People v. Dorado

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 248845. September 16, 2020.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ERNESTO DORADO, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 16, 2020which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 248845 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ERNESTO DORADO

Facts

The Charge

By two (2) separate informations, appellant Ernesto Dorado was charged with the rapes of fourteen (14) year-old AAA 1 and nine (9) year-old BBB, respectively, viz.:

Information 2 dated May 5, 2010 in Criminal Case No. 10-187:

That on or about September 18, 2009, in the Municipality of Banisilan, Province of Cotabato, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused by means of force, threat and intimidation, armed with a knife, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously inserted his left finger inside the vagina of AAA, who is a minor, 14 years old, against her will.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Information 3 dated May 5, 2010 in Criminal Case No. 10-188:

That on or about September 7, 2009, in the Municipality of Banisilan, Province of Cotabato, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused by means of force, threat and intimidation, armed with a knife, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, succeeded in having carnal knowledge with BBB, who is a minor, 9 years old, against her will.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

The twin cases were consolidated before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 24, Midsayap, Cotabato. On arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges. 4 Trial on the merits ensued.

Proceedings before the Trial Court

Prosecution's Evidence

Complainant AAA testified that appellant was their neighbor in __________________________________, Cotabato. He molested her several times since she was in third grade up to fifth grade. He often brought her to the forest where he would gather buyo (betel leaves) or mama (betel nuts). She was nine (9) years old when she first got molested. Appellant often threatened her that something bad would happen to her and her family if she told her parents or anyone about her ordeal. Appellant had molested her in his house and in her parents' bedroom. Eventually, her family moved to _______________ and she got a temporary reprieve from her ordeal. In March 2009, however, her family went back to their old home in _______________ and her ordeal began anew. 5

Her last ordeal happened on September 18, 2009, around 5 o' clock in the afternoon, when she was almost fourteen (14) years old. That time, her father was detained in Kidapawan City and her mother was confined in the hospital. Together with her younger sister BBB and their older brother, they were left in the care of appellant, who claimed to be a distant relative of their mother. 6

She was sleeping inside her parents' room when she suddenly felt something moving inside her vagina. Appellant's left arm was between her legs and she realized that appellant had inserted a finger inside her vagina. He motioned for her to keep silent by placing his right index finger on his lips. 7 He also threatened to kill her, her siblings, and her parents if she told anyone. He too had a knife at that time. 8 She suddenly moved out of his way, told him to get out, then locked the door.

Complainant BBB, AAA's younger sister, testified: She was six (6) years old and in kindergarten when appellant started molesting her. He called her to his house, dragged her into his bedroom and caressed her vagina. She squirmed and told him she wanted to go home. Appellant held her hand tightly and warned her never to tell her parents about it or he would kill her family. Fearing for her life and the lives of her family, she kept the incident to herself. Every time he visited their house to check on them, especially when she was alone, he would insert his finger inside her vagina to caress it. It only stopped when her family moved out of their old home in ____________ to transfer to ________. When they came back to their old home, he again molested her. 9

In the evening of September 7, 2009, she was roused from sleep when she felt someone gripping her hand from behind. When she turned, she saw appellant pointing a knife on her waist. He motioned her to keep quiet or he would stab her. He removed her short pants, placed himself on top of her, and inserted his penis into her vagina. 10 Her brother was sleeping in the same room with her. She was then nine (9) years old.

The pain she experienced that night was so much she had high fever for at least two (2) weeks. She also experienced fear and anxiety each time she saw appellant around. Meantime, her older sister, CCC, came back from Manila to take care of her. CCC noticed she got scared whenever appellant was around. She later revealed to CCC what had happened to her. AAA also shared the ordeal she suffered in appellant's hands. 11

PO1 Emie Tenizo Reyes (PO1 Reyes), Women's Desk Officer of the Municipal Police Station of Banisilan, Cotabato testified that on October 8, 2009, CCC reported that her two (2) minor sisters were raped by appellant. Thereafter, she and SPO3 Joeven Alisasis (SPO3 Alisasis), the Chief of Police, with the assistance of Barangay Kagawad Juan Alibocboc, took appellant into custody. She also accompanied both complainants to the Municipal Health Office for medical examination. 12

SPO3 Alisasis corroborated the foregoing testimony. 13

Appellant's Evidence

Appellant denied the charges. He testified that his residence was five (5) houses away from the XYZ home. He was a laborer at a corn plantation and complainants' mother asked him to work in their farm, as well. For this purpose, he received P300.00 from complainants' mother but failed to render the work expected of him because he was already receiving a good pay in the other farm. Before he left for Bukidnon, he returned the money to the XYZ family. Even then, complainants' mother seemed to still hold a grudge against him, hence, she caused the filing of rape charges against him. 14

The Trial Court's Ruling

By its Joint Judgment 15 dated January 8, 2018, the trial court found appellant guilty of rape by sexual assault committed against AAA (Criminal Case No. 10-187) and rape by sexual intercourse, against BBB (Criminal Case No. 10-188). Complainants' delay in reporting the rape incidents did not affect their credibility. Too, the fact alone that the physician who examined complainants did not testify on the medical findings does not absolve appellant of his crimes. Appellant's imputation of ill motive and credence and his defenses of alibi and denial were devoid of merit. Thus:

WHEREFORE, finding the accused ERNESTO DORADO GUILTY by proof beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape under Art. 266-A, par. 2, in relation to Art. 266-B, 6th paragraph of the Revised Penal Code in Crim. Case No. 10-187, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty ranging from six (6) years of Prision Correccional maximum to eight (8) years and one (1) day of Prision Mayor medium period, and to pay minor-victim AAA the amount of Php30,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php30,000.00 as moral damages, and Php15,000.0[0] as exemplary damages, and to pay the cost of this case.

Accused Ernesto Dorado is likewise found GUILTY by proof beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape under Art. 266-A, par. 1, in relation to Art. 266-B, 6th paragraph of the Revised Penal Code in Crim. Case No. 10-188, thus, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, without eligibility of parole. He is further ordered to pay minor-victim BBB the amounts of Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P[hp]75,000.[00] as moral damages, and Php30,000.00 as exemplary damages and to pay the costs of the case.

In addition, a six percent (6%) interest per annum of all the damages awarded from finality of judgment until fully paid.

Considering that accused is a detention prisoner, he shall be credited with the period of his detention during his preventive imprisonment.

SO ORDERED. 16

Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals

On appeal, appellant faulted the trial court for rendering the verdict of conviction. In the main, he brought to fore the alleged incredible testimony of AAA pertaining to the knife that he allegedly used and her behavior during and after the rape incident. He also questioned how BBB could have possibly identified the person who raped her considering it was dark inside the room where it happened. 17 Lastly, he harped on the purported absence of medical evidence to support the testimonies of both complainants. 18

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), through Assistant Solicitor General Marissa Macaraig-Guillen and Associate Solicitor II Dennis Go, countered that all the elements of rape by sexual assault were duly proven. Appellant threatened AAA and succeeded in inserting his finger into her vagina. Likewise, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt his guilt for the crime of rape through sexual intercourse. He had carnal knowledge of BBB though force, threat, and intimidation. Further, appellant's imputation of ill motive on complainants' mother was self-serving and highly speculative. Lastly, the testimonies of children, like complainants, carried great weight and evidentiary value. 19

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

By its assailed Decision 20 dated May 27, 2019, the Court of Appeals affirmed in the main, but modified the penalty and the monetary award, thus:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed Joint Judgment dated 8 January 2018 Decision March 25, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 24, Midsayap, Cotabato in Criminal Case Nos. 10-187 and 10-188 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as to the penalty imposed and the amount of civil liabilities. The dispositive portion should now read:

WHEREFORE, finding the accused ERNESTO DORADO GUILTY by proof beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape under Art. 266-A, par. 2, in relation to Art. III, Sec. 5(6) of R.A. 7610, in Crim. Case No. 10-187, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of Ten (10) years of Prision Mayor to Seventeen (17) years, Four (4) months and One (1) day of Reclusion Temporal and to pay minor-victim AAA the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P75,000.00 as exemplary damages and to pay a fine of P15,000.00. No costs.

Accused Ernesto Dorado is likewise found GUILTY by proof beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape under Art. 266-A, par. I, in relation to Art. 266-B, 6th paragraph of the Revised Penal Code in Crim. Case No. 10-188, thus, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, without eligibility of parole. He is further ordered to pay minor-victim BBB the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. No costs.

In addition, a six percent (6%) interest per annum of all the damages awarded from finality of judgment until fully paid.

xxx xxx xxx

SO ORDERED.

SO ORDERED.

The Present Appeal

Appellant now seeks anew a verdict of acquittal. Both appellant 21 and the OSG 22 manifested that, in lieu of their supplemental briefs, they were adopting their respective briefs in the Court of Appeals.

Issue

Did the Court of Appeals err in convicting appellant of rape by sexual assault in Criminal Case No. 10-187 and rape by sexual intercourse in Criminal Case No.10-188?

Ruling

Appellant is guilty of

AAA testified on the incident that took place on September 18, 2009, thus:

Prosecutor Jasper V. Lumacad on Witness

AAA

Q: Can you recall where you were on September 18, 2009?

A: Yes sir, that was the last time that he sexually molested me.

Q: What did he do to you on September 18, 2009?

A: Because at that time it was around 5:00 in the afternoon, I was in my room and I was not able to lock the room and he laid down beside me while I fell asleep, he used his left finger and inserted into my vagina.

Q: After that what next did he do after inserting his left finger into your vagina?

A: And then he threatened me by telling me not to tell anybody because if I will tell anyone, he would kill me, including my parents and my siblings.

Q: Can you tell us how old were you when the accused inserted his fingers into your vagina?

A: Fourteen years old.

Q: After he threatened you, what did he do next?

A: He went out of the room and I did not tell anyone because I was afraid.

xxx xxx xxx

Clarificatory questions from the Court:

Q: You said a while ago that while you were lying on the bed or you were asleep, that was the time when he inserted his finger into your vagina, right?

A: Yes, Your Honor.

Q: What were you wearing at that time?

A: Skirt, Your Honor.

Q: He just inserted his hand to your skirt and inserted his finger to your vagina?

A: Yes, Your Honor.

Q: At that time he inserted his finger into your vagina that was the time you were awakened?

A: Yes, Your Honor.

Q: What did you do when you saw [his finger being] inserted into your vagina?

A: I cried.

Q: And you said he was bringing with him a knife?

A: Yes, Your Honor.

Q: W[h]ere were your younger siblings at that time?

A: They strolled, Your Honor, and I was the only one left in our house. 23

The spontaneity and consistency by which AAA had detailed out the incident dispel any insinuation of a rehearsed testimony. Her eloquent testimony should be enough to confirm the veracity of the charge of rape against appellant. 24 After all, the nature of the crime of rape entails reliance on the lone, yet clear, convincing and consistent testimony 25 of the victim herself.

Further, the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, the probative weight of their testimonies and the conclusions drawn from these factual findings are accorded the highest respect by the appellate court, whose review power is limited to the records of the case. This explains why this Court, which is not a trial court, is loathe to re-examine and re-evaluate the evidence that had been analyzed and dissected by the trial court, and sustained and affirmed by the appellate court. 26

We affirm the trial court's finding that AAA's testimony is credible and straightforward and, as such, is sufficient to convict appellant of rape by sexual assault, the elements of which are: (1) that the offender commits an act of sexual assault; (2) that the act of sexual assault is committed by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice or by inserting any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person; and that the act of sexual assault is accomplished by using force or intimidation, among others. 27

First. The credible testimony of the victim in a prosecution for rape is sufficient to sustain a verdict of conviction. The rationale is that, owing to the nature of the offense, the only evidence that can be adduced to establish the guilt of the accused is usually only the offended party's testimony. 28 Here, AAA's testimony contains sufficient details pertaining to the incident. She was roused from sleep when she felt there was something inside her vagina. She saw it was appellant who had inserted his finger into her vagina and continued doing so even when she was already awake. He threatened to kill her and her family if she told anyone about the incident. While threatening her, appellant did not stop with what he was doing to her. She was so scared because appellant had a knife with him.

Second. The absence of a medico-legal report or testimony of a medical doctor on the hymenal lacerations sustained by AAA will not diminish her credibility. For the presence or absence of lacerations is a trivial matter that does not alter the essential fact that rape was committed. In other words, the presence of lacerations is not necessary to sustain a conviction for rape. 29

Third. Appellant has alluded ill motive on the XYZs allegedly because he did not hold up his promise to work on their farm even after receiving from them P300.00. The Court finds this aspersion of ill-motive flimsy. It is highly implausible that the XYZs would go through the harrowing experience of filing rape charges against appellant for such relatively trivial reason. 30 More important, motive is irrelevant where the victims themselves had positively identified appellant as the person who raped them.

The fact that AAA did not testify on how the knife was used does not negate the fact that appellant inserted his finger into her vagina against her will. While doing the bestial act, he threatened to kill her and her family. That he had a knife with him at that time was enough to make his threat all the more tangible.

AAA sufficiently explained how appellant got access to the room where she was sleeping in. Her mother had asked appellant to watch over them for the duration of her mother's confinement in the hospital. He was, thus, free to get in and out of the XYZ home as he pleased. He never disputed this.

Lastly, AAA cannot be faulted for not shouting for help at the time she was being sexually assaulted. Not all victims react the same way. Some people may cry out, some may faint, some may be shocked into insensibility, others may appear to yield to the intrusion. Some may offer strong resistance, while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all. 31

Article 266-A of the 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:

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 of 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. (Emphasis supplied)

On the other hand, Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 provides;

Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. — Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.

The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:

xxx xxx xxx

(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse of lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the victims is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period; (Emphasis supplied)

The prosecution here, as discussed, was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of rape by sexual assault under Article 266A (2) of the RPC, viz.: (1) the offender commits an act of sexual assault; (2) the act of sexual assault is committed by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice or by inserting any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person; and the act of sexual assault is accomplished by using force or intimidation, among others. 32

The prosecution, too, was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt the elements of Section 5 (b) of RA 7610, viz.: 1) the accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; 2) the act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and 3) the child, whether male or female, is below eighteen (18) years of age. 33

Applying People v. Tulagan, 34 appellant should be convicted of lascivious conduct under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 in Criminal Case No. 10-187, thus:

Third, if the charge against the accused where the victim is 12 years old or below 18 is sexual assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC, then it may happen that the elements thereof are the same as that of lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610, because the term "lascivious conduct" includes introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth of any person. In this regard, We held in Dimakuta that in instances where a "lascivious conduct" committed against a child is covered by R.A. No. 7610 and the act is likewise covered by sexual assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC [punishable by prision mayor], the offender should be held liable for violation of Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 [punishable by reclusion temporal medium], consistent with the declared policy of the State to provide special protection to children from all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation and discrimination, and other conditions prejudicial to their development. x x x

xxx xxx xxx

So must it be.

Appellant is guilty of

BBB testified on the incident that happened on September 7, 2009, thus:

Q: You said you are now 13 years old, will you kindly recall how old were you on September 7, 2009?

A: I was nine (9) years old at that time.

Q: You were born on?

A: October 18, 1999.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: Kindly recall where were you on that day, September 7, 2009?

xxx xxx xxx

A: I was in our house.

Q: Will you kindly tell us and recall what unusual incident transpired that day?

xxx xxx xxx

A: I could only remember the latest incident that happened; during that time my uncle (referring to accused Dorado) went inside our room while I and my brother were sleeping. He held my hands and instructed me to keep silent and at that time he was holding with him a knife.

Q: And then what next happened?

A: He undressed me by pulling down my short pants and immediately placed himself on top of me and inserted his penis into my vagina.

Q: After that what happened next?

A: After that he threatened me not to tell to anybody what happened, otherwise he will kill me and my family.

Q: During the time that he inserted his penis into your vagina, did he do push and pull movements?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: After he told you not to tell your father and mother otherwise he will kill you and your family, what happened next, what did you do?

A: Because I was afraid of him, at that time I did not tell anybody what had happened. 35

xxx xxx xxx

Like her older sister AAA, nine-year-old BBB gave a detailed, spontaneous, and consistent narration of her ordeal in appellant's hands. The nature of the crime of rape often entails reliance on the lone, nay, uncorroborated testimony of the victim, which is sufficient for a conviction, provided that such testimony is clear, convincing, and otherwise consistent with human nature, 36 as in this case.

The trial court and the Court of Appeals assessed BBB's testimony and both concluded that she was a credible witness. This Court has, as a rule, deferred to the trial court's factual findings and evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The same rule applies here in the absence of any clear showing that the trial court overlooked or misconstrued cogent facts and circumstances that would justify altering or revising such findings and evaluation. 37

Hence, we affirm the trial court's finding that BBB's testimony was credible and straightforward and, as such, is sufficient to convict appellant of rape.

In any event, the testimony of a child-victim is given full weight and credence since youth and immaturity are badges of truth and sincerity. 38 Here, BBB testified that on the night in question, she woke up and saw appellant inside the room where she and her brother were sleeping. He held both her hands, ordered her to keep quiet while pointing a knife on her. He threatened to kill her and her family if she told anyone about the incident. He then took off her shorts and inserted his penis into her vagina.

Second. As stated, the absence of a medical report or a medical doctor's testimony on the results of the examination of the victim's genitalia does not absolve appellant of the crime of rape. Also, the alleged ill-motive that the XYZ family had against him is too trivial to be taken seriously.

Appellant, nonetheless, casts doubt on BBB's ability to positively identify the man who raped her on the night in question. On this score, we keenly note BBB's testimony that appellant had sexually molested her since she was six (6) years old. She had gotten familiar with the sound of appellant's voice and the feel of his body. The absence of illumination in the room where appellant raped her does not detract from the victim's positive identification of him. 39

Since BBB's testimony credibly established the fact that appellant raped her, another question comes to fore: should appellant be convicted of statutory rape under Article 266-A 1 (d) or simple rape under Article 266-A 1 (a)?

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. 40 Thus, to sustain a conviction therefor, the prosecution must prove: (a) the age of the complainant; (b) the identity of the accused; and (c) the sexual intercourse between the accused and the complainant. 41

In People v. Tulagan, 42 the Court decreed that "sexual intercourse with a victim who is under 12 years of age or is demented is always statutory rape," viz.:

It bears emphasis that violation of the first clause of Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610 on sexual intercourse with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse, is separate and distinct from statutory rape under paragraph 1 (d), Article 266-A of the RPC. Aside from being dissimilar in the sense that the former is an offense under special law, while the latter is a felony under the RPC, they also have different elements. Nevertheless sexual intercourse with a victim who is under 12 years of age or is demented is always statutory rape, as Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610 expressly states that the perpetrator will be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3 of the RPC [now paragraph 1 (d), Article 266-A of the RPC] as amended by R.A. No. 83531.

Even if the girl who is below twelve (12) years old or is demented consents to the sexual intercourse, it is always a crime of statutory rape under the RPC and the offender should no longer be held liable under R.A. No. 7610. x x x

xxx xxx xxx

With this decision, We now clarify the principles laid down in Abay, Pangilinan and Tubillo to the effect that there is a need to examine the evidence of the prosecution to determine whether the person accused of rape should be prosecuted under the RPC or R.A. No. 7610 when the offended party is 12 years old or below 18.

First, if sexual intercourse is committed with an offended party who is a child less than 12 years old or is demented, whether or not exploited in prostitution, it is always a crime of statutory rape: more so when the child is below 7 years old, in which case the crime is always qualified rape. (citations omitted)

Here, it was sufficiently alleged and undisputed in the proceedings below that BBB was only nine (9) years old at the time that appellant had carnal knowledge of her. Hence, the proper basis for appellant's conviction is paragraph 1 (d) of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), viz.:

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.

So must it be.

Defenses of denial and alibi

Against both victims' positive identification of appellant as the one who sexually ravished them on separate occasions, appellant merely interposed alibi and denial. Denial and alibi are the weakest of all defenses. They easily crumble in the face of positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime. 43 Also, for alibi to prosper, it is not enough for the accused to prove that he was in another place when the crime was committed as he must likewise prove that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission. 44 As it was, appellant failed to convincingly substantiate his alibi. The trial court aptly ruled:

Besides, the circumstances of the herein cases will show that it is not impossible that rape may have been committed considering that, for one, the accused lived just five (5) houses away from the house of the complainants, second, the accused was entrusted with the custody of the minor complainants while their father was in jail and their mother was hospitalized and third, the fact that the elder sibling of the private complainants was working in Manila, hence the accused committed the bestial acts against the person of the private complainants with facility. His denial could not prevail over the positive identification of the private complainants that he indeed sexually molested them. 45

Imposable Penalties and

In Criminal Case No. 10-187, we modify the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals to ten (10) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. This is in accord with People v. Tulagan46 that for violations of Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 "the minimum term in the case of the older victims (between 12 years old and 18 years old) shall be taken from prision mayor medium to reclusion temporal minimum" and the maximum, from reclusion temporal medium, in the absence of aggravating circumstances.

Consistent further with Tulagan, we reduce the monetary awards to P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages due to AAA. We also delete the fine of P15,000.00. 47

These monetary awards shall earn six percent (6%) interest per annum from finality of this resolution until fully paid.

As for Criminal Case No. 10-188, the crime of statutory rape is penalized under Article 266-B of the RPC, viz.:

Article 266-B. Penalty. — Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.

xxx xxx xxx

The Court, nonetheless, takes cognizance of the qualifying circumstance of the use of deadly weapon. For in this case, it was alleged in the information and proven during trial that appellant threatened BBB with a knife so that she would have sexual intercourse with him.

In this regard, Article 266-B of the RPC 48 further provides that when rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. 49 Since the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death includes two (2) indivisible penalties, Article 63 of the RPC finds application such that when there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, the lesser penalty, which is reclusion perpetua, shall be applied. 50 Further, the aggravating circumstances that warrant the imposition of the death penalty should be those under Article 14 of the RPC. 51

Thus, even though appellant is guilty of statutory rape qualified by use of a deadly weapon, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly sentenced appellant to reclusion perpetua in the absence of any aggravating circumstance here. Too, pursuant to A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC, 52 the phrase "without eligibility for parole" need not be borne in the decision to qualify the penalty imposed.

On the awards of civil indemnity and damages, prevailing jurisprudence 53 ordains the grant of the following: (a) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) P75,000.00 as moral damages; and (c) P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. These amounts shall also earn six percent (6%) interest per annum from finality of this resolution until fully paid.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision dated May 27, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01876-MIN is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.

In Criminal Case No. 10-187, appellant ERNESTO DORADO is found GUILTY of LASCIVIOUS CONDUCT and sentenced to ten (10) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. He is directed TO PAY AAA P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages.

In Criminal Case No. 10-188, appellant ERNESTO DORADO is found GUILTY of STATUTORY RAPE QUALIFIED BY USE OF DEADLY WEAPON under Article 266-A (1) (d) and penalized in Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code and, he is sentenced to reclusion perpetua. He is further required TO PAY BBB P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages.

All monetary awards are subject to six percent (6%) interest per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid.

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. 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 initial shall, instead, be used, in accordance with People v. Cabalquinto [533 Phil. 703 (2006)] and Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017.

2. CA rollo, pp. 58-59.

3.Id. at 59-60.

4.Id. at 60.

5.Id. at 102.

6.Id. at 103.

7.Id.

8.Id. at 111.

9.Id. at 103.

10.Id. at 103-104.

11.Id. at 104.

12.Id.

13.Id. at 105.

14.Id. at 62.

15.Id. at 58-70.

16.Id. at 69.

17.Id. at 52-54.

18.Id. at 13-14.

19.Id. at 83-91.

20.Id. at 100-118.

21.Rollo, pp. 42-43.

22.Id. at 35-37.

23. CA rollo, pp. 109-110.

24.People v. Padilla, 666 Phil. 565, 588 (2011).

25. See People v. Ronquillo, 818 Phil. 641, 650 (2017).

26.People v. Soriano, 810 Phil. 239, 251 (2017).

27. See People v. Caoili, 815 Phil. 839, 883 (2017).

28.People v. Umanito, 784 Phil. 581, 586 (2016).

29.People v. Quintas, 746 Phil. 809, 825 (2014).

30. See People v. Medina, 788 Phil. 115 (2016).

31.People v. Alberca, 810 Phil. 896, 909 (2017).

32.People v. Caoili, 815 Phil. 839 (2017).

33.Roallos v. People, 723 Phil. 655 (2013).

34. G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019.

35. CA rollo, p. 111.

36.People v. Ronquillo, 818 Phil. 641, 650 (2017).

37.Medina, Jr. v. People, 724 Phil. 226, 234 (2014).

38.People v. Dimanawa, 628 Phil. 678, 689 (2010).

39.People v. Cambi, 388 Phil. 978, 987 (2000).

40.People v. XXX, G.R. No. 226467, October 17, 2018; citing People v. Manaligod, G.R. No. 218584, April 25, 2018, 862 SCRA 751, 756.

41. See People v. Manaligod, supra.

42. G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019.

43.People v. Glino, 564 Phil. 396, 420 (2007).

44.People v. Apattad, 671 Phil. 95, 111 (2011).

45. CA rollo, p. 68.

46. G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019.

47. x x x

 

Crime	Civil Indemnity	Moral Damages	Exemplary Damages
x x x	x x x	x x x	x x x
Sexual Abuse or Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610 [Victim is a child 12 years old and below 18, or above 18 under special circumstances]	P75,000.00 (If penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua)	P75,000.00 (If penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua)	P75,000.00 (If penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua)
P50,000.00 (If penalty imposed is within the range of reclusion temporal medium)	P50,000.00 (If penalty imposed is within the range of reclusion temporal medium)	P50,000.00 (If penalty imposed is within the range of reclusion temporal medium)
x x x	x x x	x x x	x x x

 

48. The enactment of RA 8353, has resulted in the new rape provisions of the RPC under Article 266-A in relation to 266-B; See People v. Ejercito, G.R. No. 229861, July 2, 2018.

49. See People v. Mandagdag, G.R. No. 228783, October 9, 2019.

50.People v. Condes, 659 Phil. 375, 398 (2011).

51. See People v. Lamberte, 226 Phil. 581 (1986); citing People v. Garcia, 192 Phil. 311 (1981).

52. A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC — Guidelines for the Proper Use of the Phrase "Without Eligibility for Parole" in Indivisible Penalties:

xxx xxx xxx

The following guidelines shall be observed in the imposition of penalties and in the use of the phrase "without eligibility for parole:"

(1) In cases where the death penalty is not warranted, there is no need to use the phrase "without eligibility for parole" to qualify the penalty of reclusion perpetua; it is understood that convicted persons penalized with an indivisible penalty are not eligible for parole; and (2) When circumstances are present warranting the imposition of the death penalty, but this penalty is not imposed because of R.A. No. 9346, the qualification of "without eligibility for parole" shall be used in order to emphasize that the accused should have been sentenced to suffer the death penalty had it not been for R.A. No. 9364.

xxx xxx xxx

53.People v. Tulagan, G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019; citing People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 849 (2016).