SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 247954. February 28, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.BBB, 1accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated28 February 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 247954 (People of the Philippines v. BBB). — On appeal 2 is the September 14, 2018 Decision 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09381, which affirmed with modification the April 24, 2017 Judgment 4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of _______________, 5 Branch 43, in Criminal Case Nos. 5714 to 5720, finding accused-appellant BBB (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of five counts of Rape by carnal knowledge under Article 266-A, Paragraph 1 (a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended, and two counts of Rape through Sexual Assault, under Article 266-A, paragraph 2, of the RPC.
Antecedents:
On December 9, 2015, accused-appellant was charged with five counts of Rape by carnal knowledge under Article 266-A, Paragraph 1 (a) of the RPC, as amended, and two counts of Rape through sexual assault under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of the RPC.
The Informations allege as follows:
Criminal Case No. 5714 (Rape by carnal knowledge):
That on November 16, 2013 on or about 3:00 o'clock in the morning in __________________________________________________________, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd designs, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, had carnal knowledge of the victim, AAA, 6 against her will, through force and/or intimidation, and with grave abuse of authority, to the damage and prejudice of the victim and that of the general public.
That the commission of the crime was attended by the aggravating circumstance of relationship, the offended party being the legitimate daughter of the offender. 7
Criminal Case No. 5715 (Rape by sexual assault):
That on November 16, 2013 on or about 3:00 o'clock in the morning in ___________________________________________________________, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused committed an act of sexual assault upon the person of AAA, by inserting his finger into the genital orifice of the offended party against her will, through force and/or intimidation, and with grave abuse of authority, to the damage and prejudice of the victim and that of the general public.
That the commission of the crime was attended by the aggravating circumstance of relationship, the offended party being the legitimate daughter of the offender. 8
Criminal Case No. 5716 (Rape by carnal knowledge):
That at nighttime in December 2013 in _________________________________________________________________________________, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd designs, then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, had carnal knowledge of the victim, AAA, against her will, through force and/or intimidation, and with grave abuse of authority, to the damage and prejudice of the victim and that of the general public.
That the commission of the crime was attended by the aggravating circumstance of relationship, the offended party being the legitimate daughter of the offender. 9
Criminal Case No. 5717 (Rape by carnal knowledge):
That at nighttime in July 2014 in _________________________________________________________________________________, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd designs, then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, had carnal knowledge of the victim, AAA, against her will, through force and/or intimidation, and with grave abuse of authority, to the damage and prejudice of the victim and that of the general public.
That the commission of the crime was attended by the aggravating circumstance of relationship, the offended party being the legitimate daughter of the offender. 10
Criminal Case No. 5718 (Rape by carnal knowledge):
That on August 7, 2014 on or about 10:00 in the evening in _________________________________________________________________________________, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd designs, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, had carnal knowledge of the victim, AAA, against her will, through force and/or intimidation, and with grave abuse of authority, and thereafter, repeatedly pressed her abdomen, pushing it downwards so that she would not conceive, to the damage and prejudice of the victim and that of the general public.
That the commission of the crime was attended by the aggravating circumstance of relationship, the offended party being the legitimate daughter of the offender. 11
Criminal Case No. 5719 (Rape by carnal knowledge):
That on August 15, 2014 on or about 2:00 in the morning in _____________________________________________________________________, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd designs, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, had carnal knowledge of the victim, AAA, against her will, through force and/or intimidation, and with grave abuse of authority, and thereafter, massaged her abdomen several times and forced her to urinate so that the victim would not get pregnant, to the damage and prejudice of the victim and that of the general public.
That the commission of the crime was attended by the aggravating circumstance of relationship, the offended party being the legitimate daughter of the offender. 12
Criminal Case No. 5720 (Rape by sexual assault):
That on August 15, 2014 on or about 2:00 o'clock in the morning in ___________________________________________________________________, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused committed sexual assault upon the person of "AAA," by inserting his finger into the genital orifice of the offended party, several times while kissing her neck and lips against her will, through force and/or intimidation and with grave abuse of authority, to the damage and prejudice of the victim and that of the general public.
That the commission of the crime was attended by the aggravating circumstance of relationship, the offended party being the legitimate daughter of the offender. 13
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to all the offenses charged against him. 14 Trial on the merits thereafter, ensued.
Version of the Prosecution:
AAA was then 15 years and eight months old when she started living with her father, herein accused-appellant, and the latter's live-in partner in _______________________, on April 6, 2009. 15 AAA averred that before she actually resided in the house of her father, she lived with her mother and the latter's partner in ___________. 16 However, she was brought under the care of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) Haven in __________________________ because she was sexually abused by the live-in partner of her mother. 17 This prompted DSWD _____________ to write a recommendation letter to Municipal Social Welfare and Development (MSWD) of _________________ stating that AAA should live with her father. As a consequence, AAA was placed under the custody of her father from April 6, 2009 up to August 15, 2015. 18
However, instead of protecting AAA from abuses, accused-appellant also sexually ravaged her. CAIHTE
The first and second incidents happened on November 16, 2013 at around 3:00 a.m. 19 AAA narrated that while accused-appellant was sleeping beside her, she was awakened when she felt his hand in her vagina. 20 She removed accused-appellant's hand and reminded him that she is his daughter. However, accused-appellant responded by telling her "Iso na to, naaraman mo naman sana hantong pigagibo ko." (This is it. You know already what I am doing to you). AAA tried to free herself from accused-appellant but failed. Thereafter, accused-appellant wore a condom, removed AAA's shorts and underwear, laid on top of her, and inserted his penis inside her vagina. 21
The third incident happened a month later or in December 2013. 22 AAA recalled that while she and accused-appellant were inside the house, the latter touched her breasts and vagina. She removed accused-appellant's hands on her but the latter got angry. No sexual intercourse transpired. 23 Similarly, the fourth incident, as charged in Criminal Case No. 5717, happened in July 2014. 24 Accused-appellant tried to remove AAA's shorts. However, she testified that no sexual intercourse transpired as she managed to pull up her shorts. 25
The fifth incident transpired on August 7, 2014, at around 10:00 p.m. AAA testified that while accused-appellant had a drinking spree with his godson at the lower portion of their house, he went to her room and forced her to have sexual intercourse with him. 26 When she refused, accused-appellant slapped her face and kicked her. 27 Thereafter, accused-appellant forced her to insert his penis into her vagina. 28
As charged in Criminal Case Nos. 5719 and 5720, the sixth and seventh incidents happened on August 15, 2014 at around 2:00 a.m. 29 AAA narrated that while she was asleep, accused-appellant carried her from her bed and transferred her to his bed. 30 She wanted to return to her room but accused-appellant prevented her. 31 Thereafter, accused-appellant began kissing her while removing her lower garments. 32 Accused-appellant then inserted his finger inside her vagina. 33 She tried to free herself by removing accused-appellant's hands from her private parts. 34 Immediately thereafter, accused-appellant removed his lower garments and inserted his penis inside her vagina. 35 AAA pleaded with him to stop and reminded him that she was his daughter. She told accused-appellant that she will report the matter to the police, but he threatened her by saying that she is the only one who will be humiliated since they share the same family name. 36 After ejaculating, accused-appellant rubbed his fluids on AAA's abdomen in a downward motion and thereafter directed her to urinate in order to prevent pregnancy. 37
AAA testified that she was hesitant to immediately report the rapes to the proper authorities as she had no one to trust. 38 On August 14, 2014, she decided to escape from her house and went to the house of their municipal mayor to whom she divulged her story. The mayor then accompanied AAA to the police station to report the alleged sexual abuses committed by accused-appellant against her. 39
Version of the Defense:
For his part, accused-appellant vehemently denied all the accusations against him. He averred that he could not have raped AAA on November 16, 2013, at around 3:00 a.m., because he was sleeping beside his live-in partner in their house. 40 He likewise denied the accusation that he raped her on August 7, 2014 at around 8:00 p.m., and averred that he was milling copra until around 7:00 a.m. the next day. 41 As he was out of the house at that time, he likewise denied that he raped AAA at around 10:00 p.m. of August 7, 2014. He again invoked alibi as his defense and averred that on August 14, 2014, he was having a drinking spree from 7:00 p.m. up to the following day at the house of his friend, YYY. 42 Since he was out of the house at that time, he maintained that he could not have committed the crime of rape against AAA at 2:00 a.m. of August 15, 2014.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
The RTC, in its Judgement 43 dated April 24, 2017, found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offenses charged. The dispositive portion of the judgment reads:
WHEREFORE, this Court finds [BBB] GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of five (5) counts of RAPE and is, hereby, sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and to pay the victim, AAA, the amounts of SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity, SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P75,000.00) as moral damages, and THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages, for each count, which shall be subject to legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid.
Likewise, this Court finds [BBB] GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of RAPE through SEXUAL ASSAULT, and is, hereby, sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to pay the victim, AAA, the amounts of THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00) as civil indemnity, THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00) as moral damages, and THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages. These amounts shall be subject to legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 44
The RTC held that all the elements of Rape by carnal knowledge and Rape by sexual assault were duly proven by the prosecution. It relied heavily on the testimony of AAA and ruled that the latter's testimony, which was corroborated by the results of her medical examination, should be given greater probative weight than accused-appellant's defense of denial. 45
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed his conviction before the CA.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
In its assailed September 14, 2018 Decision, 46 the CA affirmed with modification the RTC's April 24, 2017 Decision. DETACa
In Criminal Case No. 5715, the CA ruled that the elements of the crime of Rape by sexual assault were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. However, pursuant to Section 4, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, while accused-appellant may not be convicted of the crime of Rape by sexual assault, he may still be found guilty for the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness since the elements of the offense of Acts of Lasciviousness are necessarily included in the offense of Rape by sexual assault.
On account of the alleged rape incidents which were the subject matters of Criminal Case Nos. 5716 and 5717, the CA held that based on the facts and evidence presented, the elements of the crime of Rape were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. However, while accused-appellant may not likewise be convicted for the crime of Rape, on account of the prosecution's failure to discharge the burden of proof that there was carnal knowledge of the victim through force, threat or intimidation, he should be held liable for the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness on account of the lewd actions committed by accused-appellant against AAA on December 2013 and July 2014.
With respect to Criminal Case Nos. 5714, 5718, and 5719, conviction of accused-appellant for the crime of Rape by carnal knowledge was affirmed by the CA which stressed that AAA's narration of events should be given great weight and credence since there was no proof to show any ill motive on her part to accuse her father of such serious crimes. The CA affirmed accused-appellant's conviction for the crime of Rape by sexual assault in Criminal Case No. 5720.
Finally, anent the imposable penalties, the CA modified the ruling of the RTC and held that accused-appellant should be sentenced as follows:
Criminal Case Nos. 5714, 5718, and 5719
BBB being found guilty of rape on three counts, defined and penalized under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (a) of the [RPC], and shall suffer for each count the penalty of imprisonment of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole under Act No. 4180, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Criminal Case Nos. 5715, 5716, and 5717
BBB being found guilty of acts of lasciviousness which is penalized by prision correccional under Article 336 of the [RPC]. Since it is alleged in the information and proven that BBB is the father of AAA, said relationship should be appreciated against the accused. Thus, BBB shall suffer for each count the penalty of imprisonment of six months of arresto mayor as minimum to 6 years of prision correccional, as maximum.
Criminal Case No. 5720
BBB is found guilty of rape by sexual assault as defined and penalized under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of the [RPC] and having proven to be the father of AAA, he shall suffer imprisonment of 6 years prision correccional as minimum to 12 years prision mayor as maximum. 47
The CA further modified the amounts of the monetary awards and ruled that pursuant to current jurisprudence, accused-appellant should pay AAA for each offense the following amounts, to wit:
Criminal Case Nos. 5714, 5718, and 5719 (Rape by Carnal Knowledge)
Civil indemnity amounting to P100,000.00;
Moral damages amounting to P100,000.00; and
Exemplary damages amounting to P100,000.00.
Criminal Case Nos. 5715, 5716, and 5717 (Acts of Lasciviousness)
Civil indemnity amounting to P20,000.00;
Moral damages amounting to P15,000.00; and
Exemplary damages amounting to P15,000.00.
Criminal Case No. 5720 (Rape by Sexual Assault)
Civil indemnity amounting to P30,000.00;
Moral damages amounting to P30,000.00; and
Exemplary damages amounting to P30,000.00. 48
Hence, the instant appeal.
Issue
Whether or not the accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes imputed against him.
Our Ruling
The appeal is bereft of merit.
Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended, provides the elements for the crime of Rape, to wit: aDSIHc
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 is 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.
On the other hand, Acts of Lasciviousness, as defined and penalized under Article 336 of the RPC, has the following elements, viz.:
1) that the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness;
2) that it is done by using force or intimidation, or when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or when the offended party is under 12 years of age; and
3) that the offended party is another person of either sex. 49
As regards Criminal Case Nos. 5716 and 5717, We affirm the disposition of the CA that the elements of the crime of Rape were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The direct examination of AAA convincingly prove that no sexual intercourse transpired. However, accused-appellant committed Acts of Lasciviousness upon her, viz.:
Q: How about in December 2013, what do you recall that transpired between you and your father while you were in your house in _______, ____________________?
A: Sometimes he touches my breast and my private parts and I do not like it, so I removed his hands but he was angry at me.
Q: Was there a sexual intercourse that transpired?
A: No, sir.
Q: How about in July 2014, do you recall any incident that transpired between you and your father?
A: When he tried to remove my shorts but I pulled it back.
Q: Was there a sexual intercourse that transpired?
A: No, sir. 50
The narration of AAA successfully established accused-appellant's acts of lasciviousness towards her. Consequently, absent any showing that there was penetration into AAA's sexual organ, accused-appellant cannot be held liable for the crime of Rape. Thus, following the variance doctrine enunciated under Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, We affirm the ruling of the CA in Criminal Case Nos. 5716 and 5717 that accused-appellant should be held liable for Acts of Lasciviousness since its elements are necessarily included in the offense charged.
With respect to the rape incident in Criminal Case No. 5715, the CA accurately held that all the elements of the crime of Rape through sexual assault were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. AAA narrated the incident that happened on November 16, 2013 at around 3:00 a.m., viz.:
Q: What exactly your father done to you during that time?
A: I was sleeping during that time beside him. I was [awakened] when I felt his hand on my vagina.
Q: You said you were awakened by that act of your father, what did you do, if any?
A: I removed his hand and I told him not to do that to me because he is my father. 51
It is not exactly clear from the narration of AAA that accused-appellant did insert his finger inside her vagina. It is settled that the act of touching a female's sexual organ, standing alone, is not equivalent to Rape by sexual assault. To reiterate, the elements of Rape by sexual assault are: (1) that the offender commits an act of sexual assault; (2) that the act of sexual assault is committed by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or by inserting any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person; and that the act of sexual assault is accomplished by using force or intimidation, among others. 52 Consequently, We affirm the ruling of the CA in Criminal Case No. 5715 that accused-appellant's act of touching AAA's sexual organ demonstrates his guilt for the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness since its elements are necessarily included in the offense charged.
With respect to Criminal Case No. 5720, We affirm the disposition of the RTC and CA that the elements of the crime of Rape by sexual assault were proven beyond reasonable doubt. AAA's testimony bears this out:
Q: What did you do to your garments?
A: He removed it, sir.
Q: Are you referring to your lower garments?
A: Yes, Sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: After he removed your lower garments, what transpired next, if any?
A: He inserted his finger into my vagina. 53
xxx xxx xxx
As above intimated, it was shown that there was actual insertion of the accused-appellant's finger into AAA's vagina, thus accused-appellant is liable for the crime of Rape by sexual assault. The narration of AAA clearly established beyond reasonable doubt that the offender inserted his finger inside her vagina, and such is sufficient to hold him liable for the crime of Rape by sexual assault.
Finally, with respect to Criminal Case Nos. 5714, 5718, and 5719, We affirm the disposition of the RTC and CA that the elements of the crime of Rape by carnal knowledge were proven beyond reasonable doubt. AAA, in a straightforward and detailed manner, recalled what happened pertaining to the November 16, 2013 incident, viz.: ETHIDa
Q: What particular incident you recall on November 16, 2013?
A: It was the first time that my father "ginalaw niya ako" (touched me).
Q: What do you mean by the word "ginalaw"?
A: Hinalay niya po ako. He raped me.
Q: Where were you then when that particular rape incident happened?
A: I was beside him.
Q: Can you please tell exactly where were you during that time? Were you inside the house?
A: I was inside our house.
Q: What time when that incident happened?
A: At 3:00 [a.m.].
Q: Who were present in your house during that time?
A: Only the two of us. 54
xxx xxx xxx
Q: So, what did your father do despite the fact you tried to free yourself from him?
A: Despite my plea to him, he still did that thing to me.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Madam Witness, what do you mean "ginalaw pa rin po ako"?
A: He raped me. He inserted his penis into my vagina and he used condom.
Q: How did your father able to insert [his] penis to your vagina?
A: He removed my shorts and my panty. 55
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Was your father able to insert his penis to your vagina?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What was your particular reaction to that action of your father?
A: I cried, sir. I suffered emotional pain. It hurts me because my father is doing that to me. 56
Similarly, AAA's declaration relating to the August 7, 2014 incident was vividly narrated as follows:
Q: How about on August 7, 2014, what do you recall that transpired between you and your father, if any?
A: During that time he was drinking with his godson in the lower portion of our house and when he came back to our house, he was drank and during that time I was asleep and my father knocked at the door and I was not able to open it immediately because I just got from sleep and when it was not opened, he destroyed the lock our house and when he entered, he told me that why it took me time to open the door and he forced me to have a sexual intercourse with him.
Q: What was your reaction to your father when he asked to have a sexual intercourse with him?
A: I got mad at him.
Q: And what did your father do?
A: He slapped me and kicked me, sir.
Q: So what transpired after that?
A: I cried, sir.
Q: What did your father do, was there a consummated sexual intercourse?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What was the incident you are referring to?
A: He forced me to insert his penis to my vagina. 57
AAA recounted the details as to how the accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of her against her will on August 15, 2014 as only a victim of rape could. The following are the pertinent portions of her testimony:
Q: On August 15, 2014, where were you?
A: I was in our house, sir.
Q: At around 2:00 a.m. of August 15, 2014, where were you exactly?
A: I was in my bedroom, sir.
Q: While you were there, Miss Witness, what transpired, if any?
A: My father lifted me and brought me to his room and that I was awakened.
Q: And what was your reaction when you noticed that your father lifted you toward his room?
A: I want to return in my room but he prevented me. 58
xxx xxx xxx
Q: So, you said a while ago that your father inserted his finger to your sexual organ, after that what transpired, if any?
A: He removed his brief and shorts and inserted his penis into my vagina. 59
xxx xxx xxx
Q: So when your father inserted his penis to your sexual organ, what did you notice from him?
A: He ejaculated on my abdomen, he massaged his semen to my abdomen and told me so that I will not get pregnant and he required me to urinate. 60
There is no cogent reason to reverse the accused-appellant's conviction for the crime of Rape by carnal knowledge in Criminal Case Nos. 5714, 5718, and 5719. It is indubitable that the foregoing elements of the crime of Rape were duly established by the prosecution. The Medico-Legal Report likewise supported that AAA was raped. 61
On the other hand, accused-appellant assails AAA's credibility as marked with improbable testimonies. He also claims that AAA's delay in reporting the crime equated to a fabrication of the accusation against him. cSEDTC
The arguments of the accused-appellant fail to convince.
Well-settled is the rule that the trial court's evaluation of a witness is generally accorded great weight and respect as they are in a better position to determine the latter's conduct and demeanor, and to determine whether indeed they are telling the truth. In this case, the trial court found the testimony of AAA more convincing as this was corroborated by the medical findings of the examining physician. Furthermore, the delay in reporting the incident is not necessarily an indication that the charge is fabricated. The victim's conduct after the sexual molestation and her inability to report the incident are also not enough to discredit her. 62
The Court, in People v. Cubay, 63 has elucidated:
[T]o blame the victim for not raising the injustice that had happened to her immediately after her first ordeal to the proper authorities and allowing the perpetrator to continue with his vile advances would be absurd. Every person's reaction to a heinous act committed against his/her person, honor, liberty and/or property cannot be simply chalked up to mathematical statistics and logical drivel. One may instantly fling himself/herself against his/her attacker in righteous fury and seek immediate and just reparation for the damage done to his/her person and honor, while another may need a longer time to recover his/her sanity due the shock of the abuse, thus, committed against him/her and prefer to delay his/her retaliation against his/her tormentors. Only an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God could tell how a rape victim should and would react after such harrowing and stressful situation. If even trained experts in this field have differing opinions on how the abused mind of a rape victim reacts after the fact, the Court should apply the same level of caution and not make any speculative judgments regarding when a rape victim should have been considered recovered enough to face his/her abuser/s privately, much less publicly in court. 64
Moreover, accused-appellant has utterly failed to support his defenses. His defenses of denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses. To stress, AAA's positive identification of her own father as the one who had sexual intercourse with her fastened the fact that she had no ill motive in filing said charge against accused-appellant. The Court has ruled that a rape victim's testimony against her parent is entitled to great weight since Filipino children have a natural reverence and respect for their elders. 65 These values are so deeply ingrained in Filipino families and it is unthinkable for a daughter to brazenly concoct a story of rape against her father, if such were not true. 66 Thus, the positive and categorical testimonies of AAA, should be given more credence as against the defenses of denial and alibi of accused-appellant.
Considering the foregoing, the Court affirms the findings of the RTC and CA that accused-appellant is indeed guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of Rape by carnal knowledge in Criminal Case Nos. 5714, 5718, and 5719 and should suffer, for each count, the penalty of imprisonment of reclusion perpetua. However, there is a need to delete the phrase "without eligibility for parole" pursuant to A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC. 67 Since the minority of the victim was not alleged in the Information together with the qualifying circumstance of relationship, the proper imposable penalty should only be reclusion perpetua. As such, pursuant to People v. Jugueta, 68 the amounts of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages imposed by the CA for each offense in Criminal Case Nos. 5714, 5718, and 5719, should be reduced to P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, for each offense.
Anent the imposable penalty for the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness in Criminal Case Nos. 5715, 5716, and 5717, the CA correctly sentenced accused-appellant to suffer, for each count, the penalty imprisonment of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to 6 years of prision correccional, as maximum. The alternative circumstance of relationship shall likewise be appreciated, having been proven that accused-appellant is the father of the victim. Pursuant to the prevailing jurisprudence, 69 accused-appellant is further ordered to pay the victim the amounts of P20,000.00 as civil indemnity, P20,000.00 as moral damages, and P15,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count.
In Criminal Case No. 5720, both the RTC and CA correctly found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape by sexual assault and that he should suffer the penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years prision correccional, as minimum, to 12 years prision mayor, as maximum. The alternative circumstance of relationship was properly appreciated since it was proven that accused-appellant is the father of the victim. Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, 70 accused-appellant is ordered to pay AAA the amounts of P30,000.00 as civil indemnity, P30,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Finally, all the monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of the judgment until fully paid. SDAaTC
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The September 14, 2018 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09381 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in that in Criminal Case Nos. 5714, 5718, and 5719, the phrase "without eligibility for parole" is deleted and the monetary awards for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages are reduced to P75,000.00 each for each offense. In Criminal Case Nos. 5715, 5716, and 5717, the award of moral damages is increased to P20,000.00. Finally, all monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this Resolution until full payment.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Initials were used for the name of accused-appellant per Supreme Court Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 or Protocols and Procedure in the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders using Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances.
2.Rollo, pp. 18-19.
3.Id. at 3-16. Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang (now a retired Member of the Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now a Member of the Court) and Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig.
4. Records, pp. 104-113. Penned by Presiding Judge Lelu P. Contreras.
5. Geographical location is blotted out pursuant to Supreme Court Amended Circular No. 83-2015.
6. "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 Republic Act No. 7610, An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, Providing Penalties for its Violation, and for Other Purposes; Republic Act No. 9262, An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, and for Other Purposes; and Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the Rule on Violence against Women and their Children, effective November 15, 2014." (People v. Dumadag, 667 Phil. 664, 669 [2011]).
7. Records, Criminal Case No. 5714, p. 1.
8. Records, Criminal Case No. 5715, p. 1.
9. Records, Criminal Case No. 5716, p. 1.
10. Records, Criminal Case No. 5717, p. 1.
11. Records, Criminal Case No. 5718, p. 1.
12. Records, Criminal Case No. 5719, p. 1.
13. Records, Criminal Case No. 5720, p. 1.
14. Records, p. 23.
15. TSN, March 29, 2016, p. 7.
16.Id. at 8.
17.Id.
18.Id. at 9.
19.Id. at 9-10.
20.Id. at 10.
21.Id. at 11.
22. TSN, March 30, 2016, p. 8.
23.Id.
24.Id.
25.Id.
26.Id. at 8-9.
27.Id. at 9.
28.Id.
29.Id. at 10.
30.Id.
31.Id.
32.Id. at 10-11.
33.Id. at 11.
34.Id.
35.Id. at 12.
36.Id.
37.Id.
38.Id. at 14.
39.Id. at 12-13.
40. TSN, September 7, 2016, p. 9.
41.Id. at 7-8.
42.Id. at 5-6.
43. Records, pp. 104-113.
44.Id.
45.Id. at 107-113.
46.Rollo, pp. 3-16.
47.Id. at 14-15.
48.Id. at 15-16.
49.People v. Jagdon, Jr., G.R. No. 242882, September 9, 2020.
50. TSN, March 30, 2016, p. 8.
51. TSN, March 24, 2016, p. 10.
52.People v. ZZZ, G.R. No. 221584, September 4, 2019.
53. TSN, March 30, 2016, p. 11.
54. TSN, March 29, 2016, pp. 10-11.
55.Id. at 11.
56.Id. at 12.
57. TSN, March 30, 2016, pp. 8-9.
58. TSN, March 30, 2016, p. 10.
59.Id. at 12.
60.Id.
61. Records, p. 12.
62.People v. XXX, G.R. No. 230981, July 15, 2020.
63. G.R. No. 224597, July 29, 2019.
64.Id.
65.People v. DDD, G.R. No. 243583, September 3, 2020.
66.Id.
67. Guidelines for the Proper Use of the Phrase "Without Eligibility for Parole" in Indivisible Penalties. Approved: August 4, 2015.
68. 783 Phil. 806, 849 (2016).
69.Lutap v. People, 825 Phil. 10, 29 (2018) and People v. Tulagan, G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019.
70.BBB v. People, G.R. No. 249307, August 27, 2020.