THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 220719. March 9, 2016.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DOMINGO CRUCILLO Y CUATE, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated March 9, 2016, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 220719 (People of the Philippines vs. Domingo Crucillo y Cuate). — On appeal 1 is the Decision 2 dated November 19, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05609. The CA affirmed the Decision 3 dated December 23, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tabaco City, Branch 16, finding Domingo Crucillo y Cuate (Crucillo), inter alia, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of statutory rape as defined under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended.
At the outset, the Court notes that Crucillo was likewise charged with the crime of acts of lasciviousness in four separate Informations, 4 docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. T-4911, T-4912, T-4913, and T-4914, allegedly committed against his minor daughters AAA and BBB. 5 The RTC convicted Crucillo in Criminal Cases Nos. T-4911, T-4912, and T-4913, but acquitted him in Criminal Case No. T-4914. 6 Crucillo did not appeal to the CA his conviction for three counts of acts of lasciviousness. 7 Accordingly, this Resolution is limited to Crucillo's conviction for statutory rape.
Crucillo was charged with the crime of Rape under Article 266-A, in an Information, docketed as Criminal Case No. T-4920, which reads:
That at around 6:00 o'clock in the evening sometime in April to May 2005 in Barangay Cale, Municipality of Tiwi, Province of Albay, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd designs and by means of threat and intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of [AAA], an 11-year old minor, against her will and consent and to her damage and prejudice.
That the crime was attended by the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship, the private complainant, being eleven years of age, and the daughter of the above-named accused.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 8
Upon arraignment, Crucillo entered a plea of not guilty. 9 After pre-trial conference, trial on the merits ensued. 10
The prosecution alleged the following:
AAA is the minor daughter of Crucillo and CCC. At around 6:00 p.m. sometime in 2005, AAA, then only 11 years old, was alone in a room in their house, changing her clothes with a towel covering her body. Suddenly, Crucillo entered the room and pushed her towards the bed. AAA was not able to run away since Crucillo was blocking her way out. Crucillo removed his clothes then lay on top of AAA, held both her hands, and kept on pinning her down as he tried to insert his penis into AAA's vagina. Crucillo was able to penetrate AAA's vagina. After consummating his lust, Crucillo left their house. Initially, AAA did not tell anyone about the incident because Crucillo threatened that he will kill them all. However, after sometime, AAA mustered the strength and told her grandmother DDD what Crucillo had done to her. 11
DDD then told CCC what Crucillo did. CCC refused to believe the accusations against Crucillo. 12 This changed when CCC witnessed her husband sexually abusing AAA in the early morning of November 20, 2008. CCC was then sleeping in their bedroom together with her children. Crucillo then entered the room. CCC was already awake at that time, but she kept her eyes closed. When she opened her eyes, she saw Crucillo caressing AAA's breasts while the latter was sleeping. When Crucillo noticed that CCC was already awake, he immediately left the room. 13 CAIHTE
On November 20, 2008, AAA was brought to the Rural Health Unit of Tiwi, Albay for medical examination. The attending physician noted superficial old healed lacerations in AAA's hymen, which could have been caused by sexual intercourse. 14
For his part, Crucillo denied the allegations against him, and claimed that AAA merely fabricated stories against him. He claimed that in 2004, when AAA went to DDD's house in Antipolo, a taxi driver sexually molested her. He averred that the cases may have been filed because DDD has a grudge against him after he allowed his eighth child to be adopted. He further claimed that his family was just mad at him because he slapped CCC sometime in August 2008. 15
On December 23, 2011, the RTC rendered a Decision, finding Crucillo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of statutory rape in Criminal Case No. T-4920. The RTC gave more credence to AAA's testimony since it was given in a simple, plain and straightforward manner without any contradiction. 16 The RTC also pointed out that AAA's testimony was corroborated by the medical findings of the attending physician who examined her. 17
The RTC noted that sexual intercourse with a girl below 12 years old is statutory rape. 18 Since AAA was only 11 years old at the time of the incident, the RTC found Crucillo liable for statutory rape. Accordingly, in Criminal Case No. T-4920, the RTC sentenced Crucillo to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay AAA: (1) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; (2) P50,000.00 as moral damages; and (3) P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. 19
On November 19, 2014, the CA rendered the herein assailed Decision, which affirmed the RTC's Decision dated December 23, 2011.
Hence, this appeal.
Essentially, the issue for the Court's resolution is whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC's Decision dated December 23, 2011, which, inter alia, found Crucillo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the felony of rape under Article 266-A of the RPC. aScITE
After a thorough review of the records of the case, the Court finds the appeal to be lacking in merit. The Court thus affirms and adopts the findings of fact of the RTC as affirmed by the CA. Crucillo's defense of denial cannot prevail over AAA's positive and specific testimony. Time and again, the Court has held that "positive identification of the accused, when categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying, should prevail over the alibi and denial of the appellant whose testimony is not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence." 20
There is likewise no merit to Crucillo's claim that DDD merely instigated AAA and BBB to file the complaints against him. Crucillo's claim that DDD convinced AAA and BBB to file fabricated rape and acts of lasciviousness charges because he allowed his eighth child to be adopted is too flimsy a reason for a grandmother to subject her granddaughters to humiliation and scandal.
Nevertheless, there is a need to modify the lower courts' designation of the crime committed by Crucillo and, consequently, the penalty imposed on him. Under Article 266-A (1) (d) of the RPC, as amended, rape is committed "[b]y a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman", who is "under twelve (12) years of age." Rape under Article 266-A (1) (d) of the RPC is termed statutory rape as it departs from the usual modes of committing rape; what the law punishes in statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve years old because she is presumed to be lacking a will of her own on account of her tender years. 21 Statutory rape is punished by reclusion perpetua. 22 However, statutory rape is qualified when the offender is, inter alia, a parent; qualified rape is punished by death. 23
Crucillo admitted that he is the father of AAA. 24 Since the prosecution was able to establish that Crucillo had carnal knowledge of AAA when she was only 11 years old, the proper designation of the crime committed by him is qualified rape and not merely statutory rape. However, the Court cannot impose the death penalty in view of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9346, 25 and thus impose, in Criminal Case No. T-4920, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole for the rape committed against AAA.
In cases where the penalty for the crime committed is death which, however, cannot be imposed because of the provisions of R.A. No. 9346, the Court has increased the amount of damages and indemnity as follows: (1) P100,000.00 as civil indemnity; (2) P100,000.00 as moral damages, which the victim is assumed to have suffered and thus needs no proof; and (3) P100,000.00 as exemplary damages to set an example for the public good. 26 In addition, and in conformity with current policy, the Court imposes interest on all monetary awards for damages at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid. 27
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated November 19, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05609 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Domingo Crucillo y Cuate is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified rape in Criminal Case No. T-4920, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. He is hereby ORDERED to pay AAA (1) P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, (2) P100,000.00 as moral damages, and (3) P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. All monetary awards for damages shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully satisfied." (Jardeleza, J., no part in view of his participation in the Office of the Solicitor General; Del Castillo, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated November 4, 2015.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Under Section 13, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court, as amended.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang, with Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Edwin D. Sorongon concurring; CA rollo, pp. 148-158.
3. Issued by Judge William B. Volante; id. at 13-40.
4. Id. at 13-15.
5. 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 her immediate family or household members, other than the accused, are withheld pursuant to the Court's Decision in People v. Cabalquinto (533 Phil. 703 [2006]), and the Resolution in A.M. No. 04-11-09-SC dated September 19, 2006.
6. CA rollo, pp. 38-40.
7. Id. at 157.
8. Id. at 15-16.
9. Id. at 16.
10. Id. at 16-17.
11. Id. at 123.
12. Id. at 124.
13. Id. at 125.
14. Id.
15. Id. at 65.
16. Id. at 26.
17. Id. at 28-29.
18. Id. at 30.
19. Id. at 38.
20. People v. Laog, 674 Phil. 444, 460-461 (2011).
21. See People v. Macafe, 650 Phil. 580, 588 (2010).
22. REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 266-B.
23. Id.
24. CA rollo, p. 16.
25. AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES. Approved on June 24, 2006.
26. See People v. Gambao, et al., 718 Phil. 507, 531 (2013); People v. Torres, G.R. No. 189850, September 22, 2014, 735 SCRA 687, 706-707.
27. People v. Veloso, 703 Phil. 541, 556 (2013).