THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243584. September 9, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.RUSEL S. ADOLFO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 9, 2020, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243584 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rusel S. Adolfo, Accused-Appellant). — This appeal 1 assails the 08 October 2018 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01798-MIN, which affirmed with modification the 30 October 2017 Decision 3 of Branch 16, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Tangub City in Criminal Case No. TC-2016-032, finding accused-appellant Rusel S. Adolfo (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of one count of rape.
Antecedents
Accused-appellant was originally charged with one (1) count of Qualified Rape and four (4) counts of Rape under Articles 266-A and 266-B, respectively, of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by R.A. No. 8353. 4 Eventually, however, accused-appellant was acquitted of the four other counts of Rape for insufficiency of evidence.
The Information for qualified rape alleged:
That on August 20, 2015, about 10:00 o'clock in the morning, in __________, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, while in the dwelling of his relative AAA, 5 a 17-year old minor, armed with a knife, taking advantage of an uninhabited place as well as the confidence that she reposed on him as her uncle, and by means of intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have carnal knowledge with her, without her consent and against her will, to her prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW, with the attendant qualifying circumstance of use of deadly weapon and generic aggravating circumstances of abuse of confidence, dwelling and uninhabited place. 6
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. 7 After termination of pre-trial, 8 trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
Accused-appellant is the first degree cousin of AAA's mother, BBB. 9 Due to alleged threats to his life, accused-appellant began living with AAA's family on 24 April 2015. 10 In the morning of 20 August 2015, while AAA was in their house cooking food, accused-appellant suddenly barged in, pointed a knife at her, and covered her mouth. Accused-appellant pulled AAA into a room while threatening her not to tell anybody or he will kill her family. 11
Accused-appellant then removed AAA's clothing and had carnal knowledge of her. Thereafter, he again warned AAA not to tell anybody of the incident or he shall kill her family. Consequently, AAA got pregnant and gave birth to a baby girl. 12
Version of the Defense
The defense failed to adduce its evidence.
Ruling of the RTC
On 30 October 2017, the RTC rendered its Decision, 13 the dispositive portion of which reads in part:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. Criminal Case No. TC-2016-32
Finding accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principal, of the crime of rape committed with the use of a deadly weapon, an offense that is defined under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code and penalized by the second paragraph of Article 266-B of the same Code, with the attendant aggravating circumstance of minority on the part of the 17-year old victim, without any mitigating circumstance to offset the same, accused Rusel S. Adolfo is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSIONPERPETUA, without eligibility of parole, to pay AAA a civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00, moral damages in the amount of P75,000.00 and exemplary damages of P25,000.00, with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this judgment until said amounts are fully paid, to suffer all the accessory penalties, provided for by law and to pay the costs.
xxx xxx xxx.
SO ORDERED. 14
In convicting accused-appellant for mere simple rape, the RTC held that since accused-appellant is a relative of AAA beyond the third civil degree of consanguinity, such relationship did not qualify the crime of rape. It found, however, that accused-appellant committed the crime by means of threat using a hunting knife, a deadly weapon, and was aggravated by the minority of the victim. 15 As previously stated, the RTC dismissed the four (4) other rape charges against accused-appellant for insufficiency of evidence. 16
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA.
Ruling of the CA
On 08 October 2018, the CA promulgated its assailed Decision, 17 affirming accused-appellant's conviction with modification, to wit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The 30 October 2017 Decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court, 10th Judicial Region, Branch 16, Tangub City, in Criminal Case No. TC-2016-032 is AFFIRMEDwithMODIFICATIONS: That the award of Exemplary Damages in favor of private complainant should be increased to P75,000.00.
SO ORDERED. 18
The CA agreed with RTC that the prosecution had established accused-appellant's criminal liability. 19 It gave credence to the straightforward testimony of AAA that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of her, without her consent, under threat of being slashed or stabbed with a hunting knife. It affirmed the penalty imposed, but increased the exemplary damages to P75,000.00, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence. 20
Hence, this appeal.
Issue
The sole issue in this case is whether accused-appellant's guilt for the crime of rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal has no merit.
Essentially, to sustain a conviction of rape through sexual intercourse, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) that said act was accomplished (a) through the use of force or intimidation, (b) when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, (c) by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority, or (d) when the victim is under 12 years of age or is demented. 21
Insisting on his innocence, accused-appellant asserts that the prosecution failed to prove that there was carnal knowledge between him and AAA on 20 August 2015. Specifically, he points out that the prosecution failed to demonstrate in detail the manner by which the act of rape was consummated, and thus failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 22
Contrary to accused-appellant's postulation, the prosecution had adequately established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. As aptly noted by the RTC, AAA was able to narrate in detail the manner by which she was threatened and raped by accused-appellant on 20 August 2015.
We uphold the findings of fact and conclusion of the RTC as affirmed by the CA.
It is doctrinal that the evaluation of the testimony of a witness by the trail court is generally accorded great respect because of its direct opportunity to observe the witness' demeanor on the stand and to determine whether she is telling the truth. Such assessment is generally binding on this Court, except when the same was reached arbitrarily, or when the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which could have affected the disposition of the case. None of said exceptions is found in this case. 23
As to the proper crime committed, mere minority of the victim does not automatically serve as aggravating or qualifying circumstance under Art. 266-B (1) of the RPC. The minority of the victim qualifies the offense only when the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim, which however is not attendant in this case. 24 As such, mere minority alone cannot qualify the crime of rape. Hence, the RTC and the CA properly convicted accused-appellant of Simple Rape only.
Under Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended by RA No. 8353, whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon such as knife as in this case, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
Article 63 (2) of the Revised Penal Code states that when there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied. Since no aggravating nor any mitigating circumstance had been proved, the penalty imposable for the crime of rape with the use of deadly weapon in this case is reclusion perpetua. 25
In A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC, 26 the Court clarified that in cases where the death penalty is not warranted, there is no need to use the phrase "without eligibility for parole" to qualify the penalty of reclusion perpetua since it is understood that convicted persons penalized with an indivisible penalty are not eligible for parole. 27 Thus, the need to modify the penalty imposed by the RTC, and affirmed by the CA, by removing the phrase "without eligibility of parole."
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The 08 October 2018 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01798-MIN, affirming the 30 October 2017 Decision rendered by Branch 16, Regional Trial Court of Tangub City finding accused-appellant Rusel S. Adolfo guilty of Simple Rape is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant is SENTENCED to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and all the accessory penalties provided for by law, and is ORDERED to pay AAA civil indemnity in the amount of Php75,000.00, moral damages in the amount of Php75,000.00 and exemplary damages of Php75,000.00, with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Resolution until said amounts are fully paid. 28
With costs against accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 12-14, see Notice of Appeal dated 23 October 2018.
2.Id. at 3-11. Penned by Associate Justice Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas with Associate Justice Edgardo T. Lloren and Associate Justice Walter S. Ong, concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 29-49. Penned by Presiding Judge Sylvia A. Singidas-Machacon.
4. Anti-Rape Law of 1997.
5. The identity of the victim or any information which could establish or compromise her identity, including the names of her immediate family or household members, and the barangay and town of the incident, are withheld pursuant to SC Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015.
6. Records, p. 2.
7.Id. at 44-45.
8.Id. at 53-55.
9.Supra Note No. 5.
10. TSN dated 16 February 2017, Witness AAA, p. 4.
11.Id. at 6.
12.Id. at 7, 9-10.
13. CA rollo, pp. 29-40.
14.Id. at 48-49.
15.Id. at 40-41.
16.Id. at 48-49.
17.Rollo, pp. 3-11.
18.Id. at 11.
19.Id. at 8.
20.Rollo, p. 17.
21.See People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 230723, 13 February 2019.
22. CA rollo, pp. 20, 22, 24.
23.See People v. Caballes, G.R. Nos. 102723-24, 19 June 1997.
24.People v. Bolo, G.R. No. 217024, 15 August 2016.
25.See People v. Belen, 803 Phil. 751-774 (2017); G.R. No. 215331, 23 January 2017.
26. Guidelines for the Proper Use of the Phrase "Without Eligibility for Parole" in Indivisible Penalties.
27.People v. Moya, G.R. No. 228260, 10 June 2019.
28.Nacar v. Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871, 13 August 2013.