People vs. Manuel

A child victim’s credible and straightforward testimony alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction for rape and lascivious conduct; the absence of definitive medical findings of genital injury is not fatal. Further, when the victim is under 12 years of age, an act of forcing the victim to hold the accused’s penis and putting it into her mouth, without proof of actual insertion, constitutes Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610, not consummated Rape by Sexual Assault.

Christian Manuel y Villa was the common-law spouse of BBB. BBB’s daughter, AAA, from a previous relationship had known the accused as her father figure since she was three years old. Between June 2009 and August 2010, while AAA was between 9 and 11 years old, the accused committed multiple sexual acts upon her inside their family home in Manila. The incidents included forcing AAA to masturbate him, attempting to insert his penis into her vagina, making her hold his penis and put it into her mouth, and consummated statutory rape. AAA disclosed the abuse to her mother on September 1, 2010, after which they reported to the police and AAA was medically examined at the Child Protection Unit of the Philippine General Hospital.

• Relationship and Setting: AAA was the daughter of BBB from a previous relationship. Accused-appellant was BBB’s common-law spouse and had lived with them since AAA was three years old. They resided in a small shanty in Manila, together with the couple’s two other children. Accused-appellant exercised parental authority over AAA and treated her as his own daughter.

• June 15, 2009 Incident (Crim. Case No. 11-288374): While AAA, then 9 years old, was sleeping, accused-appellant sat beside her, made her hold his penis, and guided her hand in upward and downward movements for about 20 minutes. AAA resisted by kicking him.

• June 27, 2009 Incident (Crim. Case No. 11-288375): Accused-appellant removed AAA’s shorts and underwear while she slept, went on top of her, restrained her hands and feet, and tried to insert his penis into her vagina. AAA kicked and pushed him, preventing penetration. Accused-appellant desisted when she kicked him and he returned to his sleeping spot.

• June 28, 2009 Incident (Crim. Case No. 11-288378): Accused-appellant forced AAA to hold his penis and put it into her mouth. AAA pushed him away; his penis merely touched her lips but was not inserted.

• August 2010 Incidents: The Information in Crim. Case No. 11-288376 alleged rape sometime in August 2010, but the RTC acquitted accused-appellant for lack of evidence. In Crim. Case No. 11-288377, it was proven that on the third Saturday of August 2010, accused-appellant made AAA, then 11 years old, lie sideways, removed her clothes, and forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina.

• Disclosure and Medical Findings: On September 1, 2010, AAA told her mother about the sexual molestation. They reported to the police the next day. A medico-legal report dated September 7, 2010 indicated no evident injury at the time of examination but stated that medical evaluation could not exclude sexual abuse. BBB testified that AAA developed depression, exhibited unusual behavior, and underwent treatment.

• Defense Version: Accused-appellant denied the charges, arguing that the house was a very small shanty where all family members slept together—he beside his two children, AAA beside her mother—making the alleged acts impossible to commit without waking others. He claimed AAA’s continued stay in the house and the delay in reporting were inconsistent with the behavior of an abused child, and that the lack of definitive medical findings belied her claims.

• Credibility of the Child Witness: Whether the trial court gravely erred in giving full weight and credit to the testimony of AAA despite alleged inconsistencies and questionable behavior.

• Impossibility of the Crime: Whether the presence of other family members in the same room rendered the commission of the sexual offenses physically impossible.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Rape: Whether the lack of a definitive medical finding of genital injury precluded a finding of rape.

• Proper Nomenclature and Penalties: Whether the Court of Appeals correctly characterized the offenses—particularly the forced oral sex incident—and imposed the appropriate penalties and damages under the Revised Penal Code and R.A. No. 7610.

• Credibility of the Child Witness: The victim’s testimony was found to be straightforward, spontaneous, and credible. The assessment of credibility by the trial court, which had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, was accorded utmost respect. The Court emphasized that in rape cases, the victim’s testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth. The rule on examination of child witnesses likewise provides that corroboration is not required when the child’s testimony is credible by itself.

• Impossibility of the Crime: The defense of impossibility was rejected. Well-settled jurisprudence holds that rape can be committed even inside a house where other family members are sleeping, and that lust is no respecter of time or place. The presence of others does not automatically negate the commission of sexual offenses.

• Failure to Shout or Immediately Report: AAA’s failure to shout or immediately flee the house was not taken against her. People react differently under emotional stress, and no standard behavior is expected from a victim, especially a child of tender years. The moral ascendancy of the accused over the minor victim sufficiently explained her silence and inaction.

• Medical Report: The absence of specific genital injuries did not negate rape or sexual abuse. A medical examination is merely corroborative and is not an essential element of the crimes charged.

• Conviction for Acts of Lasciviousness in Crim. Case No. 11-288374: The RTC had convicted accused-appellant of simple Acts of Lasciviousness. The CA correctly reclassified the offense as Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610 because the victim was under 12 years old at the time. The factual allegations in the Information—that accused-appellant, with lewd design and against the child’s will, made her hold his penis—sufficiently made out a charge under Section 5(b), as the child was subjected to sexual abuse through the coercion and influence of an adult exercising moral ascendancy. The omission of the specific statutory reference in the Information was not fatal; the actual facts recited control.

• Conviction for Qualified Rape in Crim. Case No. 11-288377: All elements of statutory rape were established: accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA, who was 11 years old and thus below 12. The qualifying circumstance of relationship—accused-appellant being the common-law spouse of the victim’s mother—was proven and admitted, elevating the crime to Qualified Rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) in relation to Article 266-B(1). The penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole was proper.

• Conviction for Attempted Qualified Rape in Crim. Case No. 11-288375: AAA’s testimony that accused-appellant forcibly removed her shorts and underwear, mounted her, restrained her, and tried to insert his penis into her vagina, but that she successfully resisted by kicking and pushing, established only attempted rape. No categorical statement of even the slightest penetration—touching of the labia—was made. Overt acts demonstrated accused-appellant’s intent to have carnal knowledge, but the crime was not consummated due to a cause other than his own spontaneous desistance (AAA’s resistance). The crime was correctly designated as Attempted Qualified Rape given the concurrence of the victim’s minority and the accused’s relationship.

• Reclassification of the Offense in Crim. Case No. 11-288378: The Information charged Rape by Sexual Assault for forcing AAA to hold the accused’s penis and put it into her mouth. AAA testified that the penis merely touched her lips and was not inserted. Applying by analogy the doctrine in People v. Campuhan—which holds that consummated rape by carnal knowledge requires at least the slightest penetration of the labia, not mere epidermal contact or grazing—the Court ruled that mere touching of the lips without any showing that the lips parted or that the penis entered the oral cavity at all does not constitute consummated sexual assault. The proven facts, however, fully established the elements of Acts of Lasciviousness: the intentional touching of the child’s mouth with the penis, under force or intimidation and through grave abuse of authority, with the victim under 12 years of age. Since the victim was a child, the proper nomenclature is Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610, following the guidelines in People v. Tulagan. Under the variance doctrine, accused-appellant could be convicted of this included offense despite the designation in the Information.

• Penalties and Damages: The imposable penalty for Acts of Lasciviousness in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610, where the victim is under 12, is reclusion temporal medium. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and in the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the maximum was fixed within the medium period of reclusion temporal medium, and the minimum from reclusion temporal minimum. The civil liabilities were updated in accordance with People v. Tulagan and People v. Jugueta. The Court imposed P50,000.00 each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages for each count of Acts of Lasciviousness and Attempted Qualified Rape, plus a fine of P15,000.00 for each count of Acts of Lasciviousness. For Qualified Rape, P100,000.00 each for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages. Interest at 6% per annum on all damages from the date of finality until fully paid was imposed.

• Credibility of Child Witnesses — The testimony of a child victim, if credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things, is sufficient to support a conviction for sexual offenses. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth. The trial court’s assessment of credibility is accorded the highest respect and is generally binding upon the appellate courts, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

• Impossibility of Rape in Shared Spaces — Rape can be committed even inside a house where other occupants or family members are sleeping; lust is no respecter of time or place. The presence of others in the same room does not render the commission of the crime physically impossible.

• Consummated Rape by Carnal Knowledge — “Touching” Defined — Consummated rape requires the slightest penetration of the labia majora or labia minora of the pudendum by the penis. Mere grazing of the surface of the female organ or touching the mons pubis is insufficient; the penis must touch the labias or slide into the female organ, attaining some degree of penetration beneath the surface. Absent such proof, only attempted rape may be established.

• Consummated Sexual Assault by Oral Insertion — By analogy to the rule on carnal knowledge, consummated rape by sexual assault through insertion of the penis into the victim’s mouth requires proof that the penis actually entered the oral cavity, not merely that it touched the lips. Mere touching of the lips without parting them does not constitute consummated sexual assault but may constitute Acts of Lasciviousness.

• Acts of Lasciviousness under R.A. No. 7610 vs. Rape by Sexual Assault — If the acts of sexual assault under Article 266-A(2) of the RPC are committed against a victim under 12 years of age and are likewise covered by the definition of lascivious conduct under R.A. No. 7610, the proper nomenclature is “Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC, in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610” (or “Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC, in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610” where circumstances fit) and the penalty provided by R.A. No. 7610—which is higher—shall be imposed. The guiding parameter is the best interest of the child and the State’s policy to provide special protection.

• Variance Doctrine (Rule 120, Sections 4 and 5, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure) — When there is a variance between the offense charged and the offense proved, the accused may be convicted of the offense proved if it is necessarily included in the offense charged, or the offense charged is included in the offense proved.

• Effect of Non-Allegation of R.A. No. 7610 in the Information — The omission of a specific reference to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 in the Information is not fatal to the accused’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. The actual facts recited in the Information as constituting the offense control over the caption or designation.

• Penalty for Acts of Lasciviousness under R.A. No. 7610 (Victim under 12) — The imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period, which has a range of 14 years, 8 months, and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months. The common-law relationship of the accused with the victim’s mother does not constitute a separate aggravating circumstance under Section 31 of R.A. No. 7610 to warrant the penalty in its maximum period.

• “Conviction in rape cases usually rests solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim, provided that such testimony is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.”

• “[P]eople react differently under emotional stress … There is no standard form of behavior when one is confronted by a shocking incident especially if the assailant is physically near. The workings of the human mind when placed under emotional stress are unpredictable.”

• “Rape can be committed ‘even in places where people congregate, in parks, along the roadside, within school premises and even inside a house where there are other occupants,’ or ‘where other members of the family are also sleeping.’ Indeed, ‘lust is no respecter of time or place.’”

• “[T]ouching when applied to rape cases does not simply mean mere epidermal contact, stroking or grazing of organs, a slight brush or a scrape of the penis on the external layer of the victim’s vagina, or the mons pubis … There must be sufficient and convincing proof that the penis indeed touched the labias or slid into the female organ, and not merely stroked the external surface thereof.”

• “[I]f the acts constituting sexual assault are committed against a victim under 12 years of age or is demented, the nomenclature of the offense should now be ‘Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC, in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610’ and no longer Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC, in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610[.]”

• Quimvel v. People, 808 Phil. 889 (2017) — Followed; the Court applied its ruling that an Information charging acts of lasciviousness against a child need not explicitly cite Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 if the facts alleged establish that the victim was subjected to sexual abuse through coercion or influence of an adult.

• Dimakuta v. People, 771 Phil. 641 (2015) — Followed; provided the rule that where lascivious conduct is covered by both the RPC (as sexual assault) and R.A. No. 7610, and the victim is a child, the offender should be liable under R.A. No. 7610 for the higher penalty.

• People v. Tulagan, G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019 — Followed; the Court applied the guidelines on the proper nomenclature and penalties for sexual offenses against children, particularly the reclassification of certain acts as “Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC, in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610.”

• People v. Campuhan, 385 Phil. 912 (2000) — Followed and applied by analogy; the Court relied on its distinction between mere epidermal contact and the slightest penetration necessary to consummate rape by carnal knowledge, extending the principle to rape by sexual assault through oral insertion.

• People v. Bonaagua, 665 Phil. 728 (2011); People v. Arce, Jr., 417 Phil. 18 (2001); People v. Tolentino, 367 Phil. 755 (1999) — Followed; these cases established that the slightest penetration consummates rape, and that attempts where no penetration is proven result in liability for attempted rape only.

• People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Followed; the Court applied its schedule of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages for rape and related offenses.

• People v. Gecomo, 324 Phil. 297 (1996) — Followed; cited for the principle that no uniform reaction is expected from victims of sexual assault, and failure to shout or escape does not equate to consent.

• Article 266-A, Revised Penal Code (as amended by R.A. No. 8353) — Defines rape by carnal knowledge and rape by sexual assault. The Court applied paragraph 1(d) for statutory rape (victim under 12) and distinguished paragraph 2 (sexual assault) when insertion is not proven.

• Article 266-B(1), Revised Penal Code — Qualifying circumstance of relationship (common-law spouse of parent) which elevates rape to qualified rape, punishable by death. The Court affirmed the imposition of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.

• Article 336, Revised Penal Code — Acts of Lasciviousness; the Court applied this in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 where the victim was a child.

• Section 5(b), Article III, R.A. No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act) — Punishes lascivious conduct with a child subjected to other sexual abuse; provides for the higher penalty of reclusion temporal medium when the victim is under 12.

• Section 31, Article XII, R.A. No. 7610 — Common Penal Provisions; the Court ruled that common-law relationship is not included as an aggravating circumstance for increasing the penalty to its maximum period.

• Article 6, Revised Penal Code — Defines attempted felony; applied to the charge of attempted qualified rape where the accused commenced overt acts but failed to perform all acts of execution due to the victim’s resistance.

• Article 51, Revised Penal Code — Prescribes penalty lower by two degrees for attempt; used in computing the penalty for Attempted Qualified Rape.

• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied in determining the minimum and maximum terms for the prison sentences for acts of lasciviousness and attempted rape.

• Rule 120, Sections 4 and 5, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure — Variance doctrine; allowed conviction for the included offense of Acts of Lasciviousness despite the charge of Rape by Sexual Assault.

• Section 22, Rule on Examination of Child Witness — Corroboration not required; the child’s credible testimony alone suffices for conviction.

• A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC; R.A. No. 9346 — Applied in imposing reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole in lieu of the death penalty.

Leonen (Chairperson), Hernando, Inting, and Rosario, JJ., concurred.