THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243626. September 29, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.DONATO DE MESA y HARDINAL, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 29, 2021, which reads as follows: HTcADC
G.R. No. 243626(People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee,v. Donato De Mesa y Hardinal, Accused-Appellant.) — On appeal is the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07717 dated 26 May 2017, 1 which affirmed, albeit with modifications, the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 261, Pasig City in Criminal Case No. 144290, 2 finding accused-appellant Donato de Mesa y Hardinal (accused-appellant) guilty of qualified rape under Article 266-A, in relation to Article 266-B, of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). 3
Antecedents
In two (2) separate Informations, accused-appellant was criminally charged for raping his own daughter, AAA. The accusatory portions of the Informations read:
Criminal Case No. 143569
On or about August 16, 2010, in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, taking advantage of his moral authority and ascendancy and by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with his 15-year old minor daughter, AAA, against the latter's will and consent, the said crime having been attended by the qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority at the time of the commission of the crime, thereby raising the crime to a Qualified Rape, to the damage and prejudice of the said victim.
Contrary to law.
Criminal Case No. 144290
On or about August 13, 2010, in Pasig City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, taking advantage of his moral authority and ascendancy and by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with his 15-year old minor daughter, AAA, against the latter's will and consent, the said crime having been attended by the qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority at the time of the commission of the crime, thereby raising the crime to a Qualified Rape, to the damage and prejudice of the said victim.
Contrary to law. 4
When arraigned, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. Thus, trial ensued where the parties presented divergent versions of the facts of the case. 5
The prosecution alleged that on 16 August 2010, at around 7 P.M., AAA, then fifteen (15) years old and a Grade 6 student, was at home alone when accused-appellant, who was intoxicated, arrived from work. The latter closed the door and directed AAA not to let anyone enter. He then touched AAA's breast, removed her shorts and underwear, and inserted his penis into her vagina. AAA tried her best to parry accused-appellant's sexual advances but she was no match for his physical strength. She was unable to shout for help because of fear. After the sexual molestation, accused-appellant left AAA crying. AAA told her mother about what accused-appellant did to her but the latter refused to believe. Two days later, AAA reported the rape incident to her school adviser who accompanied her to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). Thereafter, the DSWD helped AAA in filing the case against her father. 6
Police Chief Inspector Editha B. Martinez (PCI Martinez), the medico-legal who examined AAA, found a deep healed laceration at the 6:00 o'clock position in AAA's hymen. She opined that the laceration could have been caused by the insertion of a blunt object in AAA's hymenal opening. PCI Martinez also testified that as part of their sexual crime protocol, she asked AAA to write a brief history on what happened to her. Upon reading the same, she found that the finding of the genital examination that she conducted on AAA was consistent with what was written in AAA's sexual crime protocol's brief history. 7
For his defense, accused-appellant denied the accusations against him and testified that AAA accused him of rape in retaliation to him for not allowing her to participate in school activities such as attending field trips, and from going out at night. 8
Ruling of the RTC
After trial, the RTC rendered judgment finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified rape in Criminal Case No. 143569, while acquitting him in Criminal Case No. 144290. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered as follows: 1) In Criminal Case No. 143569, Donato De Mesa y Hardinal is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Qualified Rape defined and penalized under Article 266-A 1(a) in relation to Article 166-B, par. 6(1) of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 8353 and in further relation to Sec. 5(a) of RA 8369 and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua without eligibility for parole. In addition, he is ordered to pay the victim the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; P75,000.00 as moral damages; and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
2) In Criminal Case No. 144290, accused Donato De Mesa y Hardinal is acquitted for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
SO ORDERED. 9
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed his conviction to the CA.
Ruling of the CA
Accused-appellant's appeal was denied, and the RTC's ruling was affirmed by the CA with modifications. The dispositive portion of the CA's decision reads:
FOR THESE REASONS, the Decision dated 05 June 2015 rendered by Branch 261 of the National Capital Judicial Region of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City in Criminal Case Nos. 143569 and 144290, [are] AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATIONS that appellant Donato De Mesa y Hardinal is ordered to pay the victim AAA the following in Criminal Case No. 143569: (a) P100,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) P100,000.00 as moral damages; (c) P100,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (d) interest of six percent (6%) per annum on all damages awarded from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 10
The CA found no reason to reverse the trial court's assessment of the credibility of AAA. The appellate court found no indication that there was misappreciation of important facts by the RTC that would justify a different outcome. The CA agreed that AAA was able to tell a clear and coherent story during trial. The CA further found truth in AAA's testimony considering that the same was corroborated by the findings of the medico-legal stating that she sustained hymenal lacerations. Finally, the CA disagreed with the accused that AAA's testimony was marred by inconsistencies. The CA explained that there is no contradiction between AAA's statements that she was raped prior to 16 August 2010 and that she is not aware of any other case filed against appellant. 11
Nevertheless, to conform with the Court's ruling in People v. Jugueta, 12 the CA found it necessary increase the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages to P100,000.00 each. 13
Hence, this appeal.
When notified by the Court that they may file their supplemental briefs, 14 the parties manifested that they are dispensing with the submission of the same. 15
Issues
In his Appellant's Brief which he submitted before the CA, accused-appellant argued mainly that AAA's testimony failed to pass the test of credibility as it is fraught with inconsistencies. In particular, AAA's statement that she was sexually molested prior to the rape episode under scrutiny contradicts her other statement that she does not know of any pending case filed against accused-appellant pertaining to these prior incidents. This inconsistency, accused-appellant claimed, raised serious doubts on AAA's credibility, and at the same time, lends commensurate strength to his defense of denial and alibi. Finally, accused-appellant asserted that the medical findings of healed lacerations on AAA's hymen is not a conclusive proof of rape as the laceration could have been the result of other causes. 16
Ruling of the Court
We affirm accused-appellant's conviction.
In addressing challenges to the credibility of rape victims, the Court is always guided by the principle that the trial court's factual determination deserves utmost respect especially when the CA affirms the same. It is settled that trial courts are better hoisted to observe the demeanor and deportment of witnesses on the stand, making their assessment of a witness's credibility far more superior than that of appellate tribunals. 17 The Court is persuaded that the RTC and CA correctly gave credence to AAA's testimony. Indeed, accused-appellant's resort to semantics to incite doubt does not impress the Court. As correctly held by the CA, the statements of AAA suffer no inconsistency. The fact that AAA does not recall any case filed against accused-appellant for the alleged previous molestations she suffered does not negate the happening of the rape incident being tried here.
Moreover, the weight given to AAA's testimony is consistent with the long-standing doctrine that the credibility of a rape victim is upheld so long as there are no evidence that would suggest the possibility of her being actuated by ill motive to falsely testify against the accused. 18 The ill motive that accused-appellant imputes on AAA is too flimsy to consider. Even assuming it to be true, said motive do not automatically translate to the fabrication of the very serious charges of rape. 19 More importantly, the Court has not been deterred from affirming the conviction in incestuous rape by rejecting the lecherous father's insistence of ill motive based on alleged familial discord and undue influence, hostility or revenge, or on parental punishment or disciplinary chastisement. 20
Finally, there is no merit in accused-appellant's contention that the healed lacerations found in AAA's hymen are not a conclusive indicia of rape. When the testimony of a rape victim is consistent with the medical findings, there is sufficient basis to conclude that there has been carnal knowledge. Laceration, whether healed or fresh, is the best physical evidence of forcible defloration. 21
Conviction of qualified rape under Article 266-B (1) of the RPC requires two things: (1) the victim must be a less than 18 years old; and (2) the offender must either be related to the victim by consanguinity of by affinity within the third civil degree, or is the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. These two requisites must be both alleged and proved with absolute certainty. Otherwise, the accused could only be held guilty of simple rape. The qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority remain to be relevant in the crime of rape despite the abolition of the death penalty under RA 9346. 22 The accused's civil liability depends on the mode of rape he committed. 23
Here, AAA's relationship with accused-appellant were properly alleged in the Information and proven during trial through the latter's own admission. In his direct examination, accused-appellant testified:
Q: Do you know [AAA]?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: Who is she?
A: She is my daughter, Sir.
Q: On August 16, 2010, how old is [AAA]?
A: 16 years old, Sir. 24
As to AAA's age, People v. Pruna25 provides the existing guidelines in evaluating evidence presented to prove a rape victim's minority. Thus:
. . . [W]e hereby set the following guidelines in appreciating age, either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance.
1. The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party.
2. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents such as baptismal certificate and school records which show the date of birth of the victim would suffice to prove age.
3. If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of the victim's mother or a member of the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the following circumstances:
a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 7 years old;
b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 12 years old;
c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 18 years old.
4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the testimony of the victim's mother or relatives concerning the victims age, the complainant's testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused.
5. It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the offended party. The failure of the accused to object to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken against him.
6. The trial court should always make a categorical finding as to the age of the victim. 26 (Emphasis supplied)
Here, the AAA's certificate of live birth was presented and authenticated by her during trial. Accused-appellant's counsel even compared a photocopy of the document with the original and admitted that the former was a faithful reproduction. Thus:
PROSEC. ACAL:
Q Madam Witness, can you please tell us how old you are right now?
A I am 15 years old, sir.
Q And when were you born, Madam Witness?
A April 27, 1995, sir.
Q And, what is your proof that you were born on that said day?
A My birth certificate, sir.
Q Now, Madam Witness, can you please examine if this is your birth certificate?
A Yes, Sir.
PROSEC. ACAL:
Your Honor. may we ask the counsel for the accused be [sic] compared this document with the photocopy and we would ask that a marking be made on the photocopy.
ATTY. PARAGUA:
The photocopy is a faithful reproduction of the original. 27
Also, as already shown above, accused-appellant also testified that AAA was only a minor when the alleged rape was committed.
The foregoing indubitably established AAA's filial relationship with accused-appellant as well as her minority at the time of the rape incident. Thus, the RTC is correct in imposing upon accused-appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, in accordance with Article 266-B of the RPC 28 and RA 9346. 29 Further, accused-appellant was properly ordered to pay AAA for each count the amounts of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity; P100,000.00 as moral damages; and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, plus interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the finality of judgment until fully paid, all in accordance with Our ruling in People v. Jugueta30 and Nacar v. Gallery Frames. 31
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The decision of the Regional Trial Court in Criminal Case No. 144290, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07717 is AFFIRMED. We find accused-appellant Donato de Mesa y Hardinal GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified Rape under Article 266-A, in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. He is sentenced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. Accused is also ORDERED to PAY AAA the amounts of Php100,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php100,000.00 as moral damages, and Php100,000.00 as exemplary damages. Legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum is imposed on all damages awarded from the date of finality of this decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 2-21; penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez, with the concurrence of Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon and Associate Justice Carmelita S. Manahan.
2. CArollo, pp. 42-50; penned by Presiding Judge Florian Gregory D. Abalajon.
3. 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 or 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.
Article 266-B. Penalty. — x x x
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; x x x.
4. Rollo, pp. 3-4.
5. Id. at 4.
6. Id. at 4-6.
7. Id. at 6-8.
8. Id. at 9
9. CArollo, p. 50.
10. Rollo, p. 20.
11. Id. at 12-18.
12. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
13. Rollo, pp. 19-20.
14. Id. at 27-28.
15. Id. at 29-32; 34-36.
16. CArollo, pp. 36-39.
17. Bartolome v. People, 745 Phil. 54 (2014).
18. People v. Taguilid, 685 Phil. 571 (2012).
19. People v. Buado, Jr., 701 Phil. 72 (2013).
20. Id.
21. People v. Manaligod, 831 Phil. 204 (2018).
22. An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines; approved on 24 June 2006.
23. People v. Gallano, 755 Phil. 120 (2015).
24. TSN, 07 May 2014, pp. 4-5.
25. 439 Phil. 440 (2002).
26. Rollo, pp. 470-471.
27. TSN, 23 February 2011, pp. 4-5.
28. Supra note 3.
29. An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines.
30. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
31. 716 Phil. 267 (2013).