In People v. Pareja, the Supreme Court underscored the importance of protecting vulnerable individuals, particularly minors, from sexual abuse. The Court affirmed the conviction of Bernabe Pareja for two counts of Acts of Lasciviousness, emphasizing that a victim’s silence or delay in reporting abuse does not negate the crime, especially when the abuser is someone in a position of authority or trust. This decision reinforces that victims, especially children, may react in diverse ways to trauma, and their actions should not be misconstrued as consent.

Small House, Big Betrayal: How Fear Silenced a Child’s Voice

Bernabe Pareja appealed his conviction for rape and acts of lasciviousness, arguing that the victim’s testimony was inconsistent and that her behavior after the alleged abuse didn’t align with that of a typical victim. Pareja further contended that the confined living conditions and the presence of other family members made the alleged incidents improbable. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial Court’s decision, leading Pareja to elevate the case to the Supreme Court. At the heart of the matter was the credibility of the victim, AAA, and whether her testimony alone was sufficient to sustain a conviction.

The Supreme Court upheld Pareja’s conviction, placing significant weight on the trial court’s assessment of AAA’s credibility. The Court reiterated that the trial court is best positioned to evaluate a witness’s demeanor and truthfulness. Building on this principle, the Supreme Court noted that inconsistencies in a rape victim’s testimony are not unexpected. As stated in People v. Saludo:

“Rape is a painful experience which is oftentimes not remembered in detail… it is something which causes deep psychological wounds and casts a stigma upon the victim, scarring her psyche for life and which her conscious and subconscious mind would opt to forget.”

Moreover, the High Court addressed Pareja’s reliance on the case of People v. Ladrillo, distinguishing it from the present case. In Ladrillo, the accused was acquitted due to a violation of his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, because the information was too vague regarding the date of the offense. Here, the Court found that the time frame was sufficiently defined, and the inconsistencies in AAA’s testimony were minor and did not undermine her credibility. Additionally, the Court emphasized that the testimony of a single witness, if credible and convincing, is sufficient for conviction in rape cases, and corroboration is not required.

Pareja also argued that the alleged sexual abuse was improbable given their small house and the presence of AAA’s siblings. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument, recognizing that rape can occur even in the unlikeliest of places. The Court has observed that many rape cases appealed to them were not always committed in seclusion. In People v. Sangil, Sr., the Court stated:

“[L]ust is no respecter of time and place, and rape can be committed in even the unlikeliest of places.”

Pareja also questioned AAA’s conduct after the incidents, suggesting it was inconsistent with that of a rape victim. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, acknowledging that there is no standard behavior for victims of sexual abuse. Fear, intimidation, and moral influence can all play a role in a victim’s response. The Court noted that AAA’s delay in reporting the incidents was due to Pareja’s threats, reinforcing that a victim’s actions cannot be judged against a rigid standard.

Furthermore, the Court addressed the significance of the medico-legal report, clarifying that it is not essential to prove the commission of rape. In People v. Colorado, the Court said, “[A] medical certificate is not necessary to prove the commission of rape, as even a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape. Expert testimony is merely corroborative in character and not essential to conviction.” Therefore, the Court affirmed that the victim’s testimony alone could be sufficient for conviction.

The Supreme Court also clarified the distinction between rape by sexual intercourse and rape by sexual assault under Republic Act No. 8353. The court explained that under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, rape by sexual assault is “[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.”

The Court found that although the evidence supported a conviction for rape by sexual assault (anal penetration), the information charged Pareja with rape through carnal knowledge (vaginal penetration). The court emphasized that due to the significant differences between the two modes of rape, convicting Pareja of a crime not charged would violate his constitutional rights. Building on this, the Court invoked the variance doctrine, allowing Pareja to be convicted of the lesser crime of acts of lasciviousness, which is included in the crime of rape. Pareja’s defense of denial and claims of ill motive were also rejected, as the Court found them insufficient to outweigh the victim’s credible testimony.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court modified the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court found Pareja guilty of two counts of Acts of Lasciviousness. He was sentenced to two (2) indeterminate prison terms of 6 months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to 4 years and 2 months of prisión correccional, as maximum; and is ORDERED to pay the victim, AAA, P20,000.00 as civil indemnity, P30,000.00 as moral damages, and P10,000.00 as exemplary damages, for each count of acts of lasciviousness, all with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the victim’s testimony, despite inconsistencies, was sufficient to convict the accused of rape and acts of lasciviousness, and whether her actions after the alleged abuse negated her claims. The Court also addressed the distinction between rape by sexual intercourse and rape by sexual assault.
Why was Pareja not convicted of rape in the December 2003 incident despite evidence of anal penetration?	Although evidence of anal penetration was presented, Pareja was charged with rape through carnal knowledge (vaginal penetration). Convicting him of rape by sexual assault (anal penetration) would violate his right to be informed of the charges.
What is the variance doctrine, and how did it apply in this case?	The variance doctrine allows a defendant to be convicted of a lesser crime included in the offense charged. In this case, Pareja was convicted of acts of lasciviousness, which is included in the crime of rape, even though he was not convicted of rape itself for the December 2003 incident.
Why did the Court uphold the conviction despite inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony?	The Court recognized that inconsistencies in a rape victim’s testimony are common due to the trauma experienced. The Court also gives deference to the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, which is in the best position to observe the demeanor of the witness.
Does a victim’s delay in reporting sexual abuse negate the crime?	No, a victim’s delay in reporting sexual abuse does not negate the crime. Fear, intimidation, and moral influence can all contribute to a victim’s delay in reporting abuse.
Is a medical examination required to prove rape?	No, a medical examination is not required to prove rape. The victim’s testimony alone can be sufficient if it is credible and convincing.
How did the Court address the argument that the abuse was improbable given the small living space?	The Court dismissed the argument that the abuse was improbable due to the small living space, stating that rape can occur even in the unlikeliest of places and that lust is no respecter of time or place.
What is the significance of Republic Act No. 8353 (Anti-Rape Law of 1997)?	Republic Act No. 8353 expanded the definition of rape to include acts of sexual assault and recognized sexual violence on sex-related orifices other than a woman’s organ. It broadened the scope of the crime to cover gender-free rape.

People v. Pareja serves as a crucial reminder of the complexities involved in prosecuting sexual abuse cases, particularly those involving minors. It underscores the importance of considering the victim’s perspective and recognizing that their actions may not always align with societal expectations. This ruling reinforces the need for a sensitive and understanding approach in these cases, prioritizing the protection of vulnerable individuals and ensuring that justice is served.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People of the Philippines vs. Bernabe Pareja y Cruz, G.R. No. 202122, January 15, 2014