Facts

The accused-appellant, Paulo Luis Gratela (Gratela), was accused of raping AAA, who was 7
years old at the time the crime was allegedly commenced. AAA testified that she went to
Gratela’s house to look for her friend. While waiting for the accused’s sister to awaken, AAA
was approached by Gratela and pulled down her shorts and underwear. He also removed his
undergarments, and rubbed his penis into AAA’s vagina. AAA kept the incident to herself,
fearing that her mother might scold her if she is notified of what happened.

After 2 years, AAA finally had the courage to tell her mother (BBB) about what the accused did
to her. Immediately, BBB filed a complaint to the Women’s and Children Protection Desk of the
Makati Police Station. Upon physical and medical examination, the result indicated clear
evidence of blunt force or penetrating trauma in AAA’s genitals.

Gratela claims that during that time, he was frequently out of their house and stayed in his
friend’s house. He also questions the veracity of AAA’s testimony as it was made two years after
the incident.

The Regional Trial Court rendered a decision finding Gratela guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
statutory rape through sexual intercourse. Gratela appealed the decision of the RTC.

The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision of the RTC. The court gave credence to the
accounts of AAA even though it was given 2 years after the incident, the threat of humiliation it
would bring to the child, is an adequate reason for the delay. With regards to Gratela’s defense of
denial and alibi, the court ruled that it is not enough evidence to overcome AAA’s positive
identification of the incident.

Issues
- Whether or not Republic Act No. 8353 or the Anti-Rape law is applicable to the case
presented.
- Whether or not Paolo Luis Gratela is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of statutory rape.

Ratio

First Issue

Yes, the court clarified that R.A. No. 8353 should be used as a basis for determining the decision
of the case, as opposed to Section 5(b) of R.A. 7610. As a justification for this matter, the court
cited prior cases in which two penal laws may both theoretically apply to the same case. The law
which is more special in nature, regardless of the time of enactment, was used. The Court
decided that R.A. No. 8353 should be uniformly applied in cases involving sexual intercourse
with minors as this law expanded the definition of the crime of rape against a child. ‘
Second Issue

Yes, according to Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, the
elements necessary to sustain a conviction of statutory rape are:

1. The offender is a man

2. He had carnal knowledge of a woman
3. The offended party is under 12 years old.

There is no question as to the first and third requisite. The accused is a man and the victim is 7
years old at the time of the incident. The case would hinge on the question of, whether or not
carnal knowledge was committed by the accused. The testimony of AAA and the medico-legal
officer, as well as the Medico-Legal Report, confirm the existence of carnal knowledge against
the victim.

Held

The Supreme Court affirms and modifies the decision of the Court of Appeals. The court finds
Paolo Luis Gratela guilty beyond reasonable doubt of statutory rape and imposes the penalty of
reclusion perpetua and orders him to pay AAA P75,000 as civil indemnity, P75,000 as moral
damages, and P75,000 as exemplary damages.