Ivan Paulo B.

Salanguit
1C Legal Research and Computer

People of the Philippines v. Salvador Tulagan, (G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019)

FACTS:
This is an appeal from the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the Joint
Decision dated February 10, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Carlos City in criminal
cases finding accused-appellant Salvador Tulagan (Tulagan) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crimes of sexual assault and statutory rape as defined and penalized under Article 266-A, paragraphs
2 and l(d) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in relation to Article 266-B.
The facts of the case are as follows based on the testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses: On
October 17, 2011, BBB, the aunt of the victim AAA, noticed a man looking at AAA outside their house.
When AAA asked for permission to go to the bathroom outside their house, the man she earlier noticed
approached AAA. After AAA returned from the bathroom, BBB asked what the man was doing to her
but she did not reply. BBB then examined the genitalia of AAA and noticed that it was swollen. It is
when AAA confessed what was done to her by the appellant whom she referred to as Badong or
Salvador Tulagan. Further, based on the testimony of the victim AAA (nine (9) years old), the appellant
had previously violated her on two (2) occasions: In September 2011, when the appellant approached
her, spread her legs and inserted his finger into her private part, pretending that he was just looking
for something, and in October 8, 2011 at around 11:00AM where he told her to lie down on the floor
and removed her short pants and panties and thereafter inserted his penis into her vagina. According
to the victim, it was painful and that she cried because Tulagan held her hands and pinned them with
his.
Upon genital examination by Dr. Brenda Tumacder on AAA, she found a healed laceration at
6 o'clock position in AAA's hymen, and a dilated or enlarged vaginal opening. She said that it is not
normal for a 9-year-old child to have a dilated vaginal opening and laceration in the hymen.

For the defense, Tulagan denied knowing AAA but admitted that he lived barely five (5) meters
away from AAA's grandmother's house where she lived. The appellant further offered an alibi, stating
that for the whole month of September 2011, from 8:00AM to 1:00PM, he was gathering dried banana
leaves to sell then take a rest at their terrace afterwards. He further claimed that he never went to
AAA's house and that he had not seen AAA during the entire month of September 2011. Tulagan also
claimed that the story of him raping AAA is only a rumor spread by AAA’s grandmother because his
mother had a misunderstanding with the former.
The RTC found that the prosecution successfully discharged the burden of proof in two offenses
of rape against AAA. It held that all the elements of sexual assault and statutory rape was duly
established. The trial court relied on the credible and positive declaration of the victim as against the
alibi and denial of Tulagan.
The RTC found the accused Tulagan guilty for violating Article 266-A, paragraph 1(d) of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC), in relation to R.A. 7610 (Statutory Rape) and was sentenced to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the victim in the amount of fifty thousand
(Php50,000.00) pesos; moral damages in the amount of fifty thousand (Php 50,000.00) pesos, and to
pay the cost of the suit. Likewise, Tulagan was also found guilty of violating Article 266-A, paragraph
2 of the RPC (Rape by Sexual Assault) and was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years
of prision correccional, as minimum, to twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as maximum and to
indemnify the victim in the amount of thirty thousand (Php30,000.00) pesos; and moral damages in
the amount of twenty thousand (Php20,000.00) pesos, and to pay the cost of suit.

The accused was Upon appeal, the CA affirmed with modification Tulagan's conviction of
sexual assault and statutory rape.
Accordingly, for the appellant’s conviction for Statutory Rape, the awards of civil indemnity
and moral damages were increased to Pl00,000.00 each and exemplary damages in the amount of
Pl00,000.00 were also granted. For the conviction of the appellant for Rape by Sexual Assault, the
accused was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 12 years of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to
15 years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The award of moral damages was also increased from
Php 20,000 to Php 30,000 and the amount of Php 30,000 for exemplary damages was also granted by
the CA.
On appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellant alleged that the appellate court erred in giving
weight, and credence to the inconsistent testimony of AAA, and in sustaining his conviction despite
the prosecution's failure to prove his guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE:
1. Did the Court of Appeals err in giving weight, and credence to the inconsistent testimony of
AAA?
2. Did the appellate court err in sustaining the conviction of the appellant for Rape by Sexual
Assault and Statutory Rape?

RULING:
1. No, the appellate court did not err in giving weight and credence to the inconsistent
testimony of AAA.
Factual findings of the trial court carry great weight and respect due to the unique opportunity
afforded them to observe the witnesses when placed on the stand. Consequently, appellate courts will
not overturn the factual findings of the trial court in the absence of facts or circumstances of weight
and substance that would affect the result of the case.

In the instant case, in criminal case for sexual assault, both the RTC and the CA found AAA's
testimony to be credible, straightforward and unwavering when she testified that Tulagan forcibly
inserted his finger in her vagina. Further, in criminal case for statutory rape, both the RTC and the
CA also found that the elements thereof were present.
Further, inconsistencies or discrepancies does not, by such fact alone, diminish the credibility
of such testimony. In fact, the variance in minor details has the net effect of bolstering instead of
diminishing the witness' credibility because they discount the possibility of a rehearsed testimony.
Instead, what remains paramount is the witness' consistency in relating the principal elements of the
crime and the positive and categorical identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the same.
AAA's account of her ordeal being straightforward and candid and corroborated by the medical findings
of the examining physician, as well as her positive identification of Tulagan as the perpetrator of the
crime, are, thus, sufficient to support a conviction of rape.
Lastly, in the case of People v. Carcia (695 Phil. 576, 2012), the Supreme Court held that
“testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl, particularly
if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that
rape has in fact been committed. When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are
inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability
but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true. Youth
and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.”
2. No, the appellate court did not err in sustaining the conviction of the appellant for Rape by
Sexual Assault and Statutory Rape. However, the Supreme Court, ruled that a modification of the
nomenclature of the crime, the penalty imposed, and the damages awarded in the criminal case for
sexual assault, and a reduction of the damages awarded in criminal case for statutory rape, are in
order.

Under Republic Act No. 8353 (An Act Expanding the Definition of the Crime of Rape,
Reclassifying The Same as A Crime Against Persons, amending for The Purpose Act No. 3815, As
Amended, Otherwise Known as The Revised Penal Code, and for Other Purposes), Article 335 of the
RPC has been amended and repealed. Accordingly, Rape has been classified to a Crime Against
Persons from Crimes Against Chastity. Further, new provisions on Rape (including a provision for
Rape by Sexual Assault) have been added to the RPC (Articles 266-A to 266-D).
 In accordance to Republic Act No. 7610 (An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special
Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, and for Other Purposes), the proper
penalty when sexual intercourse is committed with a victim who is under 12 years of age or is
demented is reclusion perpetua, pursuant to paragraph l(d), Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B
of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, which in turn amended Article 335. The Supreme Court
ruled that the second proviso of Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 (Provided, That the penalty for lascivious
conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium
period), has no application in the criminal case for Statutory Rape under Article 266-A (2) of the RPC
because it clearly has nothing to do with sexual intercourse, and it only deals with "lascivious conduct
when the victim is under 12 years of age." According to the Supreme Court, the definition of "lascivious
conduct" does not include sexual intercourse. Thus, in the criminal case for statutory rape, Tulagan
should suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in accordance with paragraph l(d), Article 266-A in
relation to Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 8353.

In contrast, for the prosecution of the accused to the crime of sexual assault, the proper penalty
should be that provided in Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, which is reclusion temporal in its
medium period and not prision mayor under Article 266-B of the RPC (Rape under paragraph 2 of the
next preceding article shall be punishable by prision mayor) because AAA was below twelve (12) years
of age at the time of the commission of the offense, and that the act of inserting his finger in AAA's
private part undeniably amounted to "lascivious conduct." This is to harmonize R.A. No. 7610 and the
Art. 266-B of the RPC. Hence, the proper nomenclature of the offense should be Sexual Assault under
paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC, in relation to Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610.

The following are the applicable laws and penalty for the crimes of acts of lasciviousness or
lascivious conduct and rape by carnal knowledge or sexual assault, depending on the age of the victim,
in view of the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 266-A and Article 336 of the RPC, as amended
by R.A. No. 8353, and Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610:

Designation of the Crime & Imposable Penalty

Age of victim
Crimes Committed
Acts of Lasciviousness
committed against children
exploited in prostitution or
other sexual abuse
Sexual Assault committed
against children exploited in
prostitution or other sexual
abuse
Sexual Intercourse committed
against children exploited in
prostitution or other sexual
abuse
Rape by carnal knowledge
Rape by Sexual Assault
Under 12 years old or
demented
Acts of Lasciviousness under
Article 336 of the RPC in
relation to Section 5(b) of RA
No. 7610; reclusion temporal
in its medium period.
Sexual Assault under Article
266-B of the PRC in relation
to Section 5(b) of RA No.
7610; reclusion temporal in
its medium period.
Rape under Article 266-A(1)
of the RPC; reclusion
perpetua, except when the
victim is below 7 years old, in
which case death penalty
shall be imposed (under RA
No. 9346, imposition of death
penalty is currently
prohibited).
Rape under Article 266-A(1)
in relation to Art. 266-B of
the PRC; reclusion perpetua,
except when the victim is
below 7 years old, in which
case death penalty shall be
imposed (under RA No. 9346,
imposition of death penalty is
currently prohibited).
Sexual Assault under Article
266-A(2) of the RPC in
relation to Section 5(b) of RA
No. 7610; reclusion temporal
in its medium period.
12 years old or below 18, or 18 18 years old and above
under special circumstances
Lasciviousness conduct under Not applicable.
Section 5(b) of RA No. 7610;
reclusion temporal in its
medium period to reclusion
perpetua.
Lasciviousness conduct under Not applicable.
Section 5(b) of RA No. 7610;
reclusion temporal in its
medium period to reclusion
perpetua.
Sexual Abuse under Section Not applicable.
5(b) of RA No. 7610; reclusion
temporal in its medium
period to reclusion perpetua.
Rape under Article 266-A(1) Rape under Article 266-A(1)
in relation to Art. 266-B of of the RPC; reclusion
the PRC; reclusion perpetua. perpetua.
Lasciviousness conduct under Sexual Assault under Article
Section 5(b) of RA No. 7610; 266-A(2) of the RPC; prision
reclusion temporal in its mayor.
medium period to reclusion
perpetua.
CITED JURISPRUDENCE:
CITED LAWS: