SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 253288. September 29, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. JHASPER1BAIS y SISON and MANDY DELA CRUZ y SOLA, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated29 September 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 253288 (People of the Philippines v. JhasperBais y Sison and Mandy Dela Cruz y Sola). — For review is the Decision 2 dated February 17, 2020 of the Court of Appeals Fifth Division in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09705, which affirmed the Decision 3 dated June 19, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 67, __________ in Criminal Case Nos. 151772 and 151773, convicting the accused-appellants Jhasper S. Bais (Bais) and Mandy S. Dela Cruz (Dela Cruz) of two counts of Rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
The Charge
In Criminal Case No. 151772, Dela Cruz was charged with the crime of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (a) of the RPC, under the Information dated August 12, 2013, which reads:
On or about August 9, 2013, in ___________ and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Mandy Dela Cruz y Sola, conspiring and confederating together with Jhasper Bais y Sison, by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit sexual intercourse upon the person of one [AAA,] 4 against her will and consent, to the damage and prejudice of the said victim.
Contrary to law. 5
Meanwhile, in Criminal Case No. 151773, Bais was likewise charged with the crime of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (a) of the RPC, under the Information dated August 12, 2013, which reads:
On or about August 9, 2013, in __________, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, while accused Jhasper Bais y Sison, armed with a kitchen knife, a deadly weapon, conspiring and confederating together with Mandy Dela Cruz y Sola, by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit sexual intercourse upon the person of one [AAA], against her will and consent, to the damages and prejudice of the said victim.
Contrary to law. 6
Upon arraignment on September 12, 2013, both Bais and Dela Cruz pleaded not guilty. Trial then ensued. 7
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented as witnesses the following: 8
1. Barangay Security Force Reynaldo Lorica (BSF Lorica);
2. Police Officer (PO) 3 Abigail R. Saguid;
3. PO3 Rito B. Tuddao (PO3 Tuddao);
4. Police Chief Inspector Charyl Escaro (PCI Escaro);
5. Venancio Antioque (Antioque);
6. PO2 Merian Dayap; and
7. AAA.
According to the evidence presented by the prosecution, AAA was the owner of a tofu factory in __________ and both Bais and Dela Cruz were her employees. Bais worked as a delivery boy of the tofu, while Dela Cruz was a stay-in cook. 9
On August 9, 2013, at around 1:00 a.m., AAA was inside her room in the factory while waiting for the return of the L-300 delivery van which was scheduled to arrive at 11:00 p.m. She repeatedly called the cellphone of her driver, Jeff, but the latter was not answering her calls. 10
At around 2:00 a.m., she heard the gate open and saw Bais driving the van. She tried to talk to the driver to ask why it was Bais who was driving the van. She likewise asked Dela Cruz why he was with them, considering that he was a cook, and his job did not include delivering tofu products. Both the driver and Dela Cruz remained silent, but Bais kept talking and told her: "Ma'am bakit, naiuwi ko naman nang maayos ang sasakyan ah," and "Bakit may pinagkaiba ba iyon, naiuwi ko naman nang maayos, lasing ba ko?"11 Eventually, AAA gave up and decided to just talk to them in the morning since all three of them were drunk. 12
AAA then went to her room, but as soon as she was about to sleep, she heard a loud thud. She checked and found that the curtain was blown away by the wind. While she was fixing the curtain, she felt something behind the curtain and was surprised to see a foot underneath. Thereafter, she realized that Bais was behind the curtain, and that he climbed to her room from the window. AAA shouted, "Jhasper!" but Bais immediately poked a knife at her face. 13
AAA asked Bais what he wanted, and Bais said, "Pasensya ka na, Ma'am, kailangan ko ng pera." AAA then told him, "Pera lang pala kailangan mo, sige, sige." Jhasper told her to open the door, but she said, "Jhasper, hindi mo na kailangan ang kutsilyo, mag-usap na lang tayo, kung pera lang, sige." 14
When AAA was about to open the door, she tried to reach for the knife from Bais. However, when they were grappling for the knife, AAA's left hand was wounded. 15
AAA then opened the door, and called for Dela Cruz, hoping that he would help her against Bais. However, to her surprise, Dela Cruz was already there, waiting. It suddenly dawned on AAA that both Bais and Dela Cruz were conspiring with each other. She again asked there what they needed from her and Bais repeated that he wanted money. 16
Bais and Dela Cruz searched the room for money but did not find any. Bais then angrily said, "Niloloko mo ba ako, bakit wala kang pera?" Bais likewise threatened AAA, saying "Ilabas mo ang pera mo, kung hindi, sasaksakin kita."17
Suddenly, Dela Cruz took off all his clothes. When AAA realized what he was planning to do, she pleaded, "Please huwag naman iyan, matanda na ako, para na ninyo akong nanay." Dela Cruz pulled her towards him and forced AAA to lie down. He then removed her underwear, and positioned himself on top of her. AAA cried out loud, "Lord, help me!" and screamed, but Bais poked the tip of the knife near her lips and told her not to shout or else he will stab her. 18
At first, Dela Cruz was unable to have sex with AAA because his penis was not getting erect. Bais then said, "Ako na nga diyan," and gave the knife to Dela Cruz. Bais removed his shorts and tried to have sex with AAA. When Bais's penis was not getting erect, he inserted his finger, and AAA screamed from pain. Eventually, Bais was able to insert his penis, and thereafter, Dela Cruz took his turn in raping AAA. 19
Both Bais and Dela Cruz stayed in AAA's room until around 4:00 a.m. AAA assured them that she will not report the incident to the police. However, Bais kept saying, "Paano yan Ma'am, ipapapulis mo kami." When AAA managed to convince them that she will not report the incident to the police, Bais and Dela Cruz left her room and returned to the employees' quarters in the factory. AAA immediately locked her door, closed the windows, and called her siblings to tell them what happened. 20
AAA was unable to fall asleep after the incident. She looked outside her window and saw her neighbor, Antioque. AAA waived at him, and when Antioque saw her, he went near the window and asked her what happened. AAA told Antioque to call the barangay officials because she was raped by her two employees. 21
Shortly after, BSF Lorica, together with PO3 Tuddao arrived at the tofu factory, and entered the compound. AAA recounted the incident and told them that Bais and Dela Cruz were at the employees' quarters. AAA then warned the police officers and the barangay officials that Bais and Dela Cruz were armed with a knife. 22
PO3 Tuddao and BSF Lorica proceeded to the employees' quarters where they found Bais and Dela Cruz sleeping. They also found a knife on the door, which AAA confirmed as the knife used against her. Bais and Dela Cruz were then awakened, arrested, and handcuffed. Bais and Dela Cruz were then brought to the barangay hall and the _____ Police Station. 23
Meanwhile, AAA was brought to Camp Crame for her medico-legal examination. PCI Escaro of the Philippine National Police National Headquarters Crime Laboratory Office conducted the medico-legal examination. According to the medico-legal report, a contusion was found in AAA's genitals, particularly in the left labia majora, as well as a perihymenal contusion in the hymen, which are clearly indicative of recent blunt force trauma to the genitalia. 24
Version of the Defense
The defense, through the testimonies of Bais and Dela Cruz, presented a different version of events. Both Bais and Dela Cruz interposed the defense of denial. 25
According to Bais, AAA called him on August 8, 2013, and asked if he could be an extra driver to deliver tofu, to which he agreed. At around 9:00 p.m., Bais went to AAA's tofu factory, and Dela Cruz helped him load the tofu into the van. At around 11:00 p.m., he, Dela Cruz, and Jeff, the driver, left the factory and proceeded to deliver tofu at the Pasig Mega Market. 26
At around midnight, they were done with the tofu deliveries, and proceeded to go back to the factory. However, they passed by an open store, and decided to drink beer. After a while, Dela Cruz noticed that it was almost 2:00 a.m., so Dela Cruz told them that they must go back to the factory. 27
Upon arriving at the factory, Bais was surprised that AAA was still awake. AAA then scolded them. Bais lost his patience, picked a knife, poked it at AAA, cursed her, and told her to shut up. AAA tried to get the knife from Bais but AAA was wounded during the scuffle. Bais then apologized for his behavior. 28
Since it was already 2:30 a.m., AAA allowed Bais to sleep in the employees' quarters in the factory. Bais and Dela Cruz went to sleep until they were awakened at around 5:00 a.m. by barangay officials and police officers. 29
Dela Cruz corroborated the testimony of Bais. Dela Cruz reiterated that they were scolded by AAA when they arrived at the tofu factory in the wee hours of the morning. Dela Cruz likewise recounted that Bais got irritated because of AAA's scolding so Bais poked a knife at AAA, but apologized afterwards. Moreover, Dela Cruz reiterated that they were surprised when the police officers and barangay officials woke them up and arrested them for allegedly raping AAA. 30
Ruling of the RTC
After trial, the RTC rendered its Decision dated June 19, 2017, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, all premises considered, under criminal case no. 151772, accused Jhasper Bais y Sison and Mandy dela Cruz y Sola are hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of rape as defined and penalized under paragraph 1(a) of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended and is sentenced to suffer the imprisonment of reclusion perpetua and to pay private complainant [AAA] exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00 in addition to the civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 and moral damages also in the amount of P50,000.00. Interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum is likewise imposed on all the damages awarded in this case from date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.
Under criminal case no. 151773, accused Jhasper Bais y Sison and Mandy dela Cruz y Sola are hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of rape as defined and penalized under paragraph 1(a) of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended and is sentenced to suffer the imprisonment of reclusion perpetua and to pay private complainant [AAA] exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00 in addition to the civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 and moral damages also in the amount of P50,000.00. interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum is likewise imposed on all the damages awarded in this case from date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED. 31
Appeal before the Court of Appeals
Aggrieved, Bais and Dela Cruz filed their Notice of Appeal dated June 28, 2017, 32 where they prayed for the reversal of the RTC's Decision. They then filed their Appellants' Brief, 33 where they raised the following issues:
I. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE DUBIOUS, INCREDIBLE AND INCONSISTENT TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES.34
II. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS' DEFENSE OF DENIAL.35
Furthermore, in their Appellants' Brief, Bais and Dela Cruz enumerated several supposed inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses, which should cast doubts as regards their guilt:
1. In AAA's testimony, she stated that she showed her wounded hand to Antioque to get his attention, but in Antioque's testimony, he stated that he did not notice anything when he was called by AAA. 36
2. In AAA's testimony, she stated that PO3 Tuddao was in possession of the knife that was used by Bais and Dela Cruz, but in PO3 Tuddao's testimony, he stated that he handed the knife to the barangay officials. 37
3. In BSF Lorica's testimony, he stated that at the time they went to AAA's tofu factory, AAA was wearing a dress, but in PO3 Tuddao's testimony, he stated that AAA was wearing a blouse and skirt. 38
Meanwhile, on January 25, 2019, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the People of the Philippines, filed its Appellee's Brief. 39 In the Appellee's Brief, the OSG argued the following:
First, the RTC correctly convicted Bais and Dela Cruz for the crime of rape as defined and penalized under the RPC. 40
Second, the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses merely pertain to matters irrelevant to the elements of the crime, and thus, cannot be considered as grounds for acquittal. 41
Third, Bais and Dela Cruz's defense of denial cannot prevail over the positive identification of AAA. 42
On February 17, 2020, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision, affirming the conviction of Bais and Dela Cruz:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the joint appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated June 19, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 67, __________ in Criminal Case Nos. 151772 and 151773, is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS relative to the awards for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, which are hereby INCREASED to P75,000.00 EACH, FOR EACH COUNT OF RAPE, plus interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this Decision until paid in full.
SO ORDERED. 43
In affirming the conviction of Bais and Dela Cruz, the Court of Appeals stated that the two elements of the crime of rape — (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) that such act was accomplished through the use of force or threat — were both present and were duly proven by the prosecution. 44
The Court of Appeals highlighted that AAA testified in detail how Bais and Dela Cruz conspired and helped one another in sexually abusing AAA, and that in rape cases, an accused may be convicted based on the testimony of the victim, so long as such testimony is clear, convincing, and otherwise consistent with human nature. 45
Meanwhile, as regards the supposed inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses, the Court of Appeals opined that such inconsistencies only referred to trivial matters, and do not diminish the credibility of AAA's testimony.
Moreover, the Court of Appeals noted that AAA's narration that she was raped was confirmed and is supported by the medical findings of PCI Escaro, and when the testimony of the victim is consistent with the medical findings, there is sufficient basis to conclude that rape was committed. 46
Finally, the Court of Appeals ruled that conspiracy between Bais and Dela Cruz was proven since the prosecution was able to demonstrate that Bais and Dela Cruz acted in concert with one another and performed acts which show a common criminal purpose. Thus, the Court of Appeals declared that the RTC correctly held that Bais and Dela Cruz are liable, not only for the act of rape they perpetuated, but also for the act of rape committed by the other. 47
All in all, the Court of Appeals ruled that the RTC correctly convicted Bais and Dela Cruz of the crime of rape, but the Court of Appeals increased the award of damages and civil indemnity pursuant to the Supreme Court's ruling in People v. Jugueta. 48
The present appeal
In view of the adverse ruling of the Court of Appeals, Bais and Dela Cruz filed a Notice of Appeal 49 dated March 6, 2020, where they seek the reversal of the Court of Appeals' decision and pray anew for their acquittal.
On April 26, 2021, Bais and Dela Cruz filed their Appellants' Supplemental Brief, 50 where they raised the following issues:
(A) WHETHER THE RTC AND THE CA ERRED IN FINDING JHASPER BAIS Y SISON AND MANDY DELA CRUZ GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE INCREDIBLE AND INCONSISTENT TESTIMONIES OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES.
(B) WHETHER THE APPELLANTS WERE ILLEGALLY ARRESTED WITHOUT A WARRANT.
(C) THE CASE SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. THE TWO (2) INFORMATION WERE FILED IN COURT WITHOUT THE REQUIRED PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORITY OR APPROVAL OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR OF PASIG CITY, IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 4, RULE 112 OF THE RULES OF COURT.51
In their Appellants' Supplemental Brief, Bais and Dela Cruz reiterated that the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses create serious doubts as to their guilt, and therefore, warrant their acquittal.
Bais and Dela Cruz, for the first time, likewise raised issues as to the validity of their arrest and the Informations filed against them. They argued that their arrest was illegal and arbitrary since they were not committing a crime when they were arrested. Moreover, they stated that the Informations filed against them were defective because they supposedly lack the required approval of the city prosecutor. 52
Our Ruling
The appeal is without merit. This Court affirms the Decision of the Court of Appeals convicting Bais and Dela Cruz of the crime of rape as defined and penalized under the RPC.
In rape cases, the lone testimony of
In People v. Santiago, 53 this Court decreed that in rape cases, the testimony of the victim, if credible, is enough to sustain a conviction:
It is well-settled that the lone testimony of the victim in the prosecution for rape, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a verdict of conviction, the rationale being that owing to the nature of the offense, the only evidence that can oftentimes be adduced to establish the guilt of the accused is the offended party's testimony. x x x Hence, if the testimony of the offended party is not improbable, a defendant may be convicted on the lone testimony of the victim. x x x 54 (Emphasis supplied)
Meanwhile, in People v. Malana, 55 this Court ruled that when the credibility of the victim's testimony is at issue, appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court:
The determination of the credibility of the offended party's testimony is a most basic consideration in every prosecution for rape, for the lone testimony of the victim, if credible, is sufficient to sustain the verdict of conviction. As in most rape cases, the ultimate issue in this case is credibility. In this regard, when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court, considering that the latter is in a better position to decide the question as it heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during trial. The exceptions to the rule are when such evaluation was reached arbitrarily, or when the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstance of weight and substance which could affect the result of the case. None of these circumstances are present in the case at bar to warrant its exception from the coverage of this rule.
It is well-established that when a woman says that she has been raped, she says, in effect, all that is necessary to show that she has indeed been raped. A victim of rape would not come out in the open if her motive were anything other than to obtain justice. Her testimony as to who abused her is credible where she has absolutely no motive to incriminate and testify against the accused, as in this case where the accusations were raised by private complainant against her own father. 56 (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)
Such ruling is reiterated in People v. XXX: 57
When the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, the Court will generally not disturb the trial court's factual findings, especially when they carry the full concurrence of the Court of Appeals, as in this case. For the trial court indeed is in a better position to decide the questions of credibility as it heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and the manner by which they testified during the trial.
Indeed, the nature of the crime of rape often entails reliance on the lone uncorroborated testimony of the victim, which is sufficient to support a conviction, provided it is clear, convincing, and consistent with human nature. As both the trial court and the Court of Appeals keenly rioted, AAA's testimony was credible, categorical, and straightforward, on how XXX, through puce and threat, had carnal knowledge of her on three (3) separate occasions. The Court has often held that a victim's credible testimony is in fact sufficient to support the verdict of conviction. (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)
In this case, both the RTC and the Court of Appeals found AAA's testimony to be credible. Thus, it became incumbent upon Bais and Dela Cruz to present clear and convincing reasons to persuade this Court to reverse the unanimous determination of the RTC and the Court of Appeals as regards AAA's credibility. 58 This, they failed to do. As such, this Court has no reason to reverse the well-considered findings and observations of both the RTC and the Court of Appeals with regard to the credibility of AAA's testimony and the testimonies of the prosecution's other witnesses.
Inconsistencies on minor matters
In their appeal, Bais and Dela Cruz harp on the fact that the testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution contain several inconsistencies, which supposedly create serious doubts as to the guilt of Bais and Dela Cruz. However, it must be noted that discrepancies or inconsistencies do not automatically impair the credibility of a witness's testimony. In People v. Sernadilla, 59 this Court decreed:
[I]t is well-settled that discrepancies or inconsistencies on minor matters do not impair the essential integrity of the prosecution's evidence as a whole or reflect on the witness's honesty. Such inconsistencies even tend to strengthen rather than weaken the credibility of a witness because they erase any suspicion of rehearsed testimony. 60 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)
Moreover, in People v. Ocdol61 this Court held that inconsistencies as to trivial matters do not alter the essential fact of the commission of rape:
It is settled that when the victim's testimony is straightforward, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things, unflawed by any material or significant inconsistency, it passes the test of credibility, and the accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof. Inconsistencies in the victim's testimony, do not impair her credibility, especially if the inconsistencies refer to trivial matters that do not alter the essential fact of the commission of rape. The trial court's assessment of the witnesses' credibility is given great weight and is even conclusive and binding. 62 (Emphasis supplied; citation omitted)
In this case, it is clear that the supposed inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution only relate to trivial matters. To reiterate, the supposed inconsistencies only involve the following:
1. In AAA's testimony, she stated that she showed her wounded hand to Antioque to get his attention, but in Antioque's testimony, he stated that he did not notice anything when he was called by AAA. 63
2. In AAA's testimony, she stated that PO3 Tuddao was in possession of the knife that was used by Bais and Dela Cruz, but in PO3 Tuddao's testimony, he stated that he handed the knife to the barangay officials. 64
3. In BSF Lorica's testimony, he stated that at the time they went to AAA's tofu factory, AAA was wearing a dress, but in PO3 Tuddao's testimony, he stated that AAA was wearing a blouse and skirt. 65
Indubitably, these inconsistencies do not delve into the elements of the crime of rape, and therefore, do not diminish AAA's credibility and the credibility of the testimonies of the prosecution's other witnesses.
All the elements of the crime charged
Rape is defined and penalized under Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, viz.:
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 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.
2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person. (Emphasis supplied)
From the aforecited provision, the elements of 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. 66
In this case, We agree with both the RTC and the Court of Appeals that all the elements of the crime charged were duly proven by the prosecution.
First, Bais and Dela Cruz had carnal knowledge with AAA. As testified by AAA:
Q: So, what did you do?
A: Humiga ulit akong ganun. Paghiga kong ganoon, iyong inano ni Jhasper dito iyong hita ko tapos si Marco naman hinawakan niya iyong legs ko, dalawa sila tapos hinila nilang ganoon, tapos noon naramdaman ko si Jhasper pinasok niya iyong penis nya sa private part ko at noong naramdaman ko iyong tigas na iyon umatras ako pataas hinihila ko iyong sarili ko pataas kasi iniiwasan ko talagang mapasok nya nang husto umiiwas ako talagang masakit diretso akong ganoon hanggang iyong ulo ko nalaglag na sa steps ng stairs.
xxx xxx xxx
Court: Were they able to insert their penis into your vagina?
A: Yes, your Honor.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Were they able to put their private parts inside your private part or just near or front?
A: Yes, sir.
Court: She said they were able to penetrate. 67 (Emphasis supplied)
Moreover, AAA's testimony that she was raped is supported by the medical findings of PCI Escaro who found contusions in AAA's genitals, which are clearly indicative of recent blunt force trauma. Clearly, the first element of the crime of rape was duly established.
Second, carnal knowledge took place using force and intimidation. As discussed above, Bais and Dela Cruz poked a knife at AAA, threatening her not to shout or they will kill her.
Notably, it has already been held that "[t]he act of holding a knife by itself is strongly suggestive of force or at least intimidation, and threatening the victim with a knife is sufficient to bring her into submission." 68 As such, the second clement of the crime of rape was satisfied.
At this juncture, it is worthy to recall that in their submissions before this Court and the lower courts, Bais and Dela Cruz interposed the defense of denial. However, this Court rejects such defense considering that the defense of denial cannot prevail over the positive and straightforward testimony of the offended party:
Verily, when a woman says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed; and if her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on that sole basis. Appellant's denial cannot prevail over private complainant's direct, positive and categorical assertion that rings with truth. Denial is inherently a weak defense which cannot outweigh positive testimony. As between a categorical statement that has the earmarks of truth on the one hand and bare denial, on the other, the former is generally held to prevail. 69 (Emphasis supplied)
From the foregoing, We affirm the findings of both the RTC and the Court of Appeals that indeed, all the elements of the crime of rape were duly established beyond reasonable doubt.
The accused-appellants can no
For the first time, Bais and Dela Cruz argued in their Supplemental Appellants' Brief filed before this Court that: (1) they were illegally arrested without a warrant; and (2) the Informations filed against them were defective because they lacked the required prior written authority of the city prosecutor. Bats and Dela Cruz likewise contended that these infirmities warrant their acquittal, especially since the lack of prior written authority of the city prosecutor supposedly serves as a jurisdictional defect, which ousts the RTC of jurisdiction to try their case.
Their arguments deserve scant consideration.
In People v. Velasco, 70 this Court categorically held that any objection as to an accused's arrest, or the procedure by which the court acquires jurisdiction, must be raised via a motion to quash the Information, and the failure to move for the quashal of the Information operates as a waiver:
With regard to purported irregularities that attended appellant's warrantless arrest, we are of the same persuasion as the Court of Appeals which ruled that such a plea comes too late in the day to be worthy of consideration.
Jurisprudence tells us that an accused is estopped from assailing any irregularity of his arrest if he fails to raise this issue or to move for the quashal of the information against him on this ground before arraignment, thus, any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the court acquired jurisdiction of the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. 71 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)
Such ruling is reiterated in People v. AAA, 72 where this Court decreed:
Prefatorily, We sustain the CA's conclusion insofar as AAA's arrest is concerned. Time and again, the Court has ruled that an accused is estopped from assailing any irregularity of his arrest if he fails to raise this issue or to move for the quashal of the information against him on this ground before arraignment; thus, any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the court acquired jurisdiction of the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. What is more is that even if AAA's warrantless arrest were proven to be indeed invalid, such a scenario would still not save his plight because case law also instructs that the illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from error.
From the foregoing, it is beyond cavil that Bais and Dela Cruz can no longer assail the validity of their arrests because they miserably failed to move for the quashal of the Informations against them before they entered their plea.
Meanwhile, to support their position that the defective Informations oust the RTC of jurisdiction to hear their case, Bais and Dela Cruz cite Quisay v. People73 and People v. Galfin, 74 which supposedly instructs that the filing of an Information without the requisite authority is deemed a jurisdictional defect which cannot be waived. 75
We cannot subscribe to their position.
It must be emphasized that this Court has already categorically ruled that such defect in an Information is merely formal and not jurisdictional, and therefore, is likewise subject to waiver. In the recent case of Gomez v. People, 76(Gomez case) penned by Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo, this Court explained that there is a need to revisit previous rulings which instruct that an Information filed without prior written authority is deemed a jurisdictional detect and cannot be waived, because the lack of prior written authority has nothing to do with the court's acquisition of jurisdiction in criminal cases:
Correlatively, the prevailing jurisprudence is of the view that paragraph (d) of Sec. 3, that the officer who filed tile Information had no authority to do so, also cannot be waived by the accused like those in paragraphs (a), (b), (g) and (i). Even if such ground is not listed in Sec. 9 as among those which cannot be waived, it may still be asserted or raised by the accused even after arraignment for purposes of quashing an Information and, consequently, having the criminal case dismissed.
It was first held in Villa v. Ibañez (Villa) that:
x x x It is a valid information signed by a competent officer which, among other requisites, confers jurisdiction on the court over the person of the accused and the subject matter of the accusation. In consonance with this view, an infirmity of the nature noted in the information [cannot] be cured by silence, acquiescence, or even by express consent. x x x
To date, Villa had never been thoroughly expounded, modified or abandoned during the effectivity of the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions as it relates to the reason why a valid Information signed by a competent officer confers jurisdiction on the trial court over the person of the accused and over the subject matter of the accusation. It was merely accepted by the Bench and the Bar that a handling prosecutor's lack of authority to file an Information adversely affects the personal and subject matter jurisdiction of the trial court in criminal cases.
More so, under the 1987 Constitution, the same ruling was reinforced in People v. Garfin (Garfin) where the Court enunciated that "lack of authority on the part of the filing officer prevents the court from acquiring jurisdiction over the case."
Likewise, Garfin was further supplemented by the rulings in Turingan v. Garfin (Turingan) and Tolentino v. Paqueo, Jr. (Tolentino) where this Court declared that an Information filed by an investigating prosecutor without prior written authority or approval of the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor (or the Ombudsman or his deputy) constitutes a jurisdictional defect which cannot be cured and waived by the accused.
Furthermore, this Court in Quisay v. People (Quisay) also reinforced the doctrines established in Villa, Garfin, Turingan and Tolentino by unequivocally maintaining that "the filing of an Information by an officer without the requisite authority to file the same constitutes a jurisdictional infirmity which cannot be cured by silence, waiver, acquiescence, or even by express consent," and "such ground may be raised at any stage of the proceedings." It also added that resolutions issued by an investigating prosecutor finding probable cause to indict an accused of some crime charged cannot be considered as "prior written authority or approval of the provincial or city prosecutor."
Finally, this Court in Maximo v. Villapando Jr. (Maximo) finally institutionalized Villa when it categorically declared that: (1) "[a]n Information, when required by law to be filed by a public prosecuting officer, cannot be filed by another," (2) "[t]he court does not acquire jurisdiction over the case because there is a defect in the Information"; and (3) "[t]here is no point in proceeding under a defective Information that could never be the basis of a valid conviction."
As deduced from the aforementioned rulings, it now becomes sensible to conclude that the following reasons first laid down in Villa have been the Court's raison d'être of why an officer's lack of authority in filing an Information is considered a jurisdictional infirmity, to wit:
1) Lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused; and
2) Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the offense.
In view of the aforementioned observation, the Court deems it inevitably necessary to revisit the aforementioned doctrines laid down in Villa, Garfin, Turingan, Tolentino, Quisay, Maximo and other rulings of similar import on account of this glaring realization:
Lack of prior written authority or approval on the face of the Information by the prosecuting officers authorized to approve and sign the same has nothing to do with a trial court's acquisition of jurisdiction in a criminal case. x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied; citations omitted)
Accordingly, the Gomez case provides that procedural infirmities relating to the lack of a prosecutor's prior authority are merely formal defects which may be waived by the accused and do not affect the trial court's acquisition of jurisdiction:
In sum, a procedural infirmity regarding legal representation is not a jurisdictional defect or handicap which prevents courts from taking cognizance of a case, it is merely a detect which should not result to the quashal of an Information. As a result, objections or challenges pertaining to a handling prosecutor's lack of authority in the filing of an Information may be waived by the accused through silence, inaction or failure to register a timely objection. An Information filed by a handling prosecutor with no prior approval or authority from the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor will be rendered as merely quashable, until waived by the accused, and binding on the part of the State due to the presence of colorable authority.
xxx xxx xxx
In a nutshell, the Court reiterates that even some constitutionally guaranteed rights may be expressly or impliedly waived by the accused. The perceived right of the accused to question a handling prosecutor's authority in the filing of an Information does not even have any constitutional or statutory bearing. At best, it is only recognized by this Court, pursuant to its rule-making power, as a procedural device available for the accused to invoke in aid of the orderly administration of justice. Accordingly, such requirement to obtain a prior written authority or approval from the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor is considered merely a formal, and not a jurisdictional, requisite which may be waived by the accused.
xxx xxx xxx
Presently, there is no penal law which prescribes or requires that an Information filed must be personally signed by the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor (or a delegated deputy) in order for trial courts to acquire jurisdiction over a criminal case. Clearly, the pronouncement in Villa is not sanctioned by any constitutional or statutory provision. Absence such constitutional or statutory fiat, such pronouncement or ruling cannot operate to create another jurisdictional requirement before a court can acquire jurisdiction over a criminal case without treading on the confines of judicial legislation. In effect, Villa is rendered unconstitutional for violating the basic principle of separation of powers. Hence, it now stands to reason that a handling prosecutor's lack of prior written authority or approval from the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor in the filing of an Information does not affect a trial court's acquisition of jurisdiction over the subject matter or the person of the accused.
xxx xxx xxx
All told, the handling prosecutor's authority, particularly as it does not appear on the face of the Information, has no connection to the trial court's power to hear and decide a case. Hence, Sec. 3(d), Rule 117, requiring a handling prosecutor to secure a prior written authority or approval from the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor before filing an Information with the courts, may be waived by the accused through silence, acquiescence, or failure to raise such ground during arraignment or before entering a plea. If, at all, such deficiency is merely formal and can be cured at any stage of the proceedings in a criminal case. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied; citations omitted)
Thus, applying the Gomez case in the case at bar, it is clear that any supposed defect in the Informations filed against Bais and Dela Cruz for lack of prior authority are already deemed waived because of their failure to move for the quashal of such Informations before they entered their plea.
In sum, We affirm in toto the findings of the Court of Appeals.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated February 17, 2020 of the Court of Appeals Fifth Division in the case entitled, "People of the Philippines v. Jhasper Bais y Sison and Mandy Dela Cruz y Sola," docketed as CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09705, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Also spelled as "Jasper" in some parts of the records.
2.Rollo, pp. 3-14; penned by Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Walter S. Ong concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 69-81; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Maria Paz R. Reyes-Yson.
4. Name changed pursuant to Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 entitled, "Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Website of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders using Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances" (2017).
5. CA rollo, p. 69.
6.Id. at 70.
7.Id.
8.Id.
9.Rollo, p. 3.
10.Id. at 3-4.
11.Id.
12.Id.
13.Id.
14.Id.
15.Id.
16.Id.
17.Id. at 4-5.
18.Id. at 5.
19.Id. at 5-6.
20.Id. at 6.
21.Id.
22.Id. at 7.
23.Id.
24.Id. at 8.
25.Id.
26.Id. at 9.
27.Id.
28.Id.
29.Id.
30.Id. at 9-10.
31. CA rollo, pp. 80-81.
32.Id. at 13.
33.Id. at 48-67.
34.Id. at 59.
35.Id. at 63.
36.Id. at 59-60.
37.Id. at 60.
38.Id. at 61.
39.Id. at 91-115.
40.Id. at 101.
41.Id. at 110.
42.Id. at 111.
43.Rollo, pp. 13-14.
44.Id. at 12.
45.Id.
46.Id.
47.Id. at 13.
48. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
49.Rollo, pp. 15-17.
50.Id. at 51-77.
51.Id. at 60.
52.Id. at 74-75.
53. 274 Phil. 847 (1991).
54.Id. at 856.
55. 646 Phil. 290 (2010).
56.Id. at 302-303.
57. G.R. No. 228961, February 3, 2021.
58.People v. Domingo, 810 Phil. 1040, 1046 (2017).
59. 403 Phil. 125 (2001).
60.Id. at 142.
61. 741 Phil. 701 (2017).
62.Id. at 714.
63. CA rollo, pp. 59-60.
64.Id. at 60.
65.Id. at 61.
66.People v. Laurzano, G.R. No. 243027, December 2, 2020; People v. Court of Appeals, 755 Phil. 80, 103 (2015); People v. Padigos, 700 Phil. 368, 377 (2012).
67. CA rollo, pp. 105-107.
68.People v. Baltazar, 385 Phil. 1023, 1035 (2000).
69.People v. Bitancor, 441 Phil. 758, 768-769 (2002).
70. 722 Phil. 243 (2013).
71.Id. at 252.
72. G.R. No. 248777, July 7, 2020.
73. 778 Phil. 481 (2016).
74. 470 Phil. 211 (2004).
75.Rollo, p. 75.
76. G.R. No. 216824, November 10, 2020.