SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 205881. July 11, 2016.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SONNY CARLOS Y ABADESA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 11 July 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 205881 (People of the Philippines v. Sonny Carlos y Abadesa). — We resolve the appeal filed by accused-appellant Sonny Carlos y Abadesa (appellant), from the June 26, 2012 decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04692. The appealed decision affirmed the September 27, 2010 decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 63, Calabanga, Camarines Sur, finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of rape, 3 and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count.
The RTC Ruling
In its September 27, 2010 decision, the RTC convicted the appellant of two counts of rape for having carnal knowledge of AAA, 4 his niece, on two separate occasions. It found AAA's testimony to be credible and convincing, as she was able to positively identify the appellant as her assailant and completely described the manner in which the appellant had raped her on both instances. It also held that the appellant not only exercised physical superiority over AAA, but also moral ascendancy over her, a minor who was only fifteen (15) years old at the time of the rape incidents.
Accordingly, the RTC sentenced the appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and to pay the victim P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count.
The CA Decision
On appellate review, the CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto. In its decision dated June 26, 2012, it ruled that the appellant's bare defense of denial cannot prevail over AAA's positive and unequivocal identification of the former as her assailant. It further held that AAA's delay in reporting the rape incidents does not impair her credibility, considering that the appellant's moral ascendancy and influence over her may have intimidated and deterred her from immediately reporting the incidents.
The Court's Ruling
After due consideration, we resolve to affirm the appellant's conviction, but modify the penalty and the awarded indemnities. We also impose a 6% interest on all the monetary awards for damages, reckoned from the date of finality of this decision until fully paid.
For a charge of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended, the prosecution must prove that (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) he accomplished such act through force, threat, or intimidation, when she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she was under 12 years of age or was demented.
Central in the determination of guilt for the crime of rape is the credibility of the complainant's testimony. Rape is a crime largely committed in private where no witness other than the victim is available. Thus, it is settled that the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided that the testimony is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. 5
In the present case, we hold that the prosecution successfully established the elements of rape required under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code.
First, AAA positively identified the appellant as the person who raped her on two separate occasions. Her testimony was clear and straightforward, and despite rigorous cross-examination, she was consistent in her recollection of the details of the rape incidents. In addition, she never wavered in her identification of the appellant as her assailant. To directly quote from the records: CAIHTE
PROSECUTOR RUVI JEAN V. CARIÑO:
Q: Why are you filing this case against your uncle Sonny Carlos?
A: He attempted to rape me.
Q: When did that happen?
A: The first time was in May 2007.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: You said that this first incident happened in May 2007. Will you tell us what happened that night? Are you nervous, are you trembling now?
PROS. CARIÑO:
The witness, your Honor, is crying. May we put it on record.
A: He went inside our house and he held my two hands and then he tried to open both my legs.
Q: What was his position in relation to you when he held your two hands and he tried to open your legs?
A: He was on top of me. 6
xxx xxx xxx
Q: You said that your uncle was on top of you, held your hands and tried to open your legs. What happened after that?
A: He was forcing to insert his penis to my vagina, but suddenly a vehicle stopped at our house and when he heard that, he stopped what he was doing and ran away. 7
xxx xxx xxx
Q: When you said that he was trying to insert his penis into your vagina, what did you feel?
A: It was painful.
xxx xxx xxx
COURT:
Q: But was he able to touch your vagina?
A: Yes, your Honor. 8
xxx xxx xxx
Q: You mentioned of another incident because there are two incidents. What was that second incident that occurred after May 2007?
A: On September 7, 2007.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: You said that you were sleeping on the bench and [sic] downstairs in your house, what happened?
A: He was again trying to spread my legs, he was trying to insert his penis into my vagina and I pushed him, but he was strong and I was weak because I just woke up.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: You said that he was trying to spread your legs, what happened next after that?
A: He was able to insert his penis. 9
AAA's testimony was also corroborated by the medical findings 10 of Dr. Raoul Alcantara who testified that based on his Ano-Genital Examination of AAA, "the medico-genital findings show definitive signs of previous blunt force injury to the hymen." 11
Notably, both the RTC and the CA found AAA's testimony credible and convincing. We, too, see no reason to disbelieve her testimony with respect to both rape incidents.
And second, the appellant employed force to satisfy his lust. As an element of rape, the force used on the victim need not be irresistible, but just enough to bring about the desired result. 12 In this case, AAA testified that she tried to fight off the appellant, thus indicating resistance on her part that the appellant had evidently overpowered, and that she cried when the appellant inserted his penis into her vagina. The pertinent portion of her testimony reads:
PROS. CARIÑO: DETACa
Q: You said that he was hurting you, why did you not shout?
A: He was holding my mouth so I was not able to ask help.
Q: Did you try to fight your uncle?
A: Yes.
Q: By doing what?
A: I tried to push him on his chest and I also kicked him, but he was very strong. 13
xxx xxx xxx
Q: You said that he was lying on top of you and you said you were weak because you just woke up, what did you do to fight your uncle?
A: I kicked him.
Q: Were you able to kick him?
A: Yes, ma'am. But he does [sic] not want to leave. 14
We likewise stress that the moral ascendancy of the appellant over AAA renders it unnecessary to show physical force and intimidation since, in rape committed by a close kin such as an uncle, as in this case, the moral ascendancy or influence takes the place of violence or intimidation. 15
The Appellant's Defenses
The appellant argues that AAA's acts of pushing and kicking him are not sufficient resistance for a woman whose honor is at stake, considering that the former was unarmed and did not even threaten her, and knowing fully well that her family could have come to her aid had she just called out for help. 16
We do not find the appellant's defense persuasive.
He cannot escape liability by questioning why his victim did not struggle more to resist the sexual abuse or shout to call for help. 17 Besides, AAA had adequately explained why she could not shout while she was being raped by the appellant. To quote her testimony: HEITAD
ATTY. JONATHAN PREVOSA:
Q: Alright, all through this time that he was trying to insert his penis, he also removed the hand covering your mouth?
A: Yes.
Q: Despite the fact that you did not make any noise so that your sisters could be awaken [sic]?
A: I did not make any noise anymore because I was already crying and I was already scared. 18
xxx xxx xxx
Q: But despite the fact that the accused is stronger than you, still you did not shout?
A: Yes, because I do not want scandal.
Q: You did not even wanted [sic] to tell your mother even at the time he was raping you?
A: Because my mind at that time was confused, I do [sic] not know what to do. 19
PROS. CARIÑO:
May we put on record that the witness is crying "magulo ang isip ko."
Fear, in lieu of force or violence, is subjective and its presence cannot be tested by any hard-and-fast rule, but must instead be viewed in the light of the perception and judgment of the victim at the time of the crime. The failure of a rape victim to shout back, fight back, or escape from her rapist does not amount to consent or approval because the law imposes no obligation on the part of the victim to exhibit defiance or to present proof of struggle. 20 It is enough that the intercourse took place against her will or that she yielded because of genuine apprehension of harm to her if she did not do so. 21
We also find no merit in the appellant's contention that the medico-legal report is insufficient to establish his guilt as AAA's sexual abuser. 22
Hymenal lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best physical evidence of forcible defloration. When the physician's finding of penetration, as in this case, is corroborated by the victim's testimony, there is sufficient reason to conclude that the essential requisite of carnal knowledge exists. 23 What the Court cannot ignore is the fact that along with AAA's positive identification of the appellant as her assailant, she was found to have experienced blunt force injury to her hymen. 24
Finally, we reject the appellant's claim that the rape charges were only brought against him as a form of retaliation for having given unsolicited advice to AAA's father by saying that he should do better in taking care of his family. 25 The appellant's bare denial could not prevail over AAA's direct, positive, and categorical testimony regarding the rape incidents. 26
The Penalties
The penalty for simple rape under Article 266-B in relation to 266-A (1) (a) of the RPC is reclusion perpetua. Since the appellant's relationship to the victim was not alleged in the informations, the CA is correct in imposing the said penalty. However, it must be emphasized that the appellant is not eligible for parole pursuant to Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346. 27
As for the award of damages, we deem it proper to increase the amount of civil indemnity from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00, and to award exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00 28 for each count, in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. 29 Lastly, all damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid. 30
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we AFFIRM the June 26, 2012 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 04692 finding appellant Sonny Carlos y Abadesa guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of simple rape, with the following MODIFICATIONS: ATICcS
(a) appellant Sonny Carlos y Abadesa shall not be eligible for parole;
(b) the award of civil indemnity is increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00 for each count;
(c) appellant Sonny Carlos y Abadesa is ordered to pay AAA the amount of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count; and,
(d) appellant Sonny Carlos y Abadesa is ordered to pay AAA interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum on all the amounts of damages awarded, commencing from the date of finality of this decision until fully paid.
Costs against the appellant.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
* Mendoza, J., on official leave.
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 2-17; penned by Associate Justice Antonio L. Villamor, and concurred in by Associate Justices Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and Ramon A. Cruz.
2. CA rollo, pp. 15-26; penned by Presiding Judge Freddie D. Balonzo.
3. In Criminal Case Nos. RTC'08-1304 and RTC'08-1305.
4. Per People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703, 706 (2006), the real name of the victim shall be withheld in all cases involving violence against women and their children, and the Court shall use fictitious initials instead to represent her. In addition, the personal circumstances of the victim or any other information tending to establish or compromise her identity, as well those of their immediate family or household members, shall not be disclosed.
5. People v. Jacob, G.R. No. 177151, August 22, 2008, 563 SCRA 191, 199, citing People v. Umayam, G.R. No. 147033, April 30, 2003, 402 SCRA 457 and People v. Glivano, G.R. No. 177565, January 28, 2008, 542 SCRA 656.
6. TSN, September 1, 2009, p. 4.
7. Id. at 5.
8. Id. at 6.
9. TSN, September 1, 2009, p. 12.
10. See Medico-Legal Report No. BRO-MG-07-78, records, p. 79.
11. TSN, November 24, 2009, p. 5.
12. People v. Hilarion, G.R. No. 201105, November 25, 2013, 710 SCRA 562, 565, citing People v. Canada, G.R. No. 175317, October 2, 2009, 602 SCRA 378, 392.
13. TSN, September 1, 2009, p. 7.
14. TSN, September 1, 2009, p. 15.
15. See People v. Bustamante, G.R. No. 189836, June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA 411, 422.
16. CA rollo, pp. 40-41.
17. People v. de Guzman, G.R. No. 188352, September 1, 2010, 629 SCRA 784, 799-800.
18. TSN, September 1, 2009, p. 20.
19. TSN, September 1, 2009, pp. 27-28.
20. People v. de Guzman, supra note 16.
21. People v. Dreu, 389 Phil. 429, 435 (2000).
22. CA rollo, pp. 42-43.
23. Citing People v. Rante, G.R. No. 184809, March 29, 2010; Supra note 18, at 798-799.
24. Supra note 11.
25. CA rollo, p. 44.
26. People v. Sabal, G.R. No. 201861, June 2, 2014, 724 SCRA 407, 412.
27. Section 3 of RA No. 9346 provides:
Persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.
28. Exemplary damages, in simple rape cases, is awarded in order to set a public example and to protect hapless individuals from sexual molestation. See People v. Bayrante, G.R. No. 188978, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 446, 466.
29. See People v. Delfin, G.R. No. 190349, December 10, 2014, 744 SCRA 413, 427-428.
30. Supra note 26.