PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ZZZ
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 266706
- Promulgated: 2024-06-26
- Ponente: SINGH, J.
Doctrine
## Facts of the Case ZZZ was charged with multiple crimes, including three counts of Rape, one count of Rape by Sexual Assault, one count of Acts of Lasciviousness, three counts of Child Abuse, and one count of Violation of Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 9262. These charges stemmed from the repeated sexual and physical abuse of his daughters, AAA (the primary victim of sexual abuse), BBB, CCC, and DDD, and physical abuse of his wife, EEE. The sexual abuses of AAA began when she was 9 years old and involved digital penetration and actual carnal knowledge. The physical abuses of his wife and other daughters occurred on September 19, 2017, when ZZZ, while drunk, violently attacked them. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted ZZZ of Rape by Sexual Assault, two counts of Rape, and four counts of Slight Physical Injuries, acquitting him of other charges. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision with modifications to the penalties and damages for the rape convictions and reversed the acquittal for the violation of R.A. No. 9262, finding ZZZ guilty. ZZZ subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court. ## Issues 1. Did the CA err in affirming the RTC's finding that AAA's testimony was credible despite ZZZ's arguments regarding lack of resistance and delayed reporting? 2. Did the CA err in affirming ZZZ's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for one count of Rape by Sexual Assault and two counts of Rape? 3. Did the CA err in affirming ZZZ's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for three counts of Slight Physical Injuries? 4. Did the CA err in convicting ZZZ of Violation of Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 9262, despite his acquittal by the RTC? ## Decision / Rationale **Issue 1:** The Court held that the CA did not err in affirming the RTC's finding that AAA's testimony was credible. The Court found no reason to disturb the factual findings of the RTC and CA, which observed AAA's "clear and categorical manner" in narrating the abuse. The Court explicitly rejected ZZZ's arguments that **AAA's lack of resistance** and **delay in reporting** indicated fabrication. It reiterated that in rape cases, **proof of resistance is not required**, especially when force, threat, or intimidation is present. The Court clarified that previous pronouncements implying a woman must "tenaciously resist" are contrary to prevailing doctrine and perpetuate gender bias. For incestuous rape, **moral ascendancy** or influence supplants the element of violence or intimidation, as a child cannot be expected to resist a parent. AAA's fear of ZZZ, who also abused her mother, and the family's financial dependence on him explained her silence. The Court also dismissed ZZZ's claim that AAA's accusations stemmed from anger over his strictness as mere speculation. **Issue 2:** The Court held that the CA did not err in affirming ZZZ's guilt for one count of Rape by Sexual Assault and two counts of Rape. AAA's categorical and convincing testimony established that ZZZ inserted his finger into her vagina (Rape by Sexual Assault) and had sexual intercourse with her (Rape) against her will, under circumstances of force, threat, and intimidation. This was corroborated by medical reports showing deep healed hymenal lacerations. The Court agreed with the CA that the aggravating circumstances of **minority and relationship** were established, raising the crime to **Qualified Rape**. Pursuant to Article 266-B of the **Revised Penal Code**, the penalty for Qualified Rape is *reclusion perpetua* to death. Since the death penalty cannot be imposed, the Court affirmed the imposition of *reclusion perpetua without eligibility of parole* for each count of Qualified Rape and increased the civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to PHP 100,000.00 each per count. For Rape by Sexual Assault, the Court affirmed the penalty of 12 years and one day of *reclusion temporal* as minimum to 16 years, five months, and one day of *reclusion temporal* as maximum, and ordered…
Keywords
Article 266-A Revised Penal Code, RA 7610, Section 5(a) RA 9262, RA 8353, Article 266 Revised Penal Code, RA 9346, Article 266-B Revised Penal Code, RA 8505, delay in reporting rape does not affect credibility, moral ascendancy supplants violence or intimidation in incestuous rape, trial court's assessment of witness credibility entitled to great weight, Rape, Sexual Assault, Child Abuse, Violence Against Women and Children, Slight Physical Injuries, Reclusion Perpetua, Arresto Menor, Civil Indemnity, Moral Damages