Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE , premises considered, accused XXX is hereby declared: 1. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Statutory Rape. . .
WHEREFORE , premises considered, accused XXX is hereby declared: 1. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Statutory Rape. . . in Criminal Case No. 17-0678. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua . He is further ordered to pay the victim. . . civil indemnity, moral damages[,] and exemplary damages each in the amount of [PHP] 75,000.00. . . subject to interest at the rate of [6% per annum] from the date of finality of this Judgment until fully paid. 2. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the [Revised Penal Code] in relation to Section 5(b) of [Republic Act] No. 7610 in Criminal Case No. 17-0904. He is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of 12 years and [one] day [of reclusion temporal ], as minimum[,] to 15 years, [six] months and 20 days of [ reclusion temporal ], as maximum. He is further ordered to pay the victim. . . civil indemnity, moral damages],] and exemplary damages each in the amount of [PHP] 50,000.00. . . subject to interest at the rate of [6% per annum] from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid. SO ORDERED . [9] (Emphasis in the original) Aggrieved, XXX appealed before the CA and filed his Brief, [10] arguing that the trial court erred in convicting him of acts of lasciviousness in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 despite the defective Information, the incredible and inconsistent testimony of AAA, and failure of the prosecution to prove all the elements of statutory rape and acts of lasciviousness. [11] He avers that pursuant to People v. Ladrillo , [12] failure of the prosecution to allege with particularity the date of the commission of the offense deprives the accused of the right to intelligently prepare for his defense. [13] He claims that AAA cannot be considered a competent child witness having testified when she was only 11 and 12 years old. Further, her memory failed her when asked regarding the incidents and she also did not resist, shout, or even cry for help. [14] The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), likewise filed their Brief, [15] contending that in rape cases, the material fact or circumstance that has to be alleged in the Information is the occurrence of the rape, not the date or time of its commission since it is not an essential ingredient thereof. Thus, the allegation "in or about the year 2015" does not affect the outcome of the case and is sufficient to apprise XXX of the rape charges because the essential elements of rape were sufficiently alleged in the Information. More importantly, the trial court rightfully gave more credence to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, particularly AAA, who positively identified XXX as the perpetrator of the rape and consistently narrated the incidents in all their material points. [16] The CA subsequently denied the appeal and affirmed the Joint Judgment of the RTC. [17] Hence, this appeal. In his Manifestation, [18] accused-appellant adopted hi