Thirteen years after allegedly raping a 10-year-old girl, a Gigmoto resident’s bid to overturn the lower courts’ ruling against him ran out of steam before the Supreme Court recently.
In a decision issued on Jan. 27, 2025 but published only recently, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by XXX and affirmed the Sept. 14, 2020 decision of the Court of Appeals with modifications.
Instead of finding the accused guilty of rape, the SC Third Division found him guilty of statutory rape and ordered him to pay the victim, AAA, P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Records show that on Jan. 21, 2015, the accused-appellant was indicted before the Regional Trial Court for the crime of rape committed sometime in the evening between Nov. 8, 2012 to Nov. 14, 2012.
The prosecution said during the trial that both parents were going to a wake of a dead relative and left their daughter at a neighbor’s house.
Sometime later, the girl went to the house of her friend’s grandmother to play with her friend. Both the neighbor and the grandmother eventually left for the wake.
Later, XXX, who is the brother of the girl’s mother, asked AAA to look after his two-year-old daughter as he was also going to the wake.
Both AAA and the child were already asleep in the living room of her friend’s grandmother when AAA was awakened by XXX, who appeared to be drunk.
He lay beside her and removed her shorts and panty, placed himself on top of her body and kissed her lips.
XXX proceeded in his evil intent even when the child begged him to stop and only did when his sibling called him from outside the house.
AAA later testified that she heard her mother call XXX to accompany her to the wake but did not call for help as she was afraid of her own mother, who had physically hurt her many times in the past by pinching her and hitting her with a rattan stick.
A year later, she recounted the incident to her mother’s aunt, who relayed the same to her parents. A medical examination at the Municipal Health Office revealed the presence of an old hymen laceration.
She was accompanied by her parents to the police who took their sworn statements.
A mental evaluation also showed that AAA exhibited a mild form of intellectual disability and could not fully express what exactly happened to her.
For his part, XXX failed to present any evidence that could exculpate him from liability/
In her judgment, then RTC Judge Lelu P. Contreras found XXX guilty of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and to pay a total of P180,000.00 as indemnity and damages to the victim.
The accused then sought recourse with the Court of Appeals, which sustained his guilt and noted that AAA’s mental condition does not make her testimony incredible as long as she can recount her experience on a straightforward, spontaneous and believable manner.
It modified the monetary damages to P100,000 each, for a total of P300,000.00.
Undeterred, XXX went to the High Court, claiming that the victim’s testimony is tainted with contradictions and illogical details as to the occurrence of the rape incident.
He also faulted the RTC for convicting him based on his plea bargain.
The Third Division, however, upheld his conviction but modified the crime committed to statutory rape instead of qualified rape.
In its ruling, it said that AAA’s testimony is straightforward and credible, XXX was positively identified as the perpetrator as the victim was familiar with the physical features and voice of her uncle.
In addition, the SC stated, the victim’s failure to shout for help after the incident and her staying silent for a year did not imply that the accusations divulged later were false.
The Court disagreed with both findings of the RTC and CA that the rape committed by XXX was qualified on account of AAA’s minority and his being a relative of AAA within the third civil degree of consanguinity.
In ruling that XXX is not her relative by consanguinity, it noted that both parents admitted during trial that AAA was an adopted child.
“The Court is mindful that under Republic Act No. 11642, the State has unequivocally considered that the legitimate filiation created between the adopter and the adoptee shall be extended to the adopter’s parents, adopter’s legitimate siblings, and legitimate descendants,” it said, with the effect of adoption retroactive to the date the petition for adoption was filed.
However, it stressed, the Domestic Administrative Adoption and Alternative Child Care Act of 2022, cannot be applied in the case of XXX as the crime was committed in 2012.
“Applying otherwise would violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws,” the Supreme Court concluded.
