People vs. Soria, 685 SCRA 483, G.R. No. 179031, November 14

2/2/2020 G.R. No. 179031 | People v.
Soria y Gomez
Tools
JURISPRUDENCE
  (https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/57997?s_params=B9JcpsJALvxok_L4-zf8) 2

(/jurisprudences/search?
Cross Reference Cited In

citation_finder=&full_text=&issue_no=179031&ponente=&syllabus=&title=&utf8=%E2%9C%93&year_end=&year_st
Decision Separate Opinions
698 PHIL 676-706

SECOND DIVISION
 [G.R. No. 179031. November 14, 2012.]
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-

appellee, vs. BENJAMIN SORIA y
Search Matches
GOMEZ, accused-appellant.
 
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J : p
This case involves a father's detestable act of

abusing his daughter through rape by sexual assault.
Factual Antecedents
Accused-appellant Benjamin Soria y Gomez
(appellant) seeks a review of the December 29, 2006
Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-
H.C. No. 01442 which affirmed with modification the
June 30, 2005 Judgment 2 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 94, in Criminal Case No.
Q-01-98692. Said RTC Judgment found appellant guilty
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/56371?s_params=B9JcpsJALvxok_L4-zf8 1/28
2/2/2020 G.R. No. 179031 | People v. Soria y Gomez
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape

committed against his daughter "AAA", 3 as described
in an Information, 4 the relevant portion of which reads:
That on or about the 26th day of
Tools February, 2000, in Quezon City, Philippines,
the said accused, who is the father of private
complainant "AAA", did then and there
 willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously with force
and intimidation commit an act of sexual
assault upon the person of one "AAA", a

minor, 7 years of age[,] by then and there
inserting his penis into [the] genital of said

complainant, all against her will and consent,
which act debases, degrades, or demeans
the intrinsic worth and dignity of said "AAA",
 as a human being, in violation of said law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5

DTEAHI
Appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.

Pre-trial and trial thereafter ensued.

Version of the Prosecution
On February 26, 2000, "AAA" and her siblings
 enjoyed the spaghetti their father (appellant) brought
Search Matches home for merienda. After eating, "AAA" went to the
  bedroom to rest. Thereafter, appellant also entered the
room and positioned himself on top of "AAA", took off
her clothes and inserted his penis into her vagina.
"AAA" felt intense pain from her breast down to her
vagina and thus told her father that it was painful. At
that point, appellant apologized to his daughter, stood
up, and left the room. This whole incident was
witnessed by "AAA's" brother, "BBB".
The pain persisted until "AAA's" vagina started to
bleed. She thus told her aunt about it and they
proceeded to a hospital for treatment. Her mother was
also immediately informed of her ordeal. Subsequently,
"AAA" was taken into the custody of the Department of
Social Welfare and Development.
On March 15, 2000, Medico-Legal Officer
Francisco A. Supe, Jr., M.D. (Dr. Supe) examined
"AAA", which examination yielded the following results:
GENERAL AND EXTRA-GENITAL:

Fairly developed, fairly nourished and
coherent female child. Breasts are
undeveloped. Abdomen is flat and soft.
Tools GENITAL: There is absent growth of

pubic hair. Labia majora are full, convex, and
coaptated with light brown labia minora
 presenting in between. On separating the
same, disclosed an elastic, fleshy type,
hyperemic and intact hymen. Posterior

fourchette is sharp.
CONCLUSION: The subject is in virgin

state physically. There are no external signs
of application of any form of physical trauma.
6

Version of the Defense
 Appellant admitted that he was at home on the

day and time of "AAA's" alleged rape but denied
committing the same. Instead, he claimed that the filing
 of the rape case against him was instigated by his wife,
whom he confronted about her illicit affair with a man
 residing in their community. According to appellant, he
could not have molested "AAA" because he treated her
Search Matches well. In fact, he was the only one sending his children to
  school since his wife already neglected them and
seldom comes home. cTECIA
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

On June 30, 2005, the trial court rendered its
Judgment 7 finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of rape against "AAA", his daughter
of minor age, as charged in the Information. It ruled that
the lack of tenacious resistance on the part of "AAA" is
immaterial considering that appellant's moral
ascendancy and influence over her substitute for
violence and intimidation. 8 It also held that his wife
could not have instigated the filing of the rape case
since as the mother of "AAA", it would not be natural for
her to use her child as a tool to exact revenge
especially if it will result in her embarrassment and
stigma. 9 The trial court gave credence to the testimony
of "AAA" and her positive identification of appellant as
her rapist, and rejected the latter's defense of denial.

The dispositive portion of the Judgment reads as
follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered,
Tools judgment is hereby rendered finding the
herein accused, BENJAMIN SORIA Y
GOMEZ — GUILTY beyond reasonable
 doubt of the crime as charged and sentences
him to suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH
and to indemnify the offended party the

amount of P75,000.00[,] to pay moral
damages in the amount of P50,000.00[,] and
 the amount of P25,000.00 as exemplary
damages to deter other fathers with perverse
proclivities for aberrant sexual behavior for
 sexually abusing their own daughters.
SO ORDERED. 10
 Ruling of the Court of Appeals
In its Decision 11 dated December 29, 2006, the
 CA found partial merit in the appeal. While the appellate
court was convinced that appellant raped "AAA", it
 nevertheless noted the prosecution's failure to present
her birth certificate as competent proof of her minority.
Search Matches
Thus, the CA concluded that the crime committed by
  appellant against his daughter was only simple rape
and accordingly modified the penalty imposed by the
trial court from death to reclusion perpetua and reduced
the civil indemnity awarded from P75,000.00 to
P50,000.00. The dispositive portion of the appellate
court's Decision reads as follows: CADSHI
WHEREFORE, premises considered,

[the] appeal is hereby GRANTED and the
June 30, 2005 Decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City, Branch 94, in Criminal
Case No. Q-01-98692, is hereby MODIFIED,
in that, the penalty imposed is reduced to
reclusion perpetua instead of death and the
civil indemnity to be paid by the offender to
the victim is hereby reduced to the amount of
P50,000.00 instead of P75,000.00 pursuant
to prevailing jurisprudence as explained in
this decision.
Pursuant to Section 13(c), Rule 124 of

the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure
(/laws/837) as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-
03-SC (/laws/837) dated September 28,
2004, which became effective on October 15,
Tools
2004, this judgment of the Court of Appeals
may be appealed to the Supreme Court by
notice of appeal filed with the Clerk of Court
 of the Court of Appeals.
SO ORDERED. 12

Still insisting on his innocence, appellant comes
to this Court through this appeal.

Assignment of Errors
Appellant adopts the same assignment of errors
 he raised before the appellate court, viz.:
I. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY
 ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED
GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF RAPE
 DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE
PROSECUTION TO OVERTHROW
THE CONSTITUTIONAL
 PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE . . .
.
Search Matches
 
II. ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE
ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF THE
CRIME CHARGED, THE TRIAL
COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
IMPOSING THE DEATH PENALTY
UPON HIM. 13
Appellant asserts that he should be acquitted of

the crime of rape since there is no evidence that would
establish the fact of sexual intercourse. Aside from the
prosecution's failure to prove penile contact, "AAA's"
testimony was also wanting in details as to how he took
off her underwear or whether she saw his penis during
the incident despite leading questions propounded on
the matter by the prosecution. The medical report even
revealed that "AAA's" hymen remained intact and that
there were no notable lacerations or external physical
injuries thereon. Appellant therefore surmises that his
wife merely instigated "AAA" to file this baseless rape

case against him in retaliation for his act of confronting
her about her illicit relationship with a neighbor.
Our Ruling
Tools
The appeal lacks merit.
The crime of rape under Article 266-A of
 the Revised Penal Code (/laws/1268) (RPC
(/laws/1268)).

(/jurisprudences/search? Republic Act No. 8353 (/laws/10812), otherwise
known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (/laws/10812),
classified the crime of rape as a crime against persons.

It also amended Article 335 of the RPC (/laws/1268)
and incorporated therein Article 266-A which reads:
 Article 266-A. Rape, When and
How Committed. — Rape is committed —
 1) By a man who shall have

carnal knowledge of a woman under any of
the following circumstances:

a) Through force, threat or
intimidation;
 b) When the offended party is
Search Matches deprived of reason or is
 
otherwise unconscious, EATcHD
c) By means of fraudulent
machination or grave abuse of
authority;
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;
2) By any person who, under any
of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph
1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual
assault by inserting his penis into another
person's mouth or anal orifice, or any
instrument or object, into the genital or anal
orifice of another person.
Thus, rape can now be committed either through

sexual intercourse or by sexual assault. Rape under
paragraph 1 of the above-cited article is referred to as
rape through sexual intercourse. Carnal knowledge is
the central element and it must be proven beyond
Tools
reasonable doubt. 14 It is commonly denominated as
"organ rape" or "penile rape" 15 and must be attended
 by any of the circumstances enumerated in
subparagraphs (a) to (d) of paragraph 1.

(/jurisprudences/search? On the other hand, rape under paragraph 2 of
Article 266-A is commonly known as rape by sexual
assault. The perpetrator, under any of the attendant

circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1, commits this
kind of rape by inserting his penis into another person's
 mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object into
the genital or anal orifice of another person. It is also
called "instrument or object rape", also "gender-free
 rape". 16
The Information did not specify whether
 the crime of rape was committed through
sexual intercourse or by sexual assault.
 The Information in this case did not specify with
certainty whether appellant committed the rape through
Search Matches
sexual intercourse under paragraph 1 of Article 266-A,
 
or rape by sexual assault as described in paragraph 2
thereof. The Information stated that appellant inserted
his penis into the genital of "AAA," which constituted
rape by sexual intercourse under the first paragraph of
Article 266-A. At the same time, the Information alleged
that appellant used force and intimidation to commit an
act of sexual assault. While these allegations cause
ambiguity, they only pertain to the mode or manner of
how the rape was committed and the same do not
invalidate the Information or result in the automatic
dismissal of the case. "[W]here an offense may be
committed in any of the different modes and the offense
is alleged to have been committed in two or more
modes specified, the indictment is sufficient,
notwithstanding the fact that the different means of
committing the same offense are prohibited by separate
sections of the statute. The allegation in the information
of the various ways of committing the offense should be
regarded as a description of only one offense and the
information is not thereby rendered defective on the

ground of multifariousness." 17 Any objection from the
appellant with respect to the Information is held to have
been waived failing any effort to oppose the same
Tools before trial. 18 He therefore can be convicted of rape
through sexual intercourse or rape by sexual assault,
depending on the evidence adduced during trial. ITAaHc
 The findings of the RTC and the CA on

the credibility of "AAA" deserve respect

(/jurisprudences/search? and great weight.
Both the trial court and the CA held that "AAA"
 was a credible witness. They ruled that her testimony
deserved credence and is sufficient evidence that she
was raped by appellant. We find no cogent reason to
 overturn these findings.
It would be highly inconceivable for "AAA" to
 impute to her own father the crime of raping her unless
the imputation is true. 19 In fact, it takes "a certain
 amount of psychological depravity for a young woman
to concoct a story which would put her own father [in]
jail for the rest of his remaining life and drag the rest of
 the family including herself to a lifetime of shame" 20
Search Matches
unless the imputation is true.
  When a rape victim's testimony on the manner
she was defiled is "straightforward and candid, and is
corroborated by the medical findings of the examining
physician [as in this case], the same is sufficient to
support a conviction for rape." 21
Appellant is guilty of rape by sexual
assault and not through sexual
intercourse.
The trial court's conviction of the appellant was
for rape through sexual intercourse under paragraph 1
(a) of Article 266-A. The CA sustained the trial court's
finding that appellant had sexual intercourse with "AAA"
against her will.
In determining whether appellant is indeed guilty
of rape through sexual intercourse under paragraph 1 of
Article 266-A, it is essential to establish beyond
reasonable doubt that he had carnal knowledge of
"AAA". There must be proof that his penis touched the
labia of "AAA" or slid into her female organ, and not

merely stroked the external surface thereof, to ensure
his conviction of rape by sexual intercourse. 22 TADaES
We reviewed the testimony of "AAA" and found

Tools nothing therein that would show that she was raped
through sexual intercourse. While "AAA" categorically
stated that she felt something inserted into her vagina,
 her testimony was sorely lacking in important details
that would convince us with certainty that it was indeed

(/jurisprudences/search? the penis of appellant that was placed into her vagina.
When "AAA" was placed on the witness stand,

 she narrated that:
Q - The earlier statement which you

 made when you said that you wanted
to explain something about your
father, is that true?
 A- Yes, sir.
Q - So, you said that you wanted to
 explain something about your father,
what was that?
 A- What he did, sir.
Search Matches Q- What [was] that?

  A- I was raped, sir.
Q - What did he do when you said he
raped you?
A- He laid on top of me, sir. 23

xxx xxx xxx
Q - So when you said he laid on top of
you, did you feel anything? Did you
feel any pain in any part of your body?
A- Yes, sir.
Q- In what part of your body did you feel
pain?
A - I felt pain in my breast and my
stomach.
Q- What about your private part? DTAaCE
A- Yes, sir.
Q- Did you know why your stomach as

well as your body and your private
part hurt or become painful?
A- I don't know, sir.
Tools Q - Did you feel something inserted
[into] your private part?
 A- Yes, sir.
Q- What is that, if you know?

(/jurisprudences/search? A- The bird of my papa.
Q- Why did you know that?

A - Because my brother, "BBB", told
me.
 Q - Why? Was "BBB", your brother,
present when your father was on top
of you?
 SDIaHE
A- Yes, sir.
 Q- Why do you know that he was there?

A- He told me so, sir.
 Q- Who?
Search Matches A- "BBB".
 
Q - Okay, when you felt pain as
something was inserted [into] your
private part, what did you say to your
father?
A- He left the room.
Q- Before he went away and left?
A- It was painful, sir.
Q - And what was the answer of your
father?
A- He said sorry, sir.
Q- How long was he or how long were
you in that position, you [were] lying
down and your father was on top of
you?
A- I do not know, sir. 24
xxx xxx xxx

Q- Earlier, you were making reference to
your father whom you said abused
you. I am asking you now to tell us if
Tools your father is around?
A- Yes, sir.
 Q- Will you please point . . . to him?

A - Yes, sir. (Witness pointing to a man

(/jurisprudences/search? who is wearing yellow t-shirt and
maong pants who when asked
identified himself as Benjamin Soria.)

cHaICD
Q - Is he the same person who

 according to you laid on top of you
and inserted something [into] your
vagina or private part?

A- Yes, sir. 25
 It is evident from the testimony of "AAA" that she

was unsure whether it was indeed appellant's penis
which touched her labia and entered her organ since
 she was pinned down by the latter's weight, her father
having positioned himself on top of her while she was
Search Matches
lying on her back. "AAA" stated that she only knew that
 
it was the "bird" of her father which was inserted into
her vagina after being told by her brother "BBB".
Clearly, "AAA" has no personal knowledge that it was
appellant's penis which touched her labia and inserted
into her vagina. Hence, it would be erroneous to
conclude that there was penile contact based solely on
the declaration of "AAA's" brother, "BBB", which
declaration was hearsay due to "BBB's" failure to testify.
Based on the foregoing, it was an error on the part of
the RTC and the CA to conclude that appellant raped
"AAA" through sexual intercourse.
Instead, we find appellant guilty of rape by sexual
assault. It cannot be denied that appellant inserted an
object into "AAA's" female organ. "AAA" categorically
testified that appellant inserted something into her
vagina. She claimed to have suffered tremendous pain
during the insertion. The insertion even caused her
vagina to bleed necessitating her examination at the
hospital. Both the trial court and the CA found "AAA's"

testimony to be credible. We find no compelling reason
not to lend credence to the same.
This defilement constitutes rape under paragraph
Tools 2 of Article 266-A of the RPC (/laws/10812), which
provides that rape by sexual assault is committed "[b]y
any person who, under any of the circumstances
 mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of
sexual assault by inserting . . . any instrument or object,

(/jurisprudences/search? into the genital or anal orifice of another person."
Moreover, Dr. Supe corroborated her testimony

as follows:

Q- Doctor, with respect to Exhibit A, the
Medico-Legal Report pertaining to the
 entry [into] the genital, which reads:
On separating the hymen, disclosed
 [was] an elastic, fleshy type,
hyperemic and intact hymen. Will you
please tell us, Doctor, what is this
 hyperemic hymen?
A- Hyperemic hymen, sir, means that at
 the time of examination, I found out
that it was reddish in color.
Search Matches
Q - Considering the age of the child or
 
the patient, the victim whom you
examined at that time [who] was about
6 years old, will you be able to tell us,
Doctor, what could have caused this
kind of injury, because this is an injury
to the hymen?
A- Hyperemic, sir, is observed whenever
there is friction applied to an area,
such as in the form of scratching.
Q- What about insertion of object, would
this result into hyperemic hymen? ECaAHS
A- If the object is being rubbed, sir, there

is a possibility.
Q - A finger will produce this kind of
injury?
A- Possible, sir. 26
According to Dr. Supe, it is possible that "AAA's"

hyperemic hymen may be the result of the insertion of a
finger or object. While Dr. Supe said that the injury
could also be attributed to scratching, "AAA's" testimony
is bereft of any showing that she scratched her genital
Tools
organ thus causing the reddening. Appellant would also
want to make it appear that the injury of "AAA" was the
 result of friction from playing or riding a bicycle since
the doctor testified that this was also possible. However,
there is likewise no evidence that friction was applied

on "AAA's" female organ when she played hide and
seek with her playmates or that she actually rode a
 bicycle. On the other hand, "AAA" was categorical in
stating that in the afternoon of February 26, 2000,
appellant removed her clothes, laid on top of her, and
 that she felt something being inserted into her vagina
and that thereafter she experienced pain in her genitals.
The foregoing thus proved that appellant inserted an
 object into "AAA's" vagina against her will and without
consent. Simply put, appellant committed the crime of
 rape by sexual assault.
The following are the elements of rape by sexual
 assault:
Search Matches (1) That the offender commits an act of

 
sexual assault;
(2) That the act of sexual assault is
committed by any of the following
means:
(a) By inserting his penis into
another person's mouth or anal
orifice; or
(b) By inserting any instrument or
object into the genital or anal
orifice of another person;
(3) That the act of sexual assault is
accomplished under any of the
following circumstances: SAcCIH
(a) By using force and

intimidation;
(b) When the woman is deprived

of reason or otherwise
unconscious; or
(c) By means of fraudulent
Tools machination or grave abuse of
authority; or
(d) When the woman is under 12
 years of age or demented. 27
In the instant case, it was clearly established that

appellant committed an act of sexual assault on "AAA"
by inserting an instrument or object into her genital. We

find it inconsequential that "AAA" could not specifically
identify the particular instrument or object that was
inserted into her genital. What is important and relevant
 is that indeed something was inserted into her vagina.
To require "AAA" to identify the instrument or object that
 was inserted into her vagina would be contrary to the
fundamental tenets of due process. It would be akin to
requiring "AAA" to establish something that is not even
 required by law. [Moreover, it might create problems
later on in the application of the law if the victim is blind
 or otherwise unconscious.] Moreover, the prosecution
satisfactorily established that appellant accomplished
Search Matches the act of sexual assault through his moral ascendancy
  and influence over "AAA" which substituted for violence
and intimidation. Thus, there is no doubt that appellant
raped "AAA" by sexual assault.
Appellant's contentions are untenable.
The failure of "AAA" to mention that her panty
was removed prior to the rape does not preclude sexual
assault. We cannot likewise give credence to the
assertion of appellant that the crime of rape was
negated by the medical findings of an intact hymen or
absence of lacerations in the vagina of "AAA". Hymenal
rupture, vaginal laceration or genital injury is not
indispensable because the same is not an element of
the crime of rape. 28 "An intact hymen does not negate
a finding that the victim was raped." 29 Here, the finding
of reddish discoloration of the hymen of "AAA" during
her medical examination and the intense pain she felt in
her vagina during and after the sexual assault

sufficiently corroborated her testimony that she was
raped.
Likewise undeserving of credence is appellant's
Tools contention that his wife merely instigated "AAA" to file
the charge of rape against him in retaliation for his
having confronted her about her illicit affair with another
 man. This imputation of ill motive is flimsy considering
that it is unnatural for appellant's wife to stoop so low as

(/jurisprudences/search? to subject her own daughter to the hardships and
shame concomitant with a prosecution for rape, just to
assuage her hurt feelings. 30 It is also improbable for

appellant's wife to have dared encourage their daughter
"AAA" to publicly expose the dishonor of the family
 unless the rape was indeed committed. 31 HECTaA
Penalty
 Under Article 266-B of the RPC (/laws/10812),
the penalty for rape by sexual assault is prision mayor.
However, the penalty is increased to reclusion temporal
 "if the rape is committed by any of the 10
aggravating/qualifying circumstances mentioned in this
 article". The Information alleged the qualifying
circumstances of relationship and minority. It was
Search Matches
alleged that appellant is the father of "AAA". During the
 
pre-trial conference, the parties stipulated that "AAA" is
the daughter of appellant. 32 During trial, appellant
admitted his filial bond with "AAA". 33 "[A]dmission in
open court of relationship has been held to be sufficient
and, hence, conclusive to prove relationship with the
victim." 34
With respect to minority, however, the Information
described "AAA" as a 7-year old daughter of appellant.
While this also became the subject of stipulation during
the pre-trial conference, same is insufficient evidence of
"AAA's" age. Her minority must be "proved conclusively
and indubitably as the crime itself". 35 "[T]here must be
independent evidence proving the age of the victim,
other than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and
the absence of denial by the accused." 36 Documents
such as her original or duly certified birth certificate,
baptismal certificate or school records would suffice as
competent evidence of her age. 37 Here, there was
nothing on record to prove the minority of "AAA" other

than her testimony, appellant's absence of denial, and
their pre-trial stipulation. 38 The prosecution also failed
to establish that the documents referred to above were
Tools
lost, destroyed, unavailable or otherwise totally absent.
39
It is settled that "when either one of the qualifying

 circumstances of relationship and minority is omitted or
lacking, that which is pleaded in the information and

(/jurisprudences/search? proved by the evidence may be considered as an
aggravating circumstance." 40 As such, appellant's
relationship with "AAA" may be considered as an

aggravating circumstance.
In view of these, the imposable penalty is
 reclusion temporal which ranges from twelve (12) years
and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. Applying the
 Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty next lower in
degree is prision mayor which ranges from six (6) years
and one (1) day to twelve (12) years. Hence, a penalty
 of twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to
twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, is
 imposed upon appellant. cSHIaA
Search Matches
Damages
  In line with prevailing jurisprudence, the awards
of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral
damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages are
each modified to P30,000.00. 41 "AAA" is also entitled to
an interest on all the amounts of damages awarded at
the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality
of this judgment until fully paid. 42
WHEREFORE, the December 29, 2006 Decision
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01442
is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Accused-
appellant Benjamin Soria y Gomez is found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape by sexual
assault and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of twelve
(12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to twenty (20)
years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. He is also
ordered to pay "AAA" the amounts of P30,000.00 as
civil indemnity, P30,000.00 as moral damages, and
P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. "AAA" is entitled to
an interest on all damages awarded at the legal rate of

6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment
until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Tools
Carpio, Perez and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
Brion, J., I dissent.

Separate Opinions

BRION, J., dissenting:


I DISSENT as I believe that the prosecution has
not proven beyond reasonable doubt that appellant
 Benjamin Soria is guilty of rape through sexual assault
under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal
Code (/laws/10812), as amended.

As my discussions below will show, the appellant
should be acquitted of this crime on grounds of
 reasonable doubt, and should instead be convicted of
the lesser crime and included crime of acts of
 lasciviousness — the crime that, under the available
evidence, has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Search Matches
The Antecedents:
 
The evidence for the prosecution showed that in
the afternoon of February 26, 2000, AAA 1 and her
siblings ate the spaghetti that their father (the appellant)
brought home for merienda. The records also show that
after AAA finished eating, the appellant went on top of
her and removed her clothes. 2 AAA felt pain in her
breasts and in her stomach; she also felt that
"something" had been inserted into her private part.
When AAA told the appellant that she felt pain in her
private part, the latter apologized to her and then left
the room. The incident was allegedly witnessed by
BBB, who told AAA that it was the appellant's "bird" that
had been inserted into her vagina. AAA reported the
incident to her aunt, CCC, who told her that the
appellant was a bad person. CCC accompanied AAA to
the hospital when AAA's vagina started to bleed. AAA
also informed her mother what the appellant did to her.
Thereafter, AAA was committed to the care and custody

of the Department of Social Welfare and Development.
ICHcaD
The prosecution charged the appellant with the

Tools crime of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal
Code (/laws/1268), as amended, in relation to Republic
Act No. 7610 (/laws/9178), before the Regional Trial
 Court (RTC), Branch 94, Quezon City. In its judgment 3
of June 30, 2005, the RTC found the appellant guilty

(/jurisprudences/search? beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape by
sexual intercourse, 4 and it imposed the death penalty.
It also ordered him to pay the victim the amounts of

P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral
damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
 On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed
the RTC judgment with the following modifications: (1)
 the appellant was found guilty of simple rape only; (2)
the death penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua;
and (3) the amount of civil indemnity was reduced to
 P50,000.00. 5
The ponencia affirmed the CA decision with the
 following modifications: (1) the appellant is found guilty
of rape through sexual assault under Article 266-A,
Search Matches
paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code (/laws/10812),
 
as amended; (2) he is sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years of prision
mayor, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion
temporal, as maximum; and (3) on his liability for
damages — (a) the amount of civil indemnity is reduced
from P50,000.00 to P30,000.00; (b) the amount of
moral damages is reduced from P50,000.00 to
P30,000.00; (c) the amount of exemplary damages is
increased from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00; and (d) the
appellant is ordered to further pay the victim interest on
all damages awarded at the legal rate of 6% per annum
from the date of finality of the judgment until fully paid.
The Dissent:
I clarify at the outset that I agree with the
ponencia's conclusion that the appellant cannot be
convicted of rape by sexual intercourse under Article
266-A, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code
(/laws/10812), as amended. The prosecution failed to

establish beyond reasonable doubt the element of
carnal knowledge.
My opposition stems from the ponencia's finding
Tools that the appellant should be convicted of rape through
sexual assault under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of the
Revised Penal Code (/laws/10812), as amended.

Under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of the Revised
Penal Code (/laws/10812), as amended, rape through

sexual assault is committed "[b]y any person who,
under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph
1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by

inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal
orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or
 anal orifice of another person." 6 DAETcC
In the present case, there is no admissible

 evidence to show that the appellant inserted his
penis into AAA's mouth or anal orifice, or any
instrument or object into the victim's genital or anal
 orifice. In her testimony, AAA merely "felt" that
something had been inserted in her private part, as a
 result of which, she felt pain. To be sure, had there
been any testimony that it was the appellant's "bird"
Search Matches
that had been inserted into her vagina, the appellant's
 
conviction for rape by sexual intercourse under Article
266-A, paragraph 1 should have followed. No such
testimony, however, was ever given; AAA merely
admitted that her brother BBB told her it was the
appellant's bird that had been inserted. This
testimony, of course, is clearly hearsay; BBB was never
presented in court to testify.
On the basis of this evidence, the ponencia holds
that while it had not been clearly established that it was
the appellant's penis that had been inserted into AAA's
vagina, it cannot be denied that the appellant "inserted
an object" into the victim's female organ. The ponencia
based its conclusion on the following circumstances: (a)
AAA "experienced pain when the appellant inserted
something in her vagina"; 7 and (b) Dr. Francisco Supe,
Jr. testified that the victim's hyperemic hymen could
have been caused by an object being "rubbed" on her
private part.
I find the ponencia's reasoning and

conclusion seriously flawed.
First, it is a dangerous proposition to equate
AAA's testimony of pain in her private part with rape; it
Tools is the insertion of an instrument or object into the
victim's genital or anal orifice, not pain, that constitutes
rape through sexual assault. Thus, the victim's
 testimony should, at the very least, have mentioned that
the appellant inserted an object or instrument in her

(/jurisprudences/search? vagina or anal orifice or she should have testified on
circumstances that would lead us to reasonably
conclude that the appellant inserted an instrument or

object into her genital or anal orifice. As earlier stated,
AAA merely felt pain; it was BBB who told her that it
was the appellant's "bird" that had been inserted into
 her vagina. At most, AAA merely "assumed" that
something had been inserted into her vagina. This is
 what the totality of her testimony implied. ITDHcA
Significantly, the records bear out that the

 appellant removed only AAA's clothes, and not her
underwear, during the incident. To directly quote from
the records:

FISCAL BEN DELA CRUZ:
Search Matches
 
Q: So you said you wanted to explain
something about your father, what was
that?
AAA:
A: What he did, sir.
Q: What is that?
A: I was raped, sir.
Q: What did he do when you said he
raped you?
A: He laid on top of me, sir.
Q: Did you have your dress on when
he did that?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What about your underwear? Did
you have your underwear on?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: He did not remove any of your
clothes?
A: Only my clothes, sir. 8 (emphasis

Tools
ours) ScAaHE
This circumstance makes the insertion of an

 object or instrument into the victim's genital highly
improbable. Considering that AAA also testified that
(/jurisprudences/search? she felt pain in her breasts and stomach when the
 appellant went on top of her, it is not far-fetched that the
pain she felt in her private part could have been caused

by the appellant's weight being pressed against her
whole body, and it was not due to the insertion of an
object into her vagina.

Second, Dr. Supe's Medico-Legal Report and
court testimony did not support the ponencia's
 conclusion that the appellant inserted an object or
even his penis into AAA's vagina. Dr. Supe testified
 that he conducted a medical examination on AAA on
March 3, 2000, and made the following findings:
 GENERAL AND EXTRA-GENITAL: Fairly

developed, fairly nourished and coherent
Search Matches female child. Breasts are undeveloped.
  Abdomen is flat and soft.
GENITAL: There is absent growth of pubic
hair. Labia majora are full, convex, and
coaptated with light brown labia minora
presenting in between. On separating the
same, disclosed an elastic, fleshy type,
hyperemic and intact hymen. Posterior
fourchette is sharp.
CONCLUSION: The subject is in virgin
state physically. There are no external
signs of application of any form of
physical trauma. 9 (emphasis ours)
According to Dr. Supe, a hyperemic hymen is the
result of the application of friction, such as scratching,
on the hymen. Dr. Supe further stated that the insertion
of an object could result to a hyperemic hymen if this
object was "rubbed." For clarity and precision, I quote
the relevant portions of Dr. Supe's testimony:
ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR BEN

DELA CRUZ:
Q: Doctor, with respect to Exhibit A, the
Medico-Legal Report pertaining to the
Tools entry on the genital, which reads: On
separating the hymen, disclosed an
elastic, fleshy-type, hyperemic and
 intact hymen. Will you please tell us,
Doctor, what is this hyperemic hymen?

DaECST
DR. FRANCISCO SUPE, JR.:
A: Hyperemic hymen, sir, means that at

the time of the examination, I found
out that it was reddish in color.
 Q: Considering that the age of the child
or the patient, the victim whom you
 examined at that time which was
about 6 years old, will you be able to
tell us, Doctor, what could have
 caused this type of injury, because this
is an injury to the hymen?
 A: Hyperemic, sir, is observed whenever

there is friction applied to an area,
Search Matches such as in the form of scratching.
 
Q: What about insertion of an object,
would this result into hyperemic
hymen?
A: If the object is being rubbed, sir,
there is a possibility.
Q: A finger would produce that kind of
injury?
A: Possible, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
ATTY. JOSEPH SIA:
Q: The friction that caused the
hyperemic hymen would be caused by
other activities of the child, like for
example playing or bicycle riding?
DR. SUPE, JR.:
A: If there is a friction, it is possible. 10
(emphases ours)
Clearly, there was no categorical declaration
by Dr. Supe that an instrument or object had been
Tools inserted into the victim's private part. Notably, Dr.
Supe also declared that the victim's other activities, like
playing of riding a bicycle, could lead to a hyperemic
 hymen if friction had been applied on the area. The
prosecution thus failed to establish the medical basis for

(/jurisprudences/search? a finding of rape through sexual assault.
Finally, I point out that Dr. Supe found AAA to

 be in a "virgin state physically"; 11 he also found her
hymen to be intact. I am not unmindful of the oft-
repeated doctrine that an intact hymen does not
 necessarily preclude a finding that the victim had been
raped. However, when the prosecution's evidence fails
 to establish with moral certainty all the elements
necessary to consummate the crime of rape, a finding
by the medico-legal officer that the victim is in a "virgin
 state," and that her hymen is intact, suffices to cast
doubt on the appellant's culpability. EIASDT
 In rape cases, the prosecution bears the

primary duty to present its evidence with clarity and
Search Matches
persuasion, to the end that conviction becomes the
 
only logical and inevitable conclusion. "The freedom
of the accused is forfeited only if the requisite quantum
of proof necessary for conviction be in existence. This,
of course, requires the most careful scrutiny of the
evidence for the State, both oral and documentary,
independent of whatever defense is offered by the
accused. Every circumstance favoring the accused's
innocence must be duly taken into account. The proof
against the accused must survive the test of reason.
Strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway
judgment. The conscience must be satisfied that on the
accused could be laid the responsibility for the offense
charged." 12
Lewd or Lascivious Conduct Proven
Notwithstanding the prosecution's failure to prove
the appellant's guilt for rape, I take the view that
sufficient evidence exists to convict him of acts of
lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal
Code (/laws/1268). A charge of acts of lasciviousness is

necessarily included in a complaint for rape. The
elements of acts of lasciviousness are: (1) that the
offender commits any act of lasciviousness or
lewdness; (2) that it is done under any of the following
Tools
circumstances: (a) by using force or intimidation, (b)
when the offended woman is deprived of reason or
 otherwise unconscious; or (c) when the offended party
is under twelve (12) years of age; and (3) that the
offended party is another person of either sex." 13

"'Lewd' is defined as obscene, lustful, indecent, or
lecherous. It signifies that form of immorality related to

moral impurity, or that which is carried on a wanton
manner." 14 In Sombilon, Jr. v. People
 (/jurisprudences/52379), 15 the Court explained this
concept as follows:
 The term "lewd" is commonly defined

as something indecent or obscene; it is
characterized by or intended to excite crude
 sexual desire. That an accused is
entertaining a lewd or unchaste design is
necessarily a mental process the existence
 of which can be inferred by overt acts
Search Matches
carrying out such intention, i.e., by conduct
 
that can only be interpreted as lewd or
lascivious. The presence or absence of lewd
designs is inferred from the nature of the acts
themselves and the environmental
circumstances.
The evidence in the present case established that
the appellant went on top of AAA, and removed her
clothes. The appellant only stopped when the victim
told him that she felt pain in her private part. To my
mind, the appellant's acts of mounting her very own
daughter, and then removing her clothes, showed
lewdness that constitutes acts of lasciviousness. These
acts are clearly indecent and inappropriate; it
undeniably demonstrates the appellant's gross moral
depravity. DISEaC
In light of these considerations, I maintain that

— on grounds of reasonable doubt — the appellant
should be acquitted of the crime of rape through
sexual assault under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of

the Revised Penal Code (/laws/10812), as amended.
He should instead be convicted of the lesser and
included crime of acts of lasciviousness as the
evidence on record shows the presence of all the
Tools
elements of this crime.

Footnotes

(/jurisprudences/search? 1.
CA rollo, pp. 83-96; penned by Associate
Justice Vicente Q. Roxas and concurred in by
Associate Justices Josefina Guevara Salonga and

Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr.
2. Records, pp. 76-81; penned by Judge Romeo F.
 Zamora.
3. "The identity of the victim or any information
 which could establish or compromise her identity, as
well as those of her immediate family or household
members, shall be withheld pursuant to Republic
 Act No. 7610 (/laws/9178), An Act Providing for
Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against
Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, and
 for Other Purposes (/laws/9178); Republic Act No.
Search Matches
9262 (/laws/10497), An Act Defining Violence
Against Women and Their Children, Providing for
 
Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing
Penalties Therefor, and for Other Purposes
(/laws/10497); and Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-
SC (/laws/40675), known as the Rule on Violence
against Women and Their Children (/laws/40675),
effective November 5, 2004." People v. Dumadag
(/jurisprudences/54691), G.R. No. 176740, June 22,
2011, 652 SCRA 535, 538-539.
4. Records, p. 1.
5. Id.
6. Id. at 4.
7. Id. at 76-81.
8. Id. at 79.
9. Id. at 79-80.
10. Id. at 81.
11. CA rollo, pp. 83-96.

12. Id. at 95-96.
13. Id. at 21.
Tools 14. People v. Brioso (/jurisprudences/51490), G.R.

No. 182517, March 13, 2009, 581 SCRA 485, 493.
15. People v. Abulon (/jurisprudences/4982), G.R.
 No. 174473, August 17, 2007, 530 SCRA 675, 702.
16. Id.

17. Jurado v. Suy Yan (/jurisprudences/29672),
148 Phil. 677, 686 (1971).

18. Provincial Fiscal of Nueva Ecija v. Court of
First Instance of Nueva Ecija
 (/jurisprudences/40163), 79 Phil. 165, 168 (1947).
19. People v. Felan (/jurisprudences/54227), G.R.
No. 176631, February 2, 2011, 641 SCRA 449, 453-
 454.
20. Id. at 453-454, citing People v. Javier
 (/jurisprudences/11482), 370 Phil. 128, 139 (1999).
21. People v. Sumingwa (/jurisprudences/52495),
 G.R. No. 183619, October 13, 2009, 603 SCRA
638, 652.
Search Matches
  22. People v. Brioso (/jurisprudences/51490),

supra note 14 at 495.
23. Records, unpaginated; TSN, February 10,
2003, pp. 3-4.
24. Id., id. at 4-5. Emphases supplied.
25. Id., id. at 8.
26. Id.; TSN, July 30, 2002, p. 5.
27. Reyes, Luis B., The Revised Penal Code
(/laws/1268), Book Two, Seventeenth Edition, p.
557.
28. People v. Valenzuela (/jurisprudences/51364),
G.R. No. 182057, February 6, 2009, 578 SCRA
157, 169-170.
29. People v. Tampos (/jurisprudences/7902), 455
Phil. 844, 858 (2003).
30. People v. Palgan (/jurisprudences/52710), G.R.

No. 186234, December 21, 2009, 608 SCRA 725,
731.
31. Id. at 731-732.
Tools 32. Records, p. 14.
33. Id.; TSN, October 22, 2003, p. 3.
 34. People v. Padilla (/jurisprudences/52383), G.R.
No. 167955, September 30, 2009, 601 SCRA 385,

(/jurisprudences/search? 397.
35.
People v. Albalate, Jr (/jurisprudences/52687).,
G.R. No. 174480, December 18, 2009, 608 SCRA

535, 546, citing People v. Manalili
(/jurisprudences/52073), G.R. No. 184598, June 23,
 2009, 590 SCRA 695, 716.
36. Id., citing People v. Tabanggay
 (/jurisprudences/6777), 390 Phil. 67, 91 (2000).
37. People v. Padilla (/jurisprudences/52383),
supra at 397-398.

38. Id. at 398.
 39. Id.
40. People v. Hermocilla (/jurisprudences/4841),
Search Matches
G.R. No. 175830, July 10, 2007, 527 SCRA 296,
 
304-305, citing People v. Esperanza
(/jurisprudences/6926), 453 Phil. 54, 75-76 (2003).
41. People v. Alfonso (/jurisprudences/53561),
G.R. No. 182094, August 18, 2010, 628 SCRA 431,
452.
42. People v. Flores (/jurisprudences/54024), G.R.
No. 177355, December 15, 2010, 638 SCRA 631,
643.
BRION, J., dissenting:
1. See our ruling in People v. Cabalquinto, 533
Phil. 703 (2006).
2. There is nothing in the transcript of
stenographic notes that supports the
ponencia's narration that AAA went in the
bedroom to rest after eating.
3. Penned by Judge Romeo F. Zamora; CA rollo,
pp. 39-44.
4. Qualified by relationship and minority.

5. Penned by Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas,
and concurred in by Associate Justices Josefina
Guevara Salonga and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr.;
Tools rollo, pp. 2-15.
6. Underscoring ours.
 7. Ponencia, p. 11.
8. TSN, February 10, 2003, pp. 3-4.

(/jurisprudences/search? 9. Ponencia, p. 3.
10. TSN, July 30, 2002, pp. 5-6.

11. Records, p. 4.
12. See People v. Fabito (/jurisprudences/51794),
 G.R. No. 179933, April 16, 2009, 585 SCRA 591,
614.
 13. People v. Poras (/jurisprudences/52895), G.R.
No. 177747, February 16, 2010, 612 SCRA 624,
645, citing People v. Mingming
 (/jurisprudences/51181), G.R. No. 174195,
December 10, 2008, 573 SCRA 509, 534-535.
 14. Ibid., citing People v. Lizada, 444 Phil. 67
(2003).
Search Matches
  15. G.R. No. 175528, September 30, 2009, 601

SCRA 405, 414.
 (https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/57997?s_params=B9JcpsJALvxok_L4-zf8) 2

People vs. Soria, 685 SCRA 483, G.R. No. 179031, November 14

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs. Soria, 685 SCRA 483, G.R. No. 179031, November 14

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2/2/2020 G.R. No. 179031 | People v.

 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-

This case involves a father's detestable act of

beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape

Appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.

GENERAL AND EXTRA-GENITAL:

Tools GENITAL: There is absent growth of

 Appellant admitted that he was at home on the

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

her rapist, and rejected the latter's defense of denial.

WHEREFORE, premises considered,

Pursuant to Section 13(c), Rule 124 of

Appellant asserts that he should be acquitted of

wife merely instigated "AAA" to file this baseless rape

 1) By a man who shall have

Thus, rape can now be committed either through

information is not thereby rendered defective on the

 The findings of the RTC and the CA on

labia of "AAA" or slid into her female organ, and not

We reviewed the testimony of "AAA" and found

When "AAA" was placed on the witness stand,

Q - The earlier statement which you

Search Matches Q- What [was] that?

A- He laid on top of me, sir. 23

Q- Did you know why your stomach as

 Q- Why do you know that he was there?

A- I do not know, sir. 24

xxx xxx xxx

 Q- Will you please point . . . to him?

Q - Is he the same person who

 It is evident from the testimony of "AAA" that she

hospital. Both the trial court and the CA found "AAA's"

Moreover, Dr. Supe corroborated her testimony

A- If the object is being rubbed, sir, there

According to Dr. Supe, it is possible that "AAA's"

Search Matches (1) That the offender commits an act of

(a) By using force and

(b) When the woman is deprived

her vagina during and after the sexual assault

nothing on record to prove the minority of "AAA" other

It is settled that "when either one of the qualifying

an interest on all damages awarded at the legal rate of

BRION, J., dissenting:

Thereafter, AAA was committed to the care and custody

The prosecution charged the appellant with the

(/laws/10812), as amended. The prosecution failed to

In the present case, there is no admissible

I find the ponencia's reasoning and

Significantly, the records bear out that the

A: Only my clothes, sir. 8 (emphasis

This circumstance makes the insertion of an

 GENERAL AND EXTRA-GENITAL: Fairly

ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR BEN

 A: Hyperemic, sir, is observed whenever

A: If there is a friction, it is possible. 10

Finally, I point out that Dr. Supe found AAA to

 In rape cases, the prosecution bears the

Code (/laws/1268). A charge of acts of lasciviousness is

 The term "lewd" is commonly defined

In light of these considerations, I maintain that

sexual assault under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of

11. CA rollo, pp. 83-96.