THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 251740. October 6, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. AAA, 1accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated October 6, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 251740 (People of the Philippines vs. AAA). — This resolves an appeal 2 from the Decision 3 dated October 4, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01967-MIN. The assailed ruling affirmed with modification the Judgment 4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Midsayap, Cotabato, Branch 24, which found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape.
Facts of the Case
On April 12. 2012, an Information 5 was filed charging accused-appellant with Rape, committed against BBB, 6 accused-appellant's eldest daughter. The Information reads:
That on or about April 11, 2012, in the Municipality of _______, Province of Cotabato. Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, being the father of the victim, by means of force and intimidation, armed with a bolo, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously succeeded in having a (sic) carnal knowledge with _________________________, against her will. 7
Accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty during arraignment. Trial on the merits ensued. 8
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented four witnesses, namely: (1) BBB; (2) SPO1 Jaime Comilang (SPO1 Comilang); (3) PO3 Salvador Castillo (PO3 Castillo); and (4) Dr. Ana Liza Pinpin (Dr. Pinpin). The defense only presented accused-appellant. 9
According to the prosecution, a commotion occurred at the residence of accused-appellant at 6:00 p.m. of April 10, 2012 because CCC, BBB's mother and accused-appellant's common-law wife, did not allow the drunk accused-appellant to sleep beside BBB despite accused-appellant's request to do so. Accused-appellant stood up, got a long knife (bolo), and attempted to stab CCC. CCC was able to avoid the stab but her hands were pinned against accused-appellant's armpits. BBB and her four younger siblings went down from their house. BBB picked up a piece of wood, went back upstairs, and struck accused-appellant. As a result, CCC was freed of accused-appellant's grip, hurried down, and ran away. Accused-appellant caught up with BBB by pulling her hair, dragging BBB, and whipping her. Accused-appellant stopped mauling BBB when their neighbor and BBB's cousins arrived at 9:00 p.m. to get BBB out of the house.
Accused-appellant disallowed BBB to leave and threatened BBB that if she left the house, more people would be involved. Seeing that BBB could not leave the house, BBB's cousins went back to their own house.
From 9:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m. of April 11, 2012, accused-appellant stayed in the kitchen with a neighbor (whom he had a drinking spree with earlier that day). By 4:00 a.m. of April 12, 2012, the neighbor left the house. At 5:00 a.m., accused-appellant — still armed with a knife — placed the knife beside BBB and ordered her to undress. After BBB removed her lower garment, accused-appellant also removed his lower garment. Accused-appellant instructed BBB to lie down and laid on top of BBB. He then inserted his penis into BBB's vagina and made push-and-pull movements. Thereafter, he dressed himself and left the house.
BBB stayed in the house for a while then proceeded to her grandmother's house some 500 meters away. CCC went to the Community Police Assistance Center to report the sexual abuse. SPO1 Comilang, then the police officer on duty, received CCC's report at 5:30 a.m. He and PO3 Castillo secured the presence of the Sitio's leader before proceeding to the address given by CCC. BBB then confirmed to the police that accused-appellant raped her.
Since accused-appellant was at the balcony of BBB's grandmother's house, SPO1 Comilang and PO3 Castillo apprehended accused-appellant and brought him to the municipal police station. It was also at the municipal police station where police officers took BBB's sworn statement. 10
After giving her statement, BBB proceeded to the Provincial Community Hospital to undergo a physical examination. Dr. Pinpin's examination showed that BBB sustained hematoma on her right forearm and her left thigh. BBB also had a red mark on her left interior chest. The examination of BBB's vagina showed that there was no evidence of active bleeding, no fresh hymenal lacerations, and no presence of spermatozoa. The physical examination also confirmed that BBB was then 22 weeks and four days pregnant. 11
The prosecution submitted the following documents: (1) BBB's sworn statement; 12 (2) SPO1 Comilang and PO3 Castillo's joint affidavit of apprehension; 13 (4) PNP Arrest and Booking Sheet; 14 (5) medico-legal certificate; 15 and (5) pictures of accused-appellant. 16
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellant denied raping BBB. According to him, CCC told him that BBB was pregnant on April 11, 2012 at 5:30 a.m. When BBB arrived at their house, he struck BBB once at the nape. BBB then retreated to her grandmother's house. CCC also ran away and went to the Barrio. Accused-appellant followed BBB and simply waited at the balcony since BBB was hiding at her grandmother's house. Police officers arrived an hour later and immediately arrested him. The police officers did not look for BBB and did not ask BBB if she was raped by accused-appellant. Neither did the police officers inform accused-appellant of his offense. They simply told accused-appellant that they would bring him to the Barangay to discuss certain matters. Upon arriving at the Barangay, the police officers only told him to explain in court. Then they brought him to the police station and detained him. 17
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
In a Decision 18 dated April 23, 2018, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Rape under Article 266-A (d) (1) and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetuawithout eligibility of parole and was ordered to pay BBB P75,000.00 each as civil indemnity and moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages with 6% annual interest on the damages awarded from the finality of judgment until fully paid. 19
The RTC did not give credence to accused-appellant's claim that he merely slapped BBB. BBB's assertion that accused-appellant mauled then raped her was corroborated by the medico-legal certificate, as testified on by Dr. Pinpin. It held that the absence of spermatozoa and fresh lacerations did not automatically mean that accused-appellant did not rape BBB. In the absence of a strong and clear motive that BBB was fabricating false charges against accused-appellant, BBB's categorical and straightforward testimony that accused-appellant raped her prevails over accused-appellant's here denial. 20
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Aggrieved, accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal. 21
Accused-appellant averred that the trial court should have considered all factual circumstances in determining whether he was guilty of rape. Accused-appellant claimed that there was no force, threat, or intimidation since (1) accused-appellant never verbally threatened her; (2) he was not holding a knife when he allegedly ordered BBB to undress; and (3) BBB, then 20 years old, did not resist. Neither did the prosecution prove any carnal knowledge since the medico-legal certificate found no evidence of fresh hymenal lacerations and no active vaginal bleeding. He claimed that "the presence of abrasions or contusions on the labia of the vagina is considered as a criterion to determine penile penetration." 22 Accused-appellant also found BBB's testimony incredible. He averred that if BBB was able to defend her mother by hitting him with a piece of wood, then BBB should have been able to grab the knife and point it to accused-appellant to defend herself. Accused-appellant asserted that BBB's failure to even attempt to escape from 9:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. especially since she was not restrained and since her grandmother's house was nearby was implausible. 23
The CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC with modifications. The appellate court ruled that the elements of rape were present. The prosecution successfully proved the presence of force, threat, and intimidation especially since moral influence or ascendancy may take the place of violence or intimidation — with accused-appellant exercising moral ascendancy over BBB as her father. Anent the lack of vaginal bleeding and fresh lacerations, the CA explained that such absence did not absolutely conclude a lack of carnal knowledge especially since Dr. Pinpin testified that "if a woman had previous experience of sexual intercourse, there may not be fresh lacerations even if there is intercourse." 24 BBB's failure to escape from 9:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. of April 11, 2012 was not unjustified given that BBB was already subjected to accused-appellant's physical abuse the night before the rape occurred. Thus, BBB could not have been expected to think and act like a normal person under such circumstances. Not all victims react in a similar manner. 25
The CA corrected the nomenclature of the crime from Rape under Article 266 (A) (d) (1) to Rape under Article-A, par. 1 (a) to be in consonance with the allegation of rape through force, threat, or intimidation. The appellate court also modified the penalty by increasing the award of exemplary damages to P75,000.00 26 in accordance with People v. Jugueta. 27
Proceedings Before This Court
Both parties filed their respective Manifestations 28 stating that they are no longer filing a supplemental brief as they are adopting the Briefs they have filed with the CA.
Issue
The only issue to be resolved is whether the CA erred in affirming accused-appellant's conviction for the crime of rape.
Ruling of the Court
After a careful review of the records of the case, the Court finds the appeal to be without merit. We adopt and affirm the findings of fact of the trial court, as affirmed by the CA. The CA correctly found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (a).
The elements necessary in every prosecution for rape are: "(1) the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) such act was accomplished through force or intimidation; or when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or when the victim is under twelve years of age." 29
The prosecution proved that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of BBB via force, threat, or intimidation through BBB's positive, categorical, and spontaneous testimony. From BBB's testimony, she was physically threatened when accused-appellant mauled her and kept her hostage the night before the rape occurred and when accused-appellant kept his bolo with him up to the time he committed his bestial act against BBB. BBB clearly testified that accused-appellant was able to insert his penis into BBB's vagina and made push-and-pull movements. 30
The lack of any fresh lacerations and the absence of spermatozoa do not negate the crime of rape since these are not elements of rape. Again, Dr. Pinpin distinctly testified that "[t]here are time if there is sexual intercourse committed that there is no laceration specially if the woman had already experienced sexual intercourse." 31 The absence of spermatozoa could have resulted if BBB washed her private part prior to physical examination. 32 There is nothing in the medico-legal certificate that expressly contradicts a finding of rape, especially with the explanations given by Dr. Pinpin.
This Court would like to stress the inaccuracy of accused-appellant's citation of our previous case. In his appellant's brief, accused-appellant cited People v. Brioso33 to claim that "the presence of abrasions or contusions on the labia of the vagina is considered as a criterion to determine penile penetration." 34 In Brioso, the legal issue was proof of carnal knowledge based solely from the victim's claim that she felt pain during the first time Brioso tried to rape the victim. In that case, there was no evidence to conclude that there was even the slightest penetration of the vagina. The victim testified that Brioso was not successful in inserting his penis into the victim's vagina. In Brioso, We held:
In the present case, no other evidence from which we could reasonably conclude that there was even a slight penetration of the vagina, and not just a mere touching, was presented in evidence. We reiterate that penile penetration cannot be presumed from pain alone. The prosecution must present some other piece of evidence from which the Court could reasonably deduce that there was indeed carnal knowledge by the accused of the victim, be it positive testimony that there was slight penetration of the vagina, or testimony that the penis was erect at the time that it was touching the vagina, or that her vagina bled due to the attempt to insert the penis, or that there were abrasions or contusions on the labia of the vagina. 35
That is not the case here. Again, BBB unequivocally stated that accused-appellant was able to insert his penis into her vagina and even made push-and-pull movements. 36
Lastly, "it is well-settled that denial [and alibi], if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, [are] self-serving that [deserve] no weight in law." 37 BBB's straightforward testimony of accused-appellant's crime against her prevails over the latter's bare denial and alibi.
The CA properly corrected the nomenclature of the crime to Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (a) to be in accordance with the allegation in the Information, as successfully proven by the prosecution. The appellate court also aptly modified the monetary award by increasing exemplary damages to P75,000.00 pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence. 38
WHEREFORE, this Court AFFIRMS the Decision dated October 4, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01967, finding accused-appellant AAA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Rape as defined under Article 266-A (1) (a), sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ORDERS accused-appellant to indemnify private complainant the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until full payment.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. The identity of the victim, or any information which could establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. 9262, entitled "An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, and for Other Purposes," and A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, otherwise known as the "Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children." See also Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015, entitled "Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders Using Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances."
2. Rollo, p. 17.
3. Penned by Associate Justice Florencio M. Mamauag, Jr., with the concurrence of Associate Justices Oscar V. Badelles and Angelene Mary W. Quimpo-Sale; id. at 3-16.
4. Penned by Presiding Judge Lily Lydia A. Laquindanum; CA rollo, pp. 37-46.
5. Records, p. 1.
6. In line with the Court's ruling in People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 (2006), citing Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC on the Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children and Section 63, Rule XI of the Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, the real name of the rape victim will not be disclosed.
7. Records, p. 1.
8. CA rollo, p. 38.
9. Id.
10. Id. at 38-40.
11. Id.
12. Records, p. 5.
13. Id. at 6.
14. Id. at 7.
15. Id. at 9.
16. Id. at 10.
17. CA rollo, p. 40.
18. Penned by Presiding Judge Lily Lydia A. Laquindanum; id. at 37-46.
19. Id. at 45-46.
20. Id. at 41-45.
21. Id. at 13-14.
22. Id. at 30.
23. Id. at 26-34.
24. Rollo, p. 13; citing TSN dated April 2, 2014, pp. 12-13.
25. Id. at 9-14.
26. Id. at 15-16.
27. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
28. Rollo, pp. 27-28, 33-34.
29. People v. Tubillo, 811 Phil. 525, 532 (2017).
30. CA rollo, p. 43.
31. TSN dated April 2, 2013, p. 12.
32. TSN dated April 2, 2014, p. 13.
33. 600 Phil. 530 (2009).
34. CA rollo, p. 30.
35. 600 Phil. 530, 544-545 (2009).
36. CA rollo, p. 30.
37. People v. Abat, 731 Phil. 304, 317 (2014), citing People v. Espinosa, 476 Phil. 42, 62 (2004).
38. People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).