PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
RODRIGO GUTIEREZ Y ROBLES ALIAS "ROD AND
JOHN LENNON"
G.R. No. 208007 April 2, 2014 THIRD DIVISION LEONEN, J
CRIME CHARGED: Crime of Statutory Rape
FACTS
AAA, who was then 10 years old and a Grade 2 student at Camp 7 Elementary School in Baguio
City. She testified that on November 29, 2005, she went home from school at around 12 noon to have
lunch. 3 On the way home, she met Rodrigo at his house. He brought her to his room and laid her down
on the bed. He then raised her skirt and removed her panties. He pulled down his pants and then inserted
his penis into her vagina.
According to AAA, Rodrigo stayed on top of her for a long time, and when he withdrew his penis,
white liquid came out. He then gave her five pesos (P5.00) before she went back to school. AAA went
back to school at about 2:10 p.m. Her adviser, Agustina Chapap, asked her where she came from because
she was tardy. AAA initially did not answer. When asked again why she was tardy, AAA admitted she
came from "Uncle Rod." She also admitted that she went there to ask for money. Chapap then brought
AAA to Rona Ambaken, AAA's previous teacher. Together, they brought AAA to the principal's office. AAA
was brought to the comfort room where Ambaken inspected her panties. The principal was able to
confirm that AAA was touched since AAA's private organ was swelling. Her underwear was also wet.
Another teacher, Jason Dalisdis, then brought AAA to Baguio General Hospital where her
underwear was again inspected. Dr. Anvic Pascua also examined her. On the way to the hospital, Dalisdis
passed by the barangay hall and the police station to report the incident. AAA also disclosed during trial
that the accused-appellant had done the same thing to her about 10 times on separate occasions. After
each act, he would give her ten (P10.00) or five (P5.00) pesos.
Rodrigo denied that AAA went to his house at 12 noon on November 29, 2005 and claimed he was
already at work at 1:30 p.m. He has known AAA for a long time since his family rented the house of AAA's
grandfather from 2001 to 2004. When the police came and asked him if he knew AAA, he answered in the
affirmative. He was then brought to Baguio General Hospital where he was told that AAA identified him
as the one who raped her.
Rodrigo admitted that he had a relationship with AAA's sister, and they even lived together as
common-law spouses. He also admitted that a similar complaint was filed against him by AAA's mother
when AAA was eight years old, but they settled the case at the barangay level.
RTC: found Rodrigo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of statutory rape
CA: Affirmed Rodrigo’s conviction
ISSUE
Whether or Not the Accused should be held liable for statutory rape punishable under Article 266-A of
the Revised Penal Code? (YES)
RULING
Statutory rape is committed when (1) the offended party is under 12 years of age and
(2) the accused has carnal knowledge of her, regardless of whether there was force, threat
or intimidation; whether the victim was deprived of reason or consciousness; or whether it
was done through fraud or grave abuse of authority. It is enough that the age of the victim
is proven and that there was sexual intercourse.
People v. Teodoro explained the elements of statutory rape committed under Article 266-A, paragraph (1)
(d):
Rape under paragraph 3 of this article is termed statutory rape as it departs from the usual modes
of committing rape. What the law punishes in statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a woman
below twelve (12) years old. Thus, force, intimidation and physical evidence of injury are not
relevant considerations; the only subject of inquiry is the age of the woman and whether carnal
knowledge took place. The law presumes that the victim does not and cannot have a will of her
own on account of her tender years; the child's consent is immaterial because of her presumed
incapacity to discern good from evil.
The defense did not dispute the fact that AAA was 10 years old at the time of the incident. Her
birth certificate was presented before the trial court. What is critical in this case, therefore, is whether
there is a showing that Rodrigo had carnal knowledge of AAA. AAA's ordeal was supported by the
testimonies of her teachers whose concern for her led to the discovery of the crime. The medical certificate
presented in court, together with the testimonies of the physicians, is consistent with the finding that she
was sexually abused.
Rodrigo was referred to by the child-victim as "Uncle Rod." He admitted that AAA's family had known
him for a long time. Rodrigo had the trust and respect that any elder in the family of AAA had. Instead of
providing the moral guidance that his status allowed him, he took advantage of AAA's youthful innocence
to satiate his illicit carnal desires. To cover this up and seemingly justify his actions, he gave his child-
victim the measly sum of five pesos. Rodrigo knew that what he did was wrong; AAA would have probably
doubted whether such act was normal among adults.
With his moral ascendancy, it would not be unreasonable to assume that even the child-victim's
desire for help would be muffled by her fear of her "Uncle Rod." To a young 10-year-old, the ordinary
world can be daunting. To be so young and silently aware that one is the victim of such callous
depravation by Rodrigo, who she could have expected to take care of her, can create the kind of lasting
fear that diminishes the development of her own person and her own convictions. In any case, whether
she cried for help is immaterial in a charge of statutory rape since "[t]he law presumes that such a victim,
on account of her tender age, does not and cannot have a will of her own." Beyond reasonable doubt,
Rodrigo Gutierez raped AAA, a minor who was only 10 years of age, on November 29, 2005.
