SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 256618. November 10, 2021.]
LEON CABUHAT, JR. y MATUGUINAS, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 November 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 256618 (Leon Cabuhat, Jr. y Matuguinas v. People of the Philippines). — For the Court's resolution are: (1) the First Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on Certiorari (Motion for Extension); 1 and (2) the Petition for Review on Certiorari2 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 3 dated July 14, 2020 and Resolution 4 dated May 18, 2021 in CA-G.R. CR No. 41141. The assailed issuances affirmed with modification the Decision 5 dated October 23, 2017 of Branch 124, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of __________ City finding Leon Cabuhat, Jr. y Matuguinas (petitioner) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Rape by Sexual Assault punished under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
The Antecedents
Petitioner was charged with Rape by Sexual Assault in an Information that reads:
That on or about the 27th day of January 2013, in _________ City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design, by means of force, threats, violence and intimidation employed upon the person of AAA, minor, 7 years old, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, commit sexual abuse by inserting his finger inside the vagina of said minor complainant, against her will and without her consent and which acts are prejudicial to the normal growth and development of said minor complainant.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
When arraigned, petitioner pleaded "not guilty" to the crime charged. 7
Ruling of the RTC
In its Decision dated October 23, 2017, the RTC found petitioner guilty of the crime as charged, viz.:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding LEON CABUHAT JR. Y MATUGUINAS GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape by sexual assault, as defined and penalized under Article 266-A, paragraph (2), in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum term, to ten (10) years of prision mayor, as maximum term.
Further, the accused is hereby adjudged civilly liable to private complainant AAA. Accordingly, he is hereby ordered to pay the said private complainant: a) the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (PhP30,000.00) as civil indemnity; b) the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (PhP30,000.00) as moral damages; c) the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (PhP30,000.00) as exemplary damages, with interest thereon at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum reckoned from the finality of this Decision until fully paid.
Costs against the accused.
SO ORDERED. 8
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the CA.
Ruling of the CA
In its assailed Decision, 9 the CA upheld with modification the RTC's decision convicting petitioner of Rape by Sexual Assault albeit in the dispositive portion, the CA identified the crime committed by petitioner as "Rape by Sexual Assault under Article 266-A, paragraph 2, Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5 (b), Republic Act No. 7610."10
The dispositive portion provides:
ACCORDINGLY, we MODIFY the Decision dated 23 October 2017 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 124, __________ City, in Criminal Case No. C-89303, as follows:
1) upon proof beyond reasonable doubt, we convict the appellant Leon Cabuhat Jr. y Matuguinas of Rape by Sexual Assault under Article 266-A, paragraph 2, Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5(b), Republic Act No. 7610, and we sentence him to imprisonment of 12 years, 10 months and 21 days of reclusion temporal (as minimum), to 15 years, 6 months and 20 days of reclusion temporal (as maximum);
2) we order the appellant Leon Cabuhat Jr. y Matuguinas to pay the victim AAA the following sums: P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; P50,000.00 as moral damages; and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages.
The total amount awarded shall earn interest at the legal rate of six per cent per annum from the finality of this Decision.
SO ORDERED. 11
The CA explained as follows:
First, the prosecution proved all the elements of the crime charged. AAA's clear, consistent, and credible testimony established that petitioner inserted his finger into AAA's vagina, an act analogous to the insertion of an instrument or object under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of the RPC (First and Second Elements). 12 Further, AAA's birth certificate presented during the trial established that, at the time of the commission of the crime, she was only seven years old (Third Element). 13
Second, the testimony of a rape victim who is young and of tender age is credible, and the revelation of an innocent child whose chastity was abused, deserves full credence. Her testimony cannot be discredited by mere discrepancies between her affidavit and oral testimony given in court. Inaccuracies and inconsistencies are expected in a rape victim's testimony. Rape is a painful experience which is oftentimes not remembered in detail. 14
Third, petitioner's denial, an intrinsically weak defense, cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony and identification by the complainant. 15
Fourth, consistent with People v. Tulagan, 16 petitioner should be held liable for violation of Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. (RA) 7610. The penalty to be imposed when the victim is below 12 years old is reclusion temporal in its medium period. 17 Although Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 was not expressly indicated in the Information, this omission was not fatal so as to violate petitioner's right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him; and, what controls is not the title of the Information or the designation of the offense, but the facts recited in the Information constituting the offense charged. Since the Information sufficiently alleged all the elements of violation of Section 5 (b) of RA 7610, petitioner could be convicted of Section 5 (b) of RA 7610.
Fifth, pursuant to People v. Tulagan, 18 the victim is entitled to civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages amounting to P50,000.00 each. 19
Hence, petitioner filed the present petition.
Petitioner's Arguments
Petitioner argues that the CA erred as follows: First, in convicting him of the crime charged on the basis of the victim's inconsistent testimony. Second, in ruling that the elements of the crime were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue
Did the CA commit reversible error in affirming petitioner's conviction?
Our Ruling
The Motion for Extension filed by petitioner is GRANTED.
After review, the Court resolves to DENY the present Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the CA Decision dated July 14, 2020 and Resolution dated May 18, 2021 in CA-G.R. CR No. 41141 for failure of petitioner to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in the challenged decision and resolution.
At the outset, the CA is correct in designating in its dispositive portion the crime committed by petitioner as Sexual Assault under Article 266-A (2) of the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610. As provided in People v. Tulagan, 20 this is the proper nomenclature of the crime when rape by sexual assault under the RPC is committed against a victim who is under 12 years old or is demented.
The petitioner argues that AAA's judicial affidavit and oral testimony were inconsistent, and thus, not credible. Further, he insists that the prosecution failed to establish all the elements of the crime charged. In particular, based on the medico-legal examination, there was neither hymenal laceration nor evident injury in AAA's anus. Therefore, it is possible that the presence of erythema in her genitalia had been caused by other factors, not necessarily by the insertion of a finger. The laceration may have been caused by masturbation, accidental violence, exaggerated separation of thighs, or rigorous physical exercise and activities. 21
The present petition raises questions of fact. The basic rule is that the Court's jurisdiction over Rule 45 petitions is limited to questions of law. "The Court is not a trier of facts and its function is limited to reviewing errors of law that may have been committed by the lower courts." 22
Furthermore, the factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, may no longer be disturbed by the Court. The factual findings of the trial court, when sustained by the appellate court, are binding in the absence of any indication that both courts misapprehended any fact that could change the disposition of the controversy. 23 In the absence of any clear showing by the petitioner of any abuse, arbitrariness or capriciousness committed by the lower courts, their factual findings will neither be reviewed nor disturbed on appeal to this Court. 24 Not only does the present petition fail to impute grave abuse of discretion on the CA, the assailed rulings are supported by substantial evidence.
Be that as it may, it appears that the court a quo's finding that the elements of the crime of Sexual Assault under Article 266-A (2) of the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 exist in the present case is supported by substantial evidence. First, AAA's testimony established that petitioner subjected her to sexual abuse, particularly, by inserting his finger into her genitalia. This act constitutes lascivious conduct. Second, as shown in AAA's birth certificate, she was under 12 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime.
In this regard, the law is clear that the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under 12 years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period. 25 Notably, RA 7610 is a special penal law. The jurisprudential rule is that "if the special penal law adopts the nomenclature of the penalties under the RPC, the ascertainment of the indeterminate sentence will be based on the rules applied for those crimes punishable under the RPC." 26 Here, in the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the maximum term of the sentence shall be taken from the medium period of the penalty prescribed by law. 27 Thus, the maximum term shall be fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days to sixteen (16) years, five (5) months and nine (9) days of reclusion temporal. Further, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term shall be taken from within the range of the penalty next lower in degree, i.e., reclusion temporal in its minimum period or twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months.
Given the foregoing, the CA is correct in sentencing petitioner to suffer imprisonment of twelve (12) years, ten (10) months and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
The CA's awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages amounting to P50,000.00 each are in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. 28
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves as follows:
1. GRANT the First Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on Certiorari;
2. DENY the Petition for Review on Certiorari finding no reversible error with the Decision dated July 14, 2020 and Resolution dated May 18, 2021 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 41141;
3. Petitioner Leon Cabuhat Jr. y Matuguinas is GUILTY upon proof beyond reasonable doubt of Rape by Sexual Assault under Article 266-A, paragraph 2, Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5 (b), Republic Act No. 7610, and he is sentenced to suffer imprisonment of twelve (12) years, ten (10) months and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal (as minimum), to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal (as maximum);
4. Petitioner Leon Cabuhat Jr. y Matuguinas is ORDERED to PAY the victim AAA the following sums: P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; P50,000.00 as moral damages; and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages. The total amount awarded shall earn interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the finality of this Resolution until full payment.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 3-7.
2. Id. at 12-28.
3. Id. at 34-45; penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, with Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon, concurring.
4. Id. at 47, 60; penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, with Associate Justices Manuel M. Barrios and Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon, concurring.
5. Id. at 61-75.
6. As culled from the CA Decision; id. at 35.
7. Id.
8. As culled from the CA Decision; id. at 37-38.
9. Id. at 34-45.
10. Id. at 44.
11. Id.
12. Id. at 39-40.
13. Id. at 40.
14. Id. at 40-41.
15. Id. at 41-42.
16. G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019.
17. Id. at 42-43.
18. People v. Tulagan, supra note 16.
19. Rollo, p. 43.
20. People v. Tulagan, supra note 16.
21. Rollo, p. 23.
22. Mendoza v. People, G.R. No. 239756, September 14, 2020.
23. Viray v. People, 720 Phil. 841 (2013), citing People v. Domingo, 616 Phil. 261 (2009), Gerasta v. People, 595 Phil. 1087 (2008), People v. Lantano, 566 Phil. 628 (2008).
24. Capital Insurance and Surety, Co. v. Del Monte Motor Works, Inc., 775 Phil. 1 (2015); Pascual vs. Burgos, 776 Phil. 167 (2016).
25. Section 5 (b), RA 7610.
26. Cahulogan v. People, G.R. No. 225695, March 21, 2018 citing Peralta v. People, G.R. No. 221991, August 30, 2017 which cites Mabunot v. People, G.R. No. 204659, September 19, 2016.
27. Article 64, Revised Penal Code; Encinares v. People, G.R. No. 252267, January 11, 2021.
28. People v. Tulagan, supra note 16.