Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
National Prosecution Service
OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR OF ALBAY
Hall of Justice, Rawis, Legazpi City

SAILA JOY V. POSTRADO

Assisted by her mother
LUZVIMINDA V. POSTRADO,
Complainant, NPS DOC NO. V-O8L-INV-16F-00119

- versus - For: Violation of R.A. 8353

(Rape in relation to R.A.7610)

REYNALD VASQUEZ Y DIGAY,

Respondent.
X-------------------------X

RESOLUTION
This resolves the complaint for Violation of Republic Act 8353 (Rape in
relation to R.A. 7610), filed by 7 year old minor Saila Joy Postrado Y Villamer of
Zone 4, Barangay Matacon, Polangui, Albay, with the assistance of her mother
Luzviminda V. Postrado, against respondent Reynald Vasquez Y Digay, 22 years
old, single, and a resident of Zone 4, Barangay Matacon, Polangui, Albay.

Respondent was issued with a subpoena to inform him of the above-said

complaint and requiring him to file his counter-affidavit. However, the respondent
cannot be found at his given address thus, the complaint shall be resolved based on
the evidence presented by the complainant.

As culled from the records, complainant’s evidence tends to establish that:

Saila Joy Postrado Y Villamer, having been born on June 1, 2009 was 7
years of age, a minor the time of the commission of the crime charged. Respondent
is a distant relative of Saila Joy’s mother.

On June 10, 2016 at around 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon, Saila Joy asked
permission from her mother for her to go to the house of Exiquel Digay whom she
calls Lolo Eching to sell coconut. Her mother Luzviminda did not mind her as the
latter was also busy preparing the firewood she will sell and it has been her
daughter’s practice to sell coconut to Lolo Eching. When Saila Joy arrived at the
house of Lolo Eching, the latter refused to buy the coconut because it has no
content. Meanwhile, Reynald Vasquez Y Digay went out from the room of the
house of Lolo Eching when Saila Joy arrived. Thereafter, Saila Joy walked home
and saw Reynald at the coconut plantation. Suddenly, Reynald carried her, covered
her mouth with his hand and brought her along the river near the house of Auntie
Emang. Then he made her lie down on the grass near the bamboo plants and
riverbank. He removed her white shorts, panties and clothes. He also discarded his
clothes and placed himself on top of her. She tried to fight him off by pushing him
but he boxed her on the butt and inserted his sexual organ into that of Saila and

1
succeeded in his sexual assault. Thereafter, he put back her clothes and also put on
his shorts. Then he attempted to drown her at the river and hurriedly left when he
heard her brother looking for her.

From the uncontroverted evidence, it has been established that respondent

had carnal knowledge against the complaining victim. She identified the person
who sexually molested her by taking advantage of her tender-age. She detailed
with clarity the antecedents and the surrounding circumstances of the sexual
assault committed against her. She was then only 7 years of age when the sexual
assault happened. As cemented jurisprudence, sexual intercourse with a girl below
12 years old is considered as statutory rape. The alleged crime is corroborated by
the Medico-Legal Examination Result that the respondent consummated his evil
desire against the victim. As such, respondent is liable for the commission of the
crime of statutory rape perpetrated upon the complainant.

Statutory rape is punishable under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code
which falls under subparagraph (4) that: (1) the offended party is under 12 years
old 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 that age of the victim is proven and that there was sexual
intercourse.

In People vs. Teodoro (GR No. 175876, February 20, 2013) explained the
elements of 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.

Under the present case, on the wee hour of the afternoon, complainant
whose only intention is to sell the coconut she usually does every afternoon but to
her fate and tender age was taken advantage by the respondent who had
successfully perpetrated his evil and lewd design. The respondent had really the
intention to consummate the crime since he had waited the victim and carried her
near the riverside and upon resisting by the victim he even boxed her butt.
Considering the attendant circumstances that the victim is only seven years old and
there was carnal knowledge through force, threat or intimidation, the respondent
may be held liable for statutory rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1,
subparagraph (4).

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, finding probable cause, this

Investigating Prosecutor hereby recommends the filing of Information with the
Regional Trial Court, Family Court, Legazpi City, against the above-named
respondent for the crime of Statutory Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 4 of the
Revised Penal Code and under R.A. 8353. No bail is recommended.

SO RESOLVED.

Legazpi City, August 23, 2016

2
 MARIA MIRANDA-GOJAR
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor

APPROVED:

CESAR V. BONOS
OIC, Provincial Prosecutor

Copy Furnished:

1. Saila Joy V. Postrado

Luzviminda V. Postrado
Zone 4, Barangay Matacon, Polangui, Albay

2. Reynald D. Vasquez
Zone 4, Barangay Matacon, Polangui, Albay

3. The Chief of Police

PNP, Polangui, Albay