THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 257102. November 17, 2021.]
ALBERTO JALOP BANGOT, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated November 17, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 257102 (Alberto Jalop Bangot, Petitioner, v. People of the Philippines, Respondent.) — The Court GRANTS petitioner's motion for an extension of thirty (30) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.
This Court resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari which seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision 1 dated 29 May 2020 and Resolution 2 dated 23 February 2021 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 01732-MIN. The CA affirmed the Judgment 3 dated 28 September 2018 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kidapawan City, Branch 23 in Criminal Case Nos. 2083-2014, 2084-2014 and 2085-2014 convicting Alberto Jalop Bangot (petitioner) of three (3) counts of rape by sexual assault.
Antecedents
Petitioner was charged with rape by sexual assault in an Information dated 25 February 2014 in Criminal Case No. 2085-2014, thus:
That on or about February 3, 2012, in the City of Kidapawan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force and intimidation, taking advantage of the youthfulness and his moral ascendancy over private complainant AAA, 4 then a thirteen (13)-year old minor, did then and there wil(l)fully, unlawfully and feloniously with lewd designs touched the legs and breasts and inserted his two (2) fingers to the vagina of the said private complainant, against her will and without her consent, which acts likewise constitute child abuse and exploitation as it debases, demeans and degrades the integrity of the private complainant as a human being, to her damage and prejudice.
That the victim is a minor and the accused is her biological father is alleged herein as qualifying aggravating circumstance. 5
Two (2) similarly worded Informations in Criminal Case Nos. 2083-2014 and 2084-2014 charged petitioner with rape by sexual assault committed against AAA sometime in October 2013 and on 17 August 2013, respectively. 6
According to the prosecution, AAA, daughter of petitioner, was born on 18 February 1998 as reflected in her Certificate of Live Birth. She testified that her father sexually assaulted her on three (3) occasions: (1) 03 February 2012, (2) 17 August 2013, and (3) sometime in October 2013. 7
In the early morning of 03 February 2012, after the birthday celebration of her brother, then 13-year-old AAA was sleeping with her younger sister and petitioner in one room when petitioner suddenly held her feet and breast. Petitioner then inserted his finger into her vagina for about five (5) minutes, making her cry. He also threatened to kill AAA's mother if she makes any noise. 8 caITAC
Petitioner assaulted AAA again at 9:00 PM on 17 August 2013, while she was sleeping with her younger sister and petitioner at their house. She suddenly found petitioner touching her body and kissing her. Petitioner again inserted his finger slowly into her vagina making her feel pain. She also felt petitioner's finger move inside her vagina. 9
Sometime in October 2013, AAA was sleeping inside a room when petitioner entered and approached her. Despite that her mother was also sleeping on the other side of the same room, petitioner touched her breast and inserted his finger slowly for about five (5) to ten (10) minutes. He once again threatened to kill AAA's mother if she tells anybody. 10
Later, there was an incident where AAA's brother confronted petitioner, who allegedly molested his wife. AAA was crying during the confrontation, so her brother asked her if she was also molested. AAA broke her silence and told him about her own ordeals. Dr. Jocelyn Encienzo examined AAA on 09 December 2013 and found multiple lacerations at 2, 5, 7, and 10 o'clock positions. 11
Petitioner denied all the allegations and argued that it was impossible to commit said crimes in a house with thin walls. For the first and second incidents, he claimed to have slept in his own bedroom with AAA's mother. For the third incident, he alleged that he was not even at home as he was in Arakan to find a source of income. 12
Ruling of the RTC
The RTC, in its Decision dated 28 September 2018, 13 convicted petitioner of three (3) counts of rape by sexual assault:
WHEREFORE, the court finds the accused ALBERTO JALOP BANGOT guilty beyond reasonable doubt to each of the three (3) counts of rape by sexual assault as charged. Accordingly, the accused is meted, in each of the three (3) counts of rape by sexual assault, an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
In addition thereto, the accused is directed to pay the victim AAA, [for] each of the three (3) counts of rape by sexual assault, the sum of Php30,000.00 as civil indemnity, the sum of Php30,000.00 as moral damages and [Php]30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED. 14
Aggrieved, petitioner filed his appeal before the CA (CA).
Ruling of the CA
On 29 May 2020, the CA promulgated the assailed decision affirming petitioner's conviction, which reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated September 28, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court, 12th Judicial Region, Branch 23, Kidapawan City, in Criminal Cases Nos. 2083-2014, 2084-2014 and 2085-2014 finding [XXX] guilty of three counts of rape by sexual assault is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 15
Petitioner asserts his innocence and attacks the credibility of the testimony of AAA. 16
Issue
Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC decision.
Ruling of the Court
After evaluating the records of the case, the Court finds no reversible error on the assailed decision and resolution warranting the exercise of this Court's appellate jurisdiction.
The attempt of petitioner to discredit the testimony of AAA is unavailing. The rule is well-settled that when the decision hinges on the credibility of witnesses and their respective testimonies, the trial court's observations and conclusions deserve great respect and are accorded finality, unless the records show facts or circumstances of material weight and substance that the lower court overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated, and which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the case. 17
The Court has previously held that hymenal lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best evidence of forcible defloration. And when the consistent and forthright testimony of a rape victim is consistent with medical findings, [as in this case,] there is sufficient basis to warrant a conclusion that the essential requisites of the crime have been established. 18
Petitioner's argument that it is impossible to commit the crime in a house with thin walls also deserves scant consideration. "Rape can be committed even in places where people congregate, in parks, along the roadside, within school premises, inside a house where there are other occupants, and even in the same room where other members of the family are also sleeping. It is not impossible or incredible for the members of the victim's family to be in deep slumber and not to be awakened while a sexual assault is being committed. It is settled that lust is not a respecter of time or place and rape is known to happen in the most unlikely places." 19
There is, however, a need to clarify the proper nomenclature of the crime to conform with the Court's recent jurisprudence. In accordance with People v. Tulagan 20(Tulagan) petitioner should be convicted of three (3) counts of Lascivious Conduct under Sec. 5 (b) of RA 7610 21 with the corresponding penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. Since the prosecution was able to establish AAA's minority and her relationship with petitioner through her birth certificate, the proper penalty to be imposed should be the maximum of the penalty provided which, in this case, is reclusion perpetua. 22
The damages awarded are further increased to Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php75,000.00 as moral damages, and Php75,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count based on Tulagan. Likewise, Sec. 31 (f) of RA 7610 imposes a fine upon the perpetrator, which jurisprudence pegs in the amount of Php15,000.00. 23 All damages shall cam interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of the Resolution until full payment. 24 ICHDca
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision dated 29 May 2020 and Resolution dated 23 February 2021 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 01732 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. The Court finds petitioner Alberto Jalop Bangot GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt:
1. In Criminal Case No. 2083-2014, of Lascivious Conduct under Sec. 5 (b) of RA 7610, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to PAY a fine of Php15,000.00. He is further ORDERED to pay AAA the amount of Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php75,000.00 as moral damages, and Php75,000.00 as exemplary damages.
2. In Criminal Case No. 2084-2014, of Lascivious Conduct under Sec. 5 (b) of RA 7610, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to PAY a fine of Php15,000.00. He is further ORDERED to pay AAA the amount of Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php75,000.00 as moral damages, and Php75,000.00 as exemplary damages.
3. In Criminal Case No. 2085-2014, of Lascivious Conduct under Sec. 5 (b) of RA 7610, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to PAY a fine of Php15,000.00. He is further ORDERED to pay AAA the amount of Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php75,000.00 as moral damages, and Php75,000.00 as exemplary damages.
All monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of the finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 36-48; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo T. Lloren, and concurred in by Associate Justices Loida S. Posadas-Kahulugan and Richard D. Mordeno, of the Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City.
2. Id. at 62-63.
3. Id. at 37-56.
4. The real name of the victim, her personal circumstances and other information which tend to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family, or household members, shall not be disclosed to protect her privacy, and fictitious initial shall, instead, be used, in accordance with People v. Cabalquinto {533 Phil. 703 (2006), G.R. No. 167693, 19 September 2006 [Per J. Tinga]} and the Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated 05 September 2017.
5. Rollo, pp. 36-37.
6. Id. at 37.
7. Id.
8. Id.
9. Id. at 37-38.
10. Id. at 38.
11. Id.
12. Id. at 38-39.
13. Id. at 49-56.
14. Id. at 56.
15. Id. at 47.
16. Id. at 20.
17. People v. Viñas, G.R. No. 234514, 28 April 2021 [Per J. Leonen].
18. People v. Ronquillo, 818 Phil. 641 (2017) [Per J. Martires].
19. People v. Ladra, 813 Phil. 862 (2017) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
20. G.R. No. 227363, 12 March 2019 [Per J. Peralta].
21. Entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on 17 June 1992.
22. People v. XXX, G.R. No. 230981, 15 July 2020 [Per J. Inting].
23. Id.
24. Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013) [Per J. Peralta].