The Importance of Distinguishing Between Rape and Lascivious Conduct in Cases Involving Minors

BBB v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 249307, August 27, 2020

Imagine a young girl, just 11 years old, attending a school event. She is invited by a friend to visit a classmate’s house, where she finds herself alone with a 15-year-old boy. What unfolds is a traumatic event that leads to a complex legal battle over the definitions of rape and lascivious conduct, especially when both the victim and the offender are minors. This case delves into the nuances of Philippine law regarding sexual assault and the challenges of sentencing minors.

The central issue in BBB v. People of the Philippines was whether the act committed by the 15-year-old boy against the 11-year-old girl constituted rape by sexual assault or merely acts of lasciviousness. The case also raised questions about the applicability of the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act (RA 7610) versus the Revised Penal Code (RPC) when both parties involved are minors.

Legal Context

In the Philippines, rape by sexual assault is defined under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353. This law specifies that rape is committed by inserting any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person under certain circumstances, such as when the victim is under 12 years of age. The penalty for this crime is prision mayor.

On the other hand, RA 7610, also known as the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, provides for a higher penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua for sexual abuses against children. However, this law specifically targets adults who exploit children, which complicates its application in cases where the offender is also a minor.

Key to understanding this case is the concept of ‘variance doctrine,’ which allows a court to convict an accused of a lesser offense if the evidence supports it, even if the original charge was for a more severe crime. This doctrine played a crucial role in the trial court’s decision, which initially found the accused guilty of acts of lasciviousness despite charging him with rape by sexual assault.

For example, consider a scenario where a 16-year-old boy inserts a finger into a 10-year-old girl’s vagina. Under the RPC, this could be classified as rape by sexual assault due to the age of the victim. However, if the offender were an adult, RA 7610 would apply, potentially leading to a harsher sentence.

Case Breakdown

The case began when BBB, a 15-year-old boy, was accused of sexually assaulting an 11-year-old girl named AAA. The incident occurred in November 2012, and BBB was charged with rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A (2) of the RPC in relation to RA 7610.

During the trial, AAA testified that BBB had asked her about her menstrual cycle, then proceeded to undress her and insert his finger into her vagina. This testimony was supported by medical findings from Dr. Phillen D. Ureta, who noted an old hymenal abrasion indicative of recent insertion.

The trial court found BBB guilty of the crime as charged, imposing a penalty of prision correctional to prision mayor. However, in the body of the decision, the court suggested that the act might only constitute lascivious conduct due to the intact hymen. This discrepancy led to an appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA).

The CA affirmed the conviction for rape by sexual assault, emphasizing that a broken hymen is not an element of the crime. The CA’s decision stated:

“However, this Court disagrees with the RTC in holding that since per Dr. Ureta’s findings, the hymen of the victim was intact, appellant cannot be said to have committed the crime of rape by sexual assault but only acts of lasciviousness. It bears emphasizing that a broken hymen is not an element of the crime charged against the appellant.”

BBB then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in applying RA 7610’s penalty to a minor offender. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction for rape by sexual assault but modified the penalty to arresto mayor to prision correctional, citing the privileged mitigating circumstance of BBB’s minority.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning included:

“RA 7610 was enacted in order to protect children from abuse, exploitation, and discrimination by adults and not by persons who are also children themselves.”

Additionally, the Court emphasized the importance of the dispositive portion of a decision over conflicting statements in the body:

“It is settled that where there is a conflict between the dispositive part and the opinion of the court contained in the text or body of the decision, the former must prevail over the latter on the theory that the dispositive portion is the final order, while the opinion is merely a statement ordering nothing.”

Practical Implications

This ruling clarifies that RA 7610’s penalties do not apply when both the victim and the offender are minors. Instead, the RPC’s provisions on rape by sexual assault will govern, with adjustments for the offender’s age. This distinction is crucial for legal practitioners handling similar cases, as it affects the severity of the sentence and the legal framework applied.

For individuals and families, this case underscores the importance of understanding the legal consequences of actions involving minors. It also highlights the need for comprehensive sex education and awareness programs to prevent such incidents.

Key Lessons:

• When both the victim and the offender are minors, the RPC’s provisions on rape by sexual assault apply, not RA 7610.
• The presence of a hymenal abrasion is not necessary to prove rape by sexual assault.
• The dispositive portion of a court decision is paramount and prevails over conflicting statements in the body of the decision.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is rape by sexual assault under Philippine law?

Rape by sexual assault is defined under Article 266-A of the RPC as the insertion of any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person under certain circumstances, such as when the victim is under 12 years old.

How does RA 7610 differ from the RPC in cases of sexual abuse against minors?

RA 7610 targets adults who exploit children and provides for harsher penalties. In contrast, the RPC applies to all offenders, including minors, with adjustments for age.

Can a minor be charged with rape under RA 7610?

No, RA 7610 applies to adult offenders. When both the victim and the offender are minors, the RPC governs the case.

What is the ‘variance doctrine’ in criminal law?

The variance doctrine allows a court to convict an accused of a lesser offense if the evidence supports it, even if the original charge was for a more severe crime.

How does the age of the offender affect sentencing in sexual assault cases?

If the offender is a minor, the penalty is reduced under the RPC due to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority.

ASG Law specializes in criminal law and juvenile justice. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.