In People v. Garbida, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Roberto Garbida for seven counts of statutory rape against his 11-year-old stepdaughter. The Court emphasized that in cases of statutory rape, the victim’s consent is irrelevant if she is under 12 years old; the sole issue is whether carnal knowledge occurred. This decision reinforces the State’s commitment to protecting children and underscores that any sexual act with a minor constitutes a severe crime, regardless of perceived consent.

When Trust Betrays: The Unforgivable Act of Statutory Rape

Roberto Garbida was accused of repeatedly raping his 11-year-old stepdaughter, AAA, between April 1 and April 7, 1997. The case unfolded in Sua, Matnog, Sorsogon, within the family’s own home. The disturbing details included the presence of AAA’s mother, who witnessed some of the assaults and attempted to stop Garbida. He was charged with seven counts of rape, one for each day of the abuse. The RTC found Garbida guilty of statutory rape, and the CA affirmed the conviction, modifying only the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua due to the abolition of the death penalty. Garbida appealed, claiming the acts were consensual, prompting the Supreme Court to review the case.

The Supreme Court meticulously examined the evidence presented. It referenced established principles in rape cases, particularly emphasizing the need for careful scrutiny of the complainant’s testimony, given the nature of the crime often involving only two individuals. The Court acknowledged that while an accusation of rape can be easily made, it is exceedingly difficult for the accused to disprove, even if innocent. The Court found AAA’s testimony credible and corroborated by her mother’s account, who witnessed the assaults. Central to the Court’s reasoning was the concept of statutory rape, focusing on the victim’s age rather than the presence or absence of consent. Garbida’s defense hinged on the assertion that AAA consented to the sexual acts, claiming she did so because her mother was allegedly having affairs with other men. However, the Court dismissed this claim, stating that the consent of an 11-year-old is immaterial in statutory rape cases.

Building on this principle, the Court emphasized that the relevant law at the time of the offense was Article 335(3) of the Revised Penal Code, which defines statutory rape based on the age of the victim. The Court referenced previous decisions to underscore this point.

It must be remembered that under the law and prevailing jurisprudence, the gravamen of the offense of statutory rape as provided under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code is the carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve years old.   The only elements of statutory rape are: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) the such woman is under twelve (12) years of age.

Further, the Supreme Court highlighted the legal principle that a child under 12 is presumed incapable of giving valid consent to sexual acts.

Where the girl is below 12 years old, as in this case, the only subject of inquiry is whether “carnal knowledge” took place.  Proof of force, intimidation or consent is unnecessary, since none of these is an element of statutory rape.  There is a conclusive presumption of absence of free consent when the rape victim is below the age of twelve.

The Court stressed that even if AAA had seemingly consented, it would not absolve Garbida of criminal liability. This is because the law presumes that a child of that age cannot fully understand the nature and consequences of such acts. The idea of having sex with his stepdaughter, especially since she is a minor, should repel a normal man. Instead, accused-appellant gave in to his lustful desires.  But even assuming arguendo that the sex was consensual, the consent of AAA is immaterial.

In addition to affirming Garbida’s conviction, the Supreme Court also addressed the issue of damages. While the lower courts had awarded civil indemnity and moral damages, the Supreme Court found it appropriate to add exemplary damages. Exemplary damages are awarded as a form of punishment and to deter similar conduct in the future. The Court considered Garbida’s position of trust as a stepfather and his betrayal of that trust, compounded by committing the acts in the presence of the victim’s mother. Given these circumstances, the Court deemed an award of PhP 30,000 in exemplary damages justified.

The Supreme Court’s decision also clarified the penalty to be imposed. While the Court of Appeals had reduced the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua in accordance with Republic Act No. 9346 (which abolished the death penalty), the Supreme Court added a crucial detail: the sentence of reclusion perpetua was to be served without eligibility for parole. This stipulation is consistent with Sections 2 and 3 of RA 9346, which specify that individuals convicted of offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua are not eligible for parole.

FAQs

What is statutory rape?	Statutory rape is defined as sexual intercourse with a person who is below the legal age of consent. In this case, the law presumes that a child under 12 cannot give valid consent.
Is consent a factor in statutory rape cases?	No, in statutory rape cases involving a child below the age of 12, the issue of consent is irrelevant. The sole determining factor is whether the sexual act occurred.
What was the accused’s defense in this case?	The accused claimed that the sexual acts were consensual, alleging that the victim willingly engaged in the acts due to her mother’s alleged infidelity.
Why did the Court reject the accused’s defense?	The Court rejected the defense because the victim was 11 years old at the time of the incidents. Under the law, a child of that age is deemed incapable of giving valid consent to sexual acts.
What is reclusion perpetua?	Reclusion perpetua is a penalty under Philippine law, equivalent to life imprisonment. In this case, the Supreme Court specified that the sentence was to be served without eligibility for parole.
What are exemplary damages?	Exemplary damages are awarded in addition to compensatory damages as a form of punishment and to deter similar conduct in the future. They are meant to set an example for others.
Why were exemplary damages awarded in this case?	Exemplary damages were awarded due to the accused’s abuse of his position of trust as a stepfather and the egregious nature of the crime, committed in the presence of the victim’s mother.
What is the significance of Republic Act No. 9346?	Republic Act No. 9346 abolished the death penalty in the Philippines. As a result, the penalty imposed on the accused was reduced from death to reclusion perpetua.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Garbida serves as a reminder of the severe consequences of sexual abuse against children and reinforces the principle that a child’s age is the primary determinant in statutory rape cases. This ruling underscores the unwavering commitment of the Philippine legal system to protect children and hold perpetrators accountable for their heinous crimes.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People of the Philippines vs. Roberto Garbida, G.R. No. 188569, July 13, 2010