l\epubltc of tbe tlbiltppine%

$,Upreme <!Court
;ifllanila

THIRD DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE G.R. No. 265272

PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-appellee, Present:
CAGUIOA, Acting CJ , Chairperson,
INTING,
GAERLAN,
DIMAAMPAO, and
- versus - SINGH, JJ

ZZZ* Promulgated:
' Accused-appellant.
November 6, 2023
~,~~~o--\\
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

SINGH, J.:

The accused-appellant, ZZZ (ZZZ), was charged with the crime of

Qualified Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph l(a) of the Revised Penal
Code (RPC) and violation of Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No.
7610 (RA 7610), 1 or the Special Protec.tion of Children Against Abuse,

* The identity of the victim or any information whi ch could establish or compromise her identity, as well
as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to Republic Act No.
(RA) 7610, entitled " A N A CT PROVIDING FOR STRONGE R D ETERRENCE AN D SPEC IAL PROTECTION
A GAINST CHILD A BUSE, EXPLOITAT ION AN D DISCRI MINATION, AN D FOR OTH ER PURPOSES," approved on
Jun e 17, 1992; RA 9262 , entitled " A N A CT D EF INING VI OLENCE A GAINST W OMEN AN D TH EIR
CHI LDREN, PROVIDI NG FOR PROTECTIVE M EASURES FOR VICTIMS, PRESCRIB ING PENALTIES TH EREFOR,
AN D FOR OTH ER PU RPOSES," approved on March 8, 2004 ; and Section 40 of A .M. No. 04-10-11-SC,
otherwi se known as the " RUL E ON VIOLENCE A GAINST W OMEN AN D TH EIR CHILDREN" (November 15,
2004). ( See footnote 4 in People v. Cadano, Jr., 729 Phil. 576, 578 [2014] , citing People v. l omaque,
7 10 Phil. 338, 342 [2013]. See also Amended Administrative C ircular No. 83-2015 , entitled
" PROTOCOLS AN D PROCEDURES IN TH E PROMULGATION, PUBLICATI ON, AN D POSTING ON TH E W EBS ITES
Decision 2 G.R. No. 265272

Exploitation and Discrimination Act, under two (2) separate Informations

filed before the Regional Trial Court o f _, Misamis Oriental, Branch 42
(RTC). 2 The RTC convicted ZZZ for both offenses in its Joint Decision
(Joint Decision),3 dated April 16, 2020. On appeal, the Court of Appeals
(CA) affirmed the Joint Decision in its Decision (CA Decision) 4 in CA-G.R.
CR-HC No. 02566-MIN, dated March 29, 2022. ZZZ filed his Notice of
Appeal (Notice of Appeal), 5 on April 28, 2022. The CA gave due course to
the appeal and ordered the elevation of the records of the case to the Court in
its Resolution,6 dated July 21 , 2022.

The Facts

The Version of the Prosecution

The victim AAA (AAA) is ZZZ's biological daughter. ZZZ is married

to AAA's mother, YYY. ZZZ and YYY have six (6) children together. At the
time of the commission of the offenses, AAA was only fourteen ( 14) years
old. She lived with ZZZ and her other sibling BBB at the time. YYY was
working in another town and would come home only twice or thrice a month. 7

AAA testified that on November 28, 2016, at around 5:00 p.m., she was
in her room taking a nap when ZZZ suddenly entered her room. She was
awakened when ZZZ began removing her pants and underwear. AAA was
terrified especially when ZZZ started to fondle and lick her vagina. ZZZ then
went on top of AAA and inserted his penis into her vagina, making several
push and pull motions. Once he was done, ZZZ left the room but not before
threatening AAA that if she told anyone about the incident, he would be sent
to jail and no one will take care of AAA and her siblings. 8 During her
testimony, AAA also stated that she did not shout or call for help because ZZZ
had a scythe beside him. 9

On December 12, 2016, at around 9:00 p.m., AAA and her nine (9)-
year-old sibling, BBB, were sleeping when ZZZ suddenly entered their room.
He fondled and sucked AAA' s breasts. According to AAA, he then inserted
his penis into her vagina and made several push and pull motions. Thereafter,
ZZZ went back to his bed and left AAA crying. He threatened AAA that he

OF D ECISIONS , FI NAL RESOL UTIONS, AN D FINAL ORDERS USING FICTITIOUS N AMES/PERSONAL

CIRCU MSTANCES," dated September 5, 2017.
Approved on June 17, 1992.
Rollo, p. 9, CA Decision.
3
Id. at 29--46. Penned by Presiding Judge Judy A. Sia-Galvez.
4 Id. at 9- 26. Penn ed by Associate Justice Ana Marie T. Mas and concurred in by A ssociate Justices Oscar
V . Badelles and Lily V . Biton of the Tw enty-Second Division, Court of Appeals, Cagayan De Oro .
5
Id. at 4.
6
Id. at 7.
7
Id. at 32, Joint Decision.
s Id.
9
Id. at 19, CA Decision.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 265272

will kill them all if she told anyone. AAA was not able to do anything for fear
that ZZZ might include her younger sister BBB in his heinous acts. 10

BBB also testified and said that when their mother YYY began working
in another town, ZZZ started sleeping with her and AAA. She also narrated
that she had asked their mother, YYY, if it was proper that ZZZ was often
sleeping beside AAA. 11 Because of this, YYY decided to talk to AAA. AAA
confessed to her mother what ZZZ had done to her. YYY and AAA thus went
to the police station and reported ZZZ. 12

On January 31, 2017, Dr. Rikka Allolea L. Macariola, Medical Officer

II of Northern Mindanao Medical Center, examined AAA. According to her
findings, "[t]here are partial healed lacerated wounds at 6 o'clock and
complete healed lacerated wounds at 10 o'clock position." 13

Sioanam M. Ariaso also interviewed AAA and prepared a Social Case

Study Report, dated September 11, 2018. The Social Case Study Report
corroborated AAA' s testimony that she was raped and sexually abused on
November 28, 2016 and December 12, 2016 and that ZZZ threatened that he
will go to jail and kill them all if AAA told anyone about what he did. 14

The Version of the Defense

ZZZ denied the charges. According to him, on November 28, 2016, he,
along with his eldest daughter, her husband, and their two (2) minor children
slept with them in the same room where AAA and BBB slept. There was
nothing peculiar happened that night. 15

Further, ZZZ asserted that on December 12, 2016, he, along with AAA,
BBB, and his two (2) sons, watched television at a neighbor's house until they
went home at 9:00 p.m. They made it home at 9:30 p.m. and proceeded to
sleep on their mats. ZZZ remembered that he reprimanded AAA for using her
phone that night. Again, nothing unusual happened.

ZZZ also stated that AAA is an obedient daughter, was not rebellious
and had never given him any problems in school. He claimed that he did not
know if AAA was lying when she testified, and that he does not know what
AAA's motives are. 16

10
Id. at 32, Joint Decision.
11
Id. at 33- 34.
12
Id. at 33.
13
Id. at 12, CA Decision.
14
Id. at 34, Joint Decision.
15
Id. at 35 .
16 Id.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 265272

The Provincial Prosecutor of the Province ofMisamis Oriental charged

ZZZ with the crime of Qualified Rape under the RPC and Child Abuse under
RA 7610 under two (2) separate Informations filed before the RTC.

ZZZ was arrested by virtue of a warrant of arrest on June 25, 2017. He

was arraigned on July 12, 2017, when he pleaded not guilty.

During the pre-trial, the parties stipulated on the following:

1. that ZZZ is the same person charged with Qualified Rape and
Violation of Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610 in two (2) Informations, both
dated March 20, 2017, and arraigned on July 12, 2017, who
pleaded not guilty to both cases;

2. that AAA is the biological daughter of ZZZ with YYY;

3. that AAA was born on , and was fourteen ( 14) years

old on November 28, 2016 and December 12, 2016;

4. that from November 28, 2016 until December 12, 2016, AAA
and ZZZ were living together in one house; and

5. that AAA has a younger sister named BBB. 17

The Ruling of the RTC

After trial, the RTC found ZZZ guilty of both charges. The dispositive
portion of the RTC's Joint Decision states:

F.C. CRIMINAL # 182-M {2017)

WHEREFORE, since there is proof beyond reasonable doubt,

accused ZZZ is found GUILTY of the crime of QUALIFIED RAPE, as
provided under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a), in relation to Article 266-
B, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, for having carnal knowledge
with his biological daughter - 14-year-old AAA at around 5:30 o' clock in
the afternoon on November 28, 2016 in their house at v, x, y, _ ,
Misamis Oriental, and is hereby sentenced to serve the penalty of Reclusion
Perpetua, in lieu of the Death Penalty because of its suspension under R.A.
No. 9346, without eligibility for parole.

Further, accused ZZZ is ordered to pay minor victim AAA the

following:

Civil Indemnity Ex Delicto - One Hundred Thousand Pesos

(Php 100,000.00),

17
Id. at 31 - 32 .
Decision 5 G.R. No. 265272

Moral Damages - One Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php 100,000.00)

&
Exemplary Damages - One Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php
100,000.00),

all with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this
judgment, until the amow1t is paid in full.

As provided under Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as

amended, the period of preventive imprisonment of ZZZ shall be credited
in full in the service of his sentence as he voluntarily agreed, in writing, to
abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners.

Costs de oficio.

F.C. CRIMINAL# 183-M (2017)

WHEREFORE, since there is proof beyond reasonable doubt,

accused ZZZ is found GUILTY of the crime of violating Section S(b) of
R.A. 7610, for sexually abusing his minor biological daughter AAA at
around 9 o' clock in the evening on December 12, 2016 in their house at v,
x, y, Misamis Oriental, and sentenced to serve the penalty of Reclusion
Perpetua.

Further, accused ZZZ is ordered to pay minor victim AAA the

following:

Civil Indemnity Ex Delicto -- Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (Php

75 ,000.00),
Moral Damages -- Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (Php 75 ,000.00),
Exemplary Damages -- Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (Php
75,000.00), &
Fine -- Twenty Thousand Pesos (Php 20,000.00),

all with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this
judgment, until the amount is paid in full.

As provided under Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as

amended, the period of the preventive imprisonment of ZZZ shall be
credited in full in the service of his sentence as he voluntarily agreed, in
writing, to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted
pnsoners.

Costs de oficio. 18 (Emphasis in the original)

ZZZ filed an Omnibus Notice of Appeal, 19 dated June 24, 2020, which
the RTC gave due course to. 20

18
Id. at 44-45 .
19
CArollo, p. 13.
20
Id. at 15.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 265272

The Ruling of the CA

In his Appellant's Brief,21 dated May 19, 2021, filed before the CA,
ZZZ argued that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. He asserted that AAA is not a credible witness because there were
discrepancies between AAA' s statements in her affidavit and her testimony in
open court. 22

In particular, ZZZ claimed that during her testimony pertaining to the

November 28, 2016 incident, AAA stated that ZZZ inserted his penis into her
vagina and then did a push and pull motion. However, in her affidavit, AAA
did not mention any such push and pull motion. 23

Similarly, as to the alleged December 12, 2016 incident, AAA

purportedly did not say in her affidavit that ZZZ performed any push and pull
motion as her affidavit only stated that ZZZ mashed her breasts and sucked
them several times. 24

According to ZZZ, these glaring discrepancies cast serious doubt on the

veracity of AAA's claims. 25

Moreover, ZZZ argued that AAA's claim that she was raped while her
younger sister, BBB, was merely eleven ( 11) inches away from her is
incredible and should not be given any credence. 26

The CA denied ZZZ's appeal. It agreed with the RTC's conclusion that
AAA is a credible witness and that her testimony, along with the other pieces
of evidence on record, established ZZZ's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 27

The dispositive portion of the CA Decision provides:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED.

The Joint Decision dated April 16, 2020 of the Regional Trial Court,
10th Judicial Region, Branch 42, xxx, Misarnis Oriental, finding accused-
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Rape
under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a), in relation to Article 266-B, of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, in F.C. Criminal Case No. 182-M (2017)

21
Id. at 40- 52.
22
Id. at 48 .
23
Id. at 49 .
24 Id.
2s Id.
26
Id. at 50.
27
Rollo, p. 20.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 265272

and violation of Section 5(b) Article III of Republic Act No. 7610, in F.C.
Criminal Case No. 183-M (2017), is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. 28 (Emphasis in the original)

ZZZ filed a Notice of Appeal which the CA gave due course to.

The Issue

Did the CA correctly affirm the ruling of the R TC which found ZZZ
guilty of Qualified Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph l(a) of the RPC and
Child Abuse under RA 761 O?

The Ruling of the Court

The Court denies the appeal.

The victim 's testimony is credible and,

along with the corroborating evidence
on record, established the accused 's
guilt beyond reasonable doubt

ZZZ's sole argument in this appeal is that the RTC and the CA should
not have relied on AAA' s testimony because her testimony is not credible.

The doctrine is settled that a "trial court's assessment of the credibility

of a witness is entitled to great weight, sometimes even finality." 29 In the
absence of proof that the trial court "overlooked or misinterpreted some
material facts or that it gravely abused its discretion," 30 the Court will not
disturb its factual findings. In People v. Gabrino, 31 the Court explained:

This is clearly because the judge in the trial court was the one who
personally heard the accused and the witnesses, and observed their
demeanor as well as the manner in which they testified during trial.
Accordingly, the trial court, or more particularly, the RTC in this case, is in
a better position to assess and weigh the evidence presented during trial. 32

The Court rules that ZZZ has not shown that the RTC and the CA erred
in their appreciation of AAA's credibility, let alone that the RTC and the CA
committed grave abuse of discretion in their appreciation of the evidence.
28
Id. at 25- 26.
29
People v. Rubio, 683 Phil. 714, 721 (2012) [Per J. Ve lasco, Third Division).
30
People v. Gabrino, 660 Phil. 485 , 493 (2011) [Per J. Velasco, Third Division).
31 Id.
32 Id.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 265272

Significantly, the CA emphasized that AAA testified in a spontaneous and

straightforward manner and "never wavered under a grueling scrutiny. ,m The
Court quotes with approval the CA' s pronouncement on this point:

The records show that AAA testified in a spontaneous and

straightforward manner and never wavered under a grueling scrutiny. AAA
vividly described how she was raped, detailing explicitly the elements of
the crime. Nowhere in the course of her testimony, not even in her cross
examination, did it appear that she was impelled by improper motive. The
relevant portion of AAA ' s testimony is as follows:

Direct Examination

Q. On November 28, 2016 at 5:30 o' clock in the afternoon, where were you,
if you can remember?

A. I was inside the room of our house, Ma' am.

Q. What were you doing there inside your room?

A. I was resting at that time because I felt tired in celebration of the death
anniversary of my grandmother, Ma'am.

Q. While you were inside your room, can you tell us if something happened
to you?

A. My father got inside our room, Ma' am.

Q. When your father got inside your room, what did he do, if any?

A. He took off my pants and panty, Ma' am.

Q. Did you wake up when he took off your pants and panty?

A. Yes, Ma' am.

Q. And after he removed your pants and panty, what happened next?

A. He then fondled my vagina and then licked it, Ma' am.

Q. And after your father fondled your vagina and licked it, what happened
next?

A. He then inserted his penis into my vagina, Ma' am.

Q. After he inserted his penis into your vagina, what did he do next?

A. He then made a push and pull motion.

Q. How long did he do the push and pull motion?

33 Rollo, p. 17, CA Decision .

Decision 9 G.R. No. 265272

A. Many times, Ma'am.

Q. After that, what did your father do after doing the push and pull motion?

A. He then left the room, Ma'am.

Q. Did he tell you anything before he went away?

A. He threatened me that if I will tell the incident to anyone, he will be

imprisoned and no one will take care of us, Ma'am.

Q. What did you feel after that?

A. I was crying, Ma'am.

Q. Where was your mother at that time?

A. She was i n _ , Misamis Oriental for work, Ma'am.

Q. Were you living together with your father?

A. Yes, Ma' am.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that AAA was able to
candidly answer the questions propounded to her during the direct and cross
examinations in court and vividly communicated the ordeal she suffered in
[sic] the hands of accused-appellant when he sexually assaulted her. Slight
inconsistency, if any, is immaterial as it does not obliterate the fact that
accused-appellant sexually abused her. 34

Any inconsistencies between AAA' s affidavit and her testimony in

open court do not detract from her credibility. These alleged inconsistencies
pertain to tangential matters and do not affect the very essence of the crime,
that is, that ZZZ raped and sexually abused AAA, his own daughter, when she
was only fourteen ( 14) years old. The Court does not expect, nor does the law
demand, that a victim must be able to repeatedly narrate her abuse with laser-
sharp precision.

Further, the Court emphasizes the rule that whenever there are
discrepancies between the affidavit and the testimony of a witness in court,
the testimony commands greater weight. 35 In People v. Sanchez, 36 the Court
held:

Sworn statements/affidavits are generally subordinated in

importance to open court declarations because the former are often executed
when an affiant' s mental faculties are not in such a state as to afford him a
34
/d.atl7-18and20.
35
Lejano v. People, 652 Phil. 512 (2010) [Per J. Abad, En Banc].
36
361 Phil. 692 (1999) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, First Division].
Decision G.R. No. 265272

fair opportunity of narrating in full the incident which has transpired.

Testimonies given during trials are much more exact and elaborate. Thus,
testimonial evidence carries more weight than sworn statements/
affidavits. 37

The foregoing doctrine, coupled with the fact that AAA is a credible
witness, convinces the Court that the RTC and the CA did not err in their
factual findings.

ZZZ also argues that AAA' s testimony is incredible because she stated
that she was sexually abused while her sister BBB was a mere eleven ( 11)
inches away. The Court disagrees. As the Court has oft repeated, lust is no
respecter of time and place. The Court ruled in People v. Nuyok,38

The presence of others as occupants in the same house where the

accused and AAA lived did not necessarily deter him from committing the
rapes. The crowded situation in any small house would sometimes be held
to minimize the opportunity for committing rape, but it has been shown
repeatedly by experience that many instances of rape were committed not
in seclusion but in very public circumstances. Cramped spaces of habitation
have not halted the criminal from imposing himself on the weaker victim,
for privacy is not a hallmark of the crime of rape. 39

Neither can ZZZ discredit AAA's credibility through his assertion that
it is not believable that AAA did not even shout when the alleged abuse took
place. It cannot be overemphasized that the law does not impose on the rape
victim the burden to prove that she shouted or resisted the assault. 40

Moreover, there is no single appropriate response when a woman is

sexually assaulted. In People v. Palanay, 41 the Court said:

Rape victims react differently. Some may offer strong resistance

while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all. There is
no standard form of reaction for a woman when facing a shocking and
horrifying experience such as a sexual assault. The workings of the human
mind placed under emotional stress are unpredictable, and people react
differently some may shout, some may faint, and some may be shocked into
insensibility, while others may openly welcome the intrusion. However, any
of these conducts does not impair the credibility of a rape victim. 42

The Court agrees with the CA that a rape victim who is a girl of tender
age can easily be intimidated and cowed into silence by the mildest threat

37
Id. at 720.
38
759 Phil. 437 (2015) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
39
Id. at 454.
40
People v. Palanay, 805 Phil. 116(2017) [Per J. Velasco, Third Division].
41 Id.
42
Id. at 126-127.
Decision 11 G.R. No. 265272

against her life. 43 This is especially true in this case where the assailant is the
minor victim's own father who exercises moral ascendancy over her.

ZZZ has also not presented evidence that would convince the Court that
AAA had any reason to concoct lies against her own father. He even admitted
during his testimony that AAA is an obedient daughter and that she has never
given him any problems. He also admitted that he is unaware of any reason
which would convince AAA to lie about the abuse.

The ruling of the Court in People v. Gayomma44 is applicable here:

It is settled that where there is no evidence showing devious

reasons or improper motives why a prosecution witness would
falsely testify against an accused or implicate him in a heinous
crime, the testimony is worthy of full faith and credit. A young
girl's revelation that she has been raped, coupled with her voluntary
submission to medical examination and her willingness to undergo
public trial where she could be compelled to give out details of an
assault on her womanhood cannot be so easily dismissed as a mere
concoction. The credibility of a rape victim is augmented when, as
in the instant case, she has no malevolent motive to testify against
the accused or where there is absolutely no evidence which even
remotely suggests that she could have been actuated by such
motive. 45

The R TC best summed up the credibility and reliability of

AAA's testimony in this wise:

It is unthinkable for AAA to make a story of sexual abuse against ZZZ if it

is not true.

AAA had to undergo telling and retelling her ordeal to the

investigating police officer, to the municipal social worker, to the
examining physician, to the investigating prosecutor, to the trial
prosecutor, and to the Court, among others. She even bore the stigma
of causing the incarceration of her father. AAA will not go through
these if the incidents did not happen to her. 46 (Emphasis supplied)

In addition, AAA' s testimony is corroborated by the other pieces of

evidence on record. First, AAA's younger sister, BBB, testified that when
their mother began to work in another town, ZZZ started to sleep with her and
AAA. She also stated that she had asked their mother if it was proper that
ZZZ was sleeping beside AAA. It was, in fact, BBB' s questions on this matter
that prompted YYY to ask AAA about ZZZ's actions and led to AAA's

43
Rollo, p. 23 , CA Decision.
44
374 Phil. 249 (1999) [Per Belosillo, Second Division].
45
Id. at 259.
46
Rollo, p. 42, Joint Decision .
Decision 12 G.R. No. 265272

revelation to her mother. 47 Second, the result of AAA's medical examination

shows that her genitalia had partially healed lacerated wounds at the 6 o'clock
position and complete healed lacerated wound at the 10 o'clock position,
which are physical evidence corroborating AAA's testimony that ZZZ raped
her. 48

Given the foregoing, the Court cannot but affirm the conclusion of the
R TC and the CA that AAA is a credible witness and that her testimony, along
with the other evidence on record, adequately established ZZZ's guilt.

The elements of Qualified Rape were

duly established

The elements of Qualified Rape under Article 266-A of the RPC are as
follows: ( 1) the offender has carnal knowledge or sexual intercourse with a
woman; (2) the sexual intercourse was done by force and without consent; (3)
the victim is under eighteen (18) years old at the time of the rape; and (4) the
offender is the victim's parent (whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted). 49

As to AAA' s age and her relationship with ZZZ, the parties stipulated
that AAA is ZZZ's biological daughter and that she was fourteen (14) years
old on November 28, 2016, the date of the commission of the rape. As to the
fact of sexual intercourse, as discussed in this Decision, the prosecution has
proven beyond reasonable doubt that there was penetration.

As regards the existence of force or intimidation, the Court has

consistently ruled that in Qualified Rape, and particularly where the assailant
is the father and the victim is his minor child, as in this case, moral
ascendancy or influence supplants the element of violence or
intimidation. 50

Here, the Court cannot miss the opportunity to expound on the gender
dynamics the circumstances bring to the fore: in incestuous rape, the power
dominance of the abuser-father juxtaposed as against the defenseless victim-
daughter. This gender imbalance is not only physical, a full grown male adult
against a physically immature child, but also emotional and psychological,
where the father's influence and moral ascendancy over the offspring is
palpable; and, equally significant, even economic as clearly evident in the
threats of ZZZ here against AAA that if she reports what he has done, ZZZ
will be sent to jail and no one will feed her and her siblings. These are factors
that make incestuous rape easier to perpetrate, and thus more prevalent, and

47
Id. at 33-34.
48
Id. at36-37.
49
People v. Sa/aver, 839 Phil. 90 (2018) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division] .
50
People v. Bentayo, 810 Phil. 263 (2017) [Per J. Peralta, Second Division].
Decision 13 G.R. No. 265272

harder to prevent. Unless and until the State is able to provide safe harbor for
children who are at risk of being or are already victims of incestuous abuse,
these beastly offenses will not abate, as it is empirically proven that majority
of the victims of incestuous rape are abused through a series of acts
perpetrated over time, precisely because these abused children have nowhere
to go and are completely dependent on their abusers for support.

Thus, all the elements of the crime of Qualified Rape are present in this
case.

The elements of Lascivious Conduct

under Section 5(b), Article III, RA
7610 were duly established

The elements of Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b ), Article III of

RA 7610 are as follows: (1) the accused commits the act of sexual intercourse
or lascivious conduct; (2) the act is performed with a child exploited in
prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse; and (3) the child, whether male
or female, is below eighteen (18) years old. 51

Here, it is an admitted fact that AAA was only fourteen ( 14) years old
at the time of the commission of the crime. Thus, the third element is
undoubtedly present.

As to the first element, the Rules and Regulations on the Reporting and
Investigation of Child Abuse Cases define "Lascivious Conduct" as follows:

[T]he intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the

genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of
any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the
same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or
arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation,
lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person[.]

ZZZ' s act of squeezing and sucking AAA' s breasts on December 12,

2016, patently constitutes Lascivious Conduct.

Finally, as to the second element, there is no denying that AAA is a

sexually abused child, having been subjected to rape only fourteen (14) days
earlier. 52

51
Capueta v. People, 883 Phil. 502 (2020) [Per J. Delos Santos, Second Division] .
52
Rollo, p. 41 , Joint Decision .
Decision 14 G.R. No. 265272

Against the convincing evidence on record, and specifically AAA's

straightforward, clear, and consistent testimony that ZZZ, her own father,
raped and sexually abused her on November 28, 2016 and December 12, 2016,
ZZZ has no defense other than denial.

In this regard, the Court notes that while ZZZ claims that he and AAA
were with his other children during the alleged dates when the crimes were
committed, none of his other children testified in Court. In fact, ZZZ was the
defense's lone witness. The evidence for the defense simply failed to weaken
the prosecution's case.

Given the foregoing, the Court affirms the ruling of the RTC and the
CA. ZZZ is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Rape
under Article 266-A of the RPC and Child Abuse in violation of Section 5(b),
Article III, of RA 7610.

The Court, however, modifies the penalty for violation of Section 5(b),
Article III of RA 7610 to include the payment of a fine in the amount of
PHP 15,000.00 in accordance with Section 3 l(f), Article XII, ofRA 7610 and
Trocio v. People. 53

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Court of Appeals

Decision, dated March 29, 2022 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02566-MIN is
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.

The accused-appellant, ZZZ, is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt

of the crime of Qualified Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a), in relation
to Article 266-B, of the Revised Penal Code and is sentenced to serve the
penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. The accused is
also ordered to pay the victim the following: civil indemnity ex delicto in the
amount of PHP 100,000.00; moral damages in the amount of PHP 100,000.00;
and exemplary damages in the amount of PHP 100,000.00.

The accused-appellant, ZZZ, is also found guilty beyond reasonable

doubt of Child Abuse in violation of Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act
No. 7610 and is sentenced to serve the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is
further ordered to pay the victim the following: civil indemnity ex delicto in
the amount of PHP 75,000.00; moral damages in the amount of PHP
75,000.00; and exemplary damages in the amount of PHP 75,000.00. The
penalty is modified to include a fine in the amount of PHP 15,000.00.

The foregoing amounts shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%)
per annum, from the date of the finality of this Decision until fully paid.
53
G.R. No. 252791 , August 23 , 2022 [Per J. Inting, Third Division] .
Decision 15 G.R. No. 265272

SO ORDERED.

WE CONCUR:

S. CAGUIOA
V

HENRI sf u ~N
Associate Justice

B. DIMA
Decision 16 G.R. No. 265272

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that

the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer ofthel ion of the Court's Division.

/{
J FRED S. CAGUIOA
l pti g Chi ustice
Per Special Order N . 3045 date· November 3, 2023