FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 218129. August 14, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.EDWIN DELA PEÑA y MALANA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 14, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 218129 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDWIN DELA PEÑA y MALANA, Accused-Appellant.) — We now resolve this appeal from the decision 1 dated June 30, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06187, whereby the CA affirmed the joint decision 2 dated October 8, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 48, Masbate City finding herein accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape.
The Antecedents
The facts, as summarized by the CA, are as follows:
Pursuant to the case of People of the Philippines vs. Cabalquinto, fictitious initials shall be used instead of the real name of the victim. Likewise, the personal circumstances of the victim and those of the victim's immediate family or household members, which tend to establish or compromise their identities shall not be disclosed.
In two (2) separate Informations filed before the RTC of Masbate City, appellant Edwin Dela Peña y Malana was charged with two (2) counts of rape, committed as follows:
Criminal Case No. 10085
That sometime in the month of August, 2000 at Sitio Binobong, Brgy. Poblacion, Municipality of Mandaon, Province of Masbate, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with lewd design did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with his step-daughter, [AAA], a twelve-year-old girl, against her will.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Criminal Case No. 10086
That sometime in the month of October 1999, at the Municipality of Uson, Province of Masbate, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with his step-daughter [AAA], a twelve-year-old girl, against her will.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
On February 13, 2002, appellant, with the assistance of his counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Trial on the merits ensued thereafter.
The prosecution presented two (2) witnesses, namely: private complainant AAA and Dr. Genevieve Sanchez.
The version of the prosecution may be summarized as follows:
In 1999, private complainant AAA, a minor, was staying in Poblacion Uson, Masbate together with her mother BBB and her common-law husband Edwin Dela Peña. In October of that year, BBB decided to look for a job in Manila as a domestic helper, leaving AAA with appellant whom she called "Papa" in their house. In the early morning of October 9, 1999 or just two (2) days after BBB left for Manila, appellant undressed AAA after which he undressed himself. He then placed himself on top of her, inserted his penis into her vagina and kept on kissing her while making a push and pull movement. She cried because of pain. Thereafter, appellant put on his clothes and threatened her not to tell anyone otherwise he would kill her. Appellant was then armed with a Batangas knife. When her mother returned from Manila, AAA did not tell her about the rape incident because of fear. Instead, she asked her mother to allow her to live with her aunt CCC in Mandaon, Masbate so she could be away from appellant and her mother. AAA was fetched by CCC and brought her to Mandaon where she continued her studies at the Jose Mesa, Sr., Elementary School in Mandaon, Masbate.
Sometime in August 2000, appellant and her mother had a vacation in Mandaon, Masbate and stayed in her grandmother's house. AAA was also living in the house of her Lola. One early morning, her mother went out to buy all their needs in the house while her grandmother was also away to harvest palay. AAA was thus left again at the house of her grandmother with appellant. While AAA was washing the dishes, appellant grabbed her and brought her into a room. He undressed and kissed her. She was threatened to hold appellant's penis while he held her breast. AAA was then forced to lie down and appellant inserted his penis into her vagina. She did not struggle because her hands were held by appellant. She begged for mercy but he ignored her pleas. Thereafter, her mother came back but she did not tell her or her other relatives about the incident because she was afraid of appellant. She only reported the incident to CCC when the elder sister of her mother was narrating a story about a girl who was also raped. She cried when she heard it and they asked her why she was crying. That was the time when she revealed her ordeal. It was her aunt who accompanied her to the Mandaon Medicare Hospital because her mother did not want to cooperate, but instead went together with appellant.
AAA was examined on August 23, 2001 at Mandaon Medicare Community Hospital by Dr. Napoleon M. Villasis who issued the corresponding medical certificate which shows that she suffered the following injuries: 1) Old Hymenal Tear at 9 o'clock position; and 2) Had a history of multiple sexual intercourse. The probable cause of hymenal tear could have been sexual intercourse or physical contact.
Appellant was presented as the lone witness for the defense.
Appellant raised the defenses of denial and alibi. He claimed that the charges against him were initiated by the victim's aunt who was mad at him because she disliked him as her sister's husband. He started cohabiting with AAA's mother on January 2000 when the victim was still in the custody of her aunt. As such, there was never a time that the victim stayed with them. He added that he once went to Mandaon and stayed for two (2) days at the house of BBB's mother when he was invited by his brother-in-law. He saw the victim there because she was living with her aunt which is 300 meters away from the house where he was staying. 3
After trial, the RTC convicted the accused of the crimes charged. The RTC explained that the testimony of AAA was credible as it was straight-forward, candid, believable and convincing; 4 and that AAA had sufficiently detailed the two ordeals she endured while in the hands of the accused. 5 The RTC disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused EDWIN DELA PEÑA GUILTY of:
1. Rape in Criminal Case No. 10085, defined and penalized under Article 266-B, in relation to Article 266-A, paragraph (a) of the Revised Penal Code for which he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, there being no qualifying circumstances, and ordered to pay [AAA] P75,000 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000 as exemplary damages without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency;
2. Rape in Criminal Case No. 10086, defined and penalized under Article 266-B in relation to Article 266-A paragraph (a) of the Revised Penal Code for which he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, there being no qualifying circumstances and ordered to pay [AAA] P75,000 as civil indemnity, P75,000 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The period of detention of accused EDWIN DELA PEÑA y MALANA shall be credited in his favor.
The Provincial Jail Warden of the Provincial Jail, Masbate is directed to immediately transfer Edwin Dela Peña y Malana to the National Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City.
SO ORDERED. 6
Consequently, the CA affirmed the RTC and rejected the challenge posed by the accused against AAA's credibility. 7 The CA explained that the actions and omissions in AAA's testimonies arose out of fear, 8 and yet, she had clearly narrated how the accused-appellant abused her on two occasions.
Hence this appeal.
The accused maintains that AAA's testimony lacked credibility because of her prior actions, i.e., her failure to report the first incident of rape to her aunt and her seeming acquiescence with them being alone that led to the second rape.
The appeal lacks merit.
In reviewing cases involving sexual abuse, the Court is guided by the following principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. 9 Following these precepts, the Court affirms the conviction of the accused.
We agree with the CA that AAA's testimony was credible and worthy of belief. It should be emphasized that the testimonies of victims given in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous, and frank manner are considered worthy of belief, for no woman would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and thereafter allow herself to be perverted in a public trial if she was not motivated solely by the desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished. 10 We cannot accept the contention by the accused that AAA testified upon the prodding of her aunt because their family did not approve of his relationship with AAA's mother. Indeed, this allegation is contrary to human experience and values. Furthermore, the accused did not provide independent evidence of such ill-motive on the part of AAA or AAA's aunt to testify falsely against him.
Also, AAA's failure to report the first incident of rape did not taint her credibility. There is no standard form of behavior that can be expected of rape victims after they had been defiled because people react differently to emotional stress. Nobody can direct a victim of sexual aggression on how she is supposed to act or behave after her ordeal. In fact, the Court has not laid down any rule on how a rape victim should behave immediately after her ravishment. 11 Hence, We do not find any reason to doubt AAA's credibility.
While We affirm the conviction of the accused, We need to modify the award of damages granted to AAA to conform with our ruling in People v. Jugueta. 12 Thus, the award for exemplary damages shall be increased to P75,000.00 for each count of rape. Also, interest at a rate of six percent (6%) per annum on all the monetary amounts granted to AAA shall be imposed, from the time this resolution had become final until the said amounts had been fully paid.
WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the appeal; AFFIRMS with MODIFICATION the decision rendered by the Court of Appeals on June 30, 2014 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06187 in that the award for exemplary damages is increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00, for each count of rape; and IMPOSES interest on the civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages awarded to AAA at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the time of finality of this resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."Jardaleza, J., took no part; Peralta, J., designated additional member per raffle dated June 17, 2019.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-18; penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia, concurred by Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador (retired) and Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser.
2. CA rollo, pp. 14-29; penned by Judge-Designate Pazlinda A. Villamor-Sanchez.
3.Rollo, pp. 3-6.
4. CA rollo, p. 26.
5.Id. at 25.
6.Id. at 28-29.
7.Rollo, pp. 13-14.
8.Id. at 15-16.
9.People v. Salidaga, G.R. No. 172323, January 29, 2007, 513 SCRA 306, 312.
10.People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 188352, September 1, 2010, 629 SCRA 784, 796.
11.People v. Santos, G.R. No. 172322, September 8, 2006, 501 SCRA 325, 342.
12. G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331.