SC sets guidelines on proper crime designation

A ruling was issued by the Supreme Court (SC) 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 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 dated 23 January 2024 and uploaded 25 March 2024, the Supreme Court En Banc denied the appeal of ABC260708 challenging his conviction for “qualified statutory rape.”

However, the court modified the proper designation of the crimes ABC260708 was found guilty of 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 the aggravating circumstances is sufficient to qualify the crime and 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., the existence of privileged mitigating circumstances under Article 69 of the Revised Penal Code, and penalties in cases of frustrated and attempted felonies, and for accomplices and accessories pursuant to Articles 50 to 57 of the RPC.

The court said, otherwise, any unutilized aggravating circumstances shall not be considered in the application of penalties.