SC Sets Guidelines on Proper Designation of Crime
When Elements of Both Statutory Rape and Qualified Rape are Present
March 25, 2024
The Court has categorically ruled that the term “qualified statutory rape” is not consistent with the basic precepts of criminal law in defining and treating the nature of crimes, and accordingly sets guidelines on the proper designation of the offense when the elements of both statutory rape and qualified rape are present.
In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, the Supreme Court En Banc denied the appeal of ABC260708 challenging his conviction for “qualified statutory rape.” The Court, however, modified the proper designation of the crimes ABC260708 was found guilty of to qualified rape of a minor and sexual assault, consistent with the following guidelines:
- The crime shall be denominated as QUALIFIED RAPE of a minor and not qualified statutory rape if any of the special qualifying aggravating circumstances is present, i.e., twin circumstances of minority and relationship, or the age of the victim being below seven years old, or the accused’s knowledge of the mental disability of the victim at the time of the commission of rape. This rule shall apply whether the victim is below the statutory age or is suffering from mental retardation comparable to the intellectual capacity of a child below the statutory age.
- The crime shall be denominated as QUALIFIED RAPE of a minor and not qualified statutory rape if the crime is attended with two or more special qualifying aggravating circumstances, i.e., twin circumstances of minority and relationship, or the age of the victim being below seven years old, or the accused’s knowledge of the mental disability of the victim at the time of the commission of rape. One of these aggravating circumstances is sufficient to qualify the crime. The unutilized special qualifying aggravating circumstances will be deemed as generic aggravating circumstances which may be appreciated if the facts warrant the imposition of a divisible penalty, i.e., existence of privileged mitigating circumstances under Article 69 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), and penalties in cases of frustrated and attempted felonies, and for accomplices and accessories pursuant to Articles 50 to 57 of the RPC. Otherwise, any unutilized aggravating circumstances shall not be considered in the application of penalties.
- The term “statutory age” in these guidelines shall mean either “below 12 years old” or “under 16 years old” depending on whether the crime of rape was committed before or after the effectivity of Republic Act No. (RA) 11648, respectively.
The Court was compelled to set the foregoing guidelines given divergent jurisprudence on the characterization of the offense if the elements of both statutory rape and qualified rape are present.
It also stressed that absent specific designation in the law, the courts may give crimes their common names or proper nomenclature consistent with the language of the statute and principles of criminal law.
Distinguishing statutory rape from qualified rape, the Court cited Article 266-A(1)(d) of the RPC, prior to its amendment by RA 11648 in 2022, which defines statutory rape as carnal knowledge of a woman below 12 years of age regardless of her consent, or the lack of it, to the sexual act.
In statutory rape, proof of force, intimidation, or consent is unnecessary. The absence of free consent is conclusively presumed when the victim is below the threshold age, as the victim is presumed to be without discernment and incapable of giving intelligent consent to the sexual act.
The sexual intercourse with a mental retardate whose intellectual age is below 12 years old also constitutes statutory rape under Article 266-A 1(d) of the RPC.
The prescribed penalty for statutory rape is reclusion perpetua.
In contrast, qualified rape is sexual congress against the will of the woman attended with any of the aggravating and/or qualifying circumstances enumerated in RA 7659, imposing the death penalty on certain crimes, and RA 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law.
These aggravating and/or qualifying circumstances are 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.
The prescribed punishment for qualified rape is the death penalty.
Reviewing existing jurisprudence, the Court noted that in rape cases, the Court consistently denominated and/or affirmed the name of the crime as qualified rape when special qualifying circumstances in RA 7659 and/or RA 8353 attended the commission of the offense warranting the imposition of death penalty, such as minority and relationship.
The designation of the crime as qualified rape stands although the circumstances of statutory rape are also present, such as when the victim is below 12 years old at the time of sexual violations or is suffering from mental retardation comparable to the intellectual capacity of a child below 12 years old.
However, starting in 2014, a string of cases coined the term “qualified statutory rape,” after discussing the elements of both statutory rape and qualified rape without further explanation. These cases deviated from the previous rulings of the Court that the designation of the crime as qualified rape stands although the circumstances of statutory rape are present.
To harmonize the conflicting case law, the Court sought to resolve whether the term “qualified statutory rape” is consistent with the basic precepts of criminal law in defining and treating the nature of crimes.
The Court thus proceeded to discuss the nature, classifications, and effects of aggravating circumstances, including their proper appreciation in the crimes of statutory rape and qualified rape.
Aggravating circumstances, which represent a greater degree of malice on the part of the offender and viciousness in the commission of a crime, increase the penalty and justify an award of exemplary or corrective damages. They may be classified as generic, specific, qualifying, inherent, or special.
A generic aggravating circumstance applies to all crimes and increases the punishment for the crime to the maximum period of the prescribed penalty. Examples are those enumerated in Article 14 of the RPC such as evident premeditation, recidivism, and nocturnity.
A specific aggravating circumstance likewise has the effect of increasing the penalty, but applies only to a particular crime as expressly provided by law or jurisprudence. It does not change the character of the offense. Examples are treachery, cruelty, and abuse of superior strength, which apply only to crimes against persons.
A qualifying aggravating circumstance changes the nature or designation of the crime and must be provided in the definition of the offense. It increases the imposable penalty even to the next higher degrees as provided by law. Examples are the circumstances in Article 248 of the RPC which elevate homicide to murder, as well as the circumstances in qualified theft and qualified seduction. In case one of the aggravating circumstances is used to qualify the crime, the others will be deemed as generic aggravating circumstances. To illustrate, where treachery has already been appreciated to qualify the crime as murder, the presence of evident premeditation should be considered only as a generic aggravating circumstance.
An inherent aggravating circumstance necessarily accompanies the commission of the offense. It is an element of the crime and is no longer considered in the determination of penalty. Examples are abuse of public office in the crime of bribery, fraud in estafa, and fire in arson.
A special aggravating circumstance arises under special conditions to increase the penalty for the offense. Examples are quasi-recidivism, complex crimes, and mistake in the identity of the victim.
Finally, a special qualifying aggravating circumstance includes those mentioned in RA 7659 which amended crimes under the RPC and special penal laws to impose death penalty under certain circumstances.
Applying the foregoing, the Court ruled that the circumstance of the victim being below the statutory age or the mental retardation of the victim is an inherent aggravating circumstance that necessarily accompanies the commission of statutory rape.
These circumstances neither change the nature of the crime of rape nor increase the penalty. At most, these circumstances only dispense proof of force, threat, or intimidation, deprivation of reason or unconsciousness of the victim, and fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority in the commission of the crime.
As to the twin circumstances of minority and relationship, or the accused’s knowledge of the mental disability of the victim at the time of the commission of rape, or the age of the victim being below seven years old, the Court held that these constitute special qualifying aggravating circumstances in qualified rape. They alter the nature of the crime and elevate the imposable penalty.
Given the fundamental rule in criminal law that aggravating circumstances cannot be appreciated more than once since it will be prejudicial to the accused, the victim being below the statutory age or his or her mental retardation cannot be appreciated as an inherent and special qualifying aggravating circumstance at the same time, ruled the Court.
It further clarified that the special qualifying aggravating circumstances of minority and relationship and the age of the victim being below seven years old absorb the inherent circumstance of the victim being under the statutory age.
Similarly, the special qualifying aggravating circumstance of the accused’s knowledge of the mental disability of the victim at the time of the commission of rape absorbs the inherent circumstance of the mental retardation of the victim comparable to the intellectual capacity of a child below the statutory age.
Thus, the proper designation of the crime must be qualified rape of a minor and not “qualified statutory rape,” concluded the Court, affirming its previous rulings that the presence of special qualifying circumstances under Article 266-B of the RPC raises the crime of statutory rape to qualified rape.
As to the case of ABC260708, he was convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) with qualified rape for having carnal knowledge against the will of his eight-year-old daughter. The CA affirmed the RTC’s findings but changed the designation of the crime to qualified statutory rape.
Applying the foregoing guidelines, the Court ruled that the proper nomenclature of the crime committed by ABC260708 is qualified rape of a minor and not qualified statutory rape. He was thus found guilty of qualified rape of a minor and sexual assault under Article 266-A(2) of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of RA 7610 (Anti-Child Abuse Law) for the acts he perpetrated on his eight-year-old daughter. (Courtesy of the Supreme Court Public Information Office)
FULL TEXT of the Decision in G.R. No. 260708, People v. ABC260708 (January 23, 2024) at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/260708-people-of-the-philippines-vs-abc260708/