The Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday issued amended guidelines on the proper use of
“qualified rape” and “statutory rape” in cases involving child victims to resolve inconsistencies in jurisprudence.
In a resolution penned by retired Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, the SC en banc denied the motion for reconsideration filed by a man convicted of raping his eight-year-old daughter.
The High Court affirmed its earlier ruling finding him guilty of qualified rape of a minor, noting that said designation is applicable in the presence of any of the 10 special qualifying aggravating circumstances listed under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
Although some rulings since 2014 began using qualified statutory rape, which led to confusion, the High Tribunal had consistently used the term qualified rape even when elements of statutory rape were present.
As such, the SC categorically ruled that qualified statutory rape is not the proper legal term and issued guidelines that provide that when the elements of both statutory rape and qualified rape are present, the correct designation is qualified rape of a minor.
The term qualified rape applies when any of the special qualifying aggravating circumstances are present, but the victim is neither below the statutory age nor suffering from mental retardation. Meanwhile, the term statutory rape applies when no special qualifying aggravating circumstance is present, but the victim is below the statutory age or is suffering from mental retardation.
Likewise, the High Tribunal increased the minimum amounts of damages that may be awarded, noting P150,000 each for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages in qualified rape of a minor, P100,000 each in qualified rape, and P75,000 each in statutory rape.
