, citing People v. Larin and Section 3(b) of R.A. 7610, the abuse may be habitual or
Amployo v. People, the final version of the aforesaid not. It must be observed that Article III of R.A. 7610 is
provision was a product of various deliberations to captioned as "Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse"
expand its original coverage to cases where the minor may because Congress really intended to cover a situation
have been coerced or intimidated into sexual intercourse where the minor may have been coerced or intimidated into
or lascivious conduct, not necessarily for money or lascivious conduct, not necessarily for money or profit.
profit, viz: The law covers not only child prostitution but also other
forms of sexual abuse. This is clear from the
The second element, i.e., that the act is performed with deliberations of the Senate:
a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other
sexual abuse, is likewise present. As succinctly Senator Angara. I refer to line 9, ‘who for money or
explained in People v. Larin: profit.’ I would like to amend this, Mr. President, to
cover a situation where the minor may have been coerced
A child is deemed exploited in prostitution or subjected or intimidated into this lascivious conduct, not
to other sexual abuse, when the child indulges in sexual necessarily for money or profit, so that we can cover
intercourse or lascivious conduct (a) for money, profit, those situations and not leave loophole in this section.
or any other consideration; or (b) under the coercion or
influence of any adult, syndicate or group... The proposal I have is something like this: WHO FOR
MONEY, PROFIT, OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION OR DUE TO THE
COERCION OR INFLUENCE OF ANY ADULT, SYNDICATE OR GROUP The President Pro Tempore. Is there any objection?
INDULGE, et cetera. [Silence] Hearing none, the amendment is approved.
The President Pro Tempore. I see. That would mean also How about the title, ‘Child Prostitution,’ shall we
changing the subtitle of Section 4. Will it no longer be change that too?
child prostitution?
Senator Angara. Yes, Mr. President, to cover the expanded
Senator Angara. No, no. Not necessarily, Mr. President, scope.
because we are still talking of the child who is being
misused for sexual purposes either for money or for The President Pro Tempore. Is that not what we would call
consideration. What I am trying to cover is the other probable ‘child abuse’?
consideration. Because, here, it is limited only to the
child being abused or misused for sexual purposes, only Senator Angara. Yes, Mr. President.
for money or profit.
The President Pro Tempore. Subject to rewording. Is there
I am contending, Mr. President, that there may be any objection? [Silence] Hearing none, the amendment is
situations where the child may not have been used for approved. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
profit or ...
As it is presently worded, Section 5, Article III of RA
The President Pro Tempore. So, it is no longer 7610 provides that when a child indulges in sexual
prostitution. Because the essence of prostitution is intercourse or any lascivious conduct due to the coercion
profit. or influence of any adult, the child is deemed to be a
"child exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse."
Senator Angara. Well, the Gentleman is right. Maybe the In this manner, the law is able to act as an effective
heading ought to be expanded. But, still, the President deterrent to quell all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty,
will agree that that is a form or manner of child abuse. exploitation and discrimination against children,
prejudicial as they are to their development.
The President Pro Tempore. What does the Sponsor say?
Will the Gentleman kindly restate the amendment? In this relation, case law further clarifies that sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct under the coercion or
ANGARA AMENDMENT influence of any adult exists when there is some form of
compulsion equivalent to intimidation which subdues the
Senator Angara. The new section will read something like free exercise of the offended party’s free will.
this, Mr. President: MINORS, WHETHER MALE OR FEMALE, WHO Corollary thereto, Section 2(g) of the Rules on Child
FOR MONEY, PROFIT, OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION OR Abuse Cases conveys that sexual abuse involves the
INFLUENCE OF ANY ADULT, SYNDICATE OR GROUP INDULGE IN element of influence which manifests in a variety of
SEXUAL INTERCOURSE, et cetera. forms. It is defined as:
Accused-appellant filed his Appellants Brief on July 15, On September 30, 2005, the case was elevated to this
2004, while the People, through the Office of the Court for further review.
Solicitor General, filed its Appellees Brief on December
15, 2004. In our Resolution of November 15, 2005, we required the
parties to simultaneously submit their respective
Pursuant to our pronouncement in People v. supplemental briefs. Accused-appellant filed his
Mateo, modifying the pertinent provisions of the Revised Supplemental Brief on April 7, 2006. Having failed to
Rules on Criminal Procedure insofar as they provide for submit one, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) was
direct appeals from the RTC to this Court in cases in deemed to have waived the filing of its supplemental
which the penalty imposed by the trial court is brief.
death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, and the
Resolution dated September 19, 1995 in Internal Rules of In his Brief filed before the CA, accused-appellant
the Supreme Court, the case was transferred, for raised the following assignment of errors:
appropriate action and disposition, to the CA where it
was docketed as CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00717. I
THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING
As stated at the beginning hereof, the CA, in its CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF [AAA], [her
decision of July 14, 2005, in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 000717, cousin] and [her father].
affirmed with modification the judgment of conviction
pronounced by the trial court. We quote the fallo of the II
CA decision:
THE LOWER COURT GLARINGLY ERRED IN REJECTING
WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction THE DEFENSE OF ALIBI INTERPOSED BY THE ACCUSED
is AFFIRMED. The accused, Richard Sarcia y WHICH IS MORE CREDIBLE.
Olivera, is ordered to suffer the penalty of
DEATH, and to pay the victim, [AAA], the amount III
of (1) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity;
THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING
THE ACCUSED RICHARD SARCIA. Perplexed, [AAAs cousin] immediately
returned to the backyard of Saling Crisologo
The evidence for the prosecution is summarized by where she found [AAA] crying. Appellant,
the OSG in the Appellee's Brief, as follows: however, was gone. [AAAs cousin] approached
[AAA] and asked her what appellant had done to
On December 16, 1996, five-year-old [AAA], her. When [AAA] did not answer, [her cousin]
together with her [cousin and two other did not ask her any further question and just
playmates], was playing in the yard of Saling accompanied her home.
Crisologo near a mango tree.
At home, [AAA] did not tell her mother
Suddenly, appellant appeared and invited what appellant had done to her because she
[AAA] to go with him to the backyard of Saling feared that her mother might slap her. Later,
Crisologos house. She agreed. Unknown to when her mother washed her body, she felt a
appellant, [AAAs cousin] followed them. grating sensation in her private
part. Thereafter, [AAA] called for [her
Upon reaching the place, appellant removed cousin]. [AAAs cousin] came to their house and
[AAAs] shorts and underwear. He also removed told [AAAs] mother again that appellant had
his trousers and brief. Thereafter, he ordered earlier made an up-and-down movement on top of
[AAA] to lie down on her back. Then, he lay on [AAA]. [AAAs mother], however did not say
top of her and inserted his penis into [AAAs] anything. At that time, [AAAs] father was
private organ. Appellant made an up-and-down working in Manila.
movement (Nagdapadapa tabi). [AAA] felt severe
pain inside her private part and said aray. She Dr. Joana Manatloa is the Municipal Health
also felt an intense pain inside her stomach. Officer of Guinobatan, Albay. She testified
that: (1) it was the rural health officer, Dr.
[AAAs cousin], who positioned herself Reantaso, who conducted a physical examination
around five (5) meters away from them, on [AAA]; (2) Dr. Reantaso prepared and signed
witnessed appellants dastardly act. Horrified, a medico-legal certificate containing the
[AAAs cousin] instinctively rushed to the house result of [AAA]s examination; (3) Dr. Reantaso,
of [AAAs] mother, her aunt Emily, and told the however, had already resigned as rural health
latter what she had seen. [AAAs] mother officer of Guinobatan, Albay; (4) as a medical
answered that they (referring to {AAA and her doctor, she can interpret, the findings in said
cousin} were still very young to be talking medico-legal certificate issued to [AAA]; (5)
about such matters. [AAA]s medical findings are as follows:
negative for introital vulvar laceration nor
Meanwhile, after satisfying his lust, scars, perforated hymen, complete, pinkish
appellant stood up and ordered [AAA] to put on vaginal mucosa, vaginal admits little finger
her clothes. Appellant then left. with resistance; (6) the finding negative for
introital bulvar laceration nor scars means, in proceeding home he would usually play
laymans language, that there was no showing of basketball at the basketball court near the
any scar or wound, and (7) there is a complete church in Doa Tomasa about 1 kilometer away
perforation of the hymen which means that it from their house. When her mother suffered a
could have been subjected to a certain trauma stroke in 1999 he and his father took turns
or pressure such as strenuous exercise or the taking care of his mother. Richard denied
entry of an object like a medical instrument or molesting other girls ... and was most
penis. surprised when he was accused of raping
[AAA]. He knows Saling Crisologo and the
On the other hand, the trial court summarized the latters place which is more than half kilometer
version of the defense as follows: to their house. Richard claimed Salvacion
Bobier, grandmother of Mae Christine Camu,
Richard Sarcia, 24 years old, single, whose death on May 7, 2000 was imputed to him
student and a resident of Doa Tomasa, and for which a case for Murder under Criminal
Guinobatan, Albay denied he raped [AAA]. While Case No. 4087 was filed against him with the
he knows [AAAs] parents, because sometimes they docile cooperation of [AAAs] parents who are
go to their house looking for his father to related to Salvacion, concocted and instigated
borrow money, he does not know [AAA] [AAAs] rape charge against him to make the case
herself. His father retired as a fireman from for Murder against him stronger and life for
Crispa in 1991 while his mother worked as an him miserable. He was incarcerated on May 10,
agriculturist in the Municipality of Teresa, 2000 for the Murder charge and two (2) months
Antipolo, Rizal. As an agriculturist of the later while he already in detention, the rape
Department of Agriculture, his mother would case supposedly committed in 1996 was filed
bring seedlings and attend seminars in Batangas against him in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC)
and Baguio. They were residing in Cainta, Rizal of Guinobatan, Albay. He was to learn about it
when sometime in 1992 they transferred from his sister, Marivic, on a Sunday afternoon
residence to Guinobatan, Albay. His father is sometime on July 20, 2000 when his sister
from barangay Masarawag while his mother is visited him in jail. He naturally got angry
from barangay Doa Tomasa both of Guinobatan, when he heard of this rape charge because he
Albay. After their transfer in Guinobatan, his did not do such thing and recalled telling his
mother continued to be an agriculturist while sister they can go to a doctor and have the
his father tended to his 1-hectare coconut child examine to prove he did not rape
land. Richard testified he was between fourteen her. Subsequently, from his sister again he was
(14) and fifteen (15) years old in 1992 when to learn that the rape case was ordered
they transferred to Guinobatan. Between 1992 dismissed.
and 1994 he was out of school. But from 1994 to
1998 he took his high school at Masarawag High On cross-examination, Richard admitted
School. His daily routine was at about 4:00 [AAAs] mother, is also related to his father,
oclock in the afternoon after school before [AAA mothers] father, being a second cousin of
his father. Richard is convinced it is not the
lending of money by his father to the AAAs In his Appellee's Brief accused-appellant pointed
family as the motive for the latter to file the out the inconsistencies between AAAs and her cousins
rape case against him but the instigation of testimonies as follows: (1) the cousin testified that she
Salvacion Bobier. played with AAA at the time of the incident, while AAA
testified that she was doing nothing before accused-
Manuel A. Casimiro, Clerk of Court II of appellant invited her to the back of the house of a
the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Guinobatan, certain Saling; (2) the cousin testified that when she
Albay, testified on the records of Criminal saw accused-appellant doing the push-and-pull motion
Case No. 7078 filed in MTC Guinobatan, Albay while on top of AAA, the latter shouted in a loud voice
against Richard Sarcia for Rape in relation to contrary to AAAs testimony that when accused-appellant
RA 7610 relative to the alleged withdrawal of was inside her and started the up-and-down motion, she
said rape case but the accused through counsel said aray; (3) when the cousin returned to AAA after
failed to formally offer the marked exhibits telling the latters mother what accused-appellant had
relative to said case. done to AAA, she found AAA crying. AAA however testified
that, after putting on her clothes, she invited the
Accused-appellant alleges that the trial court erred cousin to their house; and (4) the cousin testified that
in convicting him, as the prosecution was not able to other children were playing at the time of the incident,
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He assailed the but AAA testified that there were only four of them who
credibility of the prosecution witnesses, AAA, her cousin were playing at that time.
and her father on the following grounds: (1) the
testimonies of AAA and her cousin were inconsistent with As it is oft-repeated, inconsistencies in the
each other; (2) the victim was confused as to the date testimonies of witnesses, which refer only to minor
and time of the commission of the offense; (3) there was details and collateral matters, do not affect the
a four-year delay in filing the criminal case, and the veracity and weight of their testimonies where there is
only reason why they filed the said case was to help consistency in relating the principal occurrence and the
Salvacion Bobier get a conviction of this same accused in positive identification of the accused. Slight
a murder case filed by said Salvacion Bobier for the contradictions in fact even serve to strengthen the
death of her granddaughter Mae Christine Camu on May 7, credibility of the witnesses and prove that their
2000. Accused-appellant stressed that the same Salvacion testimonies are not rehearsed. Nor are such
Bobier helped AAAs father in filing the said case for inconsistencies, and even improbabilities, unusual, for
rape. Accused-appellant also claimed that the prosecution there is no person with perfect faculties or senses. The
failed to prove that he employed force, threats or alleged inconsistencies in this case are too
intimidation to achieve his end. Finally, accused- inconsequential to overturn the findings of the court a
appellant harped on the finding in the medical quo. It is important that the two prosecution witnesses
certificate issued by Dr. Reantaso and interpreted by Dr. were one in saying that it was accused-appellant who
Joana Manatlao, stating negative for introital bulvar sexually abused AAA. Their positive, candid and
laceration nor scar which means that there was no showing straightforward narrations of how AAA was sexually abused
of any scar or wound. by accused-appellant evidently deserve full faith and
credence. When the rape incident happened, AAA was only complaint or information within the period of
five (5) years old; and when she and her cousin the statute of limitations and at a place
testified, they were barely 9 and 11 years old, within the jurisdiction of the court.
respectively. This Court has had occasion to rule that
the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the Also in People v. Salalima, the Court held:
witnesses can be explained by their age and their
inexperience with court proceedings, and that even the Failure to specify the exact dates or time
most candid of witnesses commit mistakes and make when the rapes occurred does not ipso
confused and inconsistent statements. This is especially facto make the information defective on its
true of young witnesses, who could be overwhelmed by the face. The reason is obvious. The precise date
atmosphere of the courtroom. Hence, there is more reason or time when the victim was raped is not an
to accord them ample space for inaccuracy. element of the offense. The gravamen of the
crime is the fact of carnal knowledge under any
Accused-appellant capitalizes on AAAs inability to of the circumstances enumerated under Article
recall the exact date when the incident in 1996 was 335 of the Revised Penal Code. As long as it is
committed. Failure to recall the exact date of the crime, alleged that the offense was committed at any
however, is not an indication of false testimony, for time as near to the actual date when the
even discrepancies regarding exact dates of rapes are offense was committed an information is
inconsequential and immaterial and cannot discredit the sufficient. In previous cases, we ruled that
credibility of the victim as a witness. In People v. allegations that rapes were committed before
Purazo, We ruled: and until October 15, 1994, sometime in the
year 1991 and the days thereafter, sometime in
We have ruled, time and again that the November 1995 and some occasions prior and/or
date is not an essential element of the crime subsequent thereto and on or about and sometime
of rape, for the gravamen of the offense is in the year 1988 constitute sufficient
carnal knowledge of a woman. As such, the time compliance with Section 11, Rule 110 of the
or place of commission in rape cases need not Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
be accurately stated. As early as 1908, we
already held that where the time or place or In this case, AAAs declaration that the rape
any other fact alleged is not an essential incident took place on December 15, 1996 was explained by
element of the crime charged, conviction may be the trial court, and we quote:
had on proof of the commission of the crime,
even if it appears that the crime was not The rape took place in 1996. As earlier
committed at the precise time or place alleged, noted by the Court the date December 15, 1996
or if the proof fails to sustain the existence mentioned by [AAA] may have been arbitrarily
of some immaterial fact set out in the chosen by the latter due to the intense cross-
complaint, provided it appears that the examination she was subjected but the Court
specific crime charged was in fact committed believes it could have been in any month and
prior to the date of the filing of the date in the year 1996 as in fact neither the
information nor [AAAs] sworn statement mention A After I heard about the incident, I and my
the month and date but only the year. wife had a talk for which reason that
during that time we had no money yet to use
Likewise, witnesses credibility is not affected by in filing the case, so we waited. When we
the delay in the filing of the case against accused- were able to save enough amounts, we filed
appellant. Neither does the delay bolster accused- the case.
appellants claim that the only reason why this case was
filed against him was to help Salvacion Bobier get a Accused-appellant also contends that he could not be
conviction of this same accused-appellant in the case of liable for rape because there is no proof that he
murder filed by Salvacion Bobier for the death of her employed force, threats or intimidation in having carnal
granddaughter Mae Christine Camu on May 7, 2000. knowledge of AAA. Where the girl is below 12 years old,
as in this case, the only subject of inquiry is whether
The rape victims delay or hesitation in reporting carnal knowledge took place. Proof of force, intimidation
the crime does not destroy the truth of the charge nor is or consent is unnecessary, since none of these is an
it an indication of deceit. It is common for a rape element of statutory rape. There is a conclusive
victim to prefer silence for fear of her aggressor and presumption of absence of free consent when the rape
the lack of courage to face the public stigma of having victim is below the age of twelve.
been sexually abused. In People v. Coloma we even
considered an 8-year delay in reporting the long history Accused-appellant harps on the medical report,
of rape by the victims father as understandable and not particularly the conclusion quoted as follows: negative
enough to render incredible the complaint of a 13-year- for introital bulvar laceration nor scars, which means,
old daughter. Thus, in the absence of other circumstances in layman language, that there was no showing of any scar
that show that the charge was a mere concoction and or wound. The Court has consistently ruled that the
impelled by some ill motive, delay in the filing of the presence of lacerations in the victims sexual organ is
complainant is not sufficient to defeat the charge.Here, not necessary to prove the crime of rape and its absence
the failure of AAAs parents to immediately file this case does not negate the fact of rape. A medical report is not
was sufficiently justified by the complainants father in indispensable in a prosecution for rape. What is
the latters testimony, thus: important is that AAAs testimony meets the test of
credibility, and that is sufficient to convict the
Q But, did you not say, please correct me if I accused.
am wrong, you got angry when your wife told
you that something happened to Hazel way Accused-appellants defense of denial was properly
back in 1996? rejected. Time and time again, we have ruled that denial
A Yes, sir. like alibi is the weakest of all defenses, because it is
easy to concoct and difficult to disprove. Furthermore,
Q Yet, despite your anger you were telling us it cannot prevail over the positive and unequivocal
that you waited until June to file this identification of appellant by the offended party and
case? other witnesses. Categorical and consistent positive
identification, absent any showing of ill motive on the
part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails
over the appellants defense of denial and alibi. The Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
shallow hypothesis put forward by accused-appellant that Republic Act No. 7659, was the governing law at the time
he was accused of raping AAA due to the instigation of the accused-appellant committed the rape in
Salvacion Bobier hardly convinces this Court. On this question.Under the said law, the penalty of death shall
score, the trial court aptly reached the following be imposed when the victim of rape is a child below seven
conclusion: years of age. In this case, as the age of AAA, who was
five (5) years old at the time the rape was committed,
True, Salvacion Bobier actively assisted was alleged in the information and proven during trial by
AAAs family file the instant case against the the presentation of her birth certificate, which showed
accused, but the Court believes [AAAs] parents her date of birth as January 16, 1991, the death penalty
finally decided to file the rape case because should be imposed.
after they have come to realize after what
happened to Mae Christine Camu that what However, this Court finds ground for modifying the
previously [AAA and her cousin] told her mother penalty imposed by the CA. We cannot agree with the CAs
and which the latter had continually ignored is conclusion that the accused-appellant cannot be deemed a
after all true. minor at the time of the commission of the offense to
entitle him to the privileged mitigating circumstance of
AAA was barely 9 years of age when she testified. It has minority pursuant to Article 68(2) of the Revised Penal
been stressed often enough that the testimony of rape Code. When accused appellant testified on March 14, 2002,
victims who are young and immature deserve full he admitted that he was 24 years old, which means that in
credence. It is improbable for a girl of complainants age 1996, he was 18 years of age. As found by the trial
to fabricate a charge so humiliating to herself and her court, the rape incident could have taken place in any
family had she not been truly subjected to the painful month and date in the year 1996. Since the prosecution
experience of sexual abuse.At any rate, a girl of tender was not able to prove the exact date and time when the
years, innocent and guileless, cannot be expected to rape was committed, it is not certain that the crime of
brazenly impute a crime so serious as rape to any man if rape was committed on or after he reached 18 years of age
it were not true. Parents would not sacrifice their own in 1996. In assessing the attendance of the mitigating
daughter, a child of tender years at that, and subject circumstance of minority, all doubts should be resolved
her to the rigors and humiliation of public trial for in favor of the accused, it being more beneficial to the
rape, if they were not motivated by an honest desire to latter. In fact, in several cases, this Court has
have their daughters transgressor punished appreciated this circumstance on the basis of a lone
accordingly. Hence, the logical conclusion is that no declaration of the accused regarding his age.
such improper motive exists and that her testimony is
worthy of full faith and credence. Under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, when the
offender is a minor under 18 years, the penalty next
The guilt of accused-appellant having been established lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but
beyond reasonable doubt, we discuss now the proper always in the proper period. However, for purposes of
penalty to be imposed on him. determining the proper penalty because of the privileged
mitigating circumstance of minority, the penalty of death itself equivalent to actual or compensatory
is still the penalty to be reckoned with. Thus, the damages in civil law. It is not to be
proper imposable penalty for the accused-appellant considered as moral damages thereunder, the
is reclusion perpetua. latter being based on different jural
foundations and assessed by the court in the
It is noted that the Court is granted discretion in exercise of sound discretion.
awarding damages provided in the Civil Code, in case a
crime is committed. Specifically, Article 2204 of the One other point of concern has to be
Civil Code provides that in crimes, the damages to be addressed. Indictments for rape continue
adjudicated may be respectively increased or lessened unabated and the legislative response has been
according to the aggravating or mitigating in the form of higher penalties. The Court
circumstances. The issue now is whether the award of` believes that, on like considerations, the
damages should be reduced in view of the presence here of jurisprudential path on the civil aspect should
the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority of the follow the same direction. Hence, starting with
accused at the time of the commission of the offense. the case at bar, if the crime of rape is
committed or effectively qualified by any of
A review of the nature and purpose of the damages the circumstances under which the death penalty
imposed on the convicted offender is in order. Article is authorized by the present amended law, the
107 of the Revised Penal Code defines the term indemnity for the victim shall be in the
indemnification, which is included in the civil liability increased amount of not less
prescribed by Article 104 of the same Code, as follows: than P75,000.00. This is not only a reaction to
Art. 107. Indemnification-What is the apathetic societal perception of the penal
included. Indemnification for consequential law, and the financial fluctuations over time,
damages shall include not only those caused the but also an expression of the displeasure of
injured party, but also those suffered by his the Court over the incidence of heinous crimes
family or by a third person by reason of the against chastity. (Emphasis Supplied)
crime.
The Court has had the occasion to rule that moral damages
Relative to civil indemnity, People v. are likewise compensatory in nature. In San Andres v.
Victor ratiocinated as follows: Court of Appeals, we held:
The lower court, however, erred in
categorizing the award of P50,000.00 to the x x x Moral damages, though incapable of
offended party as being in the nature of moral pecuniary estimation, are in the category of an
damages. We have heretofore explained in People award designed to compensate the claimant for
v. Gementiza that the indemnity authorized by actual injury suffered and not to impose a
our criminal law as civil liability ex penalty on the wrongdoer. (Emphasis Supplied)
delicto for the offended party, in the amount
authorized by the prevailing judicial policy In another case, this Court also explained:
and aside from other proven actual damages, is
What we call moral damages are treated in The principal consideration for the award of
American jurisprudence as compensatory damages, under the ruling in People v. Salome and People
damages awarded for mental pain and suffering v. Quiachon is the penalty provided by law or imposable
or mental anguish resulting from a wrong (25 for the offense because of its heinousness, not the
C.J.S. 815). (Emphasis Supplied) public penalty actually imposed on the offender.
Thus, according to law and jurisprudence, civil Regarding the civil indemnity and moral
indemnity is in the nature of actual and compensatory damages, People v. Salome explained the basis for
damages for the injury caused to the offended party and increasing the amount of said civil damages as follows:
that suffered by her family, and moral damages are
likewise compensatory in nature. The fact of minority of The Court, likewise, affirms the civil
the offender at the time of the commission of the offense indemnity awarded by the Court of Appeals to
has no bearing on the gravity and extent of injury caused Sally in accordance with the ruling in People
to the victim and her family, particularly considering v. Sambrano which states:
the circumstances attending this case. Here, the accused-
appelant could have been eighteen at the time of the As to damages, we have held that if the rape is
commission of the rape. He was accorded the benefit of perpetrated with any of the attending
the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority qualifying circumstances that require the
because of a lack of proof regarding his actual age and imposition of the death penalty, the civil
the date of the rape rather than a moral or evidentiary indemnity for the victim shall P75,000.00 Also,
certainty of his minority. in rape cases, moral damages are awarded
without the need proof other than the fact of
In any event, notwithstanding the presence of the rape because it is assumed that the victim has
privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, which suffered moral injuries entitling her to such
warrants the lowering of the public penalty by one an award.However, the trial courts award
degree, there is no justifiable ground to depart from the of P50,000.00 as moral damages should also be
jurisprudential trend in the award of damages in the case increased to P75,000 pursuant to current
of qualified rape, considering the compensatory nature of jurisprudence on qualified rape.
the award of civil indemnity and moral damages. This was
the same stance this Court took in People v. It should be noted that while the new law
Candelario, a case decided on July 28, 1999, which did prohibits the imposition of the death
not reduce the award of damages. At that time, the penalty, the penalty provided for by law for a
damages amounted to P75,000.00 for civil indemnity heinous offense is still death and the offense
and P50,000.00 for moral damages, even if the public is still heinous.Consequently, the civil
penalty imposed on the accused was lowered by one degree, indemnity for the victim is still P75,000.00.
because of the presence of the privileged mitigating
circumstance of minority. People v. Quiachon also ratiocinates as follows:
With respect to the award of damages, the
appellate court, following prevailing
jurisprudence, correctly awarded the following an award of exemplary damagees are: (1) they may be
amounts; P75,000.00 as civil indemnity which is imposed by way of example in addition to compensatory
awarded if the crime is qualified by damages, and only after the claimants right to them has
circumstances warranting the imposition of the been established; (2) they cannot be recovered as a
death penalty; P75,000.00.00 as moral damages matter of right, their determination depending upon the
because the victim is assumed to have suffered amount of compensatory damages that may be awarded to the
moral injuries, hence, entitling her to an claimant; (3) the act must be accompanied by bad faith or
award of moral damages even without proof done in a wanton, fraudulent, oppressive or malevolent
thereof, x x x manner. Since the compensatory damages, such as the civil
indemnity and moral damages, are increased when qualified
Even if the penalty of death is not to be rape is committed, the exemplary damages should likewise
imposed on the appellant because of the be increased in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.
prohibition in R.A. No. 9346, the civil
indemnity of P75,000.00 is still In sum, the increased amount of P75,000.00 each as
proper because, following the ratiocination civil indemnity and moral damages should be
in People v. Victor, the said award is not maintained. It is also proper and appropriate that the
dependent on the actual imposition of the death award of exemplary damages be likewise increased to the
penalty but on the fact that qualifying amount of P30,000.00 based on the latest jurisprudence on
circumstances warranting the imposition of the the award of damages on qualified rape. Thus, the CA
death penalty attended the commission of the correctly awarded P75,000.00 as civil indemnity. However
offense. The Court declared that the award the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages is increased
of P75,000.00 shows not only a reaction to the to P75,000.00 and that of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages
apathetic societal perception of the penal law is likewise increased to P30,000.00.
and the financial fluctuations over time but
also the expression of the displeasure of the Meanwhile, when accused-appellant was detained at
court of the incidence of heinous crimes the New Bilibid Prison pending the outcome of his appeal
against chastity. before this Court, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9344,
the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 took effect
The litmus test therefore, in the determination of the on May 20, 2006. The RTC decision and CA decision were
civil indemnity is the heinous character of the crime promulgated on January 17, 2003 and July 14, 2005,
committed, which would have warranted the imposition of respectively.The promulgation of the sentence of
the death penalty, regardless of whether the penalty conviction of accused-appellant handed down by the RTC
actually imposed is reduced to reclusion perpetua. was not suspended as he was about 25 years of age at that
time, in accordance with Article 192 of Presidential
As to the award of exemplary damages, Article 2229 Decree (P.D.) No. 603, The Child and Youth Welfare
of the Civil Code provides that exemplary or corrective Code and Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC, the Rule on
damages are imposed in addition to the moral, temperate, Juveniles in Conflict with the Law. Accused-appellant is
liquidated or compensatory damages. Exemplary damages are now approximately 31 years of age. He was previously
not recoverable as a matter of right. The requirements of detained at the Albay Provincial Jail at Legaspi City and
transferred to the New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City on civil liability which may have resulted from
October 13, 2003. the offense committed. However, instead of
pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the
R.A. No. 9344 provides for its retroactive court shall place the child in conflict with
application as follows: the law under suspended sentence, without need
of application: Provided, however, That
Sec. 68. Children Who Have Been Convicted suspension of sentence shall still be applied
and are Serving Sentence. Persons who have been even if the juvenile is already eighteen (18)
convicted and are serving sentence at the time of age or more at the time of the pronouncement
of the effectivity of this Act, and who were of his/her guilt.
below the age of eighteen (18) years at the Upon suspension of sentence and after
time of the commission of the offense for which considering the various circumstances of the
they were convicted and are serving sentence, child, the court shall impose the appropriate
shall likewise benefit from the retroactive disposition measures as provided in the Supreme
application of this Act. x x x Court on Juvenile in Conflict with the Law.
The aforequoted provision allows the retroactive The above-quoted provision makes no distinction as to the
application of the Act to those who have been convicted nature of the offense committed by the child in conflict
and are serving sentence at the time of the effectivity with the law, unlike P.D. No. 603 and A.M. No. 02-1-18-
of this said Act, and who were below the age of 18 years SC. The said P.D. and Supreme Court (SC) Rule provide
at the time of the commission of the offense. With more that the benefit of suspended sentence would not apply to
reason, the Act should apply to this case wherein the a child in conflict with the law if, among others, he/she
conviction by the lower court is still under has been convicted of an offense punishable by
review. Hence, it is necessary to examine which death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. In
provisions of R.A. No. 9344 shall apply to accused- construing Sec. 38 of R.A. No. 9344, the Court is guided
appellant, who was below 18 years old at the time of the by the basic principle of statutory construction that
commission of the offense. when the law does not distinguish, we should not
distinguish. Since R.A. No. 9344 does not distinguish
Sec. 38 of R.A. No. 9344 provides for the automatic between a minor who has been convicted of a capital
suspension of sentence of a child in conflict with the offense and another who has been convicted of a lesser
law, even if he/she is already 18 years of age or more at offense, the Court should also not distinguish and should
the time he/she is found guilty of the offense apply the automatic suspension of sentence to a child in
charged. It reads: conflict with the law who has been found guilty of a
heinous crime.
Sec. 38. Automatic Suspension of Sentence. Once
the child who is under eighteen (18) years of Moreover, the legislative intent, to apply to heinous
age at the time of the commission of the crimes the automatic suspension of sentence of a child in
offense is found guilty of the offense charged, conflict with the law can be gleaned from the Senate
the court shall determine and ascertain any deliberations on Senate Bill No. 1402 (Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2005), the pertinent If said child in conflict with the law has
portion of which is quoted below: reached eighteen (18) years of age while under
suspended sentence, the court shall determine
If a mature minor, maybe 16 years old to below whether to discharge the child in accordance
18 years old is charged, accused with, or may with this Act, to order execution of
have committed a serious offense, and may have sentence, or to extend the suspended sentence
acted with discernment, then the child could be for a certain specified period or until the
recommended by the Department of Social Welfare child reaches the maximum age of twenty-one
and Development (DSWD), by the Local Council (21) years. (emphasis ours)
for the Protection of Children (LCPC), or by my
proposed Office of Juvenile Welfare and To date, accused-appellant is about 31 years of age, and
Restoration to go through a judicial the judgment of the RTC had been promulgated, even before
proceeding; but the welfare, best interests, the effectivity of R.A. No. 9344. Thus, the application
and restoration of the child should still be a of Secs. 38 and 40 to the suspension of sentence is now
primordial or primary consideration. Even in moot and academic. However, accused-appellant shall be
heinous crimes, the intention should still be entitled to appropriate disposition under Sec. 51 of R.A.
the childs restoration, rehabilitation and No. 9344, which provides for the confinement of convicted
reintegration. xxx (Italics supplied) children as follows:
Nonetheless, while Sec. 38 of R.A. No. 9344 provides that Sec. 51. Confinement of Convicted Children in
suspension of sentence can still be applied even if the Agricultural Camps and Other Training
child in conflict with the law is already eighteen (18) Facilities. A child in conflict with the
years of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of law may, after conviction and upon order of the
his/her guilt, Sec. 40 of the same law limits the said court, be made to serve his/her sentence, in
suspension of sentence until the said child reaches the lieu of confinement in a regular penal
maximum age of 21, thus: institution, in an agricultural camp and other
training facilities that may be established,
Sec. 40. Return of the Child in Conflict with maintained, supervised and controlled by the
the Law to Court. If the court finds that the BUCOR, in coordination with the DSWD.
objective of the disposition measures imposed
upon the child in conflict with the law have The civil liability resulting from the commission of the
not been fulfilled, or if the child in conflict offense is not affected by the appropriate disposition
with the law has willfully failed to comply measures and shall be enforced in accordance with law.
with the condition of his/her disposition or
rehabilitation program, the child in conflict WHEREFORE, the decision of the CA dated July 14, 2005
with the law shall be brought before the court in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00717 is hereby AFFIRMED with the
for execution of judgment. following MODIFICATIONS: (1) the penalty of death imposed
on accused-appellant is reduced to reclusion perpetua;
[53]
and (2) accused-appellant is ordered to pay the victim
the amount of P75,000.00 and P30,000.00 as moral damages
and exemplary damages, respectively. The award of civil
indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00 is
maintained. However, the case shall be REMANDED to the
court a quo for appropriate disposition in accordance
with Sec. 51 of R.A. 9344.
SO ORDERED.