FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 251634. December 7, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.RODRIGO CABANGANAN y VENTULAN, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 7, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 251634 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versus RODRIGO CABANGANAN y VENTULAN, accused-appellant.
After a careful review of the rollo and records of the case, the Court AFFIRMS the Decision 1 dated October 25, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) Cebu City-Nineteenth Division, in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02659, which affirmed the Decision 2 dated June 28, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of XXX, 3 Biliran, Branch 37, in Criminal Case No. CB-14-471, finding accused-appellant Rodrigo Cabanganan y Ventulan (Cabanganan) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Statutory Rape.
The evidence for the prosecution consisted in the testimonies of the victim, AAA; 4 Dr. Dionesio Plaza (Dr. Plaza), Municipal Health Officer of YYY 5 who conducted a medical examination on AAA; and Police Officer 2 William Terceno, who was one of the officers who arrested Cabanganan. The prosecution also offered into evidence the Medical Certificate 6 prepared by Dr. Plaza and the Certificate of Live Birth 7 of AAA. Through these, the prosecution was able to establish that at around 1:00 p.m. on February 23, 2014, while on her way home from an errand, AAA was intercepted and raped by Cabanganan, and that at the time of the rape, she was only 10 years old. This satisfies the elements of Statutory Rape as defined under Article 266-A (1) (d) of the Revised Penal Code: (1) that the offended party is under 12 years of age; and (2) that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim, regardless of whether there was force, threat, or intimidation or grave abuse of authority. 8 CAIHTE
In support of his acquittal, Cabanganan argues that AAA's testimony is tainted with improbabilities and is neither credible nor believable. In particular, he points out that (a) AAA and her biological mother each executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay stating that she was not really raped, but was forced by her stepmother to testify against Cabanganan in order to extort money from him; (b) the Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Plaza was inconsistent with AAA's narration of the rape; and (c) her testimony is marred by inconsistencies.
Cabanganan's points fail to convince.
The CA correctly noted that recantations of testimonies are usually unreliable. The Court, in People v. XXX, 9 explained:
In addition, We find that her recollection and testimony as to how accused-appellant had raped her were detailed and consistent. This Court finds no sufficient evidence that she was forced or pressured to testify against accused-appellant at the start. This Court's ruling in People v. Bensurto is instructive:
As to the retraction of AAA, this Court has ruled that when a rape victim's testimony is straightforward and marked with consistency despite grueling examination, it deserves full faith and confidence and cannot be discarded. If such testimony is clear, consistent and credible to establish the crime beyond reasonable doubt, a conviction may be based on it, notwithstanding its subsequent retraction. Mere retraction by a prosecution witness does not necessarily vitiate her original testimony. As a rule, recantation is viewed with disfavor firstly because the recantation of her testimony by a vital witness of the State like AAA is exceedingly unreliable, and secondly, because there is always the possibility that such recantation may later be repudiated. Indeed, to disregard testimony solemnly given in court simply because the witness recants it ignores the possibility that intimidation or monetary considerations may have caused the recantation. Court proceedings, in which testimony upon oath or affirmation is required to be truthful under all circumstances, are trivialized by the recantation. The trial in which the recanted testimony was given is made a mockery, and the investigation is placed at the mercy of an unscrupulous witness. Before allowing the recantation, therefore, the court must not be too willing to accept it, but must test its value in a public trial with sufficient opportunity given to the party adversely affected to cross-examine the recanting witness both upon the substance of the recantation and the motivations for it. The recantation, like any other testimony, is subject to the test of credibility based on the relevant circumstances, including the demeanor of the recanting witness on the stand. In that respect, the finding of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal unless cogent reasons necessitate its re-examination, the reason being that the trial court is in a better position to hear first-hand and observe the deportment, conduct and attitude of the witnesses. x x x 10 (Citations omitted and emphasis supplied)
Indeed, as found by both the RTC and CA, AAA's testimony is clear, consistent, and reliable. Nothing in the records prompts the Court to suspect that any portion of her narration had been fabricated or mistakenly relayed. Furthermore, Dr. Plaza's Medical Certificate corroborates AAA's testimony. Therein, Dr. Plaza noted the existence of "epidermal abrasion and erythema at fourchette area," "epidermal abrasion and erythema at 7:00 position at navicularies fossa area," healed hymenal lacerations, and even spermatozoa in AAA's vaginal canal and cervix — all convincing evidence that AAA had indeed been raped, contrary to Cabanganan's contentions and AAA's supposed recantation.
For this same reason, the Court cannot agree with Cabanganan's argument that the Medical Certificate and Dr. Plaza's testimony contradict AAA's testimony. Cabanganan anchors this argument in the observation that the hymenal lacerations were found to have already healed at the time of AAA's medical examination, which was done on the same day of the rape, when such lacerations typically heal within a week. This is not enough to overturn the conclusion that AAA had been raped, considering that there were other fresh injuries on her vagina as well as spermatozoa in her vaginal canal and cervix. Furthermore, the Court has repeatedly acknowledged that neither the presence nor the absence of hymenal lacerations can be determinative of rape, since the hymen breaks for various reasons and can even remain intact despite repeated sexual intercourse. 11
Finally, the Court cannot discount AAA's testimony on the basis of the supposed inconsistencies in her testimony. Cabanganan notes that in her judicial affidavit 12 AAA claimed that after she was raped, she and her grandfather went to the home of the barangay chairperson to seek help. On the other hand, in open court, AAA consistently stated that she went to her father's house before meeting the barangay chairperson. 13 Cabanganan also points out that AAA's judicial affidavit states that Cabanganan forcibly brought her to a vacant and grassy lot located a few meters away from her grandfather's house, and that, "[w]hile there, he gave me fifteen pesos (Php15.00)." 14 On cross-examination, she said that he gave her the money only after he had already raped her. 15 Cabanganan also complains that AAA did not explain well how she knew him since she admitted that she had never been in his house, but merely passed by it in the past. 16 DETACa
Evidently, these supposed inconsistencies in AAA's testimony are mere minor deviations from her judicial affidavit which, when read closely, are not even unequivocally inconsistent. Neither do they touch upon the essential elements of the crime. As regards AAA's identification of Cabanganan, she sufficiently explained in open court that she knew him because he lived nearby and she would pass by his house whenever she had to go to the "upper portion of the barangay." 17
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the CA did not err in affirming the RTC's decision convicting Cabanganan of Statutory Rape.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Court hereby ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Decision dated October 25, 2019 of the Court of Appeals Cebu City-Nineteenth Division in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02659, finding accused-appellant Rodrigo Cabanganan y Ventulan GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Statutory Rape, pursuant to Article 266-A (1) (d) in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code.
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.Rollo, pp. 5-20. Penned by Associate Justice Emily R. Aliño-Geluz, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Carlito B. Calpatura.
2. CA rollo, pp. 45-62. Rendered by Presiding Judge Constantino F. Esber.
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.Id.
5.Id.
6. Records, p. 9.
7.Id. at 10.
8.People v. Ronquillo, G.R. No. 214762, September 20, 2017, 840 SCRA 405, 412.
9. G.R. No. 225781, November 16, 2020.
10.Id. at 10-11.
11.People v. Cabanag, G.R. No. 224592, February 13, 2019 (Unsigned Resolution), citing People v. Añonuevo, G.R. No. 137843, October 12, 2001, 367 SCRA 237, 249, further citing People v. Aguinaldo, G.R. No. 130784, October 13, 1999, 316 SCRA 819; and People v. Alberca, G.R. No. 217459, June 7, 2017, 827 SCRA 1, 14.
12. Records, pp. 6-7.
13. TSN, March 4, 2015, p. 14.
14. Records, p. 6.
15. TSN, March 4, 2015, p. 15.
16.Id. at 16-17.
17.Id. at 8, 16-17.