SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 200960. September 29, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. CCC, 1 accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 29 September 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 200960(People of the Philippines v. CCC).— This ordinary appeal 2 assails the July 29, 2011 Decision 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00959, which affirmed the February 21, 2005 Decision 4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of [____________], 5 Oriental Mindoro, Branch 42, in Criminal Case No. P-6140 which found accused-appellant CCC guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape. HTcADC
The Antecedents:
In an Information 6 dated May 24, 2000, the Provincial Prosecutor charged accused-appellant with the crime of Rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), in relation to Republic Act (RA) No. 7610 otherwise known as the "Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act," to wit:
That on or about the 25th day of March, 2000 at 9:00 o'clock in the morning, more or less, and prior thereto, in ______________________________________________________________________, 7 Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, CCC, with lewd and unchaste design, by means of force and intimidation, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously did lie, and succeeded in having carnal knowledge of one AAA, 7 a 15-year-old daughter of said accused who is living with him in the same house, to the damage and prejudice of said Offended Party.
CONTRARY TO ART. 335 OF THE RPC AS A MENDED BY RA 7659 AND RA 8353:
Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro
May 24, 2000 8
On arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. 9 Thus, trial ensued.
During trial, the prosecution presented the following witnesses: The victim, AAA, BBB, the victim's mother, and Dr. Toriano Guavez (Dr. Guavez), a Municipal Health Officer.
The version of prosecution, as summarized in the CA Decision, is as follows:
[AAA] was born on October 21, 1985. She is the eldest child of the appellant and [BBB]. She lived with her parents and four (4) siblings in ___________________. [AAA]'s mother worked as a laundry woman of one of the affluent residents of the town which took her time away from her family, while her father is a fisherman. When the mother was away for the day, the children were left to the care of the appellant father.
On March 25, 2000, while [BBB] was working, appellant arrived home at about 9:00 o'clock in the morning. He instructed his four younger children to go to their neighbor's house but ordered [AAA] to remain. When [AAA] refused, appellant carried her inside the house and commenced his sexual advances: He threatened to kill [AAA]'s mother and siblings if she will resist. When appellant was on top of [AAA], he undressed her and succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. [AAA] just cried in pain when she was violated because she was so afraid with the threat of her father.
On March 29, 2000, [AAA] told her mother, [BBB], that she was raped by the appellant on March 25, 2000. She disclosed that the incident was not the first. She was raped in August 1998, and it happened several times with threats by the appellant to kill [BBB] and [AAA]'s siblings if she would tell someone of the rape. Consequently, [BBB] brought [AAA] to the municipal health center where Dr. Toriano Guavez examined her and found that she was no longer a virgin. 10
On May 17, 2000, Dr. Guavez examined AAA and issued a Medico-Legal Report with the conclusion that the victim "is a non-virgin state physically." 11
On the other hand, the defense presented accused-appellant as its lone witness. The version of the defense is also summarized in the CA Decision, thus:
Appellant took the witness stand for his defense. He testified that at about 8:00 o'clock in the morning of March 25, 2000, he was drinking in the company of DDD, EEE, FFF, GGG and HHH at the house of a certain III, also located in the same barangay. After their drinking session at around 6:00 o'clock in the evening, appellant accompanied DDD to ________ where he stayed for the night. He went home the following day and fetched his wife and children at his parents-in-law's house.
The appellant learned that he was charged with rape on May 24, 2000, or two months after the alleged rape. He claimed that the accusation was instigated by his wife, [BBB], because he caught her having extra-marital affairs. 12
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
In a Decision 13 dated February 21, 2005, the trial court found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape. His defenses of alibi and denial were found to be inherently weak. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused [CCC] guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of "RAPE" which is defined and penalized under par. 6, No. 1, Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. No. 7659.
Consequently, accused [CCC] is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH and to pay the victim [AAA] the sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages, and the sum of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity. aScITE
The OIC-Branch Clerk of Court is hereby directed to forward the complete records of this case to the Court of Appeals by way of automatic review.
SO ORDERED. 14
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
In its Decision 15 dated July 29, 2011, the CA affirmed with modification the RTC Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that appellant [CCC] shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without the benefit of parole and to indemnify [AAA] in the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED. 16
Issue
The main issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred in upholding the RTC Decision finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape and modifying the penalties.
Our Ruling
For a conviction of qualified or incestuous rape under Article 266-A 17 and Article 266-B 18 of the RPC to hold, the prosecution must prove the following elements:
(1) Accused had carnal knowledge of a woman;
(2) Such act was accomplished through force, threat or intimidation;
(3) The victim is under 18 years of age at the time of the rape; and
(4) The offender is a parent of the victim. 19
In the case at bar, the Court affirms the finding of the courts below that the prosecution successfully established all the elements of incestuous rape.
The first and second elements were proven through the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, especially the testimony of the victim herself. These positive testimonies were given credence by the lower courts which the Court herein sustains. The RTC found that the act of accused-appellant of threatening to kill the victim's mother and siblings before he had carnal knowledge of AAA was sufficient to establish the second element of the crime.
While the documents such as the birth certificate of AAA were not presented to prove her age or her relationship with the accused-appellant, the positive testimonies of AAA, BBB, and the accused-appellant himself were found to be consistent by the RTC. The last two elements of the crime are thus successfully established.
In the Brief for the Accused-Appellant 20 dated October 28, 2010, the defense primarily argued that the prosecution did not prove that accused-appellant exerted force. It pointed out that AAA did not protest, offer any resistance or shout for help, considering that their neighbor was just 60 meters away from the house where the offense took place. 21 Similarly, accused-appellant argued that AAA's actions immediately after the incident did not suggest the slightest hint of discomfort or pain on her part which should be normal for a girl of her tender age. 22
The Court disagrees. Aside from the fact that the RTC has found that accused-appellant indeed threatened to kill the victim's mother and siblings and those findings were supported by testimonial evidence, it must be emphasized that when the accused or offender is also the father of the victim, there need not be actual force, threat or intimidation. When a father commits the crime of rape against his own daughter, who was also a minor at the time of the commission of the offenses, his moral ascendancy or influence over the latter substitutes for violence and intimidation. 23 AAA need not protest, resist, shout for help or display any discomfort to prove that force was used against her. The mere fact that she was the daughter of the accused and also a minor at the time of the incident is enough to prove the element of force, threat or intimidation.
Accused-appellant also argues that it took AAA two years before she reported the molestations against her person, proving that her passive attitude toward the alleged rape incidents reflected negatively on her credibility. 24
The Court has consistently held that delay in reporting the offense of incestuous rape is not indicative of fabricated charge. 25·A delay in reporting molestation or rape incidents does not diminish the victim's credibility. Neither does it undermine the charges of rape where the delay can be attributed to the pattern of fear instilled by threats, especially by one who exercised moral ascendancy over the victim. 26 In fact, in incestuous rape, the fear is magnified because the victim usually lives with the perpetrator or is at any rate subject to his dominance because of their blood relationship. 27 HEITAD
Finally, the defenses of alibi and denial of accused-appellant cannot prevail. The Court agrees with the findings of the CA that these defenses fail in light of the positive identification of the accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. The defenses, similar to the presentation of his alleged companions at the time of the incident to support his alibi were unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence.
Based on the foregoing, the Court upholds the ruling of the appellate court finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape. However, it must be stressed that the proper nomenclature of the crime committed is Qualified Rape in view of the concurrence of the qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority. Moreover, any reference to RA 7610 is deleted pursuant to our pronouncement in People v. Tulagan. 28 The Court likewise agrees with the imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua in lieu of death, without the eligibility for parole, to wit:
Accordingly, death penalty is proper but subject to Republic Act 9346 [An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines] which prohibited the penalty of death without prejudice to the civil liability attached to it. 29 x x x
However, in conformity with the guidelines established by the Court in People v. Jugueta, 30 the damages must be modified, as follows:
1) Civil indemnity of P100,000.00;
2) Moral damages of P100,000.00; and
3) Exemplary damages of P100,000.00.
Furthermore, all monetary awards shall bear interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid. 31
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The July 29, 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00959 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant CCC is hereby found GUILTY of Qualified Rape and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. He is also ORDERED to pay AAA civil indemnity in the amount of P100,000.00, moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00, and exemplary damages in the amount of P100,000.00 each. All monetary awards shall earn interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED." (J. Caguioa designated as additional Member per Raffle dated September 23, 2020 vice J. Inting who recused due to prior action in the Court of Appeals; J. Lazaro-Javier designated as additional Member per Raffle dated August 25, 2021 vice J. Gaerlan who recused due to prior action in the Court of Appeals)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Initials were used to identify the accused-appellant pursuant to Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-15 dated September 5, 2017 Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders using Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances issued on September 5, 2017.
2. CA rollo, pp. 140-141.
3.Rollo, pp. 2-13; penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez (now a Member of the Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Socorro B. Inting.
4. CA Rollo, pp. 8-15, penned by Judge Recto A. Calabocal.
5. Georgraphical location is blotted out pursuant to Supreme Court Amended Circular No. 83-2015.
6. Records, p. 1.
7. See note 5.
7. "The identity of the victim or any information which could establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. 7610, An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, Providing Penalties for its Violation, and for Other Purposes; Republic Act No. 9262, An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, and for·Other Purposes; and Section 40 of AM. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the Rule on Violence against Women and Their Children, effective November 15, 2004." See footnote 4, (People v. Dumadag, 667 Phil. 664, 669 [2011]).
··8. Records, p. 1.
· 9.Id. at 18.
10.Rollo, pp. 3-4.
11. CA rollo, p. 9.
12.Rollo, p. 4.
13. CA rollo, pp. 8-15.
14.Id. at 15.
15.Rollo, pp. 2-13.
16.Id. at 13.
17. Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code reads as follows:
Article 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. — Rape is Committed —
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.
18. Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code reads as follows:
Article 266-B. Penalties. — Rape under paragraph l of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
xxx xxx xxx
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
1) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim;
xxx xxx xxx
19.People vs. DDD, @ Adong, G.R. No. 243583, September 3, 2020.
20. CA rollo, pp. 49-68.
21.Id. at 59, 61.
22.Id. at 61.
23.People v. DDD, G.R. No. 243583, September 3, 2020 citing People v. Bentayo, 810 Phil. 263, 269 (2017).
24. CA rollo, p. 63.
25.People v. Marcellana, 426 Phil. 739, 746 (2002) Citation omitted.
26.People v. DDD, G.R. No. 243583, September 3, 2020, citing People vs. Marcellana, supra.
27.Id., citing People vs. Alfaro, 458 Phil. 942, 961 (2003).
28. G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019.
29.Rollo, p. 12.
30. 783 Phil. 806, 839-840 (2016).
31.People v. Bandril, 763 Phil. 150, 162 (2015).