ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 225850. November 8, 2017.]
PACIFICO L. MIRANDA, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 08 November 2017 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 225850 — PACIFICO L. MIRANDA, petitioner, versus PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
Two (2) Informations were filed before the RTC 1 charging petitioner Pacifico L. Miranda (Miranda) with violation of Section 5 (b), Article III of Republic Act No. (RA) 7610, 2 to wit:
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 8155-05
The undersigned Assistant Provincial Prosecutor accuses PACIFICO MIRANDA y LOPEZ alias "JERRY" of the crime [o]f SEXUAL ABUSE (Violation of Section 5(b) Article III of RA 7610) and in relation to Section 5 (1) of RA 8369, committed as follows:
"That on or about the 5th day of January, 2005, in the Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, with lewd design or intent to cause or gratify his sexual desire, abuse, humiliate and degrade complainant-victim [AAA], 3 a minor, 11 years of age, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly commit lascivious conduct upon said complainant-victim [AAA] by then and there kissing the complainant-victim's lips and touching her breast, using influence, with abuse of confidence and exercising moral ascendancy over the victim, thereby constituting Sexual Abuse which is prejudicial to her normal growth and development.
CONTRARY TO LAW" 4
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 8156-05
The undersigned Assistant Provincial Prosecutor accuses PACIFICO MIRANDA y LOPEZ alias "JERRY" of the crime of SEXUAL ABUSE (Violation of Section 5(b) Article III of RA 7610) and in relation to Section 5 (1) of RA 8369, committed as follows:
"That on or about the month of November, 2004, in the Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, with lewd design or intent to cause or gratify his sexual desire, abuse, humiliate and degrade complainant-victim [AAA], a minor, 11 years of age, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly commit lascivious conduct upon said complainant-victim [AAA] by then and there kissing the complainant-victim's lips and touching her breast, using influence, with abuse of confidence and exercising moral ascendancy over the victim, thereby constituting Sexual Abuse which is prejudicial to her normal growth and development.
CONTRARY TO LAW" 5
The material facts are as follows:
Miranda was a tricycle driver and was engaged by his neighbor BBB to ferry her daughter, AAA, back and forth from her school. 6 On two (2) separate occasions, when Miranda would bring AAA home from school, Miranda allegedly entered the sidecar of his tricycle where AAA was seated and would thereafter kiss her lips and touch her breast. 7 As borne out by the records, the sidecar of Miranda's tricycle was fully covered and heavily tinted. 8 On both occasions, AAA was allegedly unable to resist Miranda's advances out of fear of Miranda. 9
Upon learning of the above incidents, BBB initiated a criminal complaint against Miranda.
On the other hand, in denying the accusations against him, Miranda claimed that AAA merely manufactured such charges because he would constantly scold her for being late during the times that he would fetch her in the morning and in the afternoon. 10 Miranda further argued that it would be impossible to commit any sexual abuse inside the tricycle because the area where the alleged incidents took place was always teeming with students and passers-by. 11
Upon arraignment, Miranda entered a plea of "not guilty." 12 Trial on the merits followed.
RTC Ruling
In a Decision 13 dated January 10, 2013, the RTC gave credence to the testimony of AAA and convicted Miranda of the crimes charged, viz.:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 8155, finding accused Pacifico Miranda y Lopez alias "Jerry" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Sexual Abuse (Violation of Section 5 (b) Article III of RA 7610 in relation to Section 5 (J) of RA 8369) and hereby sentences him to imprisonment of Twelve (12) years and One (1) day of Reclusion Temporal, as minimum, to Fifteen (15) years, Six (6) months and Twenty (20) days of Reclusion Temporal, as maximum. Accused is further ordered to pay a Fine of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00).
2. In Criminal Case No. 8156, finding accused Pacifico Miranda y Lopez alias "Jerry" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Sexual Abuse (Violation of Section 5 (b) Article III of RA 7610 in relation to Section 5 (J) of RA 8369) and hereby sentences him to imprisonment of Twelve (12) years and One (1) day of Reclusion Temporal, as minimum, to Fifteen (15) years, Six (6) months and Twenty (20) days of Reclusion Temporal, as maximum. Accused is further ordered to pay a Fine of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00)[.] 14
Unsatisfied, Miranda appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) on the following grounds: (i) that AAA's testimony was "full of inconsistencies, falsities and improbabilities," 15 and (ii) that there was no factual or legal basis for the finding of the RTC. 16
CA Ruling
In a Decision 17 dated May 29, 2015, the CA in CA-G.R. CR No. 35714 affirmed the findings of the RTC, ruling that the alleged discrepancies concerned only minor details and could not outweigh the positive identification of Miranda as the perpetrator of the lascivious acts. 18 The dispositive portion, which modified the award for damages in view of current jurisprudence, stated:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that, in addition to the Fine of P15,000.00, appellant is likewise ordered to pay P20,000.00 as civil indemnity and P15,000.00 as moral damages.
SO ORDERED. 19
Miranda then filed a Motion for Reconsideration 20 dated July 6, 2015, solely placing in issue the fact that AAA appeared to have been "coached" by her aunt during her testimony before the RTC. 21 Thereafter, in a Resolution 22 dated July 15, 2016, the CA denied the motion on the ground that it was a mere rehash of Miranda's arguments in his previous submissions.
Thus, Miranda resorted to the instant Petition for Review 23 dated September 8, 2016 (Petition) pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
In a Resolution 24 dated November 23, 2016, the Court required respondent to submit its comment within ten (10) days from notice. In compliance with the foregoing directive, respondent filed its Comment 25 dated May 30, 2017.
Issue
Miranda assigns the following errors for the Court's review:
A). WHETHER OR NOT AN OBVIOUSLY COACHED TESTIMONY WHICH HAS THE EARMARK OF A REHEARSED TESTIMONY, IS SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE?
B). WHETHER OR NOT THE EQUIPOISE RULE IS APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE? 26
The Court's Ruling
The Petition is denied.
By his own submission, Miranda is imploring the Court to revisit the RTC's appreciation of AAA's testimony, purportedly on the ground that the same was coached and rehearsed. 27 Considering that the resolution of such issue requires delving into matters of fact, the Court cannot entertain such issue as it is not the proper subject of the Court's discretionary power of judicial review under Rule 45. 28 The rules are clear: only questions of law may be raised in appeals by certiorari. 29 In this regard, the Court is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh again the evidence considered in the proceedings below. 30 While questions of fact have been entertained by the Court in justifiable circumstances, Miranda has failed to show that the case falls within the allowable exceptions.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, after reviewing the submissions of the parties, the Court finds that the CA did not commit any reversible error in affirming Miranda's conviction.
Miranda mainly argues that the CA erred in giving credence to the testimony of AAA, which allegedly contained the following inconsistencies, as summarized by the CA:
As to the November 2004 incident, AAA testified that she was sexually abused by the appellant beside the church. However, in her Sworn Statement given to the police on 10 January 2005, AAA allegedly claimed that the incident happened near the elementary school. Also, AAA testified during her direct examination that appellant entered the tricycle through the opening adjacent to the driver's seat. Yet, during her cross-examination, she stated that x x x appellant entered through the door of the tricycle.
With regard to the 5 January 2005 incident, appellant asserts that AAA likewise contradicted herself because while she testified that the sexual abuse happened near the church, she stated in her Sworn Statement that it happened near the elementary school. Also, during her direct examination, she stated that the appellant entered the sidecar of the tricycle when she was already inside the tricycle. During her cross-examination, however, she testified that the appellant was already inside the sidecar of the tricycle before she entered into it. 31
The Court has held on numerous occasions that inconsistencies in the testimonies of witness that refer to minor and insignificant details do not destroy their credibility. 32 Such rule holds true especially when such incongruences have no substantial bearing on the commission of the offense or do not go into the essential elements of the crime. 33
Here, contrary to the assertions of Miranda, the purported inconsistencies in the testimony of AAA merely refer to the place where the tricycle was parked during the incidents, which is largely immaterial to the lascivious acts committed by Miranda while inside the vehicle. Verily, such inconsistencies refer only to minor details and will not vitiate the testimony of AAA, especially since it was given in a straightforward and candid manner. More so, Miranda's bare denial of the allegations deserves scant consideration when weighed against the positive identification by AAA.
It is a time-honored rule that in assessing the credibility of witnesses, the reviewing court will not disturb the findings of the lower court unless there is a showing that it had overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that could affect the results of the case. 34 Accordingly, the Court has a right to rely on the findings of fact of the trial court and is not duty-bound to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence considered in the proceedings below. 35 There being no cogent reason to overturn the concurring findings of the RTC and the CA, the Court adopts the following disquisition in the CA Decision:
AAA positively and consistently identified the appellant as the one who kissed her in the lips and touched her breast in November 2004 and on 5 January 2005 inside the appellant's tricycle which was fully covered by a heavily tinted door as shown by Exhibit "D." After doing such acts, appellant told her not to tell anyone about what he did to her. Her testimony, given in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and candid manner, is worthy of faith and belief. x x x
xxx xxx xxx
Likewise, all the elements of sexual abuse under Section 5, Article III of RA 7610 are present. Appellant, through intimidation, committed acts of lascivious conduct against AAA who was still a minor at that time. x x x
xxx xxx xxx
The Supreme Court held that Section 5 of R.A. 7610 does not merely cover a situation of a child being abused for profit, but also one in which a child engages in any lascivious conduct through coercion or intimidation. As [AAA] stated in her Sworn Statement:
"13 T: Pagkatapos niyang gawin iyon sa iyo, ano ang sinasabi niya sa iyo?
S: Huwag daw po ako magsumbong sa Mommy ko.
xxx xxx xxx
16 T: Bakit hindi ka kaagad nagsumbong sa mommy mo noong una niyang gawin ito sa iyo?
S: Kasi natatakot po ako kay Kuya Jerry."
As case law has it, intimidation need not necessarily be irresistible. It is sufficient that some compulsion equivalent to intimidation annuls or subdues the free exercise of the will of the offended party. This is especially true in the case of young, innocent and immature girls who could not be expected to act with equanimity of disposition and with nerves of steel. Young girls cannot be expected to act like adults under the same circumstances or to have the courage and intelligence to disregard the threat.
xxx xxx xxx
In this case, as found by the lower court, the appellant was able to successfully satisfy his lewd, bestial desire despite the fact that the place and the time were against it. All that the appellant needed was a cover from his tricycle to prey upon the minor victim. It is axiomatic that lust is no respecter of time and place; it can be committed in most unlikely places such as in the park, along a roadside, within school premises, or even in an occupied room. Besides, as can be gleaned from Exhibit "D", the built of appellant's tricycle is very unusual because, unlike any other ordinary tricycle, his is fully covered and heavily tinted. It is thus not impossible that anybody can do anything inside the tricycle without being seen by anyone outside of it. There being proof beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant has sexually abused AAA in November 2004 and on 5 January 2005, his conviction must stand. The coaching incident mentioned in the appellant's brief did not affect the trial court's appreciation of the victim's testimony and We find no basis to rule otherwise. The whole story was for AAA to tell and any gesture given by the court, without specifying what were the coached testimony, is not enough to destroy the credibility of the victim AAA. x x x 36 (Emphasis supplied)
All told, between Miranda's bare denials and the AAA's positive testimony, it is the latter that must be given credence.
Sexual Abuse Under Section 5 (b) of RA
Section 5 (b) 37 of RA 7610 punishes the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a "child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse." In the Court's recent ruling in People v. Caoili, 38 the Court restated the elements of sexual abuse under Section 5 (b):
1. The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct.
2. The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. 39
3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age. 40
In People v. Caoili, 41 the Court also held that when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age at the time the lascivious conduct was committed — as in this case where AAA was only eleven (11) years old on both occasions — the proper nomenclature of the crime should be "Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610." 42
As regards the penalty, the ruling in Quimvel v. People, 43 provides:
Anent the proper penalty to be imposed, Sec. 5 of RA 7610 provides that the penalty for lascivious conduct, when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period, which ranges from 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months.
xxx xxx xxx
Thus, in People v. Santos, x x x [i]n the absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the Court held that the maximum term of the sentence to be imposed shall be taken from the medium period of reclusion temporal in its medium period, which ranges from fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty-one (21) days to sixteen (16) years, five (5) months and nine (9) days. On the other hand the minimum term shall be taken from the penalty next lower to reclusion temporal medium, that is reclusion temporal minimum, which ranges from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months.
From the foregoing, it becomes clear that the prison term meted to petitioner (i.e., fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal in its medium period as minimum to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and nineteen (19) days of reclusion temporal in its medium period) must be modified to be in consonance with the Court's ruling in Santos. Accordingly, the minimum prison term shall be reduced to twelve (12) years and one (1) day, while the maximum term shall be adjusted to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty-one (21) days. 44 (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)
Accordingly, the Court hereby modifies the penalty imposed by the RTC, to be imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
Further, in line with prevailing jurisprudence, an additional award of P15,000.00 as exemplary damages is hereby granted for each count committed. 45
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated May 29, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 35714 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner Pacifico L. Miranda is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610 and is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal in its minimum period as minimum to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months, and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal in its medium period as maximum for each count.
He is further ORDERED to pay for each count an amount of P15,000.00 as exemplary damages, in addition to the P15,000.00 moral damages and P15,000.00 fine as well as P20,000.00 as civil indemnity already awarded by the Court of Appeals. All damages shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this judgment.
SO ORDERED. PERLAS-BERNABE, J., on official leave."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Regional Trial Court of San Mateo, Rizal, Branch 76; see rollo, p. 31.
2. AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION, PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR ITS VIOLATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, otherwise known as the "Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act."
3. The victim's name and personal circumstances or any other information tending to establish or compromise her identity as well as those of her immediate family are withheld per People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 (2006).
4.Rollo, pp. 17-18.
5.Id. at 18.
6.Id. at 33.
7.Id. at 33-34.
8.Id. at 38.
9.Id. at 33-34.
10.Id. at 35.
11. See id.
12.Id. at 32.
13. Penned by Judge Josephine Zarate-Fernandez, id. at 31.
14.Rollo, pp. 35-36.
15.Id. at 36-37.
16.Id. at 37.
17.Id. at 31-45. Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang, with Associate Justices Agnes Reyes-Carpio and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy concurring.
18.Id. at 42-43.
19.Id. at 44.
20.Id. at 46-52.
21.Id. at 47-49.
22.Id. at 54-55.
23.Id. at 16-29.
24.Id. at 69-70.
25.Id. at 78-101.
26.Id. at 22.
27. See id. at 22-25.
28. See Mangahas v. Court of Appeals, 588 Phil. 61, 76 (2008).
29. RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, Sec. 1.
30.Miro v. Vda. de Erederos, 721 Phil. 772, 785 (2013).
31.Rollo, p. 37.
32.People v. Pidoy, 453 Phil. 221, 229 (2003).
33.Id. at 228-229.
34.Nerpio v. People, 555 Phil. 87, 92 (2007).
35 See Miro v. Vda. de Erederos, supra note 30, at 785.
36.Rollo, pp. 38-44.
37. SEC. 5.Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. — Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:
xxx xxx xxx
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period; x x x (Emphasis supplied)
38. G.R. Nos. 196342 & 196848, August 8, 2017.
39. See Quimvel v. People, G.R. No. 214497, April 18, 2017, p. 8.
40.People v. Caoili, supra note 38, at 13.
41.Supra note 38.
42.Id. at 19.
43.Supra note 39.
44.Id. at 22-23.
45.Imbo v. People, 758 Phil. 430, 443 (2015).