SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 231357. October 6, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. AAA, 1accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated06 October 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 231357 (People of the Philippines v. AAA).— Before this Court is an appeal 2 filed by accused-appellant AAA (accused-appellant) questioning the Decision 3 dated April 6, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed with modification the Joint Decision 4 dated October 29, 2013 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch IX of _________ Batangas. The Decision and the Joint Decision were in concert in finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of twenty-three (23) counts of the crime of Qualified Rape as defined and penalized under Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
I. FACTS
The controversy takes root from the thirty-one (31) separate Informations all dated October 31, 2012 accusing accused-appellant with the crime of Rape as defined and penalized under the RPC. All Informations, with the exception of the time and date of the commission of the offense, were uniformly worded as follows:
That on or about the [date], at around [time], at XXX, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of threat, force, intimidation and taking advantage of the minority of one BBB did and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously lie with and have carnal knowledge with the said BBB, a fourteen (14)-year old minor, accused's stepdaughter, against her will and consent, which acts debased, degraded or demeaned the intrinsic worth and dignity of BBB, as a human being.
Contrary to law. 5
Another Information dated October 31, 2012 charging accused-appellant with the crime of Lascivious Conduct was likewise filed with the RTC, to wit:
That on or about the 18th September 2012, at around 7:00 o'clock in the evening, at XXX, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force, threat, influence, intimidation and taking advantage of the minority of one BBB, a fourteen (14)-year old minor, and motivate[d] by lust and lewd design, did then and there willfully, unlawfully commit lascivious conduct on said BBB, accused's stepdaughter, by mashing her vagina against her will and consent, with intent to abuse, humiliate, harass or degrade BBB and to arouse and gratify his sexual desire, which acts debased, degraded or demeaned her intrinsic worth and dignity of BBB, as a human being.
Contrary to law. 6
The common findings of fact by the RTC and the CA, as succinctly narrated by the latter, are quoted hereunder with approval:
Private complainant [BBB] was living with her mother, stepfather (accused-appellant), and her half-siblings in XXX.
On June 30, 2012, at around 12:00 o'clock midnight, private complainant, then fourteen (14) years old, was at home sleeping together with her mother and half-siblings. She was awakened when somebody, who she later found out to be accused-appellant, started to mash her breast and insert a finger in her vagina. She asked him to stop but he did not stop. When she went to the toilet, he followed her. He pulled her at the back of the toilet, pulled down her shorts, and removed her shirt. Then, he forced himself on her but he was not able to insert his penis because he felt the need to urinate.
While accused-appellant was urinating, private complainant ran towards the room to wake her mother up. However, accused-appellant was able to immediately follow private complainant. He turned off the light and pulled private complainant away from her mother. He removed his shirt and underwear and subsequently undressed private complainant. He went on top of private complainant and forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina. Private complainant pleaded accused-appellant to stop but he said, "Kung gusto mong mag-aral, ituloy natin yun." Accused-appellant then covered private complainant's mouth in order to prevent her from screaming.
While accused-appellant was on top of private complainant, he suddenly coughed which awakened her mother. Private complainant immediately pulled up her shorts. Her mother stood up, turned on the light, and she saw accused-appellant not wearing his shorts. After sensing what happened, private complainant's mother and accused-appellant had a fight over the incident. cSEDTC
On July 1 and 2, 2012, while accused-appellant and private complainant were alone in the house, accused-appellant made private complainant bend over forward, raised her buttocks, and inserted his penis into her vagina from behind. After the incident on July 2, 2012, private complainant complained to her mother about the sexual abuses of accused-appellant. This caused another fight between private complainant's mother and accused-appellant.
On several dates, particularly on July 3, 4, 5, and 6, 2012, accused-appellant forced himself against private complainant and sexually abused her. On said dates, private complainant's mother woke up private complainant and allowed accused-appellant to sexually abuse private complainant. Private complainant's mother only stopped helping accused-appellant when the former and the latter had a big fight on July 6, 2012.
Accused-appellant continued to sexually abuse private complainant on July 7 to 25, August 10, August 24, August 30, September 3, and September 16, all of which happened in 2012. Private complainant did not ask for help because she was already afraid to approach other people.
Private complainant remembered these dates because she kept a calendar where she put a check mark on each date that accused-appellant sexually abused her.
On September 13, 2012, a classmate of private complainant reported to EEE (her teacher) that private complainant was crying. EEE talk[ed] to private complainant and she learned that accused-appellant had been molesting private complainant.
The next day, EEE asked private complainant to write down the details of what had happened to her. EEE read the written statement of private complainant to her co-teacher, FFF x x x who, in turn, contacted the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) in order to seek help. However, they were informed that there were no social workers that were available that day. EEE then told private complainant that they will again talk[ed] on Monday, September 17, 2012. However, private complainant was not able to go to school on Monday because she was sick.
On September 18, 2012, private complainant's mother accompanied her to school. When private complainant's mother left, private complainant told EEE that accused-appellant sexually abused her again last September 16, 2012. EEE again asked private complainant to write what happened on September 16, 2012.
Afterward, private complainant, EEE, and FFF went to the DSWD of _______ Batangas. The DSWD referred them to Batangas Provincial Hospital _______ in Batangas in order to get a medico-legal report.
The Medico-Legal Certificate issued by Dr. Berberabe revealed the following:
|
FINDINGS: |
Conscious, Coherent The labia majora was coaptated There were multiple healed incomplete laceration on the ffg. area: 1 o'clock; 3 o'clock; 5 o'clock and 9 o'clock position I.E. = Admit 1 finger with ease Uterus small No adnexal mass noted. |
After being examined by Dr. Berberabe, private complainant went home. Because she was so sick, she just asked her mother to wake her up when it was time to eat. Suddenly, accused-appellant woke her up by touching her private organ. Private complainant immediately got up.
Because she could no longer bear the sexual abuses of accused-appellant, private complainant went out of their house and asked help from Councilor ___________ of Brgy. ________. 7
As can be expected, accused-appellant offers a different narration. In particular, accused-appellant alleges that in the dates when the supposed rape occurred, he was either watching television with the rest of the family, was being massaged by his wife, and/or was asleep. 8 Simply stated, accused-appellant's version of the story tends to show that the rape could not have transpired since, albeit they were in the same household, he was either doing a household chore, relaxing with his family, or asleep. Evidently, this is the routine which he has observed, and from which no substantial departure occurs.
After the Informations were filed with the Court, and after arraignment and trial, the RTC rendered the Joint Decision dated October 29, 2013 which found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of twenty-three (23) counts of rape, to wit: SDAaTC
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, this Court hereby finds accused [AAA] GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for twenty three (23) counts of Rape in Criminal Cases Nos. 6917, 6918, 6919, 6920, 6921, 6922, 6923, 6924, 6925, 6926, 6927, 6928, 6929, 6930, 6931, 6932, 6933, 6934, 6935, 6936, 6937, 6946, and 6947, defined and penalized under Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 and in relation further to Article III, Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610 and Section 2 (g) of its Implementing Rules and Regulations. For each of the twenty three (23) counts, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay private complainant [BBB] the following amounts: Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity, Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages, and Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) as exemplary damages.
This Court hereby finds accused [AAA] NOT GUILTY for eight (8) counts of Rape in Criminal Cases Nos. 6938, 6939, 6940, 6941, 6942, 6943, 6944 and 6945, and in Criminal Case No. 6948 for Lascivious Conduct.
With Costs.
SO ORDERED. 9
Aggrieved, accused-appellant sought a review of the Joint Decision with the CA. Nevertheless, the CA affirmed the RTC's finding of accused-appellant's guilt for twenty-three (23) counts of Rape but modified the Joint Decision as to the award of damages and the possibility of parole, thus:
GIVEN ALL OF THESE, the decision of the trial court finding accused-appellant [AAA] guilty beyond reasonable doubt for twenty three (23) counts of Qualified Rape as defined and punished under Article 266-A, in relation to Article 266-B, of the Revised Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of qualified rape is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:
a. Accused-appellant shall not be eligible for parole;
b. The award of Moral Damages is increased from [P]50,000.00 to [P]100,000.00;
c. The award of Civil Indemnity is increased from [P]75,000.00 to [P]100,000.00;
d. The award of Exemplary Damages is increased from [P]25,000.00 to [P]100,000.00;
e. Accused-appellant is ORDERED to pay private complainant interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum on all the amounts of damages awarded, commencing from the finality of this decision until such amounts shall have been fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 10
Insistent on his innocence, accused-appellant now comes before this Court raising the sole issue of whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC's conviction of accused-appellant of twenty-three (23) counts of Qualified Rape as defined and penalized under the RPC. 11 To support his position, accused-appellant argues that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt his guilt insofar as: (1) the testimony of private complainant BBB (private complainant), which was heavily relied upon by the RTC and the CA, is utterly incredible and unreliable, and contrary to common human experience, and (2) the medico-legal report does not support the finding of rape.
II. OUR RULING
The instant appeal is bereft of merit.
In the main, the accused-appellant, in his attempt to seek a reversal of the guilty verdict passed by both the RTC and the CA, argues that the testimony of private complainant is incredible, unworthy of belief, and inconsistent with human experience. 12 He thus implores this Court to re-evaluate the factual determination of both the RTC and the CA.
At the outset, it bears to emphasize that as a general rule the findings of fact by the RTC are accorded great respect, even finality, by this Court, and more so when such factual findings are affirmed by the CA on intermediate review. 13 For this Court to be coaxed into reversing the factual findings of both the RTC and the CA, an appellant must indispensably, clearly, and categorically show that both courts overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied certain facts of substance and value. 14
In this case, accused-appellant has simply failed to do that. Accused-appellant could only muster an allegation that the circumstances under which the rape was perpetrated, i.e., among others, in a small dwelling and in close proximity to the other members of the family, the involvement of her mother, and within potential plain view of neighbors and other members of the family, 15 and her reaction after each purported assault, i.e., not seeking the help of law enforcement or other persons of authority, 16 makes it improbable that the crime was actually committed. However, it has almost become a matter of judicial notice that an individual so resolved to commit a heinous attack on a person's virtue will do so regardless of time and place, or other circumstances which would give pause to any reasonable individual. 17 Thus, in People v. XXX, 18 this Court stated: acEHCD
The argument that rape cannot be committed in a house where other members of the family reside or may be found is a contention that has long been rejected by the Court. It is almost a matter of judicial notice that crimes against chastity have been committed in many different places which may be considered as unlikely or inappropriate and that the scene of the rape is not always or necessarily isolated or secluded for lust is no respecter of time or place. Thus, rape can, and has been, committed in places where people congregate, e.g., inside a house where there are occupants, a five (5) meter room with five (5) people inside, or even in the same room which the victim is sharing with the sister of the accused. Thus, it is not improbable for appellant to have raped complainant in their house where 11 family members reside. To stress, complainant testified that she was raped during daytime when no one was home except for herself and appellant. 19 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
Neither can the reaction of private complainant in the aftermath of each incident of ravishing be properly taken against her. It bears recalling that at the time of the crime, private complainant was but a mere child of fourteen (14) years of age, practically prostituted by her mother, and threatened by her assailant. Under such circumstances, this Court, in the many cases of similar import it has previously encountered, has seen a disturbing commonality amongst victims: often rape victims prefer to suffer in silence because of fear that the assailant might make good on their threats and/or lack the courage to face the public stigma that comes with abuse. 20 Thus, the fact that private complainant did not immediately report the vicious attacks against her by accused-appellant cannot be taken as reason to justify an acquittal. Indeed, "it is an oft-repeated principle that not every witness to or victim of a crime can be expected to act reasonably and conformably to the usual expectations of everyone. People may react differently to the same situation. One person's spontaneous, or unthinking or even instinctive, response to a horrible and repulsive stimulus may be aggression, while mother's may be cold indifference. Yet, it can never be successfully argued that the latter are any less sexual victims than the former." 21
As to the secondary argument of accused-appellant that the medico-legal report inconclusively shows that the injuries in private complainant's private parts were caused by a violent penetration of a foreign object or a penis, suffice it to state that such was merely corroborative and dispensable. In rape cases, it is elementary that "the foremost consideration [. . .] is the victim's testimony and not the findings of the medico-legal officer. In fact, a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape; the victim's testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict." 22 In other words, the medico-legal report together with the testimony of the medico-legal only attains a potentially penultimate value to the outcome of a rape case if there is any competent showing of a lack of credibility on the part of the victim. However, after a judicious review of the records, this Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the RTC's assessment of the credibility of private complainant. The observation of the RTC as to the demeanor and deportment of private complainant as she testified in the witness stand is graphic, telling, and comprehensive, to wit:
Private complainant took the witness stand four (4) times — twice for direct examination and twice for cross-examination. In all those times that the private complainant was testifying, the Court very intently observed her demeanor. Even up to the time of writing this decision, the Court, through herein Presiding Judge, can still vividly recall how the face of the pitiful fifteen (15)-year old private complainant looked like and how her small and skinny body steadily slouched while seated on the witness' chair.
With the private complainant very candidly and spontaneously answering each and every question proposed by both Public Prosecutor and defense counsel, the Court is absolutely and with utmost certainty convinced that the private complainant is an honest, trustworthy and credible witness.
Not a slightest doubt on her honesty was ever entertained by this Court all throughout the times when the private complainant was on the witness stand.
The private complainant, while testifying, was a picture of a child who, despite having been bestially stripped of her innate innocence and naiveness by [accused-appellant], still evoked child-like traits. Unconsciously while answering, she would touch her lower lip, play with her fingers, nibble with her nails, scratch her head, and pinch her chin, among others. She also kept on playing with her folded face towel by rolling it up.
The Court could only feel for the private complainant and say now that, in spite of the ordeal she went through which prematurely and wrongly exposed her to adulthood, the private complainant is still a child wanting to just be simply such.
All the twenty-three (23) incidents of rape, the dates of which were cited above, were adequately described by the private complainant, who, at times, could not help but cry — sometimes silently and, at some point, very profusely. She, in fact, cried very intensely that even on her subsequent answers, she would continue wiping her tears and was still sobbing — as a child sobs.
Keenly observing the private complainant, the Court could very much understand the agony she went through in the gruesome hands of her stepfather. Rape, by itself, is condemnable. It is rendered more loathsome in these cases where the victim is a minor and the accused[-appellant] is a person whom she perceived as a figure of authority.
This Court finds no reason for a child like private complainant, to fabricate such a serious accusation that would put her in public humiliation, if indeed she was not sexually molested by the accused[-appellant]. "It is for this reason that testimonies of child victims are normally given full weight and credence, since when a minor says she was raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed." SDHTEC
Further, no woman, especially one who is of tender age, would concoct such a sordid story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, permit herself to be subjected to a public trial, and disgrace herself with the narrative of details of how she was raped, if she was not in fact raped. 23
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated April 6, 2016 of the Court of Appeals, which modifies the Joint Decision dated October 29, 2013 by the Regional Trial Court, Branch IX of _________ Batangas, is AFFIRMED intoto.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Pursuant to Supreme Court Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015, the personal circumstances and other information which tend to establish or compromise the identity of the victim, including the names of her family members or relatives, and the barangay and town where the incidents occurred, are withheld. The names of the victim and her family members or relatives are replaced with fictitious initials. Likewise, the real name of the accused-appellant is replaced with fictitious initials by reason of his relationship to the minor victim.
2. CA rollo, pp. 216-218.
3.Rollo, pp. 2-17; penned by Associate Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy with Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Manuel M. Barrios concurring.
4. CA rollo, pp. 77-142; penned by Judge Carolina F. De Jesus.
5.Rollo, p. 3.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 4-7. Citations omitted.
8. CA rollo, pp. 67-69.
9.Id. at 142.
10.Rollo, p. 16.
11. CA rollo, pp. 69, 216.
12.Id. at 70-71.
13. See Jose v. People, 479 Phil. 969, 979 (2004).
14. See People v. Ofemiano, 625 Phil. 92, 98-99 (2010).
15. CA rollo, p. 70.
16.Id.
17. See People v. Escaño, 427 Phil. 162, 184 (2002).
18. G.R. No. 236562, September 22, 2020.
19.Id.
20.Id.
21.People v. Rosales, 715 Phil. 285, 291-292 (2013).
22.People v. ZZZ, G.R. No. 229862, June 19, 2019.
23. CA rollo, pp. 130-131. Citations omitted.