G.R. No. 255931 , August 23, 2023
XXX255931, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner XXX255931 was charged with violation of Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act). The Information alleged that on March 22, 2017, he willfully and feloniously had sexual intercourse with AAA255931, a 17-year-old minor, which act debased, degraded, or demeaned her intrinsic worth and dignity. During pre-trial, the parties stipulated on the identity of the accused, the minority of the victim as per her Certificate of Live Birth, the reporting of the incident to the police, and the fact of medical examination.
The prosecution presented AAA255931, who testified that on March 22, 2017, the petitioner, then her boyfriend, fetched her and brought her to his house. Inside his mother’s room, he forcibly undressed her, threatened to kill her if she made noise, and inserted his penis into her vagina despite her resistance. She did not report the incident immediately due to fear. Four days later, the petitioner again threatened her and brought her to his uncle’s house, where they stayed until her parents found her on March 27, 2017. She then reported the incident to the police and underwent a medical examination, which revealed healed hymenal lacerations consistent with penetrating trauma. The testimony of the victim’s mother was dispensed with after stipulation that she would testify about discovering the victim’s absence and accompanying her to report the incident.
The defense presented the petitioner and his mother, CCC255931. The petitioner claimed his relationship with the victim was consensual and denied the sexual encounter, stating they merely watched television with family members at his house. His mother corroborated his account, asserting it was impossible for the act to have occurred as family members were present throughout the day.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the petitioner guilty, sentencing him to an indeterminate prison term and ordering him to pay damages and a fine. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The CA found the victim’s testimony credible and supported by medico-legal findings, and held that coercion and influence were established as the petitioner took advantage of the victim’s vulnerable situation. The petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied, prompting this Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the petitioner for violation of Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 .

RULING

The Petition is denied. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, ruling that all elements of the crime were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court found no reason to deviate from the factual findings of the lower courts, which gave full credence to the straightforward, categorical, and candid testimony of the victim, AAA255931. Her testimony was consistent with the medico-legal report showing evidence of penetrating trauma. The defense of denial and alibi presented by the petitioner and his mother was weak and self-serving, and could not prevail over the positive identification and credible narration of the victim.
Regarding the sufficiency of the Information, the Court held that it adequately alleged the essential elements of the offense. The Information stated that the accused had sexual intercourse with a minor who, by law, could not give valid consent due to her minority, and that the act debased, degraded, or demeaned her intrinsic worth. This sufficiently classified the victim as a child subjected to other sexual abuse under the law.
On the elements of the crime, the Court ruled that all were established: (1) the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim; (2) the act was performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and (3) the child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age. The second element was satisfied as the victim was deemed subjected to “other sexual abuse” which includes sexual intercourse with a child under coercion or influence. The Court found that the petitioner employed coercion and took improper advantage of his moral ascendancy and the victim’s vulnerability (stemming from her problems with her physically abusive father) to compel her into sexual intercourse. His threats to kill her if she made noise or refused his demands constituted the necessary coercion or influence.
Finally, the Court modified the penalty. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and considering the absence of modifying circumstances, the proper penalty is an indeterminate sentence of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and the fine were affirmed, with interest at the legal rate from finality of judgment until full payment.