SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 247602. September 15, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.MICHAEL HITAPE y LAROSA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated15 September 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 247602 (People of the Philippines v. Michael Hitape y Larosa). — This treats of the Notice of Appeal 1 filed by accused-appellant Michael Hitape y Larosa (Michael), seeking the reversal of the December 20, 2018 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09924, finding Michael guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Statutory Rape.
The Case
Michael stands charged for the crime of Rape as defined under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in an Information, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about 12:30 a.m. of 9 July 2016 at x x x, Calamba City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named, with lewd design and with intent to satisfy his lust did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge, with eleven (11)-year old minor, AAA, 3 against her will and consent, to the damage and prejudice of the victim.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
Michael, through his private counsel, Atty. Dodie Turla, moved for the quashal of the information and suppression of evidence on the ground of the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) lack of jurisdiction over the case. 5 The RTC, after scrutiny of the facts of the case, denied the motion. Upon motion for reconsideration, the RTC affirmed the denial of the Motion to Quash Information and Suppress Evidence. 6 SICDAa
Upon arraignment on February 13, 2017, Michael entered the plea of "not guilty." 7 During pre-trial, the prosecution and the defense stipulated on the jurisdiction of the court and the identity of Michael as the person charged in the Information. 8 Thereupon, trial on the merits ensued.
The prosecution presented three (3) witnesses: AAA; BBB (AAA's nephew); and CCC (AAA's cousin). 9 Meanwhile, the defense presented Michael, Maricel dela Cruz (Michael's wife), and Francis Hitape (Michael's son). 10
The Antecedents
Prosecution's version of facts
At around 12:30 a.m. on July 9, 2016, AAA, who at the time was eleven (11) years old, was suddenly awakened when her panty and short pants were removed. She saw Michael removed her blanket, poked a knife at her stomach, and instructed her to raise both her hands. It is at this point when Michael threatened her, saying, "huwag kang maingay papatayin ko kayong lahat pati ang mga kapatid mo, pati ang mama at papa mo." Michael then removed his pants, touched her vagina, and inserted his penis in her vagina. Due to the intense pain she felt, AAA struggled and scratched Michael and pushed him back prompting the latter to punch her twice in the stomach causing AAA to lose consciousness. Afterwards, Michael woke her up and gave back her short pants. AAA then fell back to sleep. 11
After the incident, AAA's cousin, CCC, woke her up and asked why was she crying even when she was asleep. CCC likewise woke AAA's sister and told the latter that AAA was raped. Meanwhile, BBB, armed himself with a club to hit Michael but it was too late. 12
BBB and CCC, saw what had happened on that fateful night. They saw Michael enter the house through the back door by using a knife to cut the rope that serve as a lock on the door. They witnessed Michael instructing AAA to raise her hands, poking a knife at her and raping her. 13 CCC even heard AAA, while being raped, saying, "Tama na kuya, ayoko na po, masakit na po and pantog ko," pleading Michael to stop. 14
In the morning, AAA, BBB, and CCC reported the incident to AAA's parents for fear that their lives might be in danger if they went outside during the early hours of the morning. 15
Defense's version of facts
On the evening of July 9, 2016, Michael was at home with his family watching television. After watching TV, he and his family slept with his eldest and youngest children beside him. Meanwhile, his wife was attending to their daughter, Princess, who was sick with fever at that time. On the morning of July 9, 2016, at around 8:15, AAA and her parents passed by their house and singled him out. Thereafter, they waited for the arrival of the barangay officials and he then voluntarily surrendered to the police. 16 This notwithstanding, Michael denied the accusation against him and insisted that he did not commit any crime against AAA.
The RTC Ruling
The RTC rendered a Decision 17 finding Michael guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Statutory Rape. The RTC gave credence to AAA's testimony who narrated what occurred during that fateful night when she was abused and raped. The RTC also concluded that all the elements of the crime of Rape were established by the prosecution. 18 Finally, the RTC looked with disfavor on Michael's defense of denial and alibi. 19 Accordingly, the RTC disposed of the case in this wise: DHIcET
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered finding accused MICHAEL HITAPE y LAROSA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of STATUTORY RAPE falling under paragraph 1, subparagraph d, Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, and hereby imposes upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED. 20
Aggrieved, Michael appealed to the CA.
The CA Ruling
In a Decision 21 promulgated on December 20, 2018, the CA affirmed with modification the Decision of the RTC as to the award of damages granted to AAA. The CA ratiocinated that all the elements of Rape were established by the prosecution. The prosecution likewise proved that at the time of the incident, AAA was only eleven (11) years old. 22 The CA likewise found that testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses credible despite the inconsistencies which were minor and trivial. 23 The fallo of the assailed Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the Appeal is DENIED. The 27 September 2017 Decision of the Regional Trial Court in Criminal Case No. 27014-2016-C(C) is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION as to the amount of damages.
Accused-appellant Michael Hitape y Larosa is GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of STATUTORY RAPE as defined in Article 266-A and penalized in Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. He is ordered to pay private complainant the following amounts: civil indemnity of P75,000.00, moral damages of P75,000.00, and exemplary damages of P75,000.00. All monetary awards for damages shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 24
Undaunted, Michael filed a Notice of Appeal 25 to this Court.
Issue
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming with modification the trial court's decision and convicting Michael of the crime of Statutory Rape.
The Court's Ruling
The instant appeal is bereft of merit.
The statutory provisions relevant to the present review is Article 266-A (1) (d) of the RPC, which 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;
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. (Emphasis supplied.)
Thus, to sustain a conviction for Statutory Rape under paragraph 1 (d) of Art. 266-A of the RPC, the following elements must concur: a) the victim is a female below twelve (12) years of age; and b) the offender has carnal knowledge of the victim, regardless of whether there was force, threat, or intimidation; whether the victim was deprived of reason or consciousness; or whether it was done through fraud or grave abuse of authority. It is enough that the age of the victim is proven and that there was sexual intercourse. 26
In People v. Gutierrez, 27 the Court explained that it is termed Statutory Rape as it departs from the usual modes of committing rape, and what the law punishes in Statutory Rape is carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve (12) years old. The Court explained further that the law presumes that the victim does not and cannot have a will of her own on account of her tender years; the child's consent is immaterial because of her presumed incapacity to discern good from evil. 28
In this case, the prosecution had established that AAA, at the time of the incident, was only eleven (11) years of age. As proof thereof, the prosecution presented a photocopy of AAA's birth certificate, which she duly identified, and which the defense admitted to be a faithful reproduction of the original. 29 What is critical in this case, therefore, is whether there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that Michael had carnal knowledge of the minor victim, AAA.
AAA, in her Salaysay, narrated in detail how Michael raped her, thus:
xxx xxx xxx
16. T — Maaari mo bang ikwento ang n tunay at buong pangyayari?
S — Na noong 12:30 ng hating gabi, Hulyo 9, 2016 sa XXX Calamba City, Laguna. Habang kami ay natutulog ng mga pinsan ko po ay nagising na lang po ako na hubad na ang short at panty ko po. Pagkatapos ay tinanggal niya ang kumot ko po. Tinutukan niya ako ng kutsilyo sa may tiyan at pinataas niya ang dalawang kamay ko po. Tapos sinabi niya sa akin na "huwag kang maingay papatayin ko kayong lahat pati ang mga kapatid mo, pati ang mama at papa mo[.]"
Sinabi niya rin na "huwag ka ng pumalag dahil inutos naman ito ng mama mo" tinuloy niya po and pangre rape niya sa akin. IDaEHC
17. T — Paano niya isinagawa ang pang rerape so iyo?
S — Hinubad niya po ang short niya, hinahawakan niya po ang pepe ko, ipinasok niya na po and titi niya sa pepe ko. Lumaban po ako kasi po masakit. Iyak po ako ng iyak. Kinalmot ko po siya ng mahina, tapos tinulak ko po siya, tapos sinuntok niya po ako sa sikmura, dalawang (2) beses. Nawalan na po ako ng malay. Ginising po ako nun lalaking nang rape sa akin. Sabi niya "Ne, ne yung short mo." Ibinagay niya po sa akin ang short ko. Nakatulog po ako ulit. Tapos ginising na po ako ng pinsan ko na si CCC. Kasi po tinanong niya sa akin kung bakit ako umiiyak. Kahit tulog po ako ay umiiyak ako. Ginising rin po ni CCC yung ate ko, sabi niya po gising may pumasok ni rape si Indang.30
Clearly, AAA rendered a detailed narration of her ordeal. As quoted above, she recounted, in a steadfast and unequivocal manner, the circumstances clearly showing that Michael had carnal knowledge of her: (1) while she was sleeping, she woke up with her shorts and panty, undressed; (2) she then saw Michael who pointed a knife at her and ordered her to raise her hands; (3) Michael then threatened her that if she makes any noise, he would kill her and everyone, including her siblings; (4) Michael then inserted his penis in her vagina; and (5) when she resisted, Michael punched her twice in the abdomen causing her to lose consciousness.
The incident was likewise witnessed by BBB and CCC. CCC, during trial, corroborated AAA's narration of facts and testified that she actually saw the penis of Michael get inside the AAA's vagina, thus:
THE COURT:
Q: Nasaan na si Hitape?
THE WITNESS:
A: Nakapatong na po siya.
THE COURT:
Q: So nasa tabi mo na si Hitape?
THE WITNESS:
A: Yes, your Honor
THE COURT:
Proceed Atty. Cruz.
ATTY. CRUZ, JR.:
Did you see the organ of Michael Hitape get inside the female organ of AAA?
THE COURT:
Q: Did you see the penis of the accused?
THE WITNESS:
A: Yes, your Honor.31
It bears stressing at this point that due to its intimate nature, rape is usually a crime bereft of witnesses, and, more often than not, the victim is left to testify for herself. Thus, in the resolution of rape cases, the victim's credibility becomes of primordial consideration. 32 Further, in the case of People v. Veloso, 33 the Court gave full weight and credence to the testimony of a child rape victim and explained:
In a litany of cases, this Court has ruled that the testimonies of child-victims of rape are to be given full weight and credence. Reason and experience dictate that a girl of tender years, who barely understands sex and sexuality, is unlikely to impute to any man a crime so serious as rape, if what she claims is not true. Her candid narration of how she was raped bears the earmarks of credibility, especially if no ill will — as in this case — motivates her to testify falsely against the accused. It is well-settled that when a woman, more so when she is a minor, says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is required to prove the ravishment. The accused may thus be convicted solely on her testimony — provided it is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. 34
Accordingly, this Court finds no reason not to give full weight and credit to the testimony of AAA, especially given the corroborative testimony of the witnesses. As case law puts it, youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. 35 AAA, an 11-year-old lass had no reason to concoct lies against Michael.
It is, therefore, beyond cavil that the elements of Statutory Rape are all present in the instant case. To reiterate, AAA was only eleven (11) years old, when Michael had carnal knowledge of her. DTCSHA
Nevertheless, Michael insists: that the manner through which the alleged rape was committed was highly improbable; 36 the prosecution witnesses' testimony is marred with inconsistencies, hence, incredible; 37 and his defense of denial and alibi has factual and legal basis. 38
This Court disagrees.
First, lust, it has been said before, is apparently does not respect time and place. Neither is it necessary for rape to be committed in an isolated place, for rapists bear no respect for locale and time in carrying out their evil deed. 39 Needless to state, the fact that the house was lighted and AAA was in the company of six (6) other people at the time of the incident does not make the commission of the crime highly improbable. Furthermore, the crime was committed at 12:30 a.m. 40 It is highly possible, therefore, that Michael thought that everyone was already fast asleep and that no one would notice the commission of the crime.
Second, Michael claims that there were inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. He avers that in the testimony of AAA, she narrated that Michael continued to satisfy his lust despite her resistance and Michael even punched her rendering her unconscious, while CCC testified that she saw Michael stopped humping AAA when she pleaded Michael to stop because her bladder hurts. 41 This inconsistency is minor and does not affect the presence or absence of any of the elements of the crime charged. Despite such inconsistency, the prosecution was still able to establish that Michael had carnal knowledge of AAA, who at that time was only eleven (11) years old.
Furthermore, it is settled that minor inconsistencies in the testimony of the witness do not reflect on his or her credibility. What is important is that the witness was able to positively identify the accused as the assailant and, specifically in this case, a young witness, such as AAA, is accorded an ample margin of error, who, much more than adults, would be gripped with tension due to the novelty of the experience of testifying before a court. 42 Thus, the trivial inconsistencies in AAA's narration of details, vis-à-vis the testimony of corroborative witnesses are understandable, considering the traumatic effect of the crime on her.
Finally, Michael tries to extricate himself from criminal liability by positing that he was accused of something which he did not do. Simply, he raises the defense of denial and alibi.
It is elementary that denial is an intrinsically a weak defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. 43 Meanwhile, for an alibi to prosper, it is imperative that the accused establish two elements: (1) he was not at the locus delicti at the time the offense was committed; and (2) it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene at the time of its commission. 44
In the case at bench, Michael failed to substantiate his defense of denial. He likewise failed to establish all the elements of an alibi. He merely denied the accusations and claimed that he could not have committed the offense because he was asleep at his house, with his family, at the time of the commission. While two other witnesses testified to corroborate his defense, their testimonies are deemed biased, hence, bereft of any probative value.
To recall, the defense presented as corroborative witnesses Michael's wife, (Maricel dela Cruz), and son, (Francis Hitape). Being immediate family members of Michael, it is quite understandable for them to give testimonies supporting the purported alibi, for their sympathy goes invariably with him. As the saying goes, "Blood is thicker than water." Moreover, alibi becomes less plausible as a defense when it is mainly established by the accused himself and his immediate relatives. 45 In this case, Michael's defense of alibi should have been corroborated by a disinterested and credible witness. CScTED
In view of the foregoing, this Court is satisfied with moral certainty that the prosecution has established with moral certainty Michael's guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Statutory Rape.
All told, this Court finds no reason to deviate from the findings of RTC and CA. The CA likewise correctly imposed upon Michael the penalty of reclusion perpetua and awarded the correct amount of damages per this Court's ruling in People v. Jugueta. 46
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09924 is AFFIRMEDin toto.
SO ORDERED." (Rosario, J., designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2835 dated July 15, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 17-18.
2.Id. at 3-16; penned by Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan Manahan and concurred in by Associate Justices Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla (now a retired Member of this Court) and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi.
3. Pursuant to Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004" and its implementing rules, the real name of the victim, together with the real names of her immediate family members, is withheld and fictitious initials instead are used to represent her, both to protect her privacy. (People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419, 421-426).
4.Rollo, p. 4.
5. CA rollo, p. 39.
6.Id. at 39-40.
7.Id. at 40.
8.Id.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 44.
11.Id. at 41.
12.Id.
13.Id. at 42-43.
14.Id. at 43.
15.Id.
16.Id. at 44-45.
17.Id. at 39-50; penned by Presiding Judge Maria Florencia B. Formes-Baculo.
18.Id. at 47.
19.Id. at 48.
20.Id. at 49-50.
21.Rollo, pp. 3-16.
22.Id. at 7-8.
23.Id. at 11.
24.Id. at 15.
25.Id. at 17-18.
26.People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 242276, February 18, 2020 citing People v. Manson, 801 Phil. 130, 137 (2016).
27. 731 Phil. 353 (2014).
28.Id. at 357 citing People v. Teodoro, 622 Phil. 328, 337 (2009). The case originally cited People v. Teodoro, G.R. No. 175876, February 20, 2013, 704 Phil. 355 did not make a pronouncement as to the immateriality of a child's consent in case of statutory rape.
29. CA rollo, p. 40.
30.Rollo, pp. 8-9.
31.Id. at 9.
32.People v. Dion, 668 Phil. 333, 348 (2011).
33. 703 Phil. 541 (2013).
34.Id. at 553 citing People v. Salazar, 648 Phil. 520, 531 (2010) citing People v. Piosang, 710 Phil. 519, 526 (2013).
35.People v. Brioso, 788 Phil. 292, 307 (2016).
36. CA rollo, p. 32.
37.Id.
38.Id. at 35.
39.People v. Elimancil, G.R. No. 234951, January 28, 2019 citing People v. Cañada, 617 Phil. 597, 603 (2009), further citing People v. Watimar, 392 Phil. 711, 724 (2000); and People v. Alkodha, 583 Phil. 692, 704 (2008).
40.Rollo, p. 10.
41.Id. at 10-11.
42.People v. Regalado, 793 Phil. 493, 504 (2016) citing People v. Albaño, 425 Phil. 264, 278 (2002).
43.People v. Tamolon, 599 Phil. 542, 552 (2009).
44.People v. Ronquillo, 818 Phil. 641, 652 (2017).
45.People v. Flora, 389 Phil. 601, 652 (2000).
46. 783 Phil. 806, 612 (2016).
n Note from the Publisher: Written as "and" in the official document.