Criminal Law•Law School Notes•Uncategorized

People vs. Tulagan

June 9, 2023 by Vala No Comments

G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019

FACTS:

In September 2011, Tulagan, by means of force, intimidation and with abuse of superior strength forcibly laid complainant AAA, a 9-year-old minor in a cemented pavement and inserted his finger into the vagina of the said AAA, against her will and consent. In a separate incident (October 2011), AAA testified that she was raped by Tulagan while playing with her cousin.

The Regional Trial Court of San Carlos City found accused Tulagan guilty of sexual assault and statutory rape as defined and penalized under Article 266-A, paragraphs 2 and 1(d) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), respectively, in relation to Article 266-B.

Tulagan argued that the Court erred in –

giving weight and credence to the inconsistent testimony of AAA, and in
sustaining his conviction despite the prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. To support his appeal, he argued that the testimony of AAA was fraught with inconsistencies and lapses which affected her credibility.

ISSUE/S:

Booking.com

1. Whether the appellate court erred in giving weight and credence to the inconsistent testimony of AAA, and in sustaining his conviction despite the prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Whether the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged against him

HELD:

1. NO. Factual findings of the trial court carry great weight and respect due to the unique opportunity afforded them to observe the witnesses when placed on the stand. Consequently, appellate courts will not overturn the factual findings of the trial court in the absence of facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would affect the result of the case. Trial courts are in the best position to ascertain and measure the sincerity and spontaneity of witnesses through their actual observation of the witnesses’ manner of testifying, their demeanor and behavior in court. Trial judges enjoy the advantage of observing the witness’ deportment and manner of testifying, her “furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath” – all of which are useful aids for an accurate determination of a witness’ honesty and sincerity. Trial judges, therefore, can better determine if such witnesses are telling the truth, being in the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies.

Jurisprudence tells us that a witness’ testimony containing inconsistencies or discrepancies does not, by such fact alone, diminish the credibility of such testimony. In fact, the variance in minor details has the net effect of bolstering instead of diminishing the witness’ credibility because they discount the possibility of a rehearsed testimony. Instead, what remains paramount is the witness’ consistency in relating the principal elements of the crime and the positive and categorical identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the same. The fact that some of the details testified to by AAA did not appear in her Sinumpaang Salaysay does not mean that the sexual assault did not happen. AAA was still able to narrate all the details of the sexual assault she suffered in Tulagan’s hands. AAA’s account of her ordeal being straightforward and candid and corroborated by the medical findings of the examining physician, as well as her positive identification of Tulagan as the perpetrator of the crime, are, thus, sufficient to support a conviction of rape.

2. Yes, however, a modification of the nomenclature of the crime, the penalty imposed, and the damages awarded in Criminal Case No. SCC-6210 for sexual assault, and a reduction of the damages awarded in Criminal Case No. SCC-6211 for statutory rape, are in order.

(a) Tulagan was aptly prosecuted for sexual assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC in Criminal Case. No. SCC-6210 because it was alleged and proven that AAA was nine (9) years old at the time he inserted his finger into her vagina. Instead of applying the penalty under Article 266-B of the RPC, which is prision mayor, the proper penalty should be that provided in Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, which is reclusion temporal in its medium period. This is because AAA was below twelve (12) years of age at the time of the commission of the offense, and that the act of inserting his finger in AAA’s private part undeniably amounted to “lascivious conduct.” Hence, the proper nomenclature of the offense should be Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC, in relation to Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610.

(b) In Criminal Case No. SCC-6211 for statutory rape, Tulagan should suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in accordance with paragraph 1(d), Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 8353.

Discussion:

History

Prior to the effectivity of R.A. No. 8353 or The Anti-Rape Law of 1997, sexual assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC, were punished as acts of lasciviousness under Article No. 33615 of the RPC.

When R.A. No. 7610 or The Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act took effect on June 17, 1992, the term “lascivious conduct” was given a specific definition. It states that “lascivious conduct” means the intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person.

Upon the effectivity of R.A. No. 8353, specific forms of acts of lasciviousness were no longer punished under Article 336 of the RPC, but were transferred as a separate crime of “sexual assault” under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC. Committed by “inserting penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person” against the victim’s will, “sexual assault” has also been called “gender-free rape” or “object rape.” However, the term “rape by sexual assault” is a misnomer, as it goes against the traditional concept of rape, which is carnal knowledge of a woman without her consent or against her will. Concededly, R.A. No. 8353 defined specific acts constituting acts of lasciviousness as a distinct crime of “sexual assault,” and increased the penalty thereof from prision correccional to prision mayor. The Congress merely upgraded the same from a “crime against chastity” (a private crime) to a “crime against persons” (a public crime) as a matter of policy and public interest in order to allow prosecution of such cases even without the complaint of the offended party, and to prevent extinguishment of criminal liability in such cases through express pardon by the offended party.

Booking.com

Reconciliation of the provisions on Acts of Lasciviousness, Rape and Sexual Assault under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8353 vis-a-vis Sexual Intercourse and Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610.

Age of Victim:	Under 16 years old or demented (As amended by RA 11648)	16 years old or below 18, or 18 under special circumstances	18 years old and above
Crime Committed
Acts of Lasciviousness committed against children exploited in prostitution or other sexual abuse	Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610: reclusion temporal in its medium period	Lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610: reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua	Not applicable
Sexual Assault committed against children exploited in prostitution or other sexual abuse	Sexual Assault under Article 266-A(2) of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610: reclusion temporal in its medium period	Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610: reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua	Not applicable
Sexual Intercourse committed against children exploited in prostitution or other sexual abuse	Rape under Article 266-A(1) of the RPC: reclusion perpetua, except when the victim is below 7 years old in which case death penalty shall be imposed	Sexual Abuse under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610: reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua	Not applicable
Rape by carnal knowledge	Rape under Article 266-A(1) in relation to Art. 266-B of the RPC: reclusion perpetua, except when the victim is below 7 years old in which case death penalty shall be imposed	Rape under Article 266-A(1) in relation to Art. 266-B of the RPC: reclusion perpetua	Rape under Article 266-A(1) of the RPC: reclusion perpetua
Rape by Sexual Assault	Sexual Assault under Article 266-A(2) of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610: reclusion temporal in its medium period	Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610: reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua	Sexual Assault under Article 266-A(2) of the RPC: prision mayor

Guidelines in designating or charging the proper offense in case lascivious conduct is committed:

The age of the victim is taken into consideration in designating or charging the offense, and in determining the imposable penalty. A child is presumed by law to be incapable of giving rational consent to any lascivious conduct or sexual intercourse.
Consent is immaterial in cases under R.A. No. 7610 where the offended party is below 16 years of age. Sexual intercourse with a victim who is under 16 years of age or is demented is always statutory rape, as Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 expressly states that the perpetrator will be prosecuted under paragraph 1(d), Article 266-A of the RPC as amended by R.A. No. 8353.
In instances where the lascivious conduct committed against a child victim is covered by the definition under R.A. No. 7610, and the act is likewise covered by sexual assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC, the offender should be held liable for violation of Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610.
If sexual intercourse is committed with a child under 16 years of age, who is deemed to be “exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse,” then those who engage in or promote, facilitate or induce child prostitution under Section 5(a) of R.A. No. 7610 shall be liable as principal by force or inducement under Article 17 of the RPC in the crime of statutory rape under Article 266-A(1) of the RPC; whereas those who derive profit or advantage therefrom under Section 5(c) of R.A. No. 7610 shall be liable as principal by indispensable cooperation under Article 17 of the RPC.
Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 penalizes not only child prostitution, the essence of which is profit, but also other forms of sexual abuse of children. Article III of R.A. 7610 is captioned as “Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse” because Congress really intended to cover a situation where the minor may have been coerced or intimidated into lascivious conduct, not necessarily for money or profit, hence, the law covers not only child prostitution but also other forms of sexual abuse.

Case Digest criminal law Law School

Comments are closed.

People vs. Tulagan

FACTS:

ISSUE/S:

HELD:

Discussion:

Related Posts

Recent Posts

International Broadcasting Corporation, Inc. vs. Amarilla

BIR vs. First E-Bank Tower Condominium Corp.,

Manila Mandarin Hotels, Inc. vs. CIR

Categories

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Popular Posts

International Broadcasting Corporation, Inc. vs. Amarilla

M Boutique by The Manila Hotel at 50% off

NAIA Terminal 3 Alternate Parking

Checking Your GrabTaxi Total Expense

Tags

Search