PEOPLE vs. AYCARDO
CASE DIGEST
PEOPLE
vs. AYCARDO
G.R. No.
218114, JUNE 5, 2017
(PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SALVADOR
AYCARDO)
FACTS: Sometime in
September 2007, AAA was in a room inside the house of accused-appellant, when
the latter entered, attempted to remove her shorts and panties and tried to
insert his finger into her vagina. Accused-appellant failed to undress AAA
because she resisted his advances, but accused-appellant was able to touch her
vagina with his finger. AAA then ran to the house of her cousin Joy. Later in
the evening that same day, accused-appellant came by to fetch her. Thus, returned
to accused-appellant’s house where she prepared supper as instructed and had
dinner with accused-appellant. In the middle of the night, AAA was roused from
her sleep when she felt somebody removing her panties and shorts, who turned
out to be accused-appellant. AAA resisted but accused-appellant told her he
would do it slowly. Accused-appellant then undressed and inserted his penis
into her vagina. Gripped with fear, she just wept, with accused-appellant
warning to kill her if she tells anyone of the incident.
Two separate
Informations were filed against Aycardo for the crimes of Rape by sexual
assault and statutory rape. The RTC convicted appellant of the crimes of Acts
of Lasciviousness in the first case contending that Aycardo was not actually
able to insert his finger inside AAA’s vagina. Thus, he cannot be convicted of
the crime of rape by sexual assault. However, he can still be convicted of acts
of lasciviousness, because it is necessarily included in the offense charged in
the first Information. As to the second charge, the RTC found that the
prosecution successfully proved the elements of statutory rape. On appeal, the
CA affirmed the RTC’s decision with modification on the penalty. Hence, this
present appeal wherein accused contends that the behavior of AAA after the
alleged rape by sexual assault belies her claim on the charges against, and
that he cannot be convicted of rape because AAA’s testimony shows that his
private part touched AAA’s vagina slightly only.
ISSUES:
- Whether or not
Aycardo is guilty of the crime of acts of lasciviousness.
- Whether or not
Acyardo is guilty of statutory rape.
- Whether or not
the behavior of AAA after the alleged crime belies her claim on the
charges against Aycardo.
- Whether or not AAA’s testimony
on the slight penetration to her vagina belies her claim of rape.
RULING:
- Yes, Aycardo is
guilty for acts of lasciviousness. Both the RTC and the CA ruled correctly
that Aycardo cannot be convicted of the charge of rape by sexual assault,
as he was unable to insert his finger inside AAA’s vagina, but he can
still be convicted of acts of lasciviousness because its elements are
necessarily included in the offense charged, and were proved in court. Their
rulings are consistent with Section 4, in relation to Section 5, of Rule
120 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure which provide for the “variance
doctrine.”
Applying
the variance doctrine to this case, Aycardo, who was charged with one (1) count
of rape by sexual assault, can still be convicted of acts of lasciviousness
under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610 even though he was unable to
insert his finger into the victim’s vagina, because the prosecution has proved
that he intentionally touched the same-an act which is deemed a lascivious
conduct.
Acts
of lasciviousness committed against a child is defined and penalized under
Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610. Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A.
No. 7610 punishes sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct not only with a
child exploited in prostitution, but also with a child subjected to other
sexual abuses. However, before an accused can be convicted of child abuse
through lascivious conduct committed against a minor below 12 years of age, the
requisites for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC must be met
in addition to the requisites for sexual abuse under Section 5 of R.A. No.
7610.27 Acts of Lasciviousness, as defined in Article 336 of the RPC, has the
following elements:
(1) That the offender commits any act of
lasciviousness or lewdness;
(2)
That it is done under any of the following circumstances:
a. By using force or intimidation; or
b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious; or
c. When the offended party is under 12 years of age; and
(3)
That the offended party is another person of either sex.
On
the other hand, the following elements of sexual abuse under Section 5, Article
III of R.A. No.7610 must be established:
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.
As
correctly found by the CA, all the elements of acts of lasciviousness under
Article 336 of the RPC, as amended, in relation to Section 5(b), Article III of
R.A. No. 7610, are present in Criminal Case No. 08-0272 because the evidence of
the prosecution showed that Aycardo, an adult, took advantage of his influence
as the uncle and a relative by affinity within the 3rd civil degree of AAA, and
was able to touch her vagina, while he forcibly removed her shorts and panties.
- Yes, Aycardo is
guilty of Statutory Rape. Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No.
8353, defines statutory rape, and Article 266-B thereof imposes the death
penalty if, among others, the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age
and the offender is a relative by affinity within the third (3rd) civil
degree, to wit:
Article
266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. - Rape is committed-
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman
...
x x x
d)
When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even
though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present;
x x x
Article
266-B. Penalties. - Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall
be punished by reclusion perpetua.
x x x
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 victim;
x x x
Two
elements must be established to hold the accused guilty of statutory rape,
namely: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that the
woman is below twelve years of age or demented. Proof of force, intimidation
and consent is unnecessary, since none of these is an element of statutory rape
as the only subject of inquiry is the age of the woman and whether carnal
knowledge took place. Here, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt
the said two elements, as well as the victim’s relationship with the offender.
First, the prosecution has presented in evidence the birth certificate of AAA
showing that she was only 11 years old during the commission of the crime.
Second, the prosecution has established through the “positive, straightforward
and credible” testimony of AAA that Aycardo, her uncle-a relative by affinity
within the 3rd civil degree-had carnal knowledge of her.
- No, AAA’s
indifferent behavior shortly after her sexual abuse in the hands of
Aycardo does not belie her claim against the latter. Her belated disclosure
of the sexual abuse or her act of returning to accused-appellant’s house
does not weaken her testimony and render the same unworthy of credence. It
has been held that delay in the reporting of sexual abuse does not imply
that the charge was not true, as the victim may prefer to bear the
ignominy of pain in silence rather than reveal her harrowing experience
and expose her shame to the world. Such delay is not unusual, especially
when the victim is a minor.
If
AAA eventually chose to return to accused-appellant’s house despite the first
incident, it was not because she welcomed his overtures but more in deference
to accused-appellant’s moral ascendancy as her uncle. In her direct testimony,
she said that despite the first incident, AAA still returned to
accused-appellant’s house in obedience to his order for AAA to prepare dinner
since according to accused-appellant, her Tiya Tess, accused-appellant’s wife,
was coming home that evening. AAA did not have much of a choice but to return
to accused-appellant’s house since she was, at that time, dependent on
accused-appellant in whose house she resided.
- No, there is no merit in Aycardo’s claim that the absence of laceration on AAA’s vagina belies the rape charge against him. As held in People v. Pangilinan “[p]roof of hymenal laceration is not an element of rape. An intact hymen does not negate a finding that the victim was raped. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without laceration of the hymen, is enough to constitute rape, and even the briefest of contact is deemed rape.” Likewise, in People of the Philippines v. Padit, the Court ruled that the slightest penetration of the female genitalia consummates the rape. In this case, Dr. Belgira’s finding of “a clear sign of blunt vaginal penetrating trauma,” bolstered AAA’s credible testimony that Aycardo raped her.
Comments
Post a Comment