In People of the Philippines v. Julito Divinagracia, Sr., the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of a father for the rape and acts of lasciviousness against his minor daughters, emphasizing that inconsistencies in minor details do not undermine the victim’s credibility, especially in cases involving child abuse. This decision highlights the court’s commitment to protecting children from parental abuse and reinforces the importance of upholding their rights and welfare, ensuring perpetrators are held accountable for their heinous actions.

Shattered Innocence: When Parental Trust Becomes a Nightmare of Abuse

The case revolves around Julito Divinagracia, Sr., who was accused of raping his eight-year-old daughter, AAA, and committing acts of lasciviousness against his nine-year-old daughter, BBB. These incidents occurred in November 1996 when their mother was away. AAA testified that her father sexually assaulted her, while BBB recounted how he groped her and pressed his penis against her buttocks. The sisters eventually confided in their aunt, a nun named Sister Mary Ann Abuna, who helped them file charges against their father.

During the trial, the prosecution presented AAA and BBB’s testimonies, along with medical evidence indicating healed lacerations in AAA’s vagina, corroborating the allegations of sexual abuse. The defense argued that there were inconsistencies in the testimonies and that the charges were unfounded. However, the Regional Trial Court found Divinagracia guilty beyond reasonable doubt, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals and ultimately by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court emphasized that minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of the victims and witnesses did not detract from their credibility. The court noted that children are not accustomed to public trials and may have difficulty recalling specific details, especially when recounting traumatic events. The court has consistently held that inconsistencies on minor details do not affect the veracity of a witness’s testimony.

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, defines rape as having carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat, or intimidation. Qualified rape, as defined in Article 266-B, occurs when the offender is a parent of the victim, and the victim is under eighteen years of age. The elements of qualified rape are: sexual congress, with a woman, done by force and without consent, the victim is under eighteen years of age at the time of the rape, and the offender is a parent of the victim. The prosecution successfully proved these elements in Divinagracia’s case.

Medical evidence played a crucial role in corroborating AAA’s testimony. Dr. Poca, a pediatrician and child protection specialist, interpreted the medical findings of Dr. Biag, stating that the healed lacerations in AAA’s vagina were indicative of sexual abuse. This physical evidence, combined with the credible testimonies of the victims, established a strong case against Divinagracia.

The court also addressed the issue of delayed disclosure, noting that AAA’s failure to immediately report the abuse was a normal reaction for children who have been sexually abused by a parent. The court acknowledged that fear and lack of support can prevent victims from coming forward, and it was only when AAA felt safe and secure that she was able to reveal her traumatic experience.

Regarding the acts of lasciviousness against BBB, the court found that Divinagracia’s actions, such as groping her and pressing his penis against her buttocks, constituted lascivious conduct as defined by Republic Act No. 7610. The court emphasized that the lone, credible testimony of the offended party is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.

The court modified the penalties imposed by the lower courts to comply with the provisions of Republic Act No. 7610, which mandates specific penalties for crimes against children. Divinagracia was sentenced to reclusion perpetua for the rape of AAA and an indeterminate penalty for the acts of lasciviousness against BBB.

Additionally, the court addressed the issue of civil indemnity and damages, ruling that the lower courts erred in not awarding civil indemnity and other damages to the victims. The court emphasized that civil indemnity ex delicto attaches upon a finding of criminal liability and that victims of abuse are entitled to compensation for the harm they have suffered. Divinagracia was ordered to pay AAA and BBB civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores its unwavering commitment to protecting children from abuse and ensuring that perpetrators are held accountable for their actions. The court’s recognition of the challenges faced by child victims and its emphasis on the importance of credible testimony and medical evidence send a strong message that child abuse will not be tolerated.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt Divinagracia’s guilt for rape and acts of lasciviousness against his minor daughters, despite alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies. The Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, emphasizing the credibility of the victims’ testimonies and the corroborating medical evidence.
What is ‘reclusion perpetua’?	Reclusion perpetua is a Philippine prison sentence that typically lasts for at least 20 years and up to 40 years. It carries accessory penalties and does not allow for parole eligibility, ensuring the offender serves a lengthy term.
Why was medical evidence important in this case?	Medical evidence, specifically the healed lacerations found in AAA’s vagina, corroborated her testimony and provided physical proof of sexual abuse. This evidence strengthened the prosecution’s case and helped establish the element of carnal knowledge.
Why did the court address the issue of delayed disclosure?	The court addressed the delayed disclosure because AAA did not immediately report the abuse. The court recognized that children often delay reporting abuse due to fear, shame, or lack of support, and this delay does not necessarily undermine their credibility.
What are acts of lasciviousness?	Acts of lasciviousness involve intentional touching of intimate body parts with the intent to abuse, humiliate, or gratify sexual desire. In this case, Divinagracia’s acts of groping BBB and pressing his penis against her buttocks were considered acts of lasciviousness.
What damages were awarded to the victims?	The court awarded civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to both AAA and BBB. Civil indemnity is compensation for the harm caused by the crime, moral damages are for mental suffering, and exemplary damages serve as a deterrent and punishment.
What is the significance of Republic Act No. 7610?	Republic Act No. 7610, also known as the Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, provides specific penalties for crimes against children. This law was crucial in determining the appropriate penalties for Divinagracia’s offenses.
Can the testimony of a single witness be enough to convict someone?	Yes, the court has repeatedly held that the lone yet credible testimony of the offended party is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. This principle was applied in the case of BBB, where her testimony alone was enough to convict Divinagracia of acts of lasciviousness.

This case sets a precedent for the protection of children against abuse, highlighting the importance of corroborating medical evidence and the credibility of victim testimonies in prosecuting offenders. It reinforces the legal principle that parents who violate their children’s trust and safety will be held accountable under the law.

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. Julito Divinagracia, Sr., G.R. No. 207765, July 26, 2017