SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 256216. June 27, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JOVITO CANELA y HOLGADO ALIAS "BOBET", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 27, 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 256216 — (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, v. JOVITO CANELA y HOLGADO alias "BOBET," accused-appellant). — This appeal seeks to reverse the Decision 1 dated September 17, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13420, affirming the verdict of conviction against appellant for two (2) counts of statutory rape under Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. For each count, he was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, with six percent (6%) interest per annum from finality of judgment until fully paid.
Under two (2) separate Informations 2 dated January 17, 2018 and February 27, 2018, respectively, appellant Jovito Canela y Holgado (appellant) alias "Bobet" was charged with two (2) counts of statutory rape of eight (8)-year old AAA256216, 3viz.:
Criminal Case No. 6-2018
"That on or about the 13th day of January, 2018, at around 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon at x x x Province of Batangas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force, threat[,] and intimidation, did[,] then and there willfully, unlawfully[,] and feloniously lie with and have carnal knowledge of one AAA, an eight [8]-year old minor against her will and consent, which acts debased, degraded or demeaned the intrinsic worth and dignity of the said AAA, as human being. TIADCc
That the victim is under twelve (12) years old, she being eight [8] years old at the time of the incident.
Contrary to law." 4
Criminal Case No. 35-2018
"That on or about the 12th day of January, 2018, in the afternoon thereof, at x x x Province of Batangas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force, threat[,] and intimidation, did[,] then and there willfully, unlawfully[,] and feloniously lie with and have carnal knowledge of one AAA, an eight [8]-year old minor against her will and consent, which acts debased, degraded[,] or demeaned the intrinsic worth and dignity of the said AAA, as a human being.
That the victim is under twelve (12) years old, she being eight [8] years old at the time of the incident.
Contrary to law." 5
The cases were raffled to the Regional Trial Court (RTC)-Branch 5, _______________, Batangas. On arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges. 6
AAA256216 was born on December 28, 2009 as evidenced by her certificate of live birth. 7 She testified that she was only eight (8) years old when the two (2) rape incidents happened. 8 Appellant was their neighbor whom she called "Tatay Bobet."
The first rape incident took place on January 12, 2018 when appellant asked her to go to his house. She heeded his request since she was used to going to his house whenever her father BBB256216 was not home. At that time, a certain "Kuya CCC256216" and "Ate DDD256216" were in the house of appellant. As soon as she stepped into appellant's house, he brought her to his room, removed her shorts and panty, then applied lotion on his penis and on her vagina. He inserted his penis in her vagina, which caused her so much pain. Afterwards, he instructed her to go home as if nothing happened. She got scared so she did not report the incident to anyone. 9
The following day, January 13, 2018, appellant did the same thing to her. On that day, her father BBB256216 and appellant had a drinking session. At that time, both she and her two (2)-year old brother were with BBB256216. Appellant asked BBB256216 if she could come with him to his house to get some savories. BBB256216 agreed. When they arrived at appellant's house, she sat on the sofa. After a while, appellant showed her his penis, removed her shorts, and went on top of her. He inserted his penis in her vagina, which again caused her pain. BBB256216 later on arrived and called to fetch her. Appellant went out of the house while she put on her clothes. 10
Back in their home, BBB256216 asked if there was something bothering her because she looked troubled. She then confessed to her father that appellant raped her twice. 11 AIDSTE
BBB256216 corroborated his child's testimony. He recalled that on January 13, 2018 around 10 o'clock in the morning, he, appellant, his uncle FFF256216, and his grandfather GGG256216 had a drinking spree in front of the house of a certain Gina, appellant's neighbor. Appellant asked him to continue their drinking session in his (BBB256216) house. Appellant also asked him to allow AAA256216 to come with him so that he (appellant) could get some savories for them. He agreed so he could look after his two-year old son EEE256216. He and EEE256216 went home around 5 o'clock in the afternoon. He felt uneasy because it was already 6 o'clock in the evening and AAA256216 was still not home. He decided to go to appellant's house and asked appellant why he did not bring AAA256216 home. But appellant did not say a word. He also asked him whether they would continue their drinking spree but appellant said he was already drunk. 12
On their way home, he asked AAA256216 what appellant did to her but she stayed silent. When they finally got home, AAA256216 confessed to him "Please Daddy wag kang magagalit sa akin, ang Tatay Bob[e]t ay pinakita sa akin ang titi at ako ay pinaupo sa sofa at pilit na ipinasok ang kanyang titi sa aking puki." She also revealed what appellant did to her the day before. He immediately brought AAA256216 first to the hospital and later on to the police station. 13
Dr. Jenelyn S. Mendoza (Dr. Mendoza) testified that she examined AAA256216 and found that she sustained erythema in her labia minora and hymenal laceration at 3 o'clock position. She also noted the presence of pubic hair strands incomparable with the pubic hair of an eight (8)-year-old in the perineal area. 14
In his defense, appellant interposed denial and alibi. He testified that on January 12, 2018, around 7 o'clock in the morning, he was feeding fish in some place about one (1) kilometer away from his house. 15 He went home around 10 o'clock in the morning to eat and then went back to the fish pond. He stayed there until 3 o'clock in the afternoon. He later went to the poultry to feed the chickens. He stayed there until 6 o'clock in the evening. He never saw AAA256216 that day. 16
He had the same routine the following day or on January 13, 2018. Likewise, he did not see AAA256216 that day. 17
He admitted that he and AAA256216 lived in the same barangay and AAA256216's house was only 500 meters away from his house. He got surprised that on January 14, 2018, the police arrested him. 18
By its Consolidated Judgment 19 dated July 30, 2019, the trial court rendered a verdict of conviction, viz.:
WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, the court renders judgment as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 6-2018, the court finds accused JOVITO CANELA y HOLGADO alias 'Bobet,' GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of statutory rape as defined in Article 266-A and penalized in Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code and is hereby sentence[d] to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The court further orders the accused to pay private complainant AAA the following amounts: civil indemnity of P75,000.00, moral damages of P75,000.00, and exemplary damages of P75,000.00. All monetary awards for damages shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this Decision until fully paid. AaCTcI
2. In Criminal Case No. 35-2018, the court finds accused JOVITO CANELA y HOLGADO alias 'Bobet,' GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of statutory rape as defined in Article 266-A and penalized in Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code and is hereby sentence[d] to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The court further orders the accused to pay private complainant AAA the following amounts: civil indemnity of P75,000.00, moral damages of P75,000.00, and exemplary damages of P75,000.00. All monetary awards for damages shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 20
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, viz.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The Consolidated Judgment dated 30 July 2019 of the Regional Trial Court of Lemery, Batangas, Branch 5 in Criminal Case Nos. 6-2018 and 35-2018, finding accused-appellant Jovito Canela y Holgado alias "Bobet" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of statutory rape as defined under Article 266-A and penalized under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, for each count, and to pay private complainant AAA the amounts of Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php75,000.00 as moral damages and Php75,000.00 as exemplary damages, for each count of statutory rape, with interest on all damages at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.21
The Present Appeal
Appellant now seeks affirmative relief and prays anew for his acquittal.
In compliance with Resolution dated June 23, 2021, appellant manifested that in lieu of supplemental brief, he was adopting his brief before the Court of Appeals. 22
He faults the trial court for rendering a verdict of conviction despite the prosecution's alleged failure to prove that he had carnal knowledge of AAA256216, for the girl failed to specify the exact time when the first and second rape incidents occur. 23 Also, it would be impossible to rape her inside his house where the risk of apprehension was high. 24
On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) maintains that: a) the prosecution sufficiently established all the elements of statutory rape; 25 b) AAA256216 narrated in a candid, categorical, and straightforward manner how appellant twice raped her; 26 c) AAA256216's narration was corroborated by Dr. Mendoza's findings of erythema in her labia minora and the presence of hymenal laceration; 27 and d) appellant failed to prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the situs criminis at the time the twin rape incidents happened. 28 EcTCAD
Our Ruling
We affirm.
Under Article 266-A paragraph 1 (d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 29 (RA 8353), statutory rape requires the following elements: (1) the offended party is under 12 years of age; and (2) the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim regardless of whether there was force, threat, intimidation, or grave abuse of authority. 30
Sexual intercourse with a victim who is under twelve (12) years of age is always statutory rape. 31 The consent of the child victim in statutory rape is immaterial because the law presumes that her young age makes her incapable of discerning good from evil. 32
Here, AAA256216 testified that appellant had carnal knowledge of her on two (2) separate occasions when she was only eight (8) years old.
The first rape incident happened on January 12, 2018. On appellant's request, she went to his house, but as soon as she stepped in, he brought her to his room, removed her shorts and panty, applied lotion on his penis and on her vagina, and then inserted his penis in her vagina, causing her so much pain. She suffered the ordeal in silence as she did not reveal the incident to anyone.
On January 13, 2018, the incident happened again. On that day, appellant asked her father to allow her to go with him to pick some savories from his house for their drinking spree. When they got to appellant's house, she sat on the sofa. Moments later, appellant showed her his penis, removed her shorts, and went on top of her. He inserted his penis in her vagina, again causing her pain. On the same evening, she mustered the courage to confess her harrowing experience to her father.
AAA256216's birth certificate showed she was born on December 28, 2009, thus, was only eight (8) years old when the twin incidents happened on January 12 and 13, 2018, respectively. In view of her tender age, she would not have narrated the sordid details of the twin incidents of statutory rape had she not actually experienced the same. 33 Her positive, straightforward, and categorical testimony, therefore, deserves utmost credence and respect. In fact, even standing alone, her testimony is sufficient to support a verdict of conviction against appellant. 34 After all, the nature of the crime of rape entails reliance on the lone, yet clear, convincing, and consistent testimony of the victim themselves. 35 HSAcaE
But this is not all. AAA256216's assertion that she had been sexually ravished at least twice in 2018 solidly conforms with the medical findings of Dr. Mendoza who examined her. Dr. Mendoza reported that AAA256216 sustained erythema in her labia minora and hymenal laceration at 3 o'clock position. She also noted the presence of pubic hair strands incomparable with the pubic hair of an eight (8)-year-old in the perineal area. Indeed, where the victim's testimony is corroborated by physical findings of penetration, there is sufficient basis for concluding that sexual intercourse did take place. 36
Further, there is no showing that AAA256216 had been compelled by any improper motive or got influenced by her family to falsely accuse appellant of rape. 37
Her failure to specify the exact time when the first and second rape occurred does not, standing alone, cast doubt on appellant's guilt. More, "the precise time of the crime has no substantial bearing on its commission." 38 What is decisive is that the evidence on record shows that appellant, indeed, sexually ravished AAA256216. 39
Finally, appellant's claim that he could not have possibly abused her in his own house where the risk of apprehension was high cannot be sustained. "[R]apists are not deterred from committing the odious act of sexual abuse by the mere presence nearby of people or even family members." In other words, rape is committed not exclusively in seclusion. 40 For "lust is no respecter of time and place, 41 and rape defies constraints of time and space." 42
In any event, AAA256216's positive identification of appellant as the man who had carnal knowledge of her twice must prevail over appellant's unsubstantiated denial and alibi. On this score, the evaluation on the credibility of witnesses is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grueling examination. Hence, the Court defers and accords finality to the factual findings of the trial court especially when such findings are undisturbed by the appellate court. 43
All told, the Court of Appeals did not err in affirming appellant's conviction for two (2) counts of statutory rape and imposing on him, for each count, reclusion perpetua in accordance with Article 266-A, in relation to 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 8353.
Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, 44 we sustain the awards of P75,000.00 as civil damages, P75,000.00 as moral damages; and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, for each count. These amounts shall earn six percent (6%) interest per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
FOR THESE REASONS, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated September 17, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13420 is AFFIRMED.
1. In Criminal Case No. 6-2018, appellant Jovito Canela y Holgado alias "Bobet" is found GUILTY of STATUTORY RAPE and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. He is ordered to PAY AAA256216 P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. These amounts shall earn six percent (6%) interest per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
2. In Criminal Case No. 35-2018, appellant Jovito Canela y Holgado alias "Bobet" is found GUILTY of STATUTORY RAPE and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. He is ordered to PAY AAA256216 P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. These amounts shall earn six percent (6%) interest per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
The Court NOTES:
1. the manifestation in lieu of supplemental brief dated November 3, 2021 of counsel for accused-appellant in compliance with the Resolution dated June 23, 2021, adopting his brief filed before the Court of Appeals as his supplemental brief as the same has adequately discussed all the matters pertinent to accused-appellant's defense; and
2. the letter dated May 11, 2022 of CSupt. Jayferson G. Bon-As, Acting Superintendent, Maximum Security Compound-New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City in compliance with the Resolution dated March 16, 2022, confirming the confinement of accused-appellant in the said institution. AcICHD
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and concurred in by Associate Justices Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles and Walter S. Ong, rollo, pp. 4-25.
2.Id. at 5-6.
3. The identity of the victim or any information to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to R.A. No. 760, "An Act providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, and for Other Purposes"; R.A. No. 9262, "An Act Defining Violence Against Women and their Children Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, and for Other Purposes"; Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11 SC known as the "Rule on Violence Against Women and their Children," effective November 5, 2004; People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703, 709 (2006); and Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017, Subject: Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders Using Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances.
4.Id. at 5.
5.Id. at 6.
6. CA rollo, p. 45.
7. Record, p. 18.
8.Rollo, p. 15.
9.Id. at 6.
10.Id. at 6-7.
11.Id. at 7.
12.Id. at 7-8.
13.Id. at 8.
14.Id. at 9.
15. CA rollo, p. 35.
16.Id.
17.Id.
18.Id. at 35-36.
19.Id. at 45-53.
20.Id. at 53.
21. CA rollo, p. 108.
22.Rollo, pp. 68-69.
23. CA rollo, p. 37.
24.Id. at 40.
25.Rollo, p. 50.
26.Id. at 52.
27.Id. at 54.
28.Id. at 58.
29. Anti-Rape Law of 1997.
30.People v. Gutierrez, 731 Phil. 352, 357 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
31.People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 243075 (Notice), October 14, 2020.
32.People v. Francica, 817 Phil. 972, 986 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
33. See Pielago v. People, 706 Phil. 460, 471 (2013) [Per J. Reyes, First Division]; Campos v. People, 569 Phil. 658, 671 (2008) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, Third Division], citing People v. Capareda, 473 Phil. 301, 330 (2004) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division]; People v. Galigao, 443 Phil. 246, 260 (2003) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, En Banc].
34.People v. ________, G.R. No. 229836, July 17, 2019, 909 SCRA 493, 500 [Per J. Lazaro-Javier, Second Division].
35. See People v. Ronquillo, 818 Phil. 641, 650 (2017) [Per J. Martires, Third Division].
36.Supra note 31, at 507.
37.People v. Galuga, G.R. No. 221428, February 13, 2019, 892 SCRA 741, 756.
38.People v. Ventura, 729 Phil. 566, 574 (2014) [Per J. Reyes, First Division] as cited in People v. Pacayra, 810 Phil. 275, 294 (2017) [Per J. Tijam, Third Division].
39.People v. Pacayra, supra.
40. See People v. Barberan, 788 Phil. 103, 110 (2016) [Per J. Perez, Third Division], citing People v. Corial, 451 Phil. 703, 709-710 (2003) [Per J. Vitug, En Banc].
41. See People v. Malones, 469 Phil. 301, 326 (2004) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division].
42.People v. DDD, G.R. No. 233323 (Notice), August 26, 2020.
43.People v. Mancao, G.R. No. 228951, July 17, 2019, 909 SCRA 448, 462.
44. See People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 849 (2016).