Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
National Prosecution Service
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
City of San Fernando
Province of Pampanga

xxxxxxxx,

Complainant,
I.S. No. III-11-INV-24B-023
For: Rape
-versus-

Quali Ra Mi,
Respondent.

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION

Eight-year-old complainant AAA260708, assisted by her

mother, alleges that on March 15, 2015 at around 5:00 p.m.,
she was raped by her father, the respondent herein.
Complainant avers that on the same date and time,
respondent called her to enter their room. respondent
removed complainant underwear and directed her to lie on
the bed. Respodent laid on top of the complainant and
spread her legs. Respondent pulled out his penis and
inserted it into complainant 's vagina. Thereafter, while
complainant was already standing, respondent inserted his
penis into her mouth. Respondent threatened to kill
complainant if she would report the matter to the police.
BBB260708, complainant 's older sister, corroborated the
incident. BBB260708 recalled that on March 17, 2015 at
around 5:00 p.m., she just arrived home, but could not open
the front door because it was locked. BBB260708 entered
the house through an unfinished window in their kitchen.
Thereat, BBB260708 saw complainant with her shirt without
undergarments and respondent wearing a shirt and brief.
B8B260708 told her aunt what happened. On even date,
complainant and her uncle reported the matter to the
authorities and the incident was recorded in a police blotter.
On March 18, 2015, complainant was brought to the hospital
for physical examination. The medical report revealed that
complainant had fresh hymenal laceration incurred within 24
hours from penetration.
To support their allegations, complainants submitted
copies of the Medico-Legal Report of Ri, report on multiple
counts of rape, certificate of live birth of Ri and affidavit of
guardianship.

Respondent denied the accusations, and claimed that

he usually bathed his daughter complainant because his wife
was abroad. On March 17, 2015, respondent bathed
complainant who gathered dust after helping him harvest
corn. respondent then piled the corn in the living room while
wearing a sando and underwear. BBB260708 arrived at that
moment. Afterwards, BBB260708's aunt whipped respondent
based on the report that he molested the complainant.

We now resolve.

After careful consideration of the pieces of evidence

submitted by both parties, the undersigned investigating
prosecution attorney FINDS (prima facie evidence with
reasonable certainty for the respondent’s conviction)
PROBABLE CAUSE for the crime of Qualified Rape of a Minor.

The Complaint alleged carnal knowledge between

respondent and complainant as well as the special qualifying
circumstances of minority of the victim and her father-
daughter relationship with the respondent. Specifically, the
elements of rape through sexual intercourse are: (1) the
accused had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) that
said act was accomplished (a) through the use of force or
intimidation, or (b) when the victim is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious, or (c) by means of fraudulent
machination or grave abuse of authority, or (d) when the
victim is under 12/16 years of age or is demented. 1

Likewise, a rape is considered statutory rape if the

victim is below the statutory age (12 or 16) or is suffering
from mental retardation comparable to the intellectual
capacity of a child below the statutory age. Finally, the crime
of rape is aggravated and qualified if the victim is under
eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent,
ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity
or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law
spouse of the parent of the victim.
1
People v. Vañas, 850 Phil. 201, 210 (2019) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division], citing People v.
Jastiva, 726 Phil. 607, 624 (2014) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
 Here, complainant categorically narrated in her
complaint how respondent undressed her and forcibly
inserted his penis into her vagina. The existence of fresh
hymenal laceration based on the medical findings of the
attending physician who examined the complainant further
supports the fact of forcible defloration. More telling is that
respondent threatened complainant with harm if she
disclosed the incident.

Complainant also proved her minority through her

certificate of live birth. In the said document, it was stated
that she was born on February 6, 2007. Thus, complainant
was only 8 years old when the sexual violations happened in
2015 which may be considered statutory rape. More
importantly, complainant's certificate of live birth indicated
respondent as her father. Indubitably, there is concurrence
of the elements of relationship and age.

Under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the RPC, statutory rape is

carnal knowledge of a woman below 12 years of age
regardless of her consent, or the lack of it, to the sexual
act. Proof of force, intimidation, or consent is unnecessary.
The absence of free consent is conclusively presumed when
the victim is below the threshold age. The law presumes that
the victim does not possess discernment and is incapable of
giving intelligent consent to the sexual act.

In contrast, qualified rape is sexual congress against

the will of the woman attended by any of the aggravating
and/or qualifying circumstances enumerated in Republic Act
No. 7659 and/or Republic Act No. 8353 anchored on the
relationship, moral ascendancy, or influence between the
parties, abuse of authority on the part of the
accused, ignominy in the commission of the
offense, personal circumstances and conditions of the
victim, and additional or resulting consequences of the
crime. These are special qualifying circumstances which
alter the nature of the crime of rape and warrant the
increase of the imposable penalty.

In this case, the sexual molestations were committed

on March 17, 2015 or before Republic Act No. 11648
amended Article 266-A(1)(d) of the RPC. Hence, the
provisions on rape before the effectivity of Republic Act No.
11648 applies.
 In 2022, Republic Act No. 11648 amended Article 266-A
(1)(d) of the RPC by raising the threshold age for statutory
rape from "under twelve (12) years of age" to "under sixteen
(16) years of age", thus, even in the absence of the
circumstances of force, intimidation, or consent, respondent
can be indicted for the crime of rape.

In the case of, People vs. ABC260708,2 for clarity and

uniformity, the Court now fixes the guidelines as to the
proper designation of the offense when the elements of both
statutory rape, i.e., victim is below the statutory age or is
suffering from mental retardation comparable to the
intellectual capacity of a child below the statutory age, and
qualified rape, i.e., twin circumstances of minority and
relationship, or the age of the victim being below 7 years
old, or the accused's knowledge of the mental disability of
the victim at the time of the commission of rape, are
present.

The positive assertions of the complainant coupled with

the medico-legal report give rise to the prima facie evidence
that the minor-complainant was sexually exploited by the
respondent. The complainant, being a minor, had no other
motive to file charges against her perpetrator who is her own
father unless the same was true.

Thus, all the elements of qualified rape of a minor being

present herein, a prima facie case exists with a reasonable
certainty of conviction based on the available documents,
witnesses, and other pieces of evidence submitted that
respondent committed the crime.

WHEREFORE, finding prima facie evidence with

reasonable certainty for the respondent’s conviction, it is
hereby RECOMMENDED that the INFORMATION for the
crime of Qualified Rape of a Minor against respondent,
(name), be FILED in court.

San Fernando City, Pamapanga, 21 October 2024.

Reviewed by:

Prosecutor III/IV
Senior Deputy City Prosecutor
2
G.R. No. 260708, January 23, 2024.
Approved:

Prosecutor V
Provincial/City Prosecutor

Copy furnished:

Complainant with parent - (address)

Respondent - (address)