People v. XXX

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 251865. September 14, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. XXX, 1accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated September 14, 2021 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 251865 (People of the Philippines v. XXX[CA-G.R. CR HC No. 08090 formerly Crim. Case No. 538-V-15, Crim. Case No. 539-V-15, and Crim. Case No. 540-V-15]). — Claiming his innocence x x x, (accused-appellant) imputes error on the part of the Court of Appeals (CA) in convicting him of the crimes of Acts of Lasciviousness, Qualified Rape, and Attempted Rape in a Decision 2 dated February 19, 2018 in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 08090. He faults the CA for giving weight to the improbable and flawed testimony of AAA and for holding him criminally liable despite the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

We dismiss the appeal and sustain accused-appellant's conviction for Qualified Rape in Criminal Case No. 539-V-15. We also modify his convictions for Attempted Rape in Criminal Case No. 540-V-15 and Lascivious Conduct under Republic Act (RA) No. 7610 in Criminal Case No. 538-V-15.

AAA is a credible witness:

In cases of sexual abuse, the credibility of the victim's testimony is crucial in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime where only the persons involved can testify as to its occurrence. 3 These crimes are essentially committed in secrecy, generally executed in dark or deserted and secluded places away from prying eyes. Thus, conviction rests largely upon the credibility of the offended party who is usually the sole witness of its actual occurrence. 4

Here, we find no reason to disturb the findings of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), as affirmed by the CA, in relation to the credibility of AAA. It is well settled that the manner of assigning values to declarations of witnesses at the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who has the unique and unmatched opportunity to observe their demeanor and assess their credibility. When the question arises as to which of the conflicting versions of the prosecution and the defense is worthy of belief, the assessment of the trial court is generally given the highest degree of respect, if not finality, especially when the CA affirms the same, as in this case. 5

Based on this principle, we reject accused-appellant's desperate attempt to undermine AAA's credibility, claiming that the complaints were filed against him out of spite since he used her allowance to pay their rent. We agree with the RTC and CA that such assertion should not merit any consideration for being too flimsy and unbelievable. To be sure, this Court has repeatedly upheld testimonies of rape victims against their parents because Filipino children have a natural reverence and respect for their elders. It is simply unthinkable for a daughter to brazenly concoct a story of rape against her, if such were not true. 6 CAIHTE

Accused-appellant is guilty

Article 266-A in relation to 266-B of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), defines Qualified Rape, as follows:

ART. 266-A. Rape: When and How Committed. — Rape is committed:

1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:

a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;

b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;

c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and

d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.

xxx xxx xxx

ART. 266-B. Penalty. — x x x.

xxx xxx xxx

The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:

1) When 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[.]

xxx xxx xxx

For conviction of Qualified or Incestuous Rape (through sexual intercourse), the prosecution must allege and prove the following elements: (1) sexual congress, (2) with a woman, (3) by force and without consent, (4) the victim is under eighteen years of age at the time of the rape, and (5) 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. 7

Both the RTC and the CA ruled that all the elements were duly established by the prosecution. Accused-appellant, however, contended that the first element was absent because AAA could not have known that his penis was the object inserted in her vagina since the room was dark. In addition, there was no categorical finding by the examining physician that a penis was inserted into her vagina.

We are not persuaded. AAA clearly testified that accused-appellant removed her clothing, inserted his penis inside her vagina, and engaged in pumping motion:

Q: Going back to your testimony that your father removed all your clothes, what happened next, if any, after removing your clothes?

A: He made me lie down, Sir.

Q: After you lied down, what happened next?

A: He started touching my vagina, Sir.

Q: Aside from that, what happened next, if any?

A: He inserted his penis, Sir.

Q: Where did he insert his penis?

A: In my vagina, Sir.

Q: How did you know that your father inserted his penis inside your vagina?

A: Because I felt it, it was very painful, Sir.

Q: By the way, can you recall what was the condition of your room during that time, was it lighted or not?

A: It was dark, Sir.

Q: For how long did your father insert his penis inside your vagina?

A: For a long time, Sir.

Q: Approximately, how many minutes, if you can estimate?

A: Around twenty (20) minutes, Sir.

Q: While the penis of your father was inside your vagina, did you feel him doing any motion?

A: Yes sir.

Q: How, pumping like this? [Pros. Del Rosario is demonstrating the pumping using his hands]

A: Yes Sir.8 (Emphases supplied.)

AAA's narration certainly proved the first element of sexual intercourse. Her testimony was reinforced by PCI Escarro's statement that there was blunt trauma on the victim's vagina. Contrary to accused-appellant's argument, it is immaterial if the examining physician did not specify the object that caused the trauma since his testimony is limited to the nature, extent, and locations of the wounds. 9 PCI Escarro cannot be expected to testify as to the exact object that caused the trauma or hymenal lacerations of AAA. At any rate, PCI Escarro's testimony was merely corroborative in character and was not essential to prove the commission of rape. 10 As to the element of force or lack of consent to the sexual intercourse, being the biological father, accused-appellant's moral ascendancy or influence over AAA, supplants the element of violence or intimidation. 11 Without doubt, the ingrained fear for her father paralyzed her into helplessness and silence during the repeated acts of sexual abuse. Finally, there is no question that AAA was below 18 years old, as shown by her Certificate of Live Birth 12 that she was only 16 years old when the rape in Criminal Case No. 539-V-15 was committed by accused-appellant, who is her biological father. 13 aDSIHc

In Criminal Case No. 540-V-

Rape through sexual intercourse is consummated once the penis capable of consummating the sexual act enters the female genitalia or touches the labia majora of the vagina. 14 Its attempted stage 15 requires that the offender commences the commission of rape directly by overt acts without performing all the acts of execution that should produce such felony. The overt acts performed by the offender must have a causal relation to rape, it being the intended crime, which means a clear showing of an intent to lie with the female. 16

AAA testified that on October 22, 2014, accused-appellant lowered her shorts and underwear to her knees. There was no mention that the accused-appellant performed other acts to show his intent to lie or have his penis enter the female genitalia. On the contrary, AAA testified that the accused-appellant was sitting near her feet, thus:

Q: While you were sleeping, do you remember anything unusual that happened?

A: Yes, Sir.

Q: What was that?

A: I felt that someone was removing my shorts and panty, Sir.

Q: Were you able to know who that person was?

A: My father, Sir.

Q: How did you know?

A: I was surprised because he was already near my feet and I was able to kick him, Sir.

Q: What was your father doing at that time?

A: He was taking off my shorts, Sir.

Q: When your said that your father was already taking off your shorts, how low was it already?

A: Up to my knee, Sir.

Q: How about your panty?

A: Also there, Sir.

Q: So what happened after you saw your father in the act of removing your shorts and panty?

A: I was able to kick him and ran immediately, sir.

Q: How about your father, do you remember what was the appearance of your father on that specific time? Was he wearing clothes?

A: I can only recall that he was sitting down, I cannot remember if he was still wearing clothes, Sir. 17

Based on the foregoing, the Court is not convinced that accused-appellant's overt acts sufficiently demonstrate an intent to lie with AAA. It is too speculative to consider that accused-appellant's acts of removing AAA's lower garments will logically and necessarily ripen into rape. The evidence does not show that accused-appellant commenced the introduction of his penis into AAA's vagina which signals the commission of rape through sexual intercourse. Accordingly, absent the overt act showing his intent to lie with the victim, accused-appellant is not guilty of Attempted Rape. At most, for removing AAA's shorts and underwear, the crime committed is only Acts of Lasciviousness. 18

Acts of Lasciviousness is penalized under Article 336 of the RPC, which states:

ART. 336. Acts of lasciviousness. — Any person who shall commit any act of lasciviousness upon other persons of either sex, under any of the circumstances mentioned in the preceding article, shall be punished by prision correccional.

Acts of lasciviousness is consummated when the following essential elements concur, namely: (a)the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness upon another person of either sex; and (b) the act of lasciviousness or lewdness is committed either (i)by using force or intimidation; or (ii) when the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious; or (iii) when the offended party is under 12 years of age. 19

"[L]ewd is defined as obscene, lustful, indecent, lecherous; it signifies that form of immorality that has relation to moral impurity; or that which is carried on a wanton manner." 20 In Fianza v. People, 21 it was explained that since entertainment of lewdness is a mental process, it can be inferred not only from the acts themselves but also from the surrounding circumstances, thus: ETHIDa

The term "lewd" is commonly defined as something indecent or obscene; it is characterized by or intended to excite crude sexual desire. That an accused is entertaining a lewd or unchaste design is necessarily a mental process the existence of which can be inferred by overt acts carrying out such intention, i.e., by conduct that can only be interpreted as lewd or lascivious. The presence or absence of lewd designs is inferred from the nature of the acts themselves and the environmental circumstances. Hence, whether or not a particular conduct is lewd, by its very nature, cannot be pigeonholed into a precise definition. 22 (Emphases in the original.)

By their nature, the removal of AAA's lower garments down to her knees while she was sleeping shows lewdness as the act displays accused-appellant's lustful, indecent, and obscene desires. As with other sexual abuses, it is recognized that the father of the minor has moral ascendancy or influence over the victim. For this reason, there is no need to prove force or intimidation exercised by accused-appellant over AAA during the commission of the felony. 23 Accordingly, since AAA was already 18 years old at the time of the incident, accused-appellant is guilty of Acts of Lasciviousness in Criminal Case No. 540-V-15. Acts of Lasciviousness is included in Attempted Rape, which is the offense charged, hence, accused-appellant can be held guilty of the lesser crime of Acts of Lasciviousness following the variance doctrine under Section 4, 24 in relation to Section 5 25 of Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. 26

In Criminal Case No. 538-V-

In Criminal Case No. 538-V-15, AAA testified about accused-appellant's lascivious conduct of repeatedly touching her butt, breasts and vagina which started in February 2012, when she was 16 years old:

Q: Aside from pulling off your shorts and panty, do you remember anything that your father did to you?

A: Just that him touching me on my private parts every day, Sir.

Q: When you say everyday, what period was that, from what year to what year or what month or day was that?

A: After the February 2012 incident whenever he would wake me up, he would touch me, Sir.

Q: How?

A: He would poke my butt, my vagina and my breast, Sir.

Q: How, inside your clothes or just outside your clothes?

A: Just outside my clothes, Sir.

Q: In your estimate, how many times did your father did that?

A: Too many times, Sir.

Court:

Q: That you can no longer count?

A: Yes, Your Honor. 27 (Emphases supplied.)

The RTC and CA convicted accused-appellant of Acts of Lasciviousness under the RPC in relation to RA No. 7610. However, AAA was 16 years old at the time of the commission of the offense. In People v. Ursua28 and People v. Caoili, 29 we held that the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC, in relation to Section 5 (b), Article III of RA No. 7610, can only be committed against a victim who is less than 12 years old. When the victim is aged 12 years old but under 18, like AAA in this case who was 16 years old, the proper designation for the offense is sexual abuse or lascivious conduct under Section 5 (b) of RA No. 7610. 30

Lascivious Conduct is penalized under Section 5 (b) of RA No. 7610, which provides:

SEC. 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. — Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.

The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:

(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse of lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the victims is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: 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; x x x (Emphases supplied.)

The term "lascivious conduct" is defined under Section 2 (h) of the Rules and Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases (Rules on Child Abuse Cases) as:

[T]he intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person[.]

The crime of Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b) of RA No. 7610 is committed when: (a) the accused commits lascivious conduct; (b) the said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and (c) the child is exactly twelve (12) years of age, or more than twelve (12) but below eighteen (18) years of age (or 18 years old and above under special circumstances). cSEDTC

Accused-appellant's act intentionally touching AAA's butt, vagina and breasts clearly falls within the scope of lascivious conduct. Likewise, jurisprudence recognizes that lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult exists when there is some form of compulsion equivalent to intimidation which subdues the free exercise of the offended party's free will. 31 Here, accused-appellant exercises moral ascendancy over AAA and this overpowers the free exercise of the will of AAA who was a minor at the time of the commission of the offense. 32

Lastly, we cannot subscribe to the accused-appellant's assertion that he was not informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him since the Information for Criminal Case No. 538-V-15 merely alleged that it was committed sometime in February 2012. 33 We agree with the CA that the complete date of the commission of the offense is not a material ingredient of the crime, hence, need not be alleged in the Information. 34

Penalties:

In Criminal Case No. 538-V-15, considering that AAA was 16 years old at the time of the commission of the sexual abuse, accused-appellant is liable for Lascivious Conduct in violation of Section 5 (b) of RA No. 7610, which has a prescribed penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period, to reclusion perpetua. There being no mitigating circumstance to offset the aggravating circumstance of paternal relationship, 35 which was alleged in the Information and was proved during trial, the maximum penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed. 36 We also impose P15,000.00 as fine, and order accused-appellant to pay AAA the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. 37

For Criminal Case No. 539-V-15, we sustain accused-appellant's conviction for Qualified Rape under Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended by RA No. 8353. 38 Consistent with RA No. 9346 39 suspending the death penalty, we affirm the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole 40 as imposed by the CA, considering that AAA was 16 years old at the time of the incident and accused-appellant is the victim's father. However, we increase the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to P100,000.00 each following the existing jurisprudence. 41

Lastly, in Criminal Case No. 540-V-15, AAA was already 18 years old at the time of the sexual abuse, hence, we adjudge accused-appellant guilty of Acts of Lasciviousness — which is punishable by prision correccional under the RPC. 42 In crimes against chastity, the circumstance of relationship is always aggravating. 43 Hence, we impose upon accused-appellant the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to six (6) years of prision correccional, as maximum, and order him to pay AAA the amounts of P20,000.00 as civil indemnity, P20,000.00 as moral damages, and P20,000.00 as exemplary damages. 44

All monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid. 45

FOR THESE REASONS, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated February 19, 2018, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08090 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in that the Court finds accused-appellant XXX:

1. In Criminal Case No. 538-V-15, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Lascivious Conduct in violation of Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610 and sentences him to suffer the maximum penalty of reclusion perpetua and payment of P15,000.00 as fine. He is also ordered to pay AAA the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages.

2. In Criminal Case No. 539-V-15, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified Rape under Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole, and is ordered to pay AAA civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages of P100,000.00 each.

3. In Criminal Case No. 540-V-15, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Acts of Lasciviousness and sentences him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to six (6) years of prision correccional, as maximum. He is also ordered to pay AAA the amounts of P20,000.00 as civil indemnity, P20,000.00 as moral damages, and P20,000.00 as exemplary damages.

Interests at the rate of 6% per annum on the monetary awards reckoned from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid are likewise imposed. SDAaTC

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

by:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Modified pursuant to SC Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017 (Re Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions and Final Orders Using Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances), in relation to RA No. 7610, RA No. 8508, RA No. 9208, RA No. 9262, and RA No. 9344. Fictitious initials are instead used to represent the victims. Likewise, the personal circumstances or other information tending to establish or compromise their identities, as well as those of their immediate family or household members shall not be disclosed. The name of the accused-appellant is also blotted out as it tends to establish or compromise the victim's identity.

RA No. 7610, entitled AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Approved: June 17, 1992.

RA No. 8505, entitled AN ACT PROVIDING ASSISTANCE AND PROTECTION FOR RAPE VICTIMS, ESTABLISHING FOR THE PURPOSE A RAPE CRISIS CENTER IN EVERY PROVINCE AND CITY, AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSE. Approved: February 13, 1998.

RA No. 9208, entitled AN ACT TO INSTITUTE POLICIES TO ELIMINATE TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS ESPECIALLY WOMEN AND CHILDREN, ESTABLISHING THE NECESSARY INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS FOR THE PROTECTION AND SUPPORT OF TRAFFICKED PERSONS, PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR ITS VIOLATIONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Approved: May 26, 2003.

RA No. 9262, entitled AN ACT DEFINING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN, PROVIDING FOR PROTECTIVE MEASURES FOR VICTIMS, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES THEREFORE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Approved: March 08, 2004.

RA No. 9344, entitled AN ACT ESTABLISHING A COMPREHENSIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE SYSTEM, CREATING THE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE COUNCIL UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Approved: April 28, 2006

2.Rollo, pp. 3-26. Penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang (now a member of the Court), and Pedro B. Corales.

3.People v. Subesa, 676 Phil. 403, 414 (2011).

4.People v. Gaorana, 352 Phil. 487, 498 (1998).

5.Supra note 3.

6.People v. Pangilinan, 547 Phil. 260, 285-286 (2007).

7.People v. Villamor, 780 Phil. 817, 828-829 (2016); and People v. XXX, G.R. No. 235662, July 24, (2019).

8. CA rollo, p. 21.

9.Rollo, p. 7.

10.People v. Prodenciado, 749 Phil. 746, 765 (2014).

11.People v. Austria, 820 Phil. 747, 766 (2017).

12. See Certificate of Live Birth of AAA, marked as Exhibit "C."

13. CA rollo, pp. 181-182. RTC's Joint Decision dated November 6, 2015, states that the parties stipulated during the pre-trial conference that accused-appellant is the biological father of the private complainant; See also the Certificate of Live Birth of AAA, marked as Exhibit "C."

14.Lutap v. People, 825 Phil. 10, 23-24 (2018), citing People v. Campuhan, 385 Phil. 912, 920-922 (2000); and People v. Mendoza, 595 Phil. 1197, 1211 (2008).

15. REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 6.

ART. 6. Consummated, Frustrated, and Attempted Felonies. — Consummated felonies, as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.

16.Supra note 14, at 24-25, citing Cruz v. People, 745 Phil. 54, 71-72 (2014).

17. CA rollo, p. 23.

18.People v. Dadulla, 657 Phil. 442, 455 (2011), citing People v. Collado, 405 Phil. 880, 896 (2001).

19. REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 336.

20.Cruz v. People, 745 Phil. 54, 74 (2014).

21. 815 Phil. 379 (2017).

22.Id. at 390

23.XXX v. People, G.R. No. 243151, September 2, 2019.

24. SEC. 4. Judgment in case of variance between allegation and proof. — When there is variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information and that proved, and the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or of the offense charged which is included in the offense proved.

25. SEC. 5. When an offense includes or is included in another. — An offense charged necessarily includes the offense proved when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former, as alleged in the complaint or information, constitute the latter. And an offense charged is necessarily included in the offense proved, when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form part of those constituting the latter.

26.Lutap v. People, supra note 14, at 26.

27. CA rollo, p. 24.

28. 819 Phil. 467 (2017).

29. 815 Phil. 839 (2017).

30.Supra note 28, at 479-480, citing People v. Caoili, supra at 899, Separate concurring opinion of former Chief Justice Diosdado M. Peralta.

31.Fianza v. People, 815 Phil. 379, 391 (2017).

32.People v. Caoili, supra note 29, at 908, separate Concurring Opinion of former Chief Justice Diosdado M. Peralta.

33. CA rollo, p. 56.

34.People v. Fragante, 657 Phil. 577, 597 (2011). See also 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, Rule 110, Section 11, which states:

SEC. 11. Time of the commission of the offense. — It is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise time at which the offense was committed except when time is a material ingredient of the offense, but the act may be alleged to have been committed at any time as near to the actual date at which the offense was committed as the information or complaint will permit.

35. See RA No. 7610, Article XII, Section 31 (c) which provides that the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period when the perpetrator is an ascendant, parent guardian, stepparent or collateral relative within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity of the victim.

36. See People v. Ursua, supra note 28, at 481-482.

37.Id.

38. "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." Approved on September 30, 1997.

39. "AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES." Approved on June 24, 2006

40. See People v. ZZZ, G.R. No. 232500, July 28, 2020; See also A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC, GUIDELINES FOR THE PROPER USE OF THE PHRASE "WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE" IN INDIVISIBLE PENALTIES. Approved on August 4, 2015.

41.People v. XXX, G.R. No. 238405, December 7, 2020, citing People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).

42. See REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 336.

43.People v. Caoili, supra note 29, at 896.

44.People v. Tulagan, G.R. No. 227636, March 12, 2019.

45. See People v. XXX, supra note 41, citing People v. Roy, G.R. No. 225604, July 23, 2018, in turn citing Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267, 283 (2013).