FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 205381. April 21, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARLON CONSENADO y SUNGA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 21, 2014which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 205381 (People of the Philippines vs. Marlon Consenado y Sunga). — The victim AAA, 1 then seven (7) years old, 2 was riding her bike in the morning of December 27, 2003, when she saw accused-appellant Marlon Consenado y Sunga (Consenado) in Beset Street, Muntinlupa City. Consenado, known to AAA as "Buting", forcibly pulled her over and brought her to his house where he raped her. According to AAA, Consenado removed her shorts and underwear, after which Consenado removed his shorts and inserted his penis into her vagina. While Consenado was abusing her, he had his hand over her mouth, poked a knife at her and threatened to kill her and her family.
AAA told her mother of the incident, and on December 29, 2003, they went to the police station where AAA gave her account. Senior Police Officer 3 Wilfredo G. Sunico, accompanied by the barangay police and AAA's relative, went to Consenado's house and arrested Consenado. AAA identified Consenado as the offender.
Physical evidence of AAA's abuse was testified to by Dr. Irene D. Baluyut (Dr. Baluyut) of the Child and Protection Unit, Philippine General Hospital, who stated that her ano-genital examination of AAA showed "clear evidence of blunt force or penetrating trauma." AAA also had a healed injury on her left lateral ankle and a healing injury on her right anterior leg.
Consenado, however, claimed denial and alibi as defenses. He alleged that on December 27, 2003, he went to the house of Arsenio "Itong" Palaruan, Jr. (Itong) at around 6:30 a.m. He stayed in Itong's house until 7:30 a.m. and then went home. At around 11:00 a.m., he went to Claret Street to borrow compact discs. Claret Street is about 100 meters away from his house. Consenado's mother, meanwhile, alleged that she was home the entire time and was taking care of her other children. She testified that their house is situated in a crowded area. CTEDSI
In its Decision 3 dated July 21, 2010, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City, Branch 207, convicted Consenado of the crime of Rape. The dispositive portion of the RTC decision provides:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Marion Consenado y Sunga guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape defined under paragraph 1 (d) of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, and is sentenced to reclusion perpetua. He is ordered to pay civil damages in the amount of [P]50,000.00 and moral damages in the amount of [P]50,000.00. His preventive imprisonment is deducted from his term of imprisonment based on Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.
Muntinlupa City, July 21, 2010. 4
Consenado's conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) in its Decision 5 dated March 30, 2012, to wit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the July 21, 2010 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 207, in Criminal Case No. 03-1052, convicting the accused-appellant of the offense of rape is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 6
In his Brief, 7 Consenado pointed out the improbability of the crime happening in a crowded area and with people within the vicinity. He also asserted that AAA's acts after the day of the incident, when she still continued to play with her friends despite warnings from her grandmother, belie her claim of rape. Consenado imputed ill motive on AAA's aunt, claiming that they once had an altercation over queuing for water and that the latter threatened him with a suit as she did with one Samonte. Finally, Consenado argued that Dr. Baluyut's findings are not conclusive of AAA's injuries allegedly sustained on December 27, 2003, as there was a previous similar charge against said Samonte. 8CDISAc
Sexual intercourse with a woman below 12 years of age, whether consented to or not, is punishable as Rape, or Statutory Rape to be more precise. Article 266-A, 1 (d) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) states:
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:
xxx xxx xxx
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.
Thus, "[w]hen the complainant is below 12 years old, the absence of free consent is conclusively presumed as the law supposes that a woman below this age does not possess discernment and is incapable of giving intelligent consent to the sexual act." 9
In this case, Consenado's arguments in support of his acquittal revolve mainly around the credibility of AAA and her testimony. On this matter, the Court abides by the following principles:
First, the Court gives the highest respect to the RTC's evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses, considering its unique position in directly observing the demeanor of a witness on the stand. From its vantage point, the trial court is in the best position to determine the truthfulness of witnesses.
Second, absent any substantial reason which would justify the reversal of the RTC's assessments and conclusions, the reviewing court is generally bound by the lower court's findings, particularly when no significant facts and circumstances, affecting the outcome of the case, are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded.
And third, the rule is even more stringently applied if the CA concurred with the RTC. 10
The Court has gone over both the case for the prosecution and the defense, and finds no reason to reject the appreciation made by both the RTC and the CA regarding AAA's credibility and the credibility of her testimony. The RTC found AAA's testimony to be direct to the point, 11 while the CA found it to be clear and categorical. 12 Their congruent assessment is binding on the Court, especially in the absence of evidence by the defense proving the existence of significant facts and circumstances that will outweigh such assessment.
The Court finds Consenado's argument on the improbability of the crime happening in a crowded place to be untenable. The Court has constantly ruled that "lust is no respecter of time or place." 13 In People v. Pareja, 14 the Court further stated that "there is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion." And as testified to by AAA, Consenado covered her mouth and threatened to kill her and her family, thus constraining her to keep silent during her entire ordeal. This explains why Consenado's mother could not have overheard any unusual occurrence while she was inside the house. The Court also cannot accept Consenado's accusation that AAA's aunt was ill motivated inasmuch as motives such as resentment, hatred or revenge have never swayed the Court from giving full credence to the testimony of a minor rape victim. 15 Additionally, Consenado's contention as regards the medical finding of Dr. Baluyut becomes immaterial in light of the rule that medical examination of a victim is merely corroborative and not indispensable in a prosecution for rape. 16 The testimony of a single witness, in fact, may be sufficient to produce a conviction, if the same appears to be trustworthy and reliable, 17 as in the case of AAA's testimony. DcIHSa
Consenado's defense of denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification made by AAA. 18 The defense of denial assumes significance only when the prosecution's evidence is such that it does not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, for alibi to prosper, the Court must be convinced that it would be physically impossible for the accused to have been at the locus criminis at the time of the commission of the crime. 19 In this case, during her direct testimony, AAA pointed to Consenado as the culprit in no uncertain terms. She even identified Consenado during the confrontation at the police station after Consenado was arrested. Moreover, the defense failed to prove that it was physically impossible for Consenado to be at the scene of the crime considering that Claret Street, where he claimed that he was at, was only 100 meters away from Beset Street, where the rape of AAA happened.
Consequently, the CA correctly upheld Consenado's conviction for the crime of Rape.
Article 266-B of the RPC penalizes rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1, with reclusion perpetua. There being no qualifying circumstance, the CA correctly affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the RTC. The same shall be without eligibility for parole. 20
Further, the award of civil indemnity and moral damages in favor of AAA is also affirmed as these are in accord with prevailing jurisprudence. 21 The Court further awards exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00 as the aggravating circumstance of AAA's minority attended the crime. 22 An aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, should entitle the offended party to an award of exemplary damages within the meaning of Article 2230 of the Civil Code. 23 In addition, interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be imposed on all the damages awarded, to earn from the date of the finality of the Court's resolution until fully paid. 24
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated March 30, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04708 is hereby AFFIRMED, subject to the MODIFICATION that Marlon Consenado y Sunga shall pay further the amount of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Marlon Consenado y Sunga shall serve the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. Moreover, the damages awarded in this case shall earn an interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of the finality of this Resolution until fully paid."
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. 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 their immediate family or household members, shall not be disclosed to protect her privacy and fictitious initials shall, instead, be used, in accordance with People v. Cabalquinto (533 Phil. 703 [2006]), and A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC effective November 15, 2004.
2. AAA's minority was stipulated on, and her Certificate of Live Birth was admitted by the trial court; see CA rollo, p. 28.
3. Issued by Presiding Judge Philip A. Aguinaldo; id. at 25-32.
4. Id. at 32.
5. Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo, with Associate Justices Franchito N. Diamante and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, concurring; rollo, pp. 2-18.
6. Id. at 17.
7. Both Consenado and the appellee (People of the Philippines) filed a Manifestation in Lieu of a Supplemental Brief, stating that they are adopting the arguments contained in their respective briefs filed with the CA; id. at 29-31, 25-27.
8. CA rollo, pp. 49-57.
9. People of the Philippines v. Ferdinand Banzuela, G.R. No. 202060, December 11, 2013, citing People v. Canares, 599 Phil. 60, 73 (2009).
10. People of the Philippines v. Bernabe Pareja y Cruz, G.R. No. 202122 January 15, 2014 citing People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 197815, February 8, 2012, 665 SCRA 639, 643.
11. CA rollo, p. 67.
12. Rollo, p. 15.
13. People v. Rubio, G.R. No. 195239, March 7, 2012, 667 SCRA 753, 766.
14. Supra note 10.
15. Id., citing People v. Mangitngit, 533 Phil. 837, 852 (2006).
16. Id., citing People v. Colorado, G.R. No. 200792, November 14, 2012, 685 SCRA 660, 673.
17. People of the Philippines v. Apolinario Manalili y Jose, G.R. No. 191253, August 28, 2013.
18. People v. Monticalvo, G.R. No. 193507, January 30, 2013, 689 SCRA 715, 737.
19. People v. Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239, March 16, 2011, 645 SCRA 590, 608.
20. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346 (AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES) provides that "[p]ersons 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. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended;" see People of the Philippines v. Ricardo Dearo, Paulino Luague and Wilfredo Toledo, G.R. No. 190862, October 9, 2013; People v. Mores, G.R. No. 189846, June 26, 2013, 700 SCRA 23; People v. Dela Rosa, G.R. No. 201723, June 13, 2013, 698 SCRA 548.
21. See People v. Lomaque, G.R. No. 189297, June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA 383; People of the Philippines v. Roberto Velasco, G.R. No. 190318, November 27, 2013.
22. People v. Lupac, G.R. No. 182230, September 19, 2012, 681 SCRA 390, 404.
23. Id. at 403, citing People v. Catubig, 416 Phil. 102, 119-120 (2001).
24. People v. Cabungan, G.R. No. 189355, January 23, 2013, 689 SCRA 236, 249.