People vs. XXX

If the victim of a sexual assault by digital penetration is between twelve (12) and eighteen (18) years of age, the proper offense is "Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610," not Rape through Sexual Assault under Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code, and the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. For rape through carnal knowledge committed against a victim in the same age bracket, the correct designation is "Rape under Article 266-A(1) in relation to Article 266-B of the RPC" (Simple Rape), punishable by reclusion perpetua.

Accused-appellant XXX was employed as the stay-in driver of the household where 14-year-old AAA resided. Over a two-week period in August and September 2006, he thrice entered the room AAA shared with her younger sister BBB during the early morning hours. On August 23, 2006, he digitally penetrated AAA’s vagina while pinning her down and threatening her life and that of her family. On August 26, 2006, he had carnal knowledge of her by force and intimidation, again issuing death threats. The third incident on September 2, 2006 involved another digital penetration; his presence was discovered by nursemaid CCC, who found him inside AAA’s locked room. AAA’s medico-legal examination revealed deep healed lacerations consistent with blunt penetrating trauma.

• Nature: Accused-appellant XXX was charged with two counts of Rape through sexual assault (insertion of finger into the victim’s vagina) under Article 266-A(2) of the RPC in relation to RA 7610, and one count of Rape through sexual intercourse under Article 266-A(1) in relation to RA 7610. The victim, AAA, was 14 years old at the time of the incidents. XXX was employed as the family’s stay-in driver.
• First Incident (Crim. Case No. 07-146 – August 23, 2006): Around 2:00 a.m., AAA was awakened by XXX entering her room, recognizable from outside ambient light. He covered her mouth, kissed her neck and lips, inserted his hand under her shirt and mashed her breasts, then inserted his finger into her vagina. AAA resisted but was overpowered. After the act, XXX threatened that he would kill her and her family if she told anyone. AAA then woke her younger sister BBB, who shared the room, and asked to be accompanied to the bathroom to wash.
• Second Incident (Crim. Case No. 07-147 – August 26, 2006): In the early morning hours, XXX again entered AAA’s room, covered her mouth, pulled up her shirt, kissed her breasts, and removed her jogging pants and underwear. He spread her legs and inserted his penis into her vagina for five to ten minutes, disregarding her resistance because of his superior strength. XXX once more threatened to kill her whole family if she disclosed the assault. After he left, AAA woke BBB, went to the bathroom to wash, and noticed bleeding from her vagina.
• Third Incident (Crim. Case No. 06-809 – September 2, 2006): At around 2:00 a.m., XXX entered AAA’s room, locked the door, kissed her lips and neck, and mashed her breasts. AAA tried unsuccessfully to wake BBB. XXX then inserted his finger into her vagina. Simultaneously, nursemaid CCC, having woken to change clothes, noticed XXX was not in his bed. The household staff searched and found AAA’s door locked—unusual for the sisters. CCC knocked persistently until AAA opened the door. Inside, CCC saw XXX sitting on the side of BBB’s bed. When confronted, XXX claimed he was merely patting BBB to sleep. CCC’s discovery prompted AAA to report the earlier assaults.
• Medical Findings: PSI Marianne Ebdane conducted a medico-legal examination on AAA and found deep healed lacerations at the 5 and 7 o’clock positions of the hymen, clear evidence of blunt penetrating trauma.
• Defense Version: XXX denied the first two incidents, asserting he was asleep in his quarters on the first floor. He admitted being inside AAA’s room during the third incident but claimed he was checking on her after she had suffered an asthma attack the previous night and had asked him not to tell anyone or leave her. He maintained he had good relations with the family and no ill motive.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite the alleged lack of corroboration and the victim’s failure to shout or immediately report the assaults.
• Proper Nomenclature and Penalty: Whether the lower courts correctly designated the sexual assault offenses and imposed the proper penalties in light of the victim’s age and the doctrine in People v. Tulagan.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: The factual findings of the trial court, affirmed by the CA, were accorded great weight. AAA’s testimony was credible, clear, straightforward, and consistent on the essential elements of the crimes; her positive identification of XXX was unwavering. A child victim’s account of sexual abuse commands full respect, youth and immaturity being badges of truth. The medico-legal findings of deep healed hymenal lacerations corroborated penetration. XXX’s bare denial, unsubstantiated by any independent evidence, could not overcome AAA’s positive declarations. The non-presentation of BBB and the parents was not fatal because a conviction for rape may rest solely on the victim’s credible testimony. The failure to shout or immediately report was not indicative of fabrication, as no standard form of behavior can be expected from a person confronting a shocking or traumatic event, especially when under death threats.
• Proper Nomenclature and Penalty: The two sexual assault charges involving digital penetration of a 14-year-old victim, being acts of lascivious conduct covered by sexual assault under Article 266-A(2) of the RPC committed against a child between 12 and 18 years of age, were improperly designated. Pursuant to People v. Tulagan and People v. Caoili, the proper nomenclature is "Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of RA 7610," the penalty for which is reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. The indeterminate sentence was thus increased to 14 years and 8 months of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, for each count. The rape through carnal knowledge charge was correctly designated as "Rape under Article 266-A(1) in relation to Article 266-B of the RPC" (Simple Rape), carrying the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Civil indemnities and damages were modified to conform with People v. Jugueta, and the fines imposed by the CA were deleted for lack of legal basis.

• People v. Tulagan / People v. Caoili Framework for Child Victims — When a victim is 12 years old or older but below 18, and the act constitutes sexual assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC, the offense shall be designated as "Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of RA 7610," with the imposable penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. No reference to the RPC provisions shall be made in the nomenclature. If the victim is 18 or older and not demented, the proper designation is "Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC," punishable by prision mayor. For rape through carnal knowledge of a victim aged 12 to under 18, the proper designation is "Rape under Article 266-A(1) in relation to Article 266-B of the RPC" (Simple Rape), with the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
• Credibility of Child Victims — The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, especially that of child victims of sexual abuse, is given great weight and is generally binding on appellate courts absent any misapprehension of facts. Youth and immaturity are badges of truth; absolute coherence on every detail of a traumatic experience is not expected.
• Sufficiency of a Single Witness — A rape conviction may be based solely on the victim’s testimony, provided it is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the ordinary course of things. Corroboration is not mandatory.
• Defense of Denial — Denial is an inherently weak defense that cannot prevail over the positive and credible identification of the accused by the victim, especially when unsupported by clear and convincing evidence.
• Victim Behavior in Sexual Assaults — There is no uniform or expected behavior for a person subjected to sexual assault; responses vary depending on individual circumstances. The failure to scream, resist physically, or immediately report the assault does not impair the victim’s credibility.

• "When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity."
• "In People v. Caoili, We prescribed the following guidelines in designating or charging the proper offense in case lascivious conduct is committed under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610... If the victim is exactly twelve (12) years of age, or more than twelve (12) but below eighteen (18) years of age... the crime should be designated as 'Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610,' and the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua."
• "Mere denial, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is [a] negative self-serving evidence which cannot be given greater evidentiary weight than the testimony of the complaining witness who testified on affirmative matters."

• People v. Tulagan, G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019 — Summarized the governing laws and penalties for lascivious conduct and rape involving child victims under RA 7610. Served as the controlling framework for correcting the offense nomenclature and penalties.
• People v. Caoili, 815 Phil. 839 (2017) — Cited in Tulagan for the specific guidelines on designating "Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of RA 7610" and the corresponding penalty for victims between 12 and 18 years old.
• People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Applied to adjust the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to the prevailing jurisprudential rates.

• Article 266-A, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 — Defines rape through carnal knowledge (paragraph 1) and rape through sexual assault (paragraph 2). Applied in establishing the elements of each crime, though the nomenclature for the sexual assault charges was subsequently corrected to conform with RA 7610.
• Section 5(b), Republic Act No. 7610 — Penalizes lascivious conduct committed against a child. Applied as the correct legal designation for the two counts of digital penetration against a 14-year-old victim, with the penalty of reclusion temporal medium to reclusion perpetua.
• Section 31(f), Republic Act No. 7610 — Provides for the imposition of fines for violations. Referenced in the CA decision but the fines were ultimately deleted as lacking legal basis under the corrected designation.

Perlas-Bernabe (Chairperson), Zalameda, Rosario, and Marquez, JJ.