People v. Beltran, Jr. y Cariño

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 254616. December 6, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. RICARDO BELTRAN, JR. y CARIÑO @ "PEPOT", accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 6, 2021, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 254616 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricardo Beltran, Jr. y Cariño @ "Pepot,"Accused-Appellant). — This appeal 1 assails the Decision 2 dated 06 December 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11301. The CA affirmed with modification the Joint Decision 3 dated 07 May 2018 of Branch 270, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela City in Crim. Case Nos. 151-V-11 and 153-V-11 finding accused-appellant Ricardo Beltran, Jr. y Cariño (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of rape, defined and penalized under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act No. (RA) 8353, 4 in relation to RA 7610. 5

Antecedents

Accused-appellant was indicted for three (3) counts of rape in three (3) separate Informations, the accusatory portions of which alleged, thus:

Criminal Case No. 151-V-11

That on February 9, 2007, on or about 5:30 a.m. in Valenzuela City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force, threat and intimidation, with a use of knife, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of complainant AAA, 6 17 years old, against her will and consent to her damage and prejudice.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 7

Criminal Case No. 152-V-11

That on February 9, 2007, on or about 5:40 a.m. in Valenzuela City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force, threat and intimidation, with a use of knife, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of complainant AAA, 17 years old, against her will and consent to her damage and prejudice.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 8

Criminal Case No. 153-V-11

That on February 12, 2007, in Valenzuela City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force, threat and intimidation, with a use of knife, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of complainant AAA, 17 years old, against her will and consent to her damage and prejudice.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 9

Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. After pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued. 10

Version of the Prosecution

In the morning of 09 February 2007, AAA was on her way to school when she saw accused-appellant in front of their house. She ignored him and continued walking. Upon reaching the terminal, accused-appellant called her and asked if they could talk. AAA told accused-appellant to have their talk some other time because she was running late for school. Accused-appellant, however, held her hand, pointed a bladed weapon to the side of her body, and dragged AAA inside an abandoned apartment. Once inside, he kissed her lips, her whole body, and her private part while undressing her. Accused-appellant then instructed AAA to lie on the floor. While the knife was pointed at AAA's neck, accused-appellant repeatedly inserted his penis inside AAA's vagina. After about fifteen (15) minutes, accused-appellant instructed AAA to stand, and with her back facing accused-appellant, the latter again inserted his penis inside her vagina. 11

After satisfying his carnal desire, accused-appellant directed AAA to put on her clothes and to leave the building ahead of him. Accused-appellant also warned AAA not to tell anyone of what happened between them, or else he would create a scene at her house and embarrass her. 12

A few days after, or on 12 February 2007, while AAA was about to go to school, she was surprised when accused-appellant dragged her inside the same vacant apartment where she was initially brought. Fearing that accused-appellant was again carrying a bladed weapon, AAA did not fight back. While standing, accused-appellant again raped AAA. 13

BBB, AAA's mother only learned of AAA's ordeal in December 2007 when she confronted AAA as to why she was always accompanied by a certain Patrick, one of their boarders. AAA then told BBB that Patrick was just protecting her from accused-appellant who had raped her in February 2007. They reported the incident to the NBI. 14

Version of the Defense

Accused-appellant denied the charges against him. He claimed that he and AAA were sweethearts since November 2006 and had a sexual encounter in an apartelle in Valenzuela City. However, their relationship ended in 2007 when he learned that AAA had another boyfriend. Accused-appellant further claimed that AAA's family did not approve of him and was belittled as a mere tricycle driver. He was unaware as to why the rape cases were filed against him and learned of the accusations only in 2008, when he and his family were already residing in San Jose del Monte, Bulacan. 15

Ruling of the RTC

On 07 May 2018, the RTC rendered its Joint Decision convicting accused-appellant two (2) counts of rape, in relation to RA 7610, to wit:

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 151-V-11, finding accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE under Art. 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 8353, in relation to RA 7610 and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the private complainant the amount of Php75,000.00 and to pay moral damages in the amount of Php75,000.00, subject to 6% interest per annum from finality of this judgment until fully paid.

IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 152-V-11, as testified to by the private complainant that the sexual act was done continuously without any time interval, being necessarily considered as one criminal intent relative to Criminal Case No. 151-V-11, the same is hereby ordered dismissed.

IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 153-V-11, finding accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 8353, in relation to RA 7610 and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the private complainant the amount of Php75,000.00 and to pay moral damages in the amount of Php75,000.00, subject to 6% interest per annum from finality of this judgment until fully paid.

SO ORDERED. 16

The RTC held that accused-appellant, through force and intimidation, had carnal knowledge of AAA in two (2) instances. It held that AAA's testimony bears the hallmarks of truth, which cannot be defeated by accused-appellant's bare denial. It disregarded the sweetheart defense of accused-appellant for being unsubstantiated. Moreover, accused-appellant failed to prove any ill motive on the part of AAA to testify falsely against him. 17

Accused-appellant appealed his conviction to the CA.

Ruling of the CA

On 06 December 2019, the CA promulgated its assailed Decision, affirming accused-appellant's conviction, thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the APPEAL is DENIED for lack of merit. Hence, the RTC Joint Decision dated May 7, 2018 in Criminal Cases No. 151-V-11 and 153-V-11 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION by ADDING P75,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of rape.

SO ORDERED. 18

The CA gave AAA's testimony full faith and credit. It noted that AAA remained steadfast in her claim that accused-appellant raped her. It agreed with the RTC that accused-appellant, through force and intimidation, had carnal knowledge of AAA. It also held that AAA's failure to resist accused-appellant's sexual advances should not be taken against her. As emphatically declared by AAA, she was cowed into submission when accused-appellant held a knife to her neck. Furthermore, resistance is not an element of rape. The CA also explained that the proper terminology of the two felonies should be rape under paragraph 1, Article 266-A of the RPC. Finally, it modified the damages awarded by adding exemplary damages of Php75,000 for each count of rape. 19

Subsequently, accused-appellant filed the present appeal.

Issue

For the Court's resolution is whether accused-appellant's guilt for two (2) counts of rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling of the Court

The appeal has no merit.

To support a conviction for rape, the prosecution has the burden to conclusively prove the two elements of the crime, viz.: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) he accomplished such act through force or intimidation, or when she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she was under 12 years of age or was demented. 20

Accused-appellant insists that the prosecution failed to prove the use of force and intimidation during the alleged rape. He maintains that his sexual encounters with AAA were consensual because they were lovers. Further, in the alleged second incident of rape, it was not established that he was even armed. Accused-appellant also points to AAA's baffling conduct after the rape, when she even went to school after the alleged incidents of rape. 21

The Court agrees that the prosecution had adequately proven accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for two (2) counts of rape. On the first incident of rape, accused-appellant by means of force had carnal knowledge of AAA. While accused-appellant insists that he and AAA were lovers, his sweetheart defense has no leg to stand on. To emphasize, his sweetheart defense essentially admits carnal knowledge, the first element of rape. Meanwhile, the pairing element of force and intimidation was proven with moral certainty by AAA's firm testimony that accused-appellant pointed a knife to her neck while raping her. 22 Even if We were to accept accused-appellant's claim that he and AAA were lovers, the law does not excuse the use of force and intimidation to satisfy carnal urges and desires. 23

We are likewise convinced that there was force and intimidation on the second incident of rape. It is settled that neither the presence of or use of a deadly weapon, nor physical violence are essential to find force or intimidation. There is force and intimidation as long as the actions of the accused are sufficient to consummate the bestial desires of the malefactor against the victim. Furthermore, it is not even required that the force or intimidation employed be so great that it is irresistible, but it must only be enough to consummate the purpose of the accused. 24

In this case, AAA was cowed into submission when accused-appellant again dragged her into the apartment and posing as if holding a knife inside his pocket. AAA was overwhelmed with so much fear, more so in view of the previous incident of rape, that accused-appellant was able to perpetrate his evil desire of again having carnal knowledge of her against her will. 25

On the other hand, AAA's conduct after the incident is not sufficient ground to undermine her credibility. It is a settled doctrine that there is no uniform behavior that can be expected from those who had the misfortune of being sexually molested. While there are some who may have found the courage early on to reveal the abuse they experienced, there are those who have opted to initially keep the harrowing ordeal to themselves and attempt to move on with their lives. This is because a rape victim's actions are oftentimes overwhelmed by fear rather than by reason. 26

Indeed, there is no showing that either the RTC or the CA committed any error in law and in its findings of fact especially as to AAA's credibility. 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. 27

In sum, the CA correctly found accused-appellant to have committed two (2) counts of rape under paragraph 1 (a), Article 266-A of the RPC instead of two (2) counts of rape in relation to RA 7610, pursuant to People v. Tulagan. 28 However, the fallo of the RTC must be modified to reflect the complete designation of the crime namely, Simple Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (a) of the RPC.

We nonetheless concur with the imposed penalty of reclusion perpetua as well as with the damages awarded and legal interest imposed, for being in accordance with law and prevailing jurisprudence.

WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 06 December 2019 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11301 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accordingly, accused-appellant Ricardo Beltran Jr. y Cariño is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (a) of the RPC. Accused-appellant is SENTENCED to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ORDERED to PAY AAA Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php75,000.00 as moral damages, and Php75,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of rape. Legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum is imposed on the total monetary awards, computed from finality of this resolution until full payment. 29

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 18-19, See Notice of Appeal dated 03 January 2020.

2. Id. at 4-17; penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta. Jr., and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas of the Sixth (6th) Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.

3. CA rollo, pp. 44-52; penned by Presiding Judge Evangeline M. Francisco.

4. Entitled "AN ACT EXPANDING THE DEFINITION OF THE CRIME OF RAPE, RECLASSIFYING THE SAME AS A CRIME AGAINST PERSONS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ACT NO. 3815, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on 30 September 1997.

5. Entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on 17 June 1992.

6. 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 initials shall, instead, be used, in accordance with People v. Cabalquinto (533 Phil. 703 [2006], G.R. No. 167693, 19 September 2006 [Per J. Tinga]), and A.M. No. 04-11-09-SC dated 19 September 2006.

7. CA rollo, p. 44.

8. Id. at 44-45.

9. Id. at 45.

10. Id. at 45-46.

11. Rollo, p. 6.

12. Id.

13. Id. at 7.

14. CA rollo, pp. 47-48.

15. Rollo, p. 7.

16. CA rollo, p. 52.

17. Id. at 49-51.

18. Rollo, p. 16.

19. Id. at 9-16.

20. People v. Padilla, G.R. No. 234947, 19 June 2019 [Per Caguioa].

21. CA rollo, pp. 39-40.

22. Id. at 47.

23. People v. Pingol, G.R. No. 219243, 04 November 2020 [Per J. Leonen].

24. People v. Salazar, G.R. No. 239138, 17 February 2021 [Per J. Leonen].

25. CA rollo, p. 47.

26. People v. CCC, G.R. No. 239336, 03 June 2019 [Per J. Peralta].

27. Id., citing People v. Malana, 646 Phil. 290 (2010), G.R. No. 185716, 29 September 2010 [Per J. Perez].

28. Rollo, pp. 15-16.

29. People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016), G.R. No. 202124, 05 April 2016 [Per J. Peralta].