G.R. No.

183619 October 13, 2009

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

vs.
SALVINO SUMINGWA, Appellant.

DECISION

NACHURA, J.:

On appeal before us is the January 31, 2008 Court of Appeals (CA)

Decision1 in CA-G.R. CR No. 30045 affirming with modification the February
14, 2006 Regional Trial Court2 (RTC) Consolidated Judgment3 against
appellant Salvino Sumingwa in Criminal Case Nos. 1644 and 1645 for Acts of
Lasciviousness; 1646, 1649 and 1654 for Rape; 1651 for Attempted Rape;
and 1655 for Unjust Vexation. Assailed also is the June 5, 2008 CA
Resolution4 denying appellant’s motion for reconsideration.

In twelve Informations, the prosecution charged appellant with two (2)

counts of Acts of Lasciviousness,5 four (4) counts of Rape,6 three (3) counts of
Unjust Vexation,7 one (1) count of Other Light Threats,8 one (1) count of
Maltreatment,9 and one (1) count of Attempted Rape10 for acts committed
against his minor11 daughter AAA from 1999-2001.

Appellant pleaded "not guilty" to all the charges. On September 24, 2004,
the RTC dismissed12 Criminal Case Nos. 1647 for Rape; 1648 for Unjust
Vexation; 1650 for Other Light Threats; 1652 for Unjust Vexation; and 1653
for Maltreatment, on the basis of the Demurrer to Evidence 13 filed by
appellant.

Sometime in August 1999, between 8:00 and 10:00 in the morning, AAA,
together with her brothers and her father, appellant herein, was in their
residence in Mountain Province, watching television. Appellant called AAA
and ordered her to sit in front of him. As she was sitting, appellant told her
that it was not good for a girl to have small breasts. Suddenly, he inserted
his hands into AAA’s shirt then fondled her breast. AAA resisted by moving
her hands backwards.14

One afternoon in September 1999, AAA’s mother and brothers went to

school leaving AAA and appellant in their house. While in the master’s
bedroom, appellant ordered AAA to join him inside. There, appellant removed
his undergarments then forced her to grasp and fondle his penis until he
ejaculated. Appellant thereafter told her not to be malicious about it. 15
The same incident took place in August 2000. This time, appellant forced
AAA to lie down on the bed, went on top of her, removed her short pants and
panty, then rubbed his penis against her vaginal orifice. AAA resisted by
crossing her legs but appellant lifted her right leg and partially inserted his
penis into her vagina. As she struggled, appellant stood up then ejaculated.
AAA felt numbness on her buttocks after the bestial act committed against
her.16

Appellant repeated his dastardly act against AAA on separate occasions in

September and November 2000. During these times, appellant satisfied
himself by rubbing his penis against AAA’s vagina without trying to penetrate
it. After reaching the top of his lust, he used AAA’s short pants to wipe his
mess. Instead of keeping her harrowing experience to herself, AAA narrated
it to her best friend.17

On November 24, 2000, appellant approached AAA and told her that he
wanted to have sex with her. When she refused, appellant forcibly removed
her pants and boxed her right buttock. AAA still refused, which angered
appellant. He then went to the kitchen and returned with a bolo which he
used in threatening her. Luckily, AAA’s grandmother arrived, prompting
appellant to desist from his beastly desires.18

On December 20, 2000, AAA and her best friend were doing their school
work in front of the former’s house. When appellant arrived, he embraced
AAA. He, thereafter, pulled her inside the house and kissed her on the lips. 19

The last incident occurred inside the comfort room of their house on May 27,
2001. When AAA entered, appellant pulled down her short pants and panty,
unzipped his trousers, brought out his penis, then repeatedly rubbed it on
her vagina while they were in a standing position. 20

AAA decided to report the sexual abuses to her grandmother who forthwith
brought her to the National Bureau of Investigation where she was examined
by the medico-legal officer. It was found during the examination that there
were no extragenital physical injuries on AAA’s body but there were old,
healed, and incomplete hymenal lacerations.21

Appellant denied all the accusations against him. He claimed that in August
and September 1999, he was at the house of his mistress in Antipolo City. He
also explained that in August 2000, he stayed in Baguio City and worked
there as a karate instructor. He added that he only went home in September
2000 but left again in October for Quirino, Ilocos Sur where he stayed for
three weeks. When he went back home, his wife informed him that AAA had
not been coming home. Thereafter, appellant went to Baguio City to buy
medicine for his wife, then returned home again on the third week of
December 2000. While there, he was confronted by his wife about his
womanizing. His wife got mad and refused to forgive him despite his
repeated pleas. Consequently, he became furious and almost choked his wife
to death when she ignored and refused to talk to him. This prompted him to
leave and go back to Baguio.22

Sometime in April 2001, appellant went back home to reconcile with his wife.
While talking to his wife and the latter’s family, his mother-in-law berated
him and demanded his separation from his wife. Appellant got mad and
threatened to kill his wife’s family. His mother-in-law, in turn, threatened to
file charges against him.23

To belie the claim of AAA that she was sexually abused in August, November
and December 2000, allegedly during school hours, her teacher testified that
the former was not absent in class during those times. 24

On November 24, 2004, AAA executed an Affidavit of Recantation 25 claiming

that while appellant indeed committed lascivious acts against her, she
exaggerated her accusations against him. She explained that appellant did
not actually rape her, as there was no penetration. She added that she
charged appellant with such crimes only upon the prodding of her mother
and maternal grandmother.

On February 14, 2006, the RTC rendered a decision convicting appellant of

six (6) counts of acts of lasciviousness, 26 one (1) count of attempted
rape27 and one (1) count of unjust vexation,28 the dispositive portion of which
reads:

WHEREFORE, a Consolidated Judgment is hereby rendered sentencing

Salvino Sumingwa to suffer –

1. The penalty of six (6) months of [arresto mayor] as minimum to six (6)
years of [prision correccional] as maximum; and ordering him to pay the
offended party ₱10,000.00 [as] indemnity [ex-delicto], ₱10,000.00 as moral
damages and ₱5,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of Acts of
Lasciviousness charged in Crim. Cases 1644, 1645, 1646, 1649 and 1654;

2. The penalty of six (6) years of [prision correccional] as minimum to twelve

(12) years of [prision mayor] as maximum; and ordering said offender to pay
the victim ₱15,000.00 as indemnity [ex-delicto], ₱15,000.00 as moral
damages and ₱10,000.00 as exemplary damages in Crim. Case 1651 for
Attempted Rape; and

3. The penalty of thirty (30) days of [arresto menor] and fine of ₱200.00 for
Unjust Vexation in Crim. Case 1655.

SO ORDERED.29

The trial court gave credence to AAA’s testimonies on the alleged lascivious
acts committed against her. In view of the withdrawal of her earlier claim of
the fact of penetration, the court sustained the innocence of appellant on the
rape charges and concluded that the crime committed was only Acts of
Lasciviousness.

In Criminal Case No. 1651, the RTC found that appellant committed all the
acts of execution of the crime of Rape, but failed to consummate it because
of the arrival of AAA’s grandmother. Hence, he was convicted of attempted
rape. In embracing and kissing AAA in full view of the latter’s best friend,
appellant was convicted of Unjust Vexation.

On appeal, the CA affirmed the conviction of appellant, except that in

Criminal Case No. 1646; it convicted him of Qualified Rape instead of Acts of
Lasciviousness. The pertinent portion of the assailed decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, herein appeal is hereby DISMISSED for

evident lack of merit and the assailed Consolidated Judgment dated 14
February 2006 is hereby AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATION:

1. The Appellant SALVINO SUMINGWA is hereby convicted of the crime of

QUALIFIED RAPE in Criminal Case No. 1646 and the penalty of RECLUSION
PERPETUA is hereby imposed upon him. The Appellant is likewise ordered to
pay the Victim, [AAA], civil indemnity in the amount of Php75,000.00 as well
as moral damages in the amount of Php50,000.00, in conformity with
prevailing jurisprudence.

2. In Criminal Case No. 1651 for Attempted Rape, the Appellant, is hereby
ordered to indemnify the victim [AAA] in the sum of ₱30,000.00 as civil
indemnity, plus the sum of ₱25,000.00 as moral damages.

SO ORDERED.30

The appellate court concluded that, notwithstanding AAA’s retraction of her

previous testimonies, the prosecution sufficiently established the commission
of the crime of Rape. It added that the qualifying circumstances of minority
and relationship were adequately proven.
Hence, this appeal.

First, in light of the recantation of AAA, appellant questions the credibility of

the prosecution witnesses and insists that his constitutional right to be
presumed innocent be applied.31 Second, he argues that in Criminal Case No.
1651 for Attempted Rape, he should only be convicted of Acts of
Lasciviousness, there being no overt act showing the intent to have sexual
intercourse.32 Lastly, he insists that he could not be convicted of all the
charges against him for failure of the prosecution to show that he employed
force, violence or intimidation against AAA; neither did the latter offer
resistance to appellant’s advances.33

In rape cases particularly, the conviction or acquittal of the accused most

often depends almost entirely on the credibility of the complainant’s
testimony. By the very nature of this crime, it is generally unwitnessed and
usually the victim is left to testify for herself. When a rape victim’s testimony
is straightforward and marked with consistency despite grueling
examination, it deserves full faith and confidence and cannot be
discarded.34 If such testimony is clear, consistent and credible to establish
the crime beyond reasonable doubt, a conviction may be based on it,
notwithstanding its subsequent retraction. Mere retraction by a prosecution
witness does not necessarily vitiate her original testimony. 35

A retraction is looked upon with considerable disfavor by the courts. 36 It is

exceedingly unreliable for there is always the probability that such
recantation may later on be repudiated. It can easily be obtained from
witnesses through intimidation or monetary consideration. 37 Like any other
testimony, it is subject to the test of credibility based on the relevant
circumstances and, especially, on the demeanor of the witness on the
stand.38

As correctly held by the CA, AAA’s testimony is credible notwithstanding her

subsequent retraction. We quote with approval its ratiocination in this wise:

Clearly, the retraction made by the Victim is heavily unreliable. The

primordial factor that impelled the Victim to retract the rape charges against
her father was her fear and concern for the welfare of her family especially
her four (4) siblings. It does not go against reason or logic to conclude that a
daughter, in hopes of bringing back the harmony in her family tormented by
the trauma of rape, would eventually cover for the dastardly acts committed
by her own father. Verily, the Victim’s subsequent retraction does not negate
her previous testimonies accounting her ordeal in the hands for (sic) her
rapist.39

We now proceed to discuss the specific crimes with which appellant was
charged.

Criminal Case Nos. 1646, 1649 and 1654 for Rape

The CA correctly convicted appellant of Qualified Rape in Criminal Case No.

1646, and of Acts of Lasciviousness in Criminal Case Nos. 1649 and 1654.

The crime of rape is defined in Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC),
as amended by the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, as follows:

ART. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. - Rape is committed –

1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the
following circumstances:

a. Through force, threat or intimidation.

In her direct testimony, AAA stated that appellant removed her short pants
and panty, went on top of her and rubbed his penis against her vaginal
orifice. She resisted by crossing her legs but her effort was not enough to
prevent appellant from pulling her leg and eventually inserting his penis into
her vagina. Clearly, there was penetration.

It is noteworthy that appellant pulled AAA’s leg, so that he could insert his
penis into her vagina. This adequately shows that appellant employed force
in order to accomplish his purpose. Moreover, in rape committed by a father
against his own daughter, the former’s moral ascendancy and influence over
the latter may substitute for actual physical violence and intimidation. The
moral and physical dominion of the father is sufficient to cow the victim into
submission to his beastly desires, and no further proof need be shown to
prove lack of the victim’s consent to her own defilement. 40

While appellant’s conviction was primarily based on the prosecution’s

testimonial evidence, the same was corroborated by physical evidence
consisting of the medical findings of the medico-legal officer that there were
hymenal lacerations. When a rape victim’s account is straightforward and
candid, and is corroborated by the medical findings of the examining
physician, the same is sufficient to support a conviction for rape. 41

Aside from the fact of commission of rape, the prosecution likewise

established that appellant is the biological father of AAA and that the latter
was then fifteen (15) 42 years old. Thus, the CA aptly convicted him of
qualified rape, defined and penalized by Article 266-B of the RPC, viz.:

ART. 266-B. Penalties. – x x x.

xxxx

The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed
with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:

1) When the victim is under eighteen (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 common law spouse of the parent
of the victim.

In view of the effectivity of Republic Act (R.A.) 9346, appellant was correctly
meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole.

As to damages, appellant should pay AAA ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity,

which is awarded if the crime is qualified by circumstances that warrant the
imposition of the death penalty.43 In light of prevailing jurisprudence,44 we
increase the award of moral damages from ₱50,000.00 to ₱75,000.00.
Further, the award of exemplary damages in the amount of ₱30,000.00 45 is
authorized due to the presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority
and relationship.46

In Criminal Case Nos. 1649 and 1654, although appellant was charged with
qualified rape allegedly committed on the second week of November 2000
and May 27, 2001, he should be convicted with Acts of Lasciviousness
committed against a child under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610, 47 which
reads:

SEC. 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. – Children, whether male
or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the
coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in
prostitution and other sexual abuse.

The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion

perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:

xxxx

(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious

conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual
abuse: Provided, That when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the
perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and
Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or
lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for
lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall
be reclusion temporal in its medium period; x x x. (Italics supplied.)

The elements of sexual abuse under the above provision are as follows:

1. The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct.

2. The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected

to other sexual abuse.

3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age. 48

AAA testified that in November 2000, while she and appellant were inside
the bedroom, he went on top of her and rubbed his penis against her vaginal
orifice until he ejaculated.49 She likewise stated in open court that on May 27,
2001, while inside their comfort room, appellant rubbed his penis against her
vagina while they were in a standing position. 50 In both instances, there was
no penetration, or even an attempt to insert his penis into her vagina.

The aforesaid acts of the appellant are covered by the definitions of "sexual
abuse" and "lascivious conduct" under Section 2(g) and (h) of the Rules and
Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases
promulgated to implement the provisions of R.A. 7610:

(g) "Sexual abuse" includes the employment, use, persuasion, inducement,

enticement or coercion of a child to engage in, or assist another person to
engage in, sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct or the molestation,
prostitution, or incest with children;

(h) "Lascivious conduct" means the 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 public
area of a person.

Following the "variance doctrine" embodied in Section 4, in relation to

Section 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, appellant can be
found guilty of the lesser crime of Acts of Lasciviousness committed against
a child. The pertinent provisions read:

Sec. 4. Judgment in case of variance between allegation and proof. – When

there is variance between the offense charged in the complaint or
information and that proved, and the offense as charged is included in or
necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of
the offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or of the offense
charged which is included in the offense proved.

Sec. 5. When an offense includes or is included in another. – An offense

charged necessarily includes the offense proved when some of the essential
elements or ingredients of the former, as alleged in the complaint or
information, constitute the latter. And an offense charged is necessarily
included in the offense proved, when the essential ingredients of the former
constitute or form part of those constituting the latter.

As the crime was committed by the father of the offended party, the
alternative circumstance of relationship should be appreciated. In crimes
against chastity, such as Acts of Lasciviousness, relationship is always
aggravating.51

Section 5(b) of R.A. 7610 prescribes the penalty of reclusion temporal in its
medium period to reclusion perpetua. Since there is an aggravating
circumstance and no mitigating circumstance, the penalty shall be applied in
its maximum period --- reclusion perpetua for each count. 52

Consistent with previous rulings53 of the Court, appellant must also indemnify
AAA in the amount of ₱15,000.00 as moral damages and pay a fine in the
same amount in Criminal Case Nos. 1649 and 1654.

Criminal Case Nos. 1644 and 1645 for Acts of Lasciviousness

Appellant is likewise guilty of two (2) counts of Acts of Lasciviousness under

Section 5(b), Article III, R.A. 7610 committed against AAA on the second
week of August 1999 and on the first week of September 1999. AAA testified
that in August, appellant, with lewd design, inserted his hands inside her
shirt then fondled her breasts; and in September, he forced her to hold his
penis until he ejaculated.

The trial and the appellate courts were correct in giving credence to the
victim’s testimony, in dismissing appellant’s defense of denial and alibi, and
in disbelieving that AAA initiated the criminal cases only upon the prodding
of the latter’s grandmother. Settled jurisprudence tells us that the mere
denial of one’s involvement in a crime cannot take precedence over the
positive testimony of the offended party.54

We are not unmindful of the fact that appellant was specifically charged in an
Information for Acts of Lasciviousness defined and penalized by Article 336 of
the RPC. However, the failure to designate the offense by statute, or to
mention the specific provision penalizing the act, or an erroneous
specification of the law violated, does not vitiate the information if the facts
alleged clearly recite the facts constituting the crime charged. 55 The
character of the crime is not determined by the caption or preamble of the
information nor from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have
been violated, but by the recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances in
the complaint or information.56

In the present case, the body of the information contains an averment of the
acts alleged to have been committed by appellant which unmistakably refers
to acts punishable under Section 5(b), Article III, R.A. 7610.

Appellant should, therefore, be meted the same penalties and be made to

answer for damages as in Criminal Case Nos. 1649 and 1654.

Criminal Case No. 1651 for Attempted Rape

AAA testified that on November 24, 2000, while AAA and her brothers were
sleeping inside their parents’ bedroom, appellant entered and asked AAA to
have sex with him. When AAA refused, appellant forcibly removed her
clothes and boxed her right buttock. As she still resisted, he took a bolo,
which he poked at her. Appellant desisted from committing further acts
because of the timely arrival of AAA’s grandmother. With these, appellant
was charged with Other Light Threats in Criminal Case No. 1650; Attempted
Rape in Criminal Case No. 1651; Unjust Vexation in Criminal Case No. 1652;
and Maltreatment in Criminal Case No. 1653.

On September 24, 2004, the RTC dismissed Criminal Case Nos. 1650, 1652
and 1653 for insufficiency of evidence. Criminal Case No. 1651, among
others, proceeded, however. Eventually, appellant was convicted of
Attempted Rape, which the CA affirmed.

A careful review of the records reveals, though, that the evidence is

insufficient to support appellant’s conviction of Attempted Rape.

Rape is attempted when the offender commences the commission of rape

directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution by
reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance.57 The prosecution must, therefore, establish the following
elements of an attempted felony:

1. The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt

acts;

2. He does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the
felony;

3. The offender’s act be not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance;

4. The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause or accident

other than his spontaneous desistance. 58

The attempt that the RPC punishes is that which has a logical connection to a
particular, concrete offense; and that which is the beginning of the execution
of the offense by overt acts of the perpetrator, leading directly to its
realization and consummation.59 In the instant case, the primary question
that comes to the fore is whether or not appellant’s act of removing AAA’s
pants constituted an overt act of Rape.

We answer in the negative.

Overt or external act has been defined as some physical activity or deed,
indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, more than a mere
planning or preparation, which if carried out to its complete termination
following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles
nor by the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and
necessarily ripen into a concrete offense.60

The evidence on record does not show that the above elements are present.
The detailed acts of execution showing an attempt to rape are simply
lacking. It would be too strained to construe appellant’s act of removing
AAA’s pants as an overt act that will logically and necessarily ripen into rape.
Hence, appellant must be acquitted of Attempted Rape.

Neither can we hold appellant liable for Other Light Threats for threatening
AAA with a bolo; for Unjust Vexation for undressing her without her consent,
causing disturbance, torment, distress, and vexation; nor for Maltreatment
for boxing the right side of AAA’s buttocks. Although all of the above acts
were alleged in the Information for Attempted Rape in the Order dated
September 24, 2004, Criminal Case Nos. 1650, 1652 and 1653 involving the
above crimes were dismissed for insufficiency of evidence based on the
demurrer to evidence filed by appellant.
The order granting appellant’s demurrer to evidence was a resolution of the
case on the merits, and it amounted to an acquittal. Any further prosecution
of the accused after an acquittal would violate the proscription on double
jeopardy.61 Accordingly, appellant’s conviction of any of the above crimes,
even under Criminal Case No. 1651, would trench in his constitutional right
against double jeopardy.

Criminal Case No. 1655 for Unjust Vexation

Appellant was charged with Unjust Vexation, defined and penalized by Article
287 of the RPC, which reads:

ART. 287. Light coercions. – Any person who, by means of violence, shall
seize anything belonging to his debtor for the purpose of applying the same
to the payment of the debt, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its
minimum period and a fine equivalent to the value of the thing, but in no
case less than 75 pesos.

Any other coercion or unjust vexation shall be punished by arresto menor or

a fine ranging from 5 to 200 pesos, or both.

The second paragraph of this provision is broad enough to include any

human conduct that, although not productive of some physical or material
harm, could unjustifiably annoy or vex an innocent person. The paramount
question to be considered is whether the offender’s act caused annoyance,
irritation, torment, distress, or disturbance to the mind of the person to
whom it was directed.62

Appellant’s acts of embracing, dragging and kissing AAA in front of her friend
annoyed AAA. The filing of the case against appellant proved that AAA was
disturbed, if not distressed by the acts of appellant.

The penalty for coercion falling under the second paragraph of Article 287 of
the RPC is arresto menor or a fine ranging from ₱5.00 to ₱200.00 or both.
Accordingly, appellant is sentenced to 30 days of arresto menor and to pay a
fine of ₱200.00, with the accessory penalties thereof.

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the January 31, 2008 Court of Appeals
Decision in CA-G.R. CR No. 30045 with MODIFICATIONS. The Court finds
appellant Salvino Sumingwa:

1. GUILTY of QUALIFIED RAPE in Criminal Case No. 1646. He is sentenced to

suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and
ordered to pay AAA ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱75,000.00 as moral
damages, and ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages.

2. GUILTY of four (4) counts of ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS under Section 5 (b)

Article III of R.A. 7610 in Criminal Case Nos. 1644, 1645, 1649, and 1654. He
is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay
AAA ₱15,000.00 as moral damages and a fine of ₱15,000.00, for EACH
COUNT.

3. NOT GUILTY in Criminal Case No. 1651.

4. GUILTY of UNJUST VEXATION in Criminal Case No. 1655. He is sentenced to

suffer 30 days of arresto menor and to pay a fine of ₱200.00, with the
accessory penalties thereof.

SO ORDERED.

ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice Associate Justice

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in

consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division
Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer
of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Acting Chief Justice

Footnotes
1
Penned by Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal, with Associate Justices
Jose Catral Mendoza and Jose C. Reyes, Jr., concurring; rollo, pp. 2-38.
2
Branch 35, Bontoc Mountain Province.
3
Penned by Pairing Judge Artemio B. Marrero; CA rollo, pp. 59-74.
4
Rollo, pp. 42-44.
5
Docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 1644 and 1645.
6
Docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 1646, 1647, 1649 and 1654.
7
Docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 1648, 1652 and 1655.
8
Docketed as Criminal Case No. 1650.
9
Docketed as Criminal Case No. 1653.
10
Docketed as Criminal Case No. 1651.
11
The acts complained of were committed when the victim was 15 and 16
years old.
12
Records (Criminal Case No. 1644), pp. 156-158.
13
Id. at 141-148.
14
TSN, December 10, 2003, pp. 4-6.
15
Id. at 6-8.
16
Id. at 8-10.
17
Id. at 11-12.
18
Id. at 12-13.
19
Id. at 14.
20
Id. at 14-15.
21
Records (Criminal Case No. 1644), p. 20.
22
Rollo, pp. 10-11.
23
Id. at 11.
24
Id
25
Records (Criminal Case No. 1644), p. 206.
26
In Criminal Cases No. 1644, 1645, 1646, 1649, and 1654.
27
In Criminal Case No. 1651.
28
In Criminal Case No. 1655.
29
CA rollo, p. 73.
30
Rollo, pp. 37-38.
31
Id. at 56.
32
Id. at 56-58.
33
CA rollo, p. 53.
34
People v. Abulon, G.R. No. 174473, August 17, 2007, 530 SCRA 675, 687-
688.
35
People v. Deauna, 435 Phil. 141, 163 (2002).
36
People v. Miñon, G.R. Nos. 148397-400, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 671, 685-
686.
37
People v. Deauna, supra note 35, at 164.
38
People v. Miñon, supra note 36, at 685-686.
39
Rollo, pp. 17-18.
40
Campos v. People, G.R. No. 175275, February 19, 2008, 546 SCRA 334,
347-348; People v. Balonzo, G.R. No. 176153, September 21, 2007, 533 SCRA
760, 771.
41
People v. Guambor, 465 Phil. 671 (2004).
42
AAA was born on November 12, 1984 as shown in her Certificate of Live
Birth; records (Criminal Case No. 1644), p. 138.
43
People v. Antonio, G.R. No. 180920, March 27, 2008, 549 SCRA 569, 574.
44
People v. Bejic, G.R. No. 174060, June 25, 2007, 525 SCRA 488; People v.
Ibañez, G.R. No. 174656, May 11, 2007, 523 SCRA 136.
45
People of the Philippines v. Lilio U. Achas, G.R. No. 185712, August 4, 2009;
People of the Philippines v. Adelado Anguac y Ragadao, G.R. No. 176744,
June 5, 2009; The People of the Philippines v. Lorenzo Layco, Sr., G.R. No.
182191, May 8, 2009.
46
People v. Bejic, supra note 44; People v. Ibañez, supra note 44, at 145.
47
"Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act."
48
Malto v. People, G.R. No. 164733, September 21, 2007, 533 SCRA 643, 656;
Navarrete v. People, G.R. No. 147913, January 31, 2007, 513 SCRA 509, 521;
Olivares v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 163866, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA 465,
473.
49
TSN, December 10, 2003, p. 22.
50
Id. at 25.
51
People v. Montinola, G.R. No. 178061, January 31, 2008, 543 SCRA 412.
52
Id.
53
Id; People v. Candaza, G.R. No. 170474, June 16, 2006, 491 SCRA 280;
Olivares v. Court of Appeals, supra note 48.

People of the Philippines v. Heracleo Abello y Fortada, G.R. No. 151952,

54

March 25, 2009.

55
Malto v. People, supra. note 48.
56
Olivares v. Court of Appeals, supra note 48.
57
People of the Philippines v. Catalino Mingming y Discalso, G.R. No. 174195,
December 10, 2008; Baleros, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 138033, February 22,
2006, 483 SCRA 10, 27.
58
People of the Philippines v. Catalino Mingming y Discalso, supra note 57;
People v. Lizada, G.R. Nos. 143468-71, January 24, 2003, 396 SCRA 62, 94.
59
Baleros, Jr. v. People, supra note 57, at 27.
60
Baleros, Jr. v. People, id. at 27-28; People v. Lizada, supra note 58, at 94.
61
People v. Lizada, Jr., G.R. No. 128587, March 16, 2007, 518 SCRA 393, 403;
People v. Sandiganbayan, 426 Phil. 453 (2002).
62
Maderazo v. People, G.R. No. 165065, September 26, 2006, 503 SCRA 234,
247; Baleros, Jr. v. People, supra note