SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 208764. March 9, 2015.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee, vs. MODESTO CASILANG Y LOMBOY,accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated09 March 2015which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 208764 (People of the Philippines v. Modesto Casilang y Lomboy). — We resolve the appeal of appellant Modesto Casilang y Lomboy from the June 27, 2013 decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04654, penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, with Associate Justices Rebecca de Guia-Salvador and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., concurring.
The appealed decision affirmed in toto the July 28, 2010 decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 113, Pasay City, convicting the appellant of statutory rape and acts of lasciviousness in Criminal Case Nos. 02-0826 and 02-0827, respectively.
Facts of the Case
Criminal Case No. 02-0826
AAA was only ten (10) years old when the appellant raped her on May 24, 1999. AAA and the appellant were then alone at their house. AAA was about to get something from the cabinet when the appellant suddenly poked a knife at her, tied her hands and feet with a plastic straw, undressed her, laid her on the bed, and had sexual intercourse with her by inserting his penis into her vagina until he ejaculated on top of her. 3 The appellant warned AAA not to disclose what happened to anybody. He repeatedly raped AAA eight (8) times more from May 24, 1999 until the first week of June 1999. AAA informed her mother about the incidents but the latter did not believe her. AAA went to her father and refused to go back to her mother. But it was only in January 2001 when AAA told her father about the incident.
Criminal Case No. 02-0827
On May 23, 1999, the appellant allegedly committed lascivious acts against AAA's elder sister, BBB. This happened while BBB was sleeping in the same room with AAA, their mother and the appellant. The appellant inserted his hands inside BBB's T-shirt from waist up, and mashed her breast. BBB pleaded with the appellant and asked him to stop; the latter instead threatened to hurt her with a knife if she would create any noise. The appellant repeated these acts from September 23, 1999 until October 10, 1999.
The appellant denied the allegations against him. He claimed that his illicit affair with the victims' mother could have prompted the filing of the cases against him. To bolster his claim, his wife Norma Casilang testified that the victims' father asked for her help to get even with the appellant by sending the latter to jail, but she refused. The appellant's neighbor, Rolando Alanzalon asserted that the appellant is a good person whom he has known since 1975.
In its decision of July 28, 2010, the RTC held that the prosecution duly established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of statutory rape and acts of lasciviousness.
For Criminal Case No. 02-0826, the RTC sentenced the appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The RTC likewise ordered him to indemnify AAA the sum of P50,000.00; P50,000.00, as moral damages; and P30,000.00, as exemplary damages.
For Criminal Case No. 02-0827, the RTC sentenced the accused to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from 2 years, 4 months and 1 day as minimum, to 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional as maximum.
On appeal to the CA, the appellant asserted that his constitutional right to be fully apprised of the charges against him had been violated. He argued that the Informations failed to allege the occurrence of the crimes with sufficient definiteness. The appellant also contended that the allegations against him were false. He based his contentions on the medical findings of Dr. Ida de Perio-Daniel (Dr. de Perio-Daniel) showing that there were no signs of extragenital injuries in AAA's hymen. The appellant also reiterated that the cases were filed against him due to the ill-feelings harbored by the victims' father against him.
The CA, in its decision of June 27, 2013, affirmed in toto the RTC's ruling.
In upholding the decision of the RTC, the CA reiterated the rule that the date of the commission of the rape is not an essential element of the crime, for the gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge of a woman. The CA found no material error in the RTC's assessment of the credibility of all the prosecution's witnesses. It ruled that minor inconsistencies and discrepancies in the date and time of the commission of the crime, which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime, are not grounds for acquittal. 4
The CA likewise held that the absence of hymenal injuries does not negate the occurrence of rape. The CA considered the probability that the hymen had already healed in view of the lapse of eighteen (18) months between the commission of the crime and the actual examination of the victim. The CA also gave importance to the testimony of Dr. de Perio-Daniel, which stressed that it is possible that there was only rubbing or penetration of the labia and not full penetration. The CA declared that the mere introduction of the male organ into the labia majora of the victim's genitalia consummates the crime of rape. 5
Our Ruling
We uphold the appellant's conviction on both cases, but modify the penalty imposed by the CA in Criminal Case No. 02-0827. We likewise modify the awarded civil indemnity to AAA and civil damages in favor of BBB. Further, we impose interest on these awards at the rate of 6% per annum, to be reckoned from the date of finality of this resolution, until fully paid.
It is settled that the material fact to be considered in a prosecution for rape is the occurrence of rape and not the time of commission as the latter is not an element of the crime. Under Article 266-A 1 (d) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended, there is rape when the offender had sexual intercourse with a victim under twelve (12) years of age even if force, threat, and intimidation are absent. The absence of free consent is conclusively presumed when the victim is below the age of twelve (12). At that age, the law presumes that the victim is incapable of giving intelligent consent to the sexual act. 6 Thus, to convict an accused of the crime of statutory rape, the prosecution must prove the age of the complainant, the identity of the accused, and the sexual intercourse between the accused and the complainant. 7
In the present case, the prosecution established and proved at the trial that AAA was only ten (10) years old when rape against her was committed. AAA's Birth Certificate, which the appellant did not dispute, proved that AAA was born on November 10, 1989. Carnal knowledge was evidenced by the testimony of AAA.
It is settled that no woman, least of all, a child, would fabricate a story of defloration, allow examination of her private parts and subject herself to public trial or ridicule if she has not, in truth, been a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her. 8 Also, the absence of hymenal rupture, vaginal laceration or any genital injury does not negate the finding that the victim had been raped. 9 Thus, we agree with the CA that the absence of extragenital injuries and the findings of intact hymen do not preclude the conclusion that the appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA.
On the crime of acts of lasciviousness, Article 336 of the RPC requires the prosecution to prove that the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness against another person of either sex by using force or intimidation.
BBB categorically narrated how the appellant committed lewd act against her by mashing her breast on May 23, 1999. BBB cried and pleaded for the appellant to stop but the latter warned her not to make any noise and threatened to hurt her with the use of a knife. These circumstances constitute a case for acts of lasciviousness.
In both cases, we find the appellant's defense of denial untenable. The appellant cannot exculpate himself from liability by invoking his illicit affair with the victims' mother and the alleged ill-feelings of their father against him. These are mere self-serving assertions that cannot prevail over the positive declarations of AAA and BBB that the appellant sexually abused them. Even the testimonies of the appellant's wife and his neighbor deserve less evidentiary value compared to the finding of credibility of the victims.
In Criminal Case No. 02-0826, the CA correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua in accordance with Article 266-B of the RPC. We increase the amount of civil indemnity awarded to AAA from P50,000.000 n 10 The CA correctly affirmed the RTC in awarding the amounts of P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00, as exemplary damages. Pursuant to recent jurisprudence, the moral damages is presently fixed at P50,000.00. 11 The award of exemplary damages is justified under Article 2229 of the Civil Code to set a public example and serve as deterrent against to those who abuse the young. 12
In Criminal Case No. 02-0827, we modify the penalty imposed by the RTC and the CA. Article 336 of the RPC punished acts of lasciviousness with the penalty of prision correccional, in its full range. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of the indeterminate penalty shall be taken from arresto mayor in any of its period. In the absence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the maximum of the penalty should be within prision correccional in its medium period (i.e., from 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months). Thus, we sentence the appellant to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from 6 months of arresto mayor as minimum to 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional as maximum.
In addition to the penalty of imprisonment, the award of P20,000.00 as civil indemnity in favor of BBB is proper. 13 BBB is also entitled to the payment of moral damages in the amount of P30,000.00 following the ruling in People v. Solmoro, Jr.,14 where we declared that upon a finding of guilt of the accused for acts of lasciviousness, the amount of P30,000.00 as moral damage may be further awarded to the victim in the same way that moral damages are awarded to victims of rape even without need of proof because it is assumed that they suffered moral injury. Moreover, we also award exemplary damages in the amount of P10,000.00 in favor of BBB. 15
In line with current jurisprudence, we also impose interest at the rate of 6% per annum on all the monetary awards for damages, to be reckoned from the date of the finality of this Resolution until their full satisfaction. 16
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we AFFIRM the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 27, 2013 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04654 with the following MODIFICATIONS: a) in Criminal Case No. 02-0826, we increase the award of civil indemnity from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00; b) in Criminal Case No. 02-0827, we sentence the appellant to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from 6 months of arresto mayor as minimum, to 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional as maximum and order him to pay BBB the amount of P20,000.00 as civil indemnity, P30,000.00 as moral damages, and P10,000.00 as exemplary damages; and c) all the damages awarded in both cases shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum, computed from the date of the finality of this Resolution until their full satisfaction.
SOORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 2-13.
2. CA rollo, pp. 34-53.
3. Rollo, p. 10.
4. Id. at 11.
5. Id. at 12-13.
6. People v. Canares, 599 Phil. 60, 73 (2009).
7. Id. at 73-74.
8. 536 Phil. 897, 915 (2006), cited in People v. Valenzuela, 597 Phil. 732, 745 (2009).
9. People v. Valenzuela, supra.
10. People v. Prodenciado, G.R. No. 192232, December 10, 2014; see also People v. Sato, G.R. No. 190863, November 19, 2014.
11. Id.
12. People v. Manalili, G.R. No. 191253, August 28, 2013, 704 SCRA 305, 319.
13. Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 166441, October 08, 2014.
14. G.R. Nos. 139187-94 (140427-34), November 27, 2002, 393 SCRA 100, 111-112, cited in Sombilon, Jr. v. People, 617 Phil. 187, 201 (2009).
15. People v. Pareja, G.R. No. 202122, January 15, 2014, 714 SCRA 131, 163.
16. Nacar v. Gallery Frames and/or Felipe Bordey, Jr., G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013, 703 SCRA 439, 456.
n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official copy, should read as "P50,000.00".