G.R. No. 228887 August 2, 2017
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DOMINADOR UDTOHAN Y JOSE, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Dominador Udtohan, was charged with Statutory Rape and violation of Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act). The victim, AAA, was his 11-year-old niece who, along with her mother and siblings, lived in his house. The prosecution alleged that in April 2011, while AAA was helping him buy bananas, Udtohan dragged her to a vacant lot and had carnal knowledge of her. He threatened to eject her family if she told anyone. He subsequently abused her repeatedly. On September 11, 2011, at his house, he molested her by inserting his finger into her vagina. The abuse was later reported to a teacher and authorities. A medico-legal examination revealed deep-healed lacerations on AAA’s hymen.
The defense consisted solely of Udtohan’s denial, claiming the charges were fabricated by AAA’s mother due to a grudge against his brother (AAA’s father). The Regional Trial Court found him guilty of both charges, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Udtohan appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing inconsistencies in AAA’s testimony regarding the number of rape incidents.

ISSUE

The core issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Udtohan’s conviction for Statutory Rape and violation of R.A. No. 7610 based on the credibility of the victim’s testimony.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Statutory Rape but modified the conviction for the second charge. The Court upheld AAA’s credibility, noting that testimonies of child-victims are given full weight and credit. Minor inconsistencies, such as the number of incidents, do not undermine credibility but may even enhance it by negating rehearsal. The elements of statutory rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code were present: carnal knowledge with an 11-year-old victim, a relative within the third civil degree (uncle). The threat of ejection constituted intimidation. The medico-legal findings corroborated the rape.
For the September 2011 incident, the Court reclassified the crime. The Information alleged “lascivious conduct” under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 . However, the specific act of inserting a finger into the vagina constitutes Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353 . Since the victim was under 12 and the offender was a relative, the penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and the rules under R.A. No. 7610 , the penalty was set at 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal minimum, as minimum, to 16 years, 5 months, and 10 days of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum. The awards of damages were also adjusted accordingly. The appeal was dismissed.