SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 231312. September 5, 2018.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ALBINO BAISA y VILLANUEVA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated05 September 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 231312 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,versus ALBINO BALSA y VILLANUEVA, accused-appellant.
After a careful review of the records of the case and the issues submitted by the parties, the Court finds no error committed in the Decision 1 dated September 16, 2016 rendered by the Court of Appeals, Special Seventeenth (17th) Division (CA), in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 07324.
At the outset, the Court wants to correct that the crime charged and proved, in this case, refers to Statutory Rape under Article 266-A (1) (d) and Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. The facts, as borne out by the records, sufficiently support the conclusion that accused-appellant Albino Baisa y Villanueva (accused Baisa) is indeed guilty of the crime of Statutory Rape. The issues and matters raised before the Court, the same ones as those raised in the CA, there being no supplemental briefs filed, were sufficiently addressed and correctly ruled upon by the CA.
There is statutory rape when "(1) x x x the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) x x x the woman is below 12 years of age or is demented." 2 Here, the Court agrees with the CA that the prosecution satisfactorily established, beyond reasonable doubt, all the elements of statutory rape. First, AAA's 3 Certificate of Live Birth shows that she was born on October 6, 1998, which proves that she was four (4) years old when the rape happened on June 14, 2003. Second, the positive, straightforward and spontaneous testimony of AAA, corroborated by the testimony of BBB and the medico-legal report as interpreted by Dr. Emmanuel Aranas, proved that accused Baisa indeed had carnal knowledge of AAA on June 14, 2003. Accused Baisa's insistence that the medico-legal report which indicates that AAA's hymen remain intact contravenes carnal knowledge, cannot prevail over the positive testimony of AAA. In People v. Degay, 4 the Court explained that: "the absence of hymenal laceration does not preclude the finding of rape, especially when the victim is of tender age. Rape is consummated by the slightest penile penetration of the labia or pudendum of the female. The presence of hyperemia in the vaginal opening is a clear indication that the penis of the accused indeed touched the labia or pudendum of the complainants." 5 CAacTH
Verily, the Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the RTC's 6 assessment of AAA's credibility, which was affirmed by the CA. Indeed, it has been held that "[t]estimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl, particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has in fact been committed. When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity." 7 Further, and contrary to accused Baisa's contention, the victim was not expected to remember in specific detail when the horrible act was done against her. To stress, rape is a painful experience which is oftentimes not remembered in detail. For such an offense is not analogous to a person's achievement or accomplishment as to be worth recalling or reliving; rather, it is something which causes deep psychological wounds and casts a stigma upon the victim, scarring her psyche for life and which her conscious and subconscious mind would opt to forget. Thus, a rape victim cannot be expected to mechanically keep and then give an accurate account of the traumatic and horrifying experience she had undergone. 8 Discrepancies regarding the actual date or time of the commission of the rape cannot be considered as grounds for acquittal, since such date or time of commission is not an element of the crime. It is only important that the commission of rape by the accused has been sufficiently proven. 9
Furthermore, accused Baisa's denial and alibi were properly disregarded by the courts a quo. Apart from being self-serving and uncorroborated, accused Baisa failed to prove that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene considering that his house, where the rape was committed, and the other house, where accused Baisa allegedly went, are just a few blocks away, as admitted by accused Baisa himself.
In fine, accused Baisa was properly found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Statutory Rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. However, the Court modifies the damages awarded by the RTC, as modified by the CA. Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, 10 the award of civil indemnity and moral damages should be increased to P100,000.00 each. Accused Baisa is likewise ordered to pay exemplary damages in the same amount.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Court hereby ADOPTS the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Decision dated September 16, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 07324. The Decision finding accused-appellant Albino Baisa y Villanueva guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Statutory Rape, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. He is ordered to pay the private complainant ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000.00) as civil indemnity, ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000.00) as moral damages, and ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000.00) as exemplary damages. All monetary awards shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid. IAETDc
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-15. Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison, with Associate Justices Ramon A. Cruz and Renato C. Francisco concurring.
2.People v. Amistoso, 701 Phil. 345, 352 (2013).
3. The real name of the victim, her personal circumstances and other information which tend to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family, or household members, shall not be disclosed to protect her privacy, and fictitious initial shall, instead, be used, in accordance with People v. Cabalquinto (533 Phil. 703 [2006]) and Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017.
4. 643 Phil. 616 (2010).
5.Id. at 628.
6. Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite, Branch 21 in Crim. Case No. 11164-03.
7.People v. Cadano, Jr., 729 Phil. 576, 585 (2014).
8.People v. Saludo, 662 Phil. 738, 753 (2011).
9. See People v. Matugas, 427 Phil. 696, 718-719 (2002).
10.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).