FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 213606. November 20, 2017.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs. CALTEX ABAN y PEREZ, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 20, 2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 213606 (People of the Philippines v. Caltex Aban y Perez).
This is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated December 13, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Special Tenth Division in CA G.R. CR-HC No. 05435, which affirmed the Decision 2 dated January 31, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 158 in Criminal Case No. 143183, which found accused-appellant Caltex Aban y Perez guilty of the crime of rape under Article 266-A paragraph 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) 8353, and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and to pay the amounts of PhP50,000 as civil indemnity, PhP50,000 as moral damages, and PhP30,000 as exemplary damages.
The Procedural and Factual Antecedents
On June 28, 2010, an Information 3 docketed as Criminal Case No. 143183-PS6 was filed against accused-appellant, which reads as follows:
That on or about June 26, 2010, at around 3:00 o'clock in the morning, while sleeping inside the bed room of their house located at Barangay Sto. Tomas, Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully unlawfully and feloniously commit lascivious conduct over the person of minor AAA, 4 thereby taking advantage of her minority, by pulling down her shorts and panties and thereafter went on top of her, inserting his penis on the opening on (sic) her vagina against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.
Contrary to law. 5
When arraigned, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Trial ensued.
AAA testified that on June 26, 2010, around 3 o'clock in the morning, she was awakened and found her shorts and underwear already pulled down with the accused-appellant on top of her, and that the accused-appellant's penis was touching her vagina. AAA was so scared that she woke up her sister. AAA's sister then asked accused-appellant "Kuya Caltex, ano po yang ginagawa mo?." Accused-appellant replied that AAA consented to the act. After which, accused-appellant stood up, put on his shorts and left AAA's house. AAA then, woke her brother and told him what had happened. AAA together with her siblings told their mother about the incident. Together, they all went outside and sought help from the people at the nearby wake. Thereafter, accused-appellant was brought to the police station and AAA executed her Sinumpaang Salaysay.
Accused-appellant admitted that he indeed entered the house of AAA after he had a drinking spree at the nearby wake. Accused-appellant also admitted that AAA's sister asked him "Kuya Caltex ano po ang ginagawa niyo dito?." The accused-appellant, however, explained that he had mistaken AAA's house for his because he was very drunk at the time. Upon realizing the house was not his, accused-appellant left AAA's house and immediately went home.
The RTC Ruling
The RTC, in its January 31, 2012 decision, 6 found the prosecution's evidence sufficient to prove accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of rape. The RTC sentenced accused-appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and to pay the amounts of PhP50,000 as civil indemnity, PhP50,000 as moral damages, and PhP30,000 as exemplary damages. The dispositive portion of the RTC decision provides:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused, Caltex Aban y Perez, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of Rape under Article 266-A paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act 8353. Accordingly, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. He is also ordered to pay AAA 7 the amounts of Fifty Thousand pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity, Fifty Thousand pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages, and Thirty Thousand pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages.
Meanwhile, considering that the accused had undergone preventive imprisonment in relation to the instant case, he shall be credited in the service of his sentence with the full time during which he had undergone such preventive imprisonment, subject to the requirements and limitations provided under Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.
SO ORDERED.8
The CA Ruling
The CA affirmed accused-appellant's conviction in its Decision dated December 13, 2013. 9 The fallo of the CA decision provides:
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 158, Pasig City is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED. 10
Hence, this appeal.
The Issue
Accused-appellant questions the CA decision and argues that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Accused-appellant insists that the prosecution failed to prove that there was even a slight penetration to convict him of consummated rape.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal lacks merit.
There is no cogent reason to deviate from the CA ruling affirming the RTC's factual finding that the accused-appellant is guilty of rape. The issues raised are factual in nature. The trial court's evaluation shall be binding on this Court unless it is shown that certain facts of substance and value have been plainly overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied. 11 None of the exceptions are present in this case.
Even if We consider the factual issues raised, the findings of fact of the RTC and the CA still sufficiently support the conviction of and imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua on accused-appellant for the crime of rape against AAA.
Article 266-A 1 (b) of the RPC, as amended, pertinently reads:
Article 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. — Rape is committed —
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present; x x x
We find that the evidence on record sufficiently established that the elements of rape were present in this case. In convicting accused-appellant the trial and appellate courts relied upon a finding that AAA was asleep when accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of her, which We uphold. As testified by AAA, accused-appellant pulled down her shorts and underwear, climbed on top of her, inserted his penis into her private parts, while she was asleep, thus, AAA was deprived of reason. This enabled accused-appellant to consummate his bestial design on AAA. Clearly, the requisites of Article 266-A (1) (b) of the RPC were satisfied.
As to the accused-appellant's contention that he cannot be convicted of consummated rape because the prosecution failed to prove that there was even the slightest penetration of the male organ with the labia majora of the female organ of AAA, We disagree.
AAA's testimony convincingly proved that accused-appellant consummated the crime of rape. AAA gave the following statements in her direct and cross examinations:
xxx xxx xxx
Q: AAA during that time, on June 26, 2010 at around 3:00 am what were you doing:
A: I woke up and I saw that he was on top of me then I woke up (sic) siblings.
Q: Who were you referring to that was on top of you?
A: Kuya Caltex.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: What do you feel when Caltex was on top of you?
A: I was scared so I woke up my sister.
Q: What was Caltex doing on top of you?
A: He touched his penis to my vagina.
Q: How did Caltex do that?
A: When I woke up, I just noticed that he was on top of me.
xxx xxx xxx 12
Q: Now you said that, you were awakened when somebody touched your vagina with his penis, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q: And you said that you shorts, as well as your panties were already down?
A: Yes.
xxx xxx xxx 13
Q: Am I correct that there was no penetration committed on June 26, 2010?
A: He just touched it, almost penetrated. He just touched my vagina with his penis.
Q: So the penis was just outside, it only touched the majora?
A: Yes.
xxx xxx xxx 14 (Emphasis ours)
The case of People of the Philippines v. Victorino Reyes15 is instructive on the matter:
As the text of the law itself shows, the breaking of the hymen of the victim is not among the means of consummating rape. All that the law required is that the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman under the circumstances described in the law. By definition, carnal knowledge was "the act of a man having sexual bodily connections with a woman." This understanding of rape explains why the slightest penetration of the female genitalia consummates the crime. x x x
More specifically, the presence of the swelling in AAA's labia majora was an indication of the penetration by the erect penis of the labia majora of the accused. As such, there was sufficient factual foundation for finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, for, as the Court explains in People v. Teodoro: 16
In objective terms, carnal knowledge, the other essential element in consummated statutory rape, does not require full penile penetration of the female. The Court has clarified in People v. Campuhan17that the mere touching of the external genitalia by a penis capable of consummating the sexual act is sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge. All that is necessary to reach the consummated stage of rape is for the penis of the accused capable of consummating the sexual act to come into contact with the lips of the pudendum of the victim. This means that the rape is consummated once the penis of the accused capable of consummating the sexual act touches either labia of the pudendum. As the Court has explained in People v. Bali-balita, 18 the touching that constitutes rape does not mean mere epidermal contact, or stroking or grazing of organs, or a slight brush or a scrape of the penis on the external layer of the victim's vagina, or the mons pubis, but rather the erect penis touching the labias or sliding into the female genitalia. Accordingly, the conclusion that touching the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum constitutes consummated rape proceeds from the physical fact that the labias are physically situated beneath the mons pubis or the vaginal surface, such that for the penis to touch either of them is to attain some degree of penetration beneath the surface of the female genitalia. It is required, however, that this manner of touching of the labias must be sufficiently and convincingly established. (Emphasis Ours)
Also, as correctly observed by the CA and the RTC, AAA narrated in a clear, straightforward and candid manner her harrowing experience during the direct examination. AAA's testimony was also corroborated by her sister. Unlike, accused-appellant's testimony, which had nothing to offer but his bare denial of the charge, the Court gives greater weight and respect to the testimonies of AAA and her sister. AAA's testimony is coherent and intrinsically believable as a whole, discrepancies of minor details and collateral matters do not affect the veracity or detract from the essential credibility of the witnesses' declarations. 19
In the case of People v. Burce20 as to the question on whether to believe the version of the prosecution or that of the defense, the Court explained:
[T]he trial court's choice is generally viewed as correct and entitled to the highest respect because it is more competent to conclude so, having had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment on the witness stand as they gave their testimonies. The trial court is, thus, in the best position to weigh conflicting testimonies and to discern if the witnesses were telling the truth. Without any clear showing that the trial court and the appellate court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance, the rule should not be disturbed. 21
Moreover, in prosecuting a crime of rape, the accused may be convicted solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim that is credible, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. 22
Furthermore, accused-appellant's defenses of denial and alibi, cannot prevail over the prosecution witnesses' positive testimonies, that AAA was raped. The defense of denial has been invariably viewed by the Court with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in prosecutions for rape. 23 To merit approbation, they must adduce clear and convincing evidence that they were in a place other than the situs criminis at the time when the crime was committed, such that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime when it was committed. 24 Accused-appellant failed in this regard. He even admitted that he indeed entered the house of AAA after he had a drinking spree at a nearby wake. Accused-appellant claimed however, that he had merely mistaken AAA's house as his, and after realizing that it was not, he immediately left the place and went home.
Thus, We find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the trial and appellate courts for the conviction of accused-appellant for the crime of rape against AAA as they were sufficiently supported by the evidence on record.
The CA properly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua in conformity with Article 266-B. However, to conform with the prevailing jurisprudence, We deem it proper to modify the amount of damages awarded in this case. The Court modifies the award of damages as follows: PhP75,000 as civil indemnity, PhP75,000 as moral damages, and PhP75,000 as exemplary damages. 25
In addition, all damages awarded shall earn legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid. 26
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the APPEAL is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated December 13, 2013 of the Court of Appeals, Special Tenth Division in Criminal Case No. 143183, which found accused-appellant Caltex Aban y Perez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape under Article 266-A paragraph 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act 8353, and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages awarded are modified to PhP75,000. Likewise, the award of damages shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid.
(Jardeleza, J., no part, due to his prior action as Solicitor General; Bersamin, J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated October 24, 2017.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon and concurred in by Associate Justices Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, rollo, pp. 2-13.
2. CA rollo, pp. 37-61.
3.Id. at 35-36.
4. In view of the ruling in People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, the real name and personal circumstances of the victim, and any other information tending to establish or compromise her identity, including those of her immediate family or household members, are not disclosed in this Decision.
5. CA rollo, p. 35.
6.Id. at 37-61.
7. Insertion Ours; In view of the ruling in People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, the real name and personal circumstances of the victim, and any other information tending to establish or compromise her identity, including those of her immediate family or household members, are not disclosed in this Decision.
8. CA Rollo, p. 61.
9.Supra note 1.
10.Rollo, p. 12.
11.People v. Ofemiano, 625 Phil. 92, 98 (2010).
12. See RTC Decision, CA Rollo, p. 45.
13.Id. at 47.
14.Id. at 48.
15. 714 Phil. 300, 307-308 (2013).
16. 704 Phil. 335 (2013).
17. 385 Phil. 912 (2000).
18. 394 Phil. 790 (2000).
19.People v. Basbas, 714 Phil. 337 (2013).
20. 730 Phil. 576.
21.Id. at 586.
22.People v. Espenilla, 718 Phil. 153, 164 (2013).
23.People v. Besmonte, 735 Phil. 234, 252 (2014).
24.People v. Tabio, 568 Phil. 144, 154 (2008).
25.People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331.
26.People v. Sabal, 734 Phil. 742 (2014).