FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 246524. May 14, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ERNESTO ANEMOS y MANGA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedMay 14, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 246524 (People of the Philippines v. Ernesto Anemos y Manga). — This is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated August 13, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09617. The assailed ruling affirmed with modification the findings of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Mateo, Rizal, Branch 77, which found accused-appellant Ernesto Anemos y Manga (Anemos) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape.
Facts of the Case
On October 13, 2005, an Information 2 was filed charging Anemos with Rape, committed against AAA, 3 a 14-year old girl. The Information reads:
That, on or about the 28th day of September 2005, in the ________________, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge, by use of threat, force and intimidation, with AAA, 14 years old and a minor, against her will and consent, to the damage and prejudice of [the] latter. 4
Anemos entered a plea of not guilty during arraignment. 5 Trial on the merits ensued.
The prosecution presented as its witnesses: (1) AAA; and (2) Dr. Joseph Palmero (Dr. Palmero), a personnel of the PNP Crime Laboratory. The defense only presented Anemos. 6
According to AAA, she was picking up garbage on September 28, 2005 at 12:00 p.m. when Anemos (whom AAA calls Kuya Erning) dragged her towards his house. No one else was inside the house. Anemos then made AAA lie down on the wooden bed and removed her blouse, pants, and panty. He then removed his t-shirt, pants, and brief. Anemos touched her breasts and laid on top of her. Anemos then inserted his penis into AAA's vagina. AAA did not shout because a knife was pointed at her. Anemos told AAA that if she told anybody, he will kill her. Afterwards, Anemos told her to dress up and go home. 7 On the same day at 9:00 p.m., AAA told her mother (BBB) 8 what happened. 9 On cross-examination, AAA stated that she was raped at 7:00 a.m. of September 28, 2005. 10
The prosecution submitted the following documents: (1) AAA's sworn statement; 11 (2) BBB's sworn statement; 12 (3) joint sworn statements of Barangay Tanods Edison E. Almonicar, Antonio O. Pranada, Rodolfo S. Vivar, and Neptali V. Elosendo; 13 (4) Initial Medico-Legal Report; 14 and (5) Medico-Legal Report, 15 which was destroyed when typhoon Ondoy hit the Philippines.
Anemos denied raping AAA. On September 28, 2005 at 12:00 p.m., he was resting under an open hut made of rubber located two arms' length away from the dump site. AAA and BBB approached him to drink water and asked him about the hogs he was tending to. Even after September 28, 2005, AAA and BBB always greeted him and even borrowed money from him. On October 2, 2005 a barangay tanod of ________ — known only to him as Eddie — told him that since Anemos was new to the place, the new rules on scavenging required them to follow color coded uniforms depending on the time they were scavenging. Eddie then told Anemos that the former will accompany the latter to the barangay hall to get Anemos' uniform. Upon arriving at the Barangay Hall, another barangay tanod asked, "yan na ba ang sinasabi ninyo na dayo?" to which Eddie replied in the affirmative. The other barangay tanod ordered Eddie to watch over Anemos as the latter was accused of rape. When Anemos asked who the complainants were, he was told to wait. AAA and BBB arrived an hour later. BBB approached him and confirmed Anemos as AAA's assailant. When he asked AAA and BBB why he was wrongfully accused of rape, BBB just told the barangay tanod to bring him to the police station for detention. Anemos contended that AAA and BBB were only after his money because AAA and BBB's relative approached Anemos three days after he was detained and advised the latter to settle the case in order for him to be released. 16
In a Decision 17 dated September 14, 2011, the RTC found Anemos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Rape under Article 266-A (1) (a) in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. (R.A.) 8353. Anemos was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and was ordered to pay AAA P50,000.00 each as civil indemnity and moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. 18
The RTC found AAA's testimonial evidence, as corroborated by the Initial Medico-Legal Report, sufficient to prove the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt. There was force and intimidation when Anemos pointed a knife at AAA to silence her. The discrepancy as to the time when Anemos raped AAA was found to be insignificant. 19 CAIHTE
Aggrieved, Anemos filed a Notice of Appeal. 20
The appellate court ruled that the elements of rape were present. The CA dismissed Anemos' attempt at discrediting AAA's testimony as the inconsistency as to the time when the crime occurred and the manner by which Anemos threatened AAA (i.e., verbally threatening AAA versus pointing a knife at her) do not affect the credibility of AAA. 21 The appellate court also cited People v. Agudo, 22 where this Court did not discuss the prosecution's failure to present the doctor who executed the medico-legal report since the fact of rape and the identity of the perpetrator may be proven even by the lone uncorroborated testimony of the victim. 23
The CA modified the penalty by increasing the monetary awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to P75,000.00 each in accordance with People v. Jugueta. 24 The CA, likewise, imposed legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of its Decision until full payment.
Anemos filed a Notice of Appeal. 25 Both parties filed their respective Manifestations stating that they are no longer filing a supplemental brief as they are adopting the Briefs they have filed with the CA. 26
Issue
The only issue to be resolved is whether the CA erred in affirming Anemos' 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 Anemos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape under Article 266-A in relation to 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
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. 27
The prosecution proved that Anemos had carnal knowledge of AAA through AAA's positive, categorical, and spontaneous testimony, corroborated by the medico-legal report, indicating the presence of lacerations in AAA's hymen at the 3 o'clock, 6 o'clock, and 9 o'clock positions finding "clear evidence of blunt force trauma or penetrating trauma." 28 From AAA's testimony, she was verbally and physically threatened when Anemos told AAA that he will kill AAA if she told anyone and when he pointed at knife at her. 29
Anemos argued that the Initial Medico-Legal Report issued by the Medico-Legal Officer on duty has no probative value because the attending physician did not testify in court. 30
The Initial Medico-Legal Report is a public document — having been issued by Police Senior Inspector Alice A. Zaldua (PSI Zaldua), the Medico-Legal Officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory. It is thus the record of an official act of a public officer under Section 19 (a), Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. As such, it only need to be proved by presenting the medico-legal report itself or a copy thereof duly attested by the officer having legal custody of the same. Here, the original Initial Medico-Legal Report was presented and identified by Dr. Palmero — another doctor from the PNP Crime Laboratory who worked with PSI Zaldua until the latter's resignation and migration to the United States. Dr. Palmero identified PSI Zaldua's signature since he was familiar with her signature, being PSI Zaldua's subordinate in the PNP Crime Laboratory at the time the Initial Medico-Legal Report was executed.
As a public document, the Initial Medico-Legal Report is evidence of the facts stated therein — particularly the presence of lacerations on AAA's genitalia caused by blunt force or penetrating trauma — which corroborate AAA's allegation of rape.
In any case, this Court already ruled that a medical certificate is not necessary to prove the commission of rape. It is merely corroborative in character and not an indispensable element in rape. 31 The absence of medical findings by a medico-legal officer does not disprove the occurrence of rape. It is enough that the evidence on hand convinces the court that conviction is proper, 32 as in the instant case.
Lastly, it is well-settled that denial and alibi, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are self-serving and deserve no weight in law. 33 AAA's positive identification of Anemos prevails over the latter's bare denial and alibi.
The CA correctly modified the penalty by sentencing Anemos to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and directing Anemos to pay civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00; moral damages in the amount of P75,000.00; and exemplary damages in the amount of P75,000.00 pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence. 34 Moreover, the CA correctly imposed interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum on all damages awarded from date of finality of this resolution until full payment.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the Decision dated August 13, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09617, finding accused-appellant Ernesto Anemos y Manga GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Rape as defined under Article 266-A (1) (a) in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, and ORDERS accused-appellant Ernesto Anemos y Manga to indemnify private complainant AAA 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." DETACa
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a Member of this Court); CA rollo, pp. 106-112.
2. Records, pp. 1-2.
3. 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 and their immediate relatives will not be disclosed.
4. Records, pp. 1-2.
5.Id. at 16-17.
6.Id. at 227, 229.
7. TSN dated June 13, 2006, pp. 7-11.
8.Supra note 3.
9. Records, p. 228.
10. TSN dated January 23, 2007, p. 5.
11. Records, p. 208.
12.Id. at 209.
13.Id. at 210.
14.Id. at 211.
15.Id. at 7, 19, 31.
16. Records, p. 229.
17. Penned by Judge Lily Villareal Biton; CA rollo, pp. 40-46.
18. Records, p. 233.
19.Id. at 231-233.
20. CA rollo, p. 10.
21.Rollo, p. 7.
22. 810 Phil. 918 (2017).
23.Id. at 930.
24. 783 Phil. 806, 847 (2016).
25.Rollo, p. 11.
26.Id. at 17-18, 21-22.
27.People v. Tubillo, 811 Phil. 525, 532 (2017).
28. Records, p. 211.
29. TSN dated June 13, 2006, p. 10.
30. CA rollo, p. 31.
31.People v. Quezada, 425 Phil. 877, 897 (2002).
32.People v. Turco, Jr., 392 Phil. 498, 517 (2000).
33.People v. Abat, 731 Phil. 304, 317 (2014), citing People v. Espinosa, 476 Phil. 42, 62 (2004).
34.Supra note 23.