llepubltc of tbe .

tlbilipptnes
~upreme Qt:ourt
:flllanHa

SECOND DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. 1~0. 252865

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Presen~:

PERLAS-BERNABE, S.A .J. ,

Chairperson,
HERNANDO,
- versus - CARANDANG,**
INTIN,J, and
GAEILAN,JJ

Promui~.ated:
YYY.*
Accused-Appellant. AUG O4 2021 ~
- - - - -- - - -
x- - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .. - - - - - - - - - -: - - - - - -x

DECISION

INTING, J.:

Before the Court is an appeal 1 assailing the Decision2 dated

October 1, 2019 oi the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No.
11075 which affirmed the Decision 3 dated February 13, 2018 of Branch
• The identity of the vic::m or any information to establish or com,,romise her identity, as well as
those of her immediate fam ily or household r,1embers, shall be,, i,hheld pursuant to Republic Act
No. (RA) 76 I0, "An A ;t Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection against Chi ld
AL,,ise, Exploitation aiid Discrimination, Providing Penaltie!; for its Violation and For Other
Purposes;" RA 9262, '· \n Act Defining Violence Against Wo1'l ~11 and Their Children, Providing
for Protective Measure.:; for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Tt,ffefor. and For Other Purposes;"
Section 40 of Adm in is .rative Matter No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the " Rule on Violence against
Women and Their Chilciren," effective November 15, 2004; Per,ple v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil: 703
(2006); and Amended \dministrative Circular No. 83-2015 ci, 1cd September 5, 20 17, Subject:
Protocols and Proced·. ·cs in the Promulgation, Publication, i lid Posting on the Websites of
Decisions, Final Reso lt ,ions, and Final Orders Using Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances.
•• Designated additional 1r:•mber per Raffle dated January 20, 202 1.
1 See Notice of Appeal dat:d October 30, 2019, rollo, pp. 20-2 1.
2 Id. at 3- I 9; penned by Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles with Associate Justices
Ricardo R. Rosario (nm,· a member of the Court) and Walter S. Ong, concurring.
CA rollo, pp. 7 1-79; p::,,ned by Presiding Judge Pedro M. Redon:1.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 252865

63, Regional Trial Court (RTC), . . ., Camarines Sur finding YYY

(accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of four counts of
Statutory Rape.

The Antecedents

The instant case stemmed from five separate Informations

docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 09-1411, 09-1412, 09-1413, 09~1414,
and 09-1415 filed before the RTC charging accused-appellant with five
counts of the crime of Statutory Rape defined and penalized under
Article 266-A paragraph (l)(d) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as
amended by Republic Act No. (RA) 8353 4 committed against the
siblings AAA and BBB 5 who were then two years old and eight years
old, respectively, when the crimes were allegedly committed against
them. The accusatory portions of the Informations state:

Criminal Case No. 09-1411

"That on or about January 24, 2007 at

, Camarines Sur, Philippines and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, moved by ms
sexual lust and desire, with lewd design, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously, by means of force and intimidation, have
carnal knowledge of AAA, then a two (2) year old girl (born on
March 8, 2004 based on her birth certificate), minor, against her will
and consent, to the damage and prejudice of the herein private
complainant.

Contrary to law." x x x6

Criminal Case No. 09-1412

"That on or about January 24, 2007 at

, Camarines Sur, Pmlippines and within the jurisdiction
4 The Anti-Rape Law of 1997, approved on September 30, 1997.
The identities of the victims or any information to establish or compromise their identities, as well
as those of their immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to Republic
Act No. (RA) 7610, "An Act Provicling for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection against
Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, Providing Penalties for its Violation and For Other
Purposes;" RA 9262, "An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing
for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, and For Other Purposes;"
Section 40 of Administrative Matter No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the "Rule on Violence against
Women and Their Children," effective November 15, 2004; People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703
(2006); and Amended Adn1inistrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017, Subject:
Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of
Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders Using Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances.
6 Rollo, p. 4.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 252865

of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, moved by his .

sexual lust and desire, with lewd design, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously, by means of force and intimidation, have
carnal knowledge of BBB, then an eight (8) year old girl (born on
October 7, 1998 based on her birth certificate), minor, against her will
and consent, to the damage and prejudice of the herein private
complainant.

Contrary to law." x x x 7

Criminal Case No. 09-1413

"That on or about January 25, 2007 at

, Camarines Sur, Philippines and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, moved by his ·
sexual lust and desire, with lewd design, did then and there willfully, ·
unlawfully, and feloniously, by means of force and intimidation, have
carnal knowledge of AAA, then a two (2) year old girl (born on
March 8, 2004 based on her birth certificate), minor, against her will
and consent, to the damage and prejudice of the herein private
complainant.

Contrary to law." x x x 8

Criminal Case No. 09-1414

"That on or about January 25, 2007 at

, Camarines Sur, Philippines and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, moved by his
sexual lust and desire, with lewd design, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously, by means of force and intimidation, have
carnal knowledge of BBB, then an eight (8) year old girl (born on
October 7, 1998 based on her birth certificate), minor, against her will
and consent, to the damage and prejudice of the herein private
complainant.

Contrary to law." xx x9

Criminal Case No. 09-1415

"That on or about January 26, 2007 at

, Camarines Sur, Philippines and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, moved by his
sexual lust and desire, v.ith lewd design, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously, by means of force and intimidation, have
carnal knowledge of BBB, then an eight (8) year old girl (born on

7 Id.
8 Id
9 Id. at 5.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 252865

October 7, 1998 based on her birth certificate), minor, against her will
and consent, to the damage and prejudice of the herein private
complainant.

Contrary to law." xx x 10

When arraigned on August 25, 2009, accused-appellant pleaded

not guilty to all the charges. 11

Trial ensued.

Version of the Prosecution

On January 24, 2007, victims, AAA and BBB, two years old and
eight years old respectively, were in the house of accused-appellant, their
uncle, being the first cousin of their father. \Vhile they were on the
second floor of accused-appellant's house, accused-appellant removed
his clothes as well as BBB 's shorts and panty. Accused-appellant then
placed himself on top of BBB, and inserted his penis into her vagina.
BBB kept on pushing accused-appellant until the latter stopped.
Thereafter, accused-appellant went to AAA, undressed her, and laid on
top of her. BBB tried to pull accused-appellant from AAA, who was
already crying. Then, accused-appellant left. 12

On January 25, 2007, while the victims' parents were away

harvesting copra, accused-appellant entered their house. Thereafter,
accused-appellant proceeded to undress BBB and again laid on top of
her. He spread BBB's legs and inserted his penis into her vagina. BBB
felt pain when the penis touched her vagina. BBB kicked accused-
appellant. Accused-appellant proceeded towards AAA, undressed her,
and laid on top of her. BBB kicked accused-appellant when the latter
tried to insert his penis into AAA's vagina. Accused-appellant then left. 13

The next day, or on January 26, 2007, BBB was at accused-

appellant's house looking for the latter's mother. When BBB entered the
door, accused-appellant pushed her inside the house and placed her on
top of the table. Accused-appellant removed BBB's shorts and panty,
spread her legs, and inserted his penis into her vagina. Accused-appellant
10 Id.
u Id.
12 Id. at 6.
13 Id.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 252865

was not able to fully penetrate his penis as BBB kept on pushing him
until he got up and left. 14

After several days, AAA informed her mother what accused-

appellant did to them. 15

AAA testified that accused-appellant inserted his penis into her

vagina which caused pain, but declared that the incident happened only
once. 16

The victims' mother also testified and affirmed that AAA was the
one who informed her of the incident. 17

In the Medico-Legal Report Nos. BRO-MG-08-111 and BRO-

MG-08-110, Dr. Raoul V. Alcantara (Dr. Alcantara) noted that both AAA
and BBB had no recent extragenital physical injury and no sign of either
recent or previous injury to the hymen. 18

Version ofthe Defense

In defense, accused-appellant denied the allegations against him.

He insisted that on January 24, 25, and 26, 2007, he was working as a
stay in store helper for a certain . Accused-appellant
argued that the reason for filing the instant criminal cases against him is
the quarrel between his parents and the victims' parents over a parcel of
land. 19

The RTC Ruling

In the Decision20 dated February 13, 2018, the RTC found the
accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of four counts of
Statutory Rape; but acquitted him in Criminal Case No. 09-1413. The
dispositive portion of the decision reads:

i• Id.
15 Id. at 7.
i, Id.
i1 Id
rn Id.
19 Id.
20
CArollo, pp. 71-79.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 252865

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds herein

accused YYY GUILTY, beyond reasonable doubt, for four (4) counts ·
of statutory rape and judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

1. For Crim. Cases Nos. 09-1411, accused YYY is sentenced

to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA without
eligibility for parole and ordered to pay AAA the amounts of
P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages,
P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, and the costs of suit, with
legal interest from the date of filing of the information until
fully paid.

2. For Crim. Cases Nos. 09-1412, accused YYY is sentenced

to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA ¥.ithout
eligibility for parole and ordered to pay BBB the amounts of
P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages,
P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, and the costs of suit, with
legal interest from the date of filing of the information until fully
paid.

3. For Crim. Cases Nos. 09-1413, accused YYY is hereby

ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt on account of AANs
spontaneous statement that the attack on her only happened
ONCE.

4. For Crim. Cases Nos. 09-1414, accused YYY is sentenced

to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA without
eligibility for parole and ordered to pay BBB the amounts of
P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages,
P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, and the costs of suit, with
legal interest from the date of filing of the information until
fully paid.

5. For Crim. Cases Nos. 09-1415, accused YYY is sentenced

to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA without
eligibility for parole and ordered to pay BBB the amounts of
P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages,
P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, and the costs of suit, with
legal interest from the date of filing of the information until
fully paid.

SO ORDERED. 21

The RTC gave full weight and credit to the testimonies of AAA
and BBB. According to the RTC, youth and immaturity are generally

21 CA rol/o, pp. 78-79.

Decision 7 G.R. No, 252865

badges oftruth. 22 It found that AAA and BBB's statements in positively

identifying accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crimes are clear,
simple, spontaneous, and straightforward. 23 Likewise, it held that
accused-appellant's bare denial, which was unsubstantiated by clear and
convincing evidence, cannot prevail over the positive identification
made by AAA and BBB who had no ill motive to testify against accused-
appellant. 24

Undaunted, accused-appellant filed an appeal before the CA.

The CA Ruling

In the assailed Decision25 dated October 1, 2019, the CA denied

the appeal. The CA disposed of the case as follows:

WHEREFORE, the Appeal is DENIED. The February 13, 2018

Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 63, _ ,
Camarines Sur in Criminal Case Nos. 09-1411, 09-1412, 09-1414 and
09-1415 finding accused-appellant [YYY] guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of four (4) counts of the crime of Statutory Rape defined and
penalized under the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 8353 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-
appellant [YYY] is ordered to pay P75,000.00 as civil indemnity,
P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages
for each count of Statutory Rape committed against BBB; and
Pl00,000.00 as civil indemnity, Pl00,000.00 as moral damages, and
Pl00,000.00 as exemplary damages for the crime of statutory rape
committed against AAA.

SO ORDERED. 26

The CA affirmed accused-appellant's conv1ct10n. However, the

CA modified the damages awarded by the RTC. The CA ratiocinated that
since AAA is below seven years old when the crime of Qualified Rape
was committed against her person, accused-appellant should pay AAA
Pl00,000.00 as civil indemnity, rl00,000.00 as moral damages, and
Pl00,000.00 as exemplary damages. 27
22 Id. at 77-78.
23 Id. at 78.
24 /d.at77.
25 Rollo, pp. 3-19.
26 Id. at 18.
27 Id. at 17-18.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 252865

Aggrieved, accused-appellant filed the instant appeal.

Issue

Whether the CA erred in affirming accused-appellant's conviction.

Our Ruling

The appeal is unmeritorious.

In this instant appeal, accused-appellant reiterates that the RTC

erred in convicting him despite: (1) the failure of the prosecution to
prove that he acted with discernment considering that he was only 17
years old at the time of the commission of the crimes; (2) the
insufficiency of prosecution's evidence against him; and (3) the credible
defense of denial. 28

After a judicious scrutiny of the records of this case, the Court

finds that the appeal lacks merit.

First, accused-appellant's claim of minority is purely self-serving.

Under Section 7 of RA 9344,29 the age of a child may be

determined from the child's birth certi:fi:;ate, or other pertinent
documents. It is only in the absence of these documents that age may be
based on information from the child himsel£'herself and testimonies of
other persons; thus:

SEC. 7. Determination ofAge. - xx x The age of a child may

be determined from the child's birth certificate, baptismal certificate
or any other pertinent documents. In the absence of these documents,
age may be based on information from the child himselfmerself,
testimonies of other persons, the physical appearance of the child and
other relevant evidence. In case of doubt as to the age of the child, it
shall be resolved in his/her favor. (Emphasis supplied)

28 CA rollo, pp. 58-59.

29 Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, approved on April 28, 2006.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 252865

Rule 35.b30 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of

RA 9344 outlines the measures that may be undertaken by the law
enforcers to determine the age of the child. The law enforcers may only
resort to statements of the child or information from other persons who
may have knowledge of the age of the child, if the pertinent documents,
such as the child's birth certificate or baptismal certificate cannot be
obtained or while receipt of the documents required are still pending.

The Court has accepted testimonial evidence to prove the age of

the child in the absence of any document or other satisfactory evidence
showing the child's date of birth. The Court has given evidentiary weight
to testimonial evidence of an accused's minority and age upon the
concurrence of the following conditions: (1) the absence of any other
satisfactory evidence such as the birth certificate, baptismal certificate,
or similar documents that would prove the date of birth of the accused;
(2) the presence of testimony of the accused and/or relative on the age of
minority of the accused at the time of the complained incident without
any objection on the part of the prosecution; and (3) lack of any contrary
evidence showing that the accused's and/or relatives' testimonies are
untrue. 31

In the case at bench, the Court finds that the defense failed to
show that there was an absence of any document or other satisfactory
evidence showing accused-appellant's minority or that the pertinent
documents enumerated in the IRR of RA 9344 cannot be obtained for the
trial court. Neither could the Court give weight to the testimonial
evidence of the defense claiming minority. It is well to stress that aside
from accused-appellant's claim that he was 17 years old at the time of
the commission of the act, there was no other corroborating evidence to
prove his date of birth. To recall, accused-appellant's mother, ZZZ, and
her neighbor testified during the trial, but none of them emphasized the
30 RULE 35.b of the Revised Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act No. 9344, as
Amended by R.A. I 0630, HWC Resolmion No. 02- J4 provides:
Rule 35.b. Determination of the Age ofthe Child -
xxxx
(2) The law enforcement officer may obtain the above documents from any of the
following:
a. Parents, guardian or relatives of the child (for copies of any of the above
documents);
b. Local Civil Registrar or the National Statistics Office (for a copy of the
bi.rt..h certificate);
c. School where the child attends (for school records, dental records, birth certificate
or baptismal certificate, when required by the school);
31 Sierra v. People, 609 Phil 446, 465-466 (2009).
Decision 10 G.R. No. 252865

age of accused-appellant or his date of birth. Their testimonies could

have corroborated accused-appellant's claim of minority. The defense
could have raised accused-appellant's minority during the trial if indeed
he was a minor when the crimes were committed, knowing that his age,
if he were truly 17 years old, could mitigate the penalty to be imposed.
The RTC did not even discuss or touch upon the claim of minority of
accused-appellant. Hence, the Court rules that accused-appellant's claim
of minority is self-serving and unsupported by any shadow of proof.

Records would show that accused-appellant did not secure or offer

an explanation why he failed to obtain a document proving his date of
birth.

Second, the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of accused-

appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Records disclose that accused-
appellant is guilty of Statutory Rape committed against BBB and
Qualified Statutory Rape committed against AAA.

Statutory Rape under Article 266-A of the RPC 1s committed

when: (1) the offended party is under 12 years of age; and (2) the
accused has carnal knowledge of her, regardless of whether there was
force, threat, or intimidation, whether the victim was deprived of reason
or consciousness, or whether it was done through fraud or grave abuse of
authority. 32 In Statutory Rape, it is enough that the age of the victim is
proven and that there was sexual intercourse, 33 for the absence of free
consent is conclusively presumed when the victim is below the age of
12. 34 At that age, the law presumes that the victim does not possess
discernment and is incapable of giving intelligent consent to the sexual
act.35

In the case, the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, found that the
prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt all elements of
Statutory Rape. Undeniably, BBB was eight years old, while AAA was
only two years old when they were raped by accused-appellant. AAA
was born on March 8, 2004 36 while BBB was born on October 7, 1998. 37
32 Peoplev. Feta/co, G.R. No. 24124°, July 28, 2020.
33 Id., citing People v. Brioso, 788 Phil. 292,305 (2016).
34 People v. XXX, G.R. No. 229836, July 17, 2019.
,, Id.
36 Rollo, p. 5.
31 Id.
 Decision 11 G.R. No. 252865

The age of AAA and BBB were uncontested. Their birth certificates
were presented and admitted in court.

Likewise, it is beyond doubt that accused-appellant had carnal

knowledge of AAA and BBB. During the trial, AAA and BBB positively
identified accused-appellant as the person who raped them. 38 BBB
consistently stated that she was raped by accused-appellant three times,
and on those occasions, accused-appellant inserted his penis into her
vagina and succeeded in having carnal knowledge with her. 39

On the other hand, AAA's testimony is categorical and

unequivocal. AAA testified that accused-appellant inserted his penis into
her vagina and succeeded in having carnal knowledge with her. But
during the trial, AAA testified that the accused-appellant raped her only
once. 40

Both AAA and BBB testified that the insertion of the accused-
appellant's penis into their vaginas caused them pain. 41 Notably, during
the trial, the victims were consistent in their testimonies that accused-
appellant's penis was never fully inserted into their vaginas. However, it
must be highlighted that a complete or total penetration of the private
organ is not necessary to consummate the crime of rape. 42 A slightest
penetration is sufficient. 43

Moreover, the Court finds no doubt as to the credibility of AAA

and BBB and has no reason to deviate from the findings of the RTC and
CA in lending credence to the victim's version of the rape incidents.
Time and again, the Court has held that when the offended parties are
young and immature girls, as in this case, courts are inclined to lend
credence to their version of what transpired, considering not only their
relative vulnerability but also the shame and embarrassment to which
they would be exposed if the matter about which they testified were not
· true. 44 Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and

38 CA rollo. p. 73.
39 Id. at 73-75.
40 Rollo, p. 7.
41 Id. at 15.
42 People v. Agan, G.R. No. 228947, June 22, 2020, citing People v. Cruz, 259 Phil. 1256, 1259
(1989).
43 Id.
44 People v. Feta/co, supra note 32.
Decision 12 G.R. No. 252865

sincerity. 45 No young girl would usually concoct a tale of defloration,

publicly admit to having been ravished and her honor being tainted,
allow the examination of her private parts, and undergo all the trouble
and inconvenience, not to mention the trauma and scandal of a public
trial, had she not in fact been raped and been truly moved to protect and
preserve her honor and motivated by the desire to obtain justice for the
wicked acts committed against her. 46

Considering that BBB and AAA were 11 years old and six years
old when they testified before the RTC, they could hardly concoct a
horrible story that would haunt them for life. It is even well settled that
due to the nature of the crime, the lone testimony of the rape victim,
when found to be credible, natural, and consistent with human nature, is
enough to sustain a conviction. 47

Accused-appellant's denial must be rejected as it could not prevail

over the victims' unwavering testimony and their positive and firm
identification of him as the perpetrator. The Court likewise cannot give
credence to the defense of alibi. In order that alibi might prosper, it is not
enough to prove that the accused had been somewhere else during the
commission of the crime; it must also be shown that it would have been
impossible for him to be anywhere within the vicinity of the crime
scene. 48

Accused-appellant miserably failed to discharge the burden of

rovin that such was the case. The place of the rape incidents which is
, Camarines Sur is just six to seven kilometers
away from , Camarines Sur, the place used
as an alibi by accused-appellant. Both barangays belong to the same
municipality and it is not impossible or difficult to travel from one to the
other. In other words, both barangays are easily accessible. Thus, it was
not impossible for accused-appellant to be in situs criminis at the dates
and time when the rape incidents happened. Also, jurisprudence has
dictated that positive identification prevails over alibi since the latter can
easily be fabricated and is inherently unreliable. 49 Because alibi is a
45 People v. Delio/a, 794 Phil. 194, 208 (2016).
46 People v. XX¥, G.R. No. 225793, August 14, 2019, citing People v Barberan, 788 Phil. 103, 110
(2016).
47 People v Banayat, 828 Phil. 231, 237 (2018), citing People v. Olimba, 645 Phil. 468, 480 (2010).
48 Pendoy v. Court of Appeals (18th Dtvision)-Cebu City, G.R. No. 228223, June 10, 2019, citing
People v. Abella, 624 Phil. 18, 36 (2010).
49 People v. XYZ, G.R. No. 244255, August 26, 2020, citing People v. Dadao, 725 Phil. 298, 312
Decision 13 G.R. No. 252865

weak defense for being easily fabricated, it cannot prevail over and is
worthless in the face of the positive identification by a credible witness
that an accused perpetrated the crime. 50

Further, the Court does not find it necessary to discuss and

elaborate upon the contention of accused-appellant that he deserves an
acquittal as the medico-legal certificate reveals that the victims'
respective hymens were not lacerated or ruptured; and that no sign of
neither recent nor previous injury to the hymens.

It is elementary that a medico-legal report is not indispensable to

the prosecution of the rape case, it being merely corroborative in
nature. 51 At this point, the fact of rape and the identity of the perpetrator
were already proven by the consistent testimonies of both AAA and
BBB. The credibie statements of the rape victims are the material proof
of the commission of rape, rather than the medico-legal certificate issued
by Dr. Alcantara. The prime consideration in the prosecution of rape is
the victim's testimony, not necessarily the medical findings. 52

As to the crime committed against AAA, the Court finds that

accused-appellant is guilty of Qualified Statutory Rape. It has been
settled that if sexual intercourse is committed with a child below seven
years old, the proper designation of the crime is always "qualified
statutory rape." 53 Rape shall be qualified when the victim.
is below 18 years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-
parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third
civil degree, or the comm.on-law spouse of the parent of the victim;
and/or when the victim. is a child below seven years old. 54

The penalty for Qualified Statutory Rape is death. But because the
death penalty cannot be imposed in view of RA 9346, 55 the sentence

(2014).
50 People v. Agustin, 690 Phil. 17, 29 (2012).
51 People v. Feta/co, supra note 32, citiog People v. Bongos, 824 Phil. 1004, 1023 (2018).
52 People v. Suarez, 750 Phil. 858, 868 (2015), citing People v. Perez, 673 Phil. 373, 382 (201 I)
53 People v. Pablo, G.R. No. 244840 (Notice), January 20, 2021, citing People v. Tulagan, G.R.
No. 227363, March 12, 2019.
54 People v. XXX, G.R. No. 244047, December 10, 2019, citiogArticle 266-B(S) of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended.
55 Entitled "An Act Prohibitiog the Imposition of Death Penalty io the Philippines," approved on
June 24, 2006.
Decision 14 G.R. No. 252865

shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. 56

Here, it is undisputed that AAA was merely two years old when
she was raped by accused-appellant. Thus, the Court finds it proper to
correct the nomenclature of the crime committed against AAA from
Statutory Rape to Qualified Statutory Rape.

As for BBB, the RTC and the CA correctly convicted accused-

appellant of Statutory Rape which is punishable by reclusion perpetua
under Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended, in relation to Section 5(b),
Article III of RA 7610. 57 The RTC however imposed on him the penalty
of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole for the three counts.

There is a need to qualify that while accused-appellant is guilty of

Statutory Rape, penalized with reclusion perpetua, there is no need to
indicate that he was "ineligible for parole" because he was sentenced to
suffer an indivisible penalty. There is a need w qualify that the accused
is not "eligible for parole" only in cases where the penalty to be
imposed should have been death were it not for the enactment of RA
9346 or the Anti-Death Penalty Law. 58

In A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC,59 the Court provided the guidelines for

the use of the phrase "without eligibility for parole" to remove any
confusion, to wit:

1. In cases where the death penalty is not warranted, there is no need to use
the phrase "without eligibility of parole" to qualify the penalty of reclusion
perpetua; it is understood that convicted persons penalized with an
indivisible penalty are not eligible for parole; and

2. When circumstances are present warranting the imposition of the death

penalty, but this penalty is not imposed because of Republic Act (R.A.) No.
9346, the qualification of without "eligibility for parole" shall be used to
qualify reclusion perpetua in order to emphasize that the accused should
have been sentenced to suffer the death penalty had it not been for R.A. No.
9346. 6D
56
People v. Pablo, supra note 53, citing People v. Bay-Od, G.R. No. 238176, January 14, 2019.
57
Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, approved
on June 17, 1992. See also People v. Jagdon, J~. G.R. No. 242882, September 9, 2020.
58 People v. XXX, G.R No. 243988, August 27, 2020.
59
Entitled "Guidelines for the Proper Use of the Phrase "Without Parole" in Indivisible Penalties,"
approved on August 4, 2015.
60 People v. Gazo, 836 Phil. 932, 945 (20 I 8).
Decision 15 G.R. No. 252865

This is the reason why in decisions of the Court in Statutory Rape

cases, accused-appellants are sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and the phrase "without eligibility for parole" is no longer
indicated. 61

Beyond doubt, accused-appellant is guilty of three counts of

Statutory Rape committed against BBB and one count of Qualified
Statutory Rape against AAA.

For Statutory Rape committed against BBB, the corresponding

penalty is reclusion perpetua with damages of 1'75,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary
damages for each count. 62 For Qualified Statutory Rape committed
against AAA, the penalty is reclusion perpetua without eligibility for
parole 63 plus Pl 00,000.00 as civil indemnity, Pl 00,000.00 as moral
damages, and Pl00,000.00 as exemplary damages. 64

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated

October 1, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11075
is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that accused-appellant YYY
is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of
Statutory Rape defined and penalized under paragraph (l)(d), Article
266-A, in relation to paragraph 1, Article 266-B of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, and one (1) count of
Qualified Statutory Rape defined and penalized under paragraph ( 1)( d),
Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Republic Act No. 8353.

Accordingly, accused-appellant YYY is sentenced to suffer the

penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of Statutory Rape; and
reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole for one count of
Qualified Statutory Rape. He is ORDERED to pay BBB P75,000.00 as
civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as
exemplary damages for each count of Statutory Rape. He is likewise
61 See People v. Cunanan, G.R. No. 247719 (Notice), February 24, 2020; People v. XXX, G.R. No.
243988, August 27, 2020; People v. Dorado, G.R. No. 248845 (Notice), September 16, 2020;
People v. Eulalia, G.R. No. 214882, October 16, 2019; People v. Adajar, G.R. No. 231306, June
17, 2019.
62 People v. Jagdon, supra note 57.
63 People v. Pablo, supra note 56.
64 Id, citing People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 849 (2016); People v. XXX, G.R. No. 244047,
December 10, 2019.
Decision 16 G.R. No. 252865

ORDERED to pay . ~ Pl00,000.00 as civil frdemnity, ¥100,000.00

as moral damages, aud Pl00,000.00 as exemplary damages for Qualified
Statutory Rape.

All monetary cwards shall earn legal intere~t at the rate of 6% per
annum from the fina ity of this Decision until full ,-,ayment.

SO ORDEREI•.

HE _I,M.l]LB.INTING
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:

Ef'.TELAMt~BERNABE
Senior Associate Justice
Chairperson

RAMffl~Associate Jusi 'ce

~Jf.~AAAND,di,2
Associate Justice

SAMUEL¥~
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the ;anclusions in the above Dec sion had been reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion
of the Court's Divisi"'l.

ESTELA -J!«E~BERNABE
Senior Associate Justice
Chcirperson
Decision 17 G.R. No. 252865

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Cons~itution and the Division
Chairperson's Attestafam, I certify that the conclusior.s in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Cou t's Division.