FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252031. September 14, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ADAM DIINLA y LAURIO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 14, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252031 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee v. Adam Diinla y Laurio, accused-appellant).
After a review of the records, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its September 10, 2019 Decision 1 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10989 as to warrant the exercise of this Court's appellate jurisdiction.
Adam Diinla y Laurio (accused-appellant) was charged with the crime of statutory rape as defined and penalized under paragraph 1 (d), Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), in an information which reads:
That on October 4, 2009 at around 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon at [XXX], 2 Province of Albay, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with lewd and unchaste designs, by means of force did then and there willingly, knowingly and feloniously have carnal knowledge of AAA, 3 9 years old, having been born on March 30, 2000, a minor, without her consent and against her will. To the damage and prejudice of the private offended party. 4
Statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below twelve (12) years of age regardless of her consent, or the lack of it, to the sexual act. 5
The elements necessary in every prosecution for statutory rape are: (1) the offended party is under 12 years of age; and (2) the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim, regardless of whether there was force, threat, or intimidation or grave abuse of authority. Proof of force, intimidation or consent is unnecessary as they are not elements of statutory rape, considering that the absence of free consent is conclusively presumed when the victim is below the age of twelve (12). 6
In the instant case, the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA who was only nine (9) years old at the time of the incident. AAA's age was clearly established by her Certificate of Live Birth which indicated that she was born on March 30, 2000. AAA was unwavering in her assertion that accused-appellant inserted his penis into her vagina, which caused her pain. Her testimony was strongly corroborated by the medico-legal findings. DHIcET
The Court agrees with the findings of the CA that while it is true that AAA's hymen remained intact, such fact does not negate the conclusion that she was raped. In People v. Araojo, 7 the Court expounds on the evidentiary weight of a hymenal laceration in a charge of rape:
The absence of external signs or physical injuries on the complainant's body does not necessarily negate the commission of rape, hymenal laceration not being, to repeat, an element of the crime of rape. A healed or fresh laceration would of course be a compelling proof of defloration. What is more, the foremost consideration in the prosecution of rape is the victim's testimony and not the findings of the medico-legal officer. In fact, a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape; the victim's testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict. 8 (citations omitted)
Interestingly, the fact that herein accused-appellant's whereabouts could not be determined for more than six (6) years since the information was filed shows that he had evaded arrest which is highly indicative of his guilt. He did not even present a reasonable explanation on how he managed to elude arrest for so long.
In People v. Cruz, 9 the Court held:
Jurisprudence has repeatedly declared that flight is an indication of guilt. The flight of an accused, in the absence of a credible explanation, would be a circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be established "for a truly innocent person would normally grasp the first available opportunity to defend himself and to assert his innocence." 10
Finally, the Court affirms the penalty imposed by the Regional Trial Court, [XXX], Branch 12 which was reclusion perpetua under Article 266-B of the RPC. The CA likewise correctly affirmed the amount of damages.
WHEREFORE, this Court DISMISSES the appeal and AFFIRMS the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Court of Appeals in its September 10, 2019 Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10989. Accused-appellant Adam Diinla y Laurio is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of STATUTORY RAPE punishable under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (d) of the Revised Penal Code, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
He is likewise ORDERED to pay AAA civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00, moral damages in the amount of P75,000.00, and exemplary damages in the amount of P75,000.00, with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Resolution until full payment.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 3-13; penned by Associate Justice Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas with Associate Justices Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a Member of this Court) and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., concurring.
2. The city where the crime was committed is withheld to protect the identity of the rape victim pursuant to Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 issued on September 5, 2017.
3. 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, 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 the Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017.
4. CA rollo, p. 47.
5. People v. Jagdon, Jr., G.R. No. 242882, September 9, 2020.
6. Id.
7. 616 Phil. 275 (2009), as cited in People v. Francica, 817 Phil. 972, 992 (2017).
8. Id. at 288.
9. 736 Phil. 564 (2014).
10. Id. at 573-574.