A ruling was issued by the Supreme Court 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 on 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 crime 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 are 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 (RPC), 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.
It also said the term “statutory age” in the 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.