FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 246322. September 14, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.CHRISTOPHER NUQUI JOSE @ "TOPE", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated September 14, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 246322 (People of the Philippines v. Christopher Nuqui Jose @ "Tope"). — This is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated October 15, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09739, affirming the conviction of accused-appellant Christopher Nuqui Jose @ "Tope" (Christopher) for Statutory Rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code.
On March 29, 2019, the CA elevated to this Court the records of this case, pursuant to its Resolution 2 dated November 29, 2018. The Resolution gave due course to the Notice of Appeal 3 timely filed by accused-appellant.
In a Resolution 4 dated June 3, 2019, this Court noted the records of the case forwarded by the CA and ordered the parties to file their respective Supplemental Briefs, if they so desire, within 30 days from notice.
On August 14, 2019, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation 5 on behalf of the People of the Philippines stating that it will no longer file a Supplemental Brief. 6 A similar Manifestation 7 was filed by the Public Attorney's Office on behalf of Christopher.
After evaluating the records of this case, this Court resolves to affirm the conviction of Christopher and dismiss the appeal, for failure to sufficiently prove that the CA committed any reversible error in its assailed Decision as to warrant the exercise of the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
Statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below 12 years of age regardless of her consent, or the lack of it, to the sexual act. 8 To convict an accused of the crime of statutory rape, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the age of complainant; (2) the identity of the accused; and (3) the sexual intercourse between accused and complainant. 9 As the law presumes absence of free consent when the victim is below the age of 12, it is not necessary to prove force, intimidation, or consent as they are not elements of statutory rape. 10
In the present case, the prosecution successfully established all the elements of statutory rape. The Certificate of Live Birth 11 of AAA, 12 duly presented and admitted during trial, shows that she was born on March 29, 2000, making her only nine (9) years old at the time the crime was committed against her.
During her testimony, AAA positively identified Christopher as her aggressor. She also recounted in detail the horrendous deed perpetrated against her by Christopher on May 22, 2009. AAA testified:
PROS. RAMOS:
Q Madam Witness were you resisting during that time that the accused were (sic) dragging you in that place?
A [Y]es, sir.
Q And how were you doing that?
A I was pulling myself away from him during that time, sir.
Q And after you were brought in that grassy area[,] what did he do to your garments, to your shorts and panty in particular?
A He removed it, sir.
Q And during that time that he was removing your shorts were you standing or lying down?
A I was lying down, sir.
COURT:
Q Why were you already lying down?
A He forced me to lie down, Your Honor.
PROS. RAMOS:
Q And after forcing you from (sic) removing your shorts and panty[,] what did he do to you, if any?
A He placed his fingers inside my mouth, sir.
Q And how did you feel when he did that to you, were you hurt Madam Witness?
A [Y]es, I was hurt, sir.
Q After doing that to you[,] what did Christopher do next to your head?
A He pressed my face down on the mud, sir.
Q And after doing that[,] what happened next?
A He forced me to face him, sir.
Q And so you happened to see him face by (sic) face at that time?
A [Y]es, sir.
Q And what happened next after that?
A (no answer)
COURT:
Q Was there anything that happened like that?
A There is, Your Honor.
Q What happened[?] [W]hat did he do to you?
A He scratched my face, Your Honor.
PROS. RAMOS:
Q And after doing that to you[,] what did Christopher to (sic) his own garments, did he put off his clothes?
A No, sir.
Q How about his lower garments?
A [Y]es, he took off his lower garments, sir.
Q And what did he do next after doing that?
A He spread my legs, sir.
Q And after spreading your legs, what happened next, did he insert his penis into your vagina?
A Yes, he placed his penis into my vagina, sir.
Q What did you feel when he inserted his penis into your vagina?
A I got hurt, sir.
Q So you were hurt at the time, what were you doing while he was inserting his penis into your vagina?
A I was struggling, sir.
Q And after he was true (sic) doing this to you[,] what did he tell you[,] if any?
A Not to tell that incident to anyone, sir.
Q What else[?] [W]hat other words were uttered to you?
A Don't make any noise, sir.
Q And after he uttered these words[,] what happened next Madam Witness?
A He fled, sir. 13
This Court finds AAA's testimony as credible, straightforward, and convincing. Testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit, for when a woman or a girl-child says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. 14 A young girl's revelation that she had been raped, coupled with her voluntary submission to medical examination and willingness to undergo public trial where she could be compelled to give out the details of an assault on her dignity, cannot be so easily dismissed as mere concoction. 15
This Court also notes that during various parts of her testimony, 16 AAA was crying and could not answer some of the questions being propounded to her. This fact strengthens AAA's credibility for it shows vulnerability which could only be exhibited by someone who actually experienced a traumatic event. In People v. Ortiz, 17 the Court said that the crying of the victim during her testimony is evidence of the credibility of the rape charge with the verity born out of human nature and experience.
In an attempt to discredit AAA's testimony, Christopher asserts that AAA admitted that she did not try to ask for help during the alleged rape incident when she could have shouted when Christopher pulled his fingers from her mouth. 18 It has been held, however, that just because a rape victim failed to shout for help or struggle against the attacker does not mean that she could not have been raped. 19 Here, AAA testified that she did not shout for help because there were no houses near the grassy area where she was brought to by Christopher. 20 In any case, it would be unreasonable to require any standard form of reaction from AAA who was under a horrifying ordeal at the time. Indeed, the workings of the human mind placed under emotional stress are unpredictable, and people react differently — some may shout, others may faint, and still others may be shocked into insensibility even if there may be a few who may openly welcome the intrusion. 21
It is also necessary to point out that the Initial Medico-Legal Report, 22 which found that AAA suffered injuries consistent with vaginal penetration, was not necessary to convict Christopher, but it strengthened AAA's testimony and the moral certainty that Christopher was guilty of the crime charged. 23
On the other hand, Christopher failed to present evidence of his claimed innocence. He merely denied the accusation against him and said that he was surprised when the residents started mauling and apprehending him for an alleged rape he committed. 24 Denial, however, is "an intrinsically weak defense which must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility." 25 Christopher did not even have an alibi or other meritorious defense. In contrast, therefore, with AAA's direct, positive, and categorical testimony, Christopher's denial will not prevail.
The trial court and the CA correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua in accordance with Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. In line with People v. Jugueta, 26 moreover, the CA correctly awarded 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.
The monetary awards for damages shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum to be reckoned from the date of finality of this Resolution until their full satisfaction.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated October 15, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09739, finding accused-appellant Christopher Nuqui Jose @ "Tope" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Statutory Rape is AFFIRMED. Accordingly, accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ORDERED to PAY the victim AAA the following: (a) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) P75,000.00 as moral damages; and (c) P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. Legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum is imposed on all damages awarded from the date of finality of this 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. Penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios, with Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now both members of this Court) concurring; rollo, pp. 3-11.
2.Rollo, p. 15.
3.Id. at 12.
4.Id. at 17.
5.Id. at 21-22.
6.Id. at 22.
7.Id. at 28-30.
8.People v. Udtohan, 815 Phil. 449, 459 (2017).
9.People v. Ramirez, 827 Phil. 203, 211 (2018).
10.People v. Bernabe, G.R. No. 214882, October 16, 2019, citing People v. Roy, 836 Phil. 920, 928 (2018).
11. Records, Vol. I, p. 17.
12. The identity of the victim or any information to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. 7610, "An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, and for Other Purposes"; Republic Act No. 9262, "An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, and for Other Purposes"; Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the "Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children," effective November 15, 2004; People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 (2006); and Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017, Subject: Protocols and Procedures in the promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders Using Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances.
13. TSN, February 8, 2012, pp. 3-5.
14.People v. Deliola, 794 Phil. 194, 208 (2016), citing People v. Suarez, 750 Phil. 858, 869 (2015).
15.People v. Tuballas, 811 Phil. 201, 217 (2017), citing People v. Cadano, Jr., 729 Phil. 576, 585 (2014).
16. TSN, February 8, 2012, p. 3; TSN, March 4, 2013, p. 6.
17. 614 Phil. 625, 635 (2009).
18. CA rollo, p. 47.
19.People v. Jastiva, 726 Phil. 607, 626 (2014).
20. TSN, August 28, 2013, p. 5.
21.People v. Taguilid, 685 Phil. 571, 581 (2012), citing People v. San Antonio, Jr., 559 Phil. 188, 205 (2007).
22. Records, Vol. I, p. 39.
23. See People v. Quintos, 746 Phil. 809, 826 (2014).
24. TSN, August 8, 2016, p. 4.
25.People v. Deliola, 794 Phil. 194, 209 (2016). See also People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 242276, February 18, 2020; People v. Baguion, 835 Phil. 704, 717 (2018); People v. Ganaba, 829 Phil. 306, 321 (2018); People v. Ronquillo, 818 Phil. 641, 652 (2017); People v. Ronquillo, 818 Phil. 641, 652 (2017); People v. Regaspi, 768 Phil. 593, 598 (2015).
26. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).