XXX257134 vs. People of the Philippines

The credible and straightforward testimony of a child victim, standing alone, is sufficient to convict the accused of rape through sexual assault and acts of lasciviousness; the exact date of the offense is not a material element; and the qualifying circumstance of relationship by consanguinity or affinity does not extend to an adoptive uncle because adoption creates a juridical tie only between the adopter and the adoptee, leaving the offender’s relationship with the victim outside the ambit of Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code.

Petitioner was the adopted brother of AAA257134’s mother. He did not live with the family but visited frequently. From the time AAA257134 was six years old, petitioner repeatedly molested the boy—forcing him to touch petitioner’s penis and to masturbate him, and later inserting his penis into the child’s anal orifice. The abuse culminated on June 14, 2014, when petitioner locked a room, held the nine-year-old AAA257134, and sexually assaulted him multiple times through anal penetration and an attempt at oral sex. The following day, the victim disclosed the abuse to his mother, leading to the filing of criminal charges.

• The Charges: Two Informations were filed against petitioner. In Crim. Case No. 15-0425, he was accused of committing acts of lasciviousness in 2011 by making six-year-old AAA257134 hold his penis and perform masturbation. In Crim. Case No. 15-0427, he was charged with rape by sexual assault on June 14, 2014, for inserting his penis into the anal orifice of nine-year-old AAA257134. Both Informations alleged petitioner was the victim’s uncle.

• Prosecution’s Version: AAA257134 testified that petitioner, the adopted brother of his mother, began molesting him when he was six years old and committed abusive acts around 200 times. On the night of AAA257134’s seventh birthday, petitioner made the child touch his penis and shake it up and down. The most serious incident occurred on June 14, 2014. After choir practice and an outing, the child and his cousin went to bed with petitioner and two nannies in the same room. When the nannies left and the cousin fell asleep, petitioner locked the door, held the victim’s wrist, and forced him to masturbate him. Petitioner attempted to insert his penis into AAA257134’s mouth, but the boy resisted. Petitioner then turned AAA257134 around, pulled down his pants, and slightly inserted his penis into the child’s anus while they lay sidewards; the victim felt pain and itchiness. The assault was repeated in different positions throughout the night. Petitioner ordered the child not to tell anyone, but AAA257134 disclosed the abuse to his mother the next day. The mother filed a complaint, and a medico-legal report was obtained. The report showed no abrasions or lacerations.

• Defense’s Version: Petitioner denied the charges and interposed alibi. He claimed he visited the family only on special occasions and was never left alone with AAA257134. His mother testified that petitioner was always accompanied by a nanny when at the house. The three nannies uniformly testified that AAA257134 was never alone with petitioner and stated that the child had a propensity to fabricate stories. Petitioner also argued that the medico-legal report’s negative findings negated the commission of sexual assault and insinuated that AAA257134 might have been motivated by a grudge because petitioner often sided with the victim’s cousin in disputes.

• Lower Courts’ Findings: The RTC found AAA257134’s testimony consistent, candid, and straightforward, rejecting the defense of bare denial and alibi. The CA affirmed, noting that minor inconsistencies in a child victim’s narration of a traumatic experience are badges of truth and that the exact date of the abuse is immaterial. The CA, however, reclassified the crimes, designating the first as Child Abuse and the second as Qualified Rape through Sexual Assault, and imposed enhanced penalties.

• Inconsistent Testimony: Petitioner argued that AAA257134 gave materially inconsistent versions of how the sexual assault occurred, including shifting the time of the rape from 5:30 p.m. to nighttime, which rendered his testimony incredible.

• Date Discrepancy in the Information: Petitioner contended that the Information for Acts of Lasciviousness alleged the offense occurred in 2011 on the victim’s seventh birthday, but AAA257134’s seventh birthday was in 2012; thus, the Information failed to apprise him of the exact date of the crime.

• Lack of Physical Evidence: Petitioner insisted that the medico-legal report showing no ano-genital injury or sign of sexual abuse negated the charge of sexual assault.

• Denial and Alibi: Petitioner maintained that he was never alone with AAA257134, as nannies or the mother were always present, making the commission of the alleged acts impossible.

• Motive to Fabricate: Petitioner insinuated that AAA257134 harbored a grudge because petitioner consistently sided with the victim’s cousin during childhood quarrels.

• Credibility of the Victim: Respondent, through the People of the Philippines, maintained that AAA257134’s testimony was credible, candid, and sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Minor inconsistencies in a child’s recollection of a traumatic experience were argued to reflect truthfulness and an unrehearsed account rather than fabrication.

• Sufficiency of Testimonial Evidence: Respondent countered that in rape cases, conviction may rest solely on the victim’s testimony if it is clear, positive, and consistent with human nature; corroborative medical evidence is not indispensable. The defense of denial and alibi was characterized as inherently weak and could not prevail over the positive identification of the accused.

• Credibility and Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction based on the sole testimony of AAA257134 despite alleged material inconsistencies and the absence of corroborating physical evidence.

• Qualifying Circumstance of Relationship: Whether the crime of rape through sexual assault was properly qualified by the offender’s relationship as an “uncle” when that relationship arose exclusively from adoption, not from consanguinity or affinity.

• Proper Nomenclature and Penalties: Whether the Court of Appeals correctly designated the crimes and imposed the corresponding penalties in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, particularly People v. Tulagan.

• Credibility and Sufficiency of Evidence: The conviction was upheld. The findings of fact by the trial court, affirmed by the CA, were accorded great weight. The victim’s testimony was found to be consistent, candid, and straightforward on material points; the variations in describing multiple sexual acts on the same night did not constitute fatal inconsistencies but rather reflected the multiple forms of abuse suffered. Minor discrepancies in a child victim’s narration of a harrowing experience are expected and are considered badges of truth and unrehearsed testimony. The medico-legal report showing no physical injury did not exonerate petitioner; a conviction for rape or acts of lasciviousness can rest solely on the victim’s credible testimony. Petitioner’s denial and alibi were weak and could not overcome the positive identification made by AAA257134. The exact date of the commission of the acts of lasciviousness was likewise immaterial, as it is not an essential element of the crime, and petitioner did not deny being present on the child’s seventh birthday.

• Qualifying Circumstance of Relationship: The qualifying circumstance of relationship was not present. While the Information alleged that petitioner was the victim’s uncle, the records established that this relationship stemmed solely from the fact that petitioner was the adopted brother of AAA257134’s mother. Under Philippine law, adoption creates a legal relationship exclusively between the adopter and the adoptee; it does not extend to the adopter’s relatives. Hence, petitioner could not be considered a relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree of the victim. Accordingly, the sexual assault was simple and not qualified.

• Proper Nomenclature and Penalties: Pursuant to the comprehensive framework in People v. Tulagan, the correct nomenclature was determined as follows: for Crim. Case No. 15-0425, the crime committed was “Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of RA 7610,” punishable by reclusion temporal in its medium period; for Crim. Case No. 15-0427, the crime committed was “Sexual Assault under Article 266-A(2) of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of RA 7610,” also punishable by reclusion temporal in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and in the absence of modifying circumstances, petitioner was sentenced in each case to an indeterminate penalty of 13 years of reclusion temporal as minimum to 16 years of reclusion temporal as maximum. Civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages were uniformly set at P50,000 each, with legal interest of 6% per annum from finality of judgment until fully paid.

• Credibility of Child Victim’s Testimony — Courts accord full weight and credit to the testimony of child victims; their youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. Minor inconsistencies in a child’s narration of a traumatic experience are expected and considered badges of truth, reflecting an unrehearsed account. The testimony is even more credible when the accusations are directed against a close relative, given the social stigma and trauma involved.

• Sufficiency of Uncorroborated Testimony in Rape Cases — In rape cases, the accused may be convicted on the basis of the victim’s lone and uncorroborated testimony, provided it is clear, positive, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the ordinary course of things. Medical evidence of injury is not essential for conviction.

• Date as Immaterial in Sexual Offenses — The exact date of the commission of sexual abuse is not a material ingredient of the crime; as long as the Information sufficiently alleges an approximate time and the accused is not deprived of the opportunity to defend himself, a discrepancy in the precise date does not warrant acquittal.

• Effect of Adoption on Qualifying Relationship — Adoption establishes a legal relationship exclusively between the adopter and the adoptee. It does not extend to the relatives of either party. Hence, an adoptive uncle is not considered a relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree of the adoptee for purposes of qualifying circumstances under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. (Reyes v. Elquiero; Teotico v. Del Val Chan)

• Proper Nomenclature of Sexual Crimes Against Children under RA 7610 (Tulagan Framework) — People v. Tulagan provides a comprehensive table for the correct nomenclature of crimes involving sexual abuse against children, depending on the age of the victim and the specific acts committed, harmonizing the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, RA 8353, and Section 5(b) of RA 7610. Acts of Lasciviousness against a child under 12 years old exploited in prostitution or other sexual abuse is designated as “Acts of Lasciviousness under Art. 336 RPC in relation to Sec. 5(b) RA 7610,” while Sexual Assault against a child under 12 under the same circumstances is designated as “Sexual Assault under Art. 266-A(2) RPC in relation to Sec. 5(b) RA 7610,” both punishable by reclusion temporal in its medium period.

• “[C]ourts expect minor inconsistencies when a child-victim narrates the details of a traumatic experience. In fact, inconsistencies reflect candidness and the fact that the testimony was unrehearsed.”

• “[Y]outh and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. Even more, a child witness’ testimony is enhanced when the accusations are directed against a close relative given the social stigma it may cause their entire family.”

• “The relationship created is exclusively between the adopter and the adopted, and do not extend to the relatives of either.” — This passage from Teotico v. Del Val Chan, quoted with approval, grounded the ruling that petitioner’s status as an adoptive uncle did not constitute a qualifying relationship.

• “[T]he exact date of commission of sexual abuse is inconsequential on the ground that it is not a material ingredient of the said crime.”

• People v. Tulagan, 849 Phil. 197 (2019) [En Banc] — Applied as the controlling framework for determining the proper nomenclature, penalties, and civil liability for sexual offenses against children under RA 7610. The Court relied on its comprehensive table to reclassify both crimes and set the correct damages.

• Reyes v. Elquiero, G.R. No. 210487, September 2, 2020 [Third Division] — Followed to establish that adoption does not create a relationship by consanguinity or affinity extending beyond the adopter and adoptee. This was dispositive of the issue on the qualifying circumstance of relationship.

• Teotico v. Del Val Chan, 121 Phil. 392 (1965) [En Banc] — Cited as the foundational precedent for the limited scope of juridical ties created by adoption, expressly stating that the relationship does not extend to the relatives of the adopter or the adoptee.

• Ricalde v. People, 751 Phil. 793 (2015) [Second Division] — Relied upon for the doctrine that full weight is given to child victims’ testimonies and that youth and immaturity are badges of truth.

• Article 266-A(2), Revised Penal Code (as amended by RA 8353) — Defined rape through sexual assault by inserting the penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice, using force or intimidation. The elements were found fully established by the victim’s testimony.

• Article 266-B, Revised Penal Code — Prescribed the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship for rape. The relationship qualifier was held inapplicable because petitioner was merely an adoptive uncle, falling outside the statutory definition of relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree.

• Article 336, Revised Penal Code — Punishes acts of lasciviousness. Its elements, when the victim is under 12 years of age, were satisfied by the proven lewd act of making the victim masturbate petitioner.

• Section 5(b), Republic Act No. 7610 — Penalizes child abuse, which includes the commission of acts of lasciviousness, sexual assault, and rape against children exploited in prostitution or other sexual abuse. The provision was used to determine the proper nomenclature and penalty range as harmonized in Tulagan.

• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied to fix the minimum and maximum terms of imprisonment by taking the minimum from reclusion temporal minimum and the maximum from the medium period of reclusion temporal medium.

Leonen, SAJ. (Chairperson), Lazaro-Javier, M. Lopez, and J. Lopez, JJ., concurred.

N/A — The decision was unanimous.