FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 255946. March 9, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MELECIO BELJERA y BARBOZA, 1accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 9, 2022 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 255946 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee vs. Melecio Beljera y Barboza, accused-appellant).
This is an ordinary appeal seeking to reverse and set aside the September 21, 2020 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10915. The CA affirmed the January 25, 2018 Judgment 3 of the Regional Trial Court, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, Branch 1 (RTC) which found accused-appellant Melecio Beljera y Barboza (Beljera) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape as defined and penalized under Article 266-A in relation to 266-B of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with all the accessory penalties provided by law.
In an Information 4 dated July 10, 2015, Beljera was charged with rape. The accusatory portion thereof reads:
That on or about July 27, 2009, in the municipality of Baggao, province of Cagayan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused MELECIO BELJERA Y BARBOZA, with lewd design through force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have sexual intercourse with the complainant, AAA 5 against her will.
Contrary to law. 6
As correctly held by the CA and the RTC, all the elements of rape defined and penalized under Article 266-A, in relation to 266-B, had been sufficiently established by the prosecution through the straightforward, positive, and convincing testimony of AAA (the victim).
The victim testified that Beljera raped her on July 27, 2009. She was consistent with how and where it happened, who were initially present, and his use of a gun to intimidate her and her siblings. 7 Furthermore, her claims are supported by the Medico-Legal Report dated August 18, 2009, which confirmed the existence of hymenal lacerations. Jurisprudence dictates that when the forthright testimony of a rape victim is consistent with medical findings, as it is here, the essential requisite of carnal knowledge is deemed to have been sufficiently established. 8
As regards the purported inconsistencies in the victim's testimony, i.e., the exact date when the incident occurred, the duration of the rape, and when she had disclosed the matter to her parents, among others, the Court agrees with the CA that such inconsistencies pointed out by Beljera are but minor discrepancies that do little to affect the central issue of rape. In fact, the victim was consistent in her testimony where it was material: (a) that Beljera had carnal knowledge of her; and (b) that the same was done through force, threat, or intimidation qualified by the use of a deadly weapon, such as a firearm. Contrary to Beljera's argument, the date of commission of the rape is not an essential element thereof. 9 Hence, it is of no moment that the victim's testimonies regarding the date of the commission of the offense were inconsistent. It cannot be over emphasized that the credibility of a rape victim is not diminished, let alone impaired, by minor inconsistencies in her testimony. Furthermore, his insistence that the victim's highly improbable allegations that she was raped outside her house in broad daylight should likewise be given scant consideration. Jurisprudence instructs us that lust is no respecter of time or place. The crime of rape defies constraints of time and space, and is committed not exclusively in seclusion. 10
In the same vein, the Court agrees with the lower courts that Beljera's defense of denial fails to persuade. Denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a self-serving assertion that deserves no weight in law, as in this case. 11 Thus, as between a categorical testimony which has a ring of truth on one hand, and mere denial on the other, the former generally prevails. 12 Finally, it is undisputed that the victim was merely seventeen (17) years old when the incident occurred. Well-settled is that youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. 13 It bears reiterating that testimonies of child victims of rape are generally accorded full weight and credit. 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 to if the matter to which she testified was not true. 14
In view of the foregoing, the Court is convinced that the prosecution proved Beljera's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. We likewise affirm the damages awarded as modified by the CA, in accordance with People v. Jugueta. 15
On the penalty imposed, We note that the CA, in affirming Beljera's conviction with modification, specified the same as "reclusion perpetua without the benefit of parole." There is no need to specifically indicate that he was ineligible for parole because he was sentenced to suffer an indivisible penalty. There is need to qualify that an accused is not "eligible for parole" only in cases where the penalty to be imposed should have been death were it not for the enactment of Republic Act No. 9346 or the Anti-Death Penalty Law, as clarified by the Court's guidelines in A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC. 16
We likewise note that while legal interest on the damages awarded was imposed in the RTC decision, no mention of such was made in the dispositive portion of the CA decision; thus We reaffirm the imposition thereof to avoid any confusion.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Decision, dated September 21, 2020, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10915 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. CAIHTE
Accused-appellant Melecio Beljera y Barboza is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Rape, defined and penalized under Article 266-A in relation to 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, accused-appellant is SENTENCED to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and is ORDERED to PAY AAA the following amounts: P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, all with legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Also referred to as "Melencio" Beljera y Barboza in CA rollo, p. 113.
2.Rollo, pp. 4-17, penned by Associate Justice Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin, with Associate Justices Manuel M. Barrios and Bonifacio S. Pascua, concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 61-64, penned by Presiding Judge Raymond Reynold R. Lauigan.
4.Rollo, p. 5.
5. The identity of the victim or any information which could establish or compromise her identity, her immediate family or household members were withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. 7610. An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, 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 Children, effective November 15, 2004, People v. Tionloc, 805 Phil. 907 (2017); citing People v. Dumadag, 667 Phil. 664 (2011).
6.Rollo, p. 5.
7.Id. at 9.
8.People v. Sabal, 734 Phil. 742, 746 (2014); People v. Perez, 595 Phil. 1232, 1258 (2008).
9.People v. ZZZ, G.R. No. 232329, April 28, 2021.
10.People v. XXX, G.R. No. 225793, August 14, 2019; People v. Agudo, 810 Phil. 918, 929 (2017).
11.People v. ZZZ, supra note 9; People v. Gabriel, 807 Phil. 516, 528 (2017).
12.People v. Villaros, 841 Phil. 595, 610 (2018).
13.People v. Lagbo, 780 Phil. 834, 846 (2016); People v. Hanggan (Notice), G.R. No. 213830, November 25, 2015.
14.People v. Piosang, 710 Phil. 519, 526 (2013).
15. 783 Phil. 806, 849 (2016).
16.People v. YYY, G.R. No. 252865, August 4, 2021.