SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 232495. February 12, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ROQUE BACANI y TACCAD, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated12 February 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 232495 (People of the Philippines v. Roque Bacani y Taccad). — After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal 1 from the Decision 2 dated June 15, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06639 for failure to show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the conviction of Roque Bacani y Taccad (accused-appellant) for five (5) counts of Rape. HTcADC
Accused-appellant's contention that the intercourse was consensual due to AAA's 3 voluntary submission lacks merit. 4 A victim's failure to offer tenacious or vigorous resistance against the sexual onslaught of her attacker does not suggest that she must have consented to it. 5 When a victim is intimidated, she is gripped with fear for her physical safety and is cowed into submission, which surely cannot be equated with consent. 6 As the CA correctly held, where resistance would be futile, offering none at all does not amount to consent to the sexual assault. 7 Indeed, the law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance. 8
As to the imposable penalty, the CA correctly sentenced accused-appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua pursuant to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). However, the Court modifies the award of damages to conform with the prevailing jurisprudence. 9
Accordingly, We increase the award of civil indemnity from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00 for each count; moral damages from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00 for each count; and exemplary damages from P30,000.00 to P75,000.00 for each count. The CA likewise properly ruled that the amount of all the damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
WHEREFORE, the Court ADOPTS the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Decision dated June 15, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06639 finding accused-appellant Rogue Baccani y Taccad GUILTY of five (5) counts of Rape under Article 266-A of the RPC, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in each count. The Court, however, MODIFIES the award to P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, for each count.
The amount of damages awarded shall earn legal interest of the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 22-23.
2.Id. at 2-21; penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez with Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, concurring.
3. 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 RA 7610, entitled "An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation And Discrimination, Providing Penalties for its Violation and for Other Purposes", approved on June 17, 1992; RA 9262, entitled "An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing For Protective Measures For Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefore, and for Other Purposes," approved on March 8, 2004; and Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, otherwise known as the "Rule on Violence against Women and Their Children" (November 15, 2004). See also Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015, entitled Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websil.es of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders Using Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances", dated September 5, 2017.
4.Rollo, p. 7.
5. See People v. Federico, 454 Phil. 814, 821 (2003).
6.Id.
7.Rollo, p. 18.
8. See People v. Federico, supra note 5.
9.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 820 (2016).