PEOPLE v. TUBILLO

People of the Philippines vs. Nicolas Tubillo y Abella

G.R. No. 220718

June 21, 2017

FACTS:

At the time of the incident, HE was only 13 years old and was living with AAA, the person who adopted her. On February 1, 2006, at around 10 PM in the evening, HGE was sleeping at home alone, while AAA was working as a beautician at the salon. She was awakened when Tubillo, her neighbour, entered their house by breaking the padlock of the door. Tubillo went directly to HGE then removed her clothes and his own. He forcibly inserted his penis in her vagina by pushing his body towards her. HE felt pain, but she did not resist as Tubillo was poking a knife at her neck. HGE revealed her ordeal at the hands of Tubillo to her aunt, leading to the filing of the subject complaint. Dr. Ortiz testified that she had a shallow healed laceration in the hymen. The findings were suggestive of the use of a blunt force or penetrating trauma to the hymen. Tubillo denied the accusations against him and claimed that the complaint was filed simply because HGE’s aunt was angry at him when he tried to collect some money from her. The RTC found Tubillo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of simple rape, the RTC found that Tubillo sexually violated HGE and it appreciated HGE’s consistent testimony and the medical report presented to establish the carnal knowledge committed against her will. Tubillo elevated an appeal before the CA. The CA affirmed Tubillo’s conviction with modifications. It was of the view that HGE candidly testified about the sexual violation committed by Tubillo against her and that the inconsistencies in her testimony were trivial. The CA however, opined that as HGE was more than 12 years old, Tubillo could be charged either rape under the RPC or Child Abuse under RA. No. 7610. The CA modified the penalty by reducing it to 14 years and 8 months of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to 20 years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in finding that the accused-appellant’s guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt?

HELD:

No. The CA found that Tubillo committed the crime of rape against HGE, then a 13 year old minor. Nevertheless, it opined that he must be convicted under Section 5 (b) of RA No. 7610 because it was the crime alleged in the information. To reiterate, the elements of rape under Section 266-A of the RPC are: 1. the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim; and 2. such act was accomplished through force or intimidation; or when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or when the victim is under 12 years of age. In the present case, the RTC convicted Tubillo for the crime of rape because the prosecution proved that there was a carnal knowledge against HGE by means of force or intimidation, particularly, with the bladed weapon. On the other hand, the CA convicted Tubillo with violation of Section 5 (b) of RA. No. 7610 because the charge of rape under the information was in relation to RA. No 7610. After a judicious study of the records, the court rules that Tubillo should be convicted of rape under Article 266-A of the RPC. Tubillo should be found guilty of rape with a prescribed penalty of reclusion perpetua.