THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 251012. May 5, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. RICO LABONGRAY, SR. y BUENO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMay 5, 2021,which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 251012 (People of the Philippines v. Rico Labongray, Sr. y Bueno). — Before us is an ordinary Appeal 1 under Rule 122 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision 2 dated April 4, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09811. The said issuance affirmed the Decision 3 dated June 30, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 124, in Criminal Case No. C-93646 which, in turn, found accused-appellant Rico Labongray, Sr. y Bueno (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified Rape and imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.
The Factual Antecedents
Appellant was indicted in an Amended Information for Qualified Rape under Article 266-A (1), in relation to Article 266-B (1) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), which reads:
That on or about the 24th day of September 2013 in ___________, Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design, by means of force and intimidation, and acting with grave abuse of authority and confidence as the accused is biological father of one AAA, 4 17 years (sic) old minor, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, remove the underwear and shorts of the minor, by then and there inserting his private organ on [sic] minor's vagina or by having carnal knowledge on [sic] the minor, without the consent and against the will of the latter.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
Appellant pleaded "Not Guilty" to the Amended Information. 6
Version of the Prosecution
Seventeen-year-old AAA relayed that on September 24, 2013, she was at their residence at Caloocan City. She went towards the rooftop of their four-storey house to get her uniform and was followed by her father. Thereupon, appellant removed her underwear and shorts and pushed her towards a wooden table, where she was made to bend over (". . . pinatuwad nya po ako in a wooden table . . .'') and appellant inserted his penis into her vagina in that position. 7
Subsequently, BBB, grandmother of AAA, who was then ascending from the stairs, allegedly witnessed appellant and AAA with their garments lowered, and asked what they were doing. At that point, appellant removed his penis from AAA's vagina and opened the door for BBB while AAA hid and put on her clothes. BBB allegedly confronted them, shouting "Binababoy nyo yung rooftop! Asawa ng mama mo, asawa mo rin!" 8
When AAA reached the second floor of their house, her aunt, CCC, saw her crying. CCC brought her to a room where AAA revealed her ordeal. Later, they reported the matter to the Women's Desk but she was not able to file the case immediately because her mother pleaded not to file charges against her father. BBB was supposedly told by the mother of AAA: "Kung ipapakulong ko ba yan, mapapakain ba nya yung mga anak nya!" 9
Later, AAA underwent medical examination with the following findings prepared by PSI Gracia Catherine C. Guno, Medico-Legal Officer:
Findings: Hymen: Presence of deep healed laceration at 3 o'clock position and shallow healed laceration at 9 o'clock position.
Anus: No evident injury at the time of examination.
Conclusion: Anogenital findings are indicative of blunt penetrating trauma. 10
BBB and CCC brought the matter before the barangay authorities. Barangay Chair Dante A. Abuda summoned appellant and his wife, and together with BBB and CCC, the parties entered into an agreement where appellant promised not to enter the house of AAA and not go near his seven other children. As recorded in the Barangay Blotter, appellant admitting rapping AAA twice a week since she was 12 years old. 11
Version of the Defense
On the other hand, appellant denied the charge and claimed that AAA was instigated by BBB to file the case because BBB and her husband supposedly had a grudge against appellant. It was averred that BBB and her husband did not want appellant to make any improvement in the house, such as building a roof, since he allegedly did not have any right over the house. 12
Appellant conveyed on the witness stand that on the day of the alleged incident, AAA requested him to bring her food to the rooftop. While thereat, he allegedly looked for his construction tools when BBB knocked on the door. As he was busy, he was not able to answer immediately and when he finally opened the door, BBB asked, "Ano ginagawa n'yo dito?" Appellant answered: "Si AAA po kumakain." When asked where AAA was, he answered, "Nasa gilid po ng tangke umiihi po yata." 13
Appellant also testified that he was barred from entering their house. He further declared that he voluntarily signed the agreement in the barangay although he was allegedly not allowed to read it. 14
RTC Ruling
On June 30, 2017, the RTC issued a Decision, 15 finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape. The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused XXX guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape as defined under Article 266-A, paragraph (1) of the Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without the possibility of parole.
Further, the accused is hereby adjudged civilly liable to AAA. Accordingly, he is hereby ordered to pay said private complainant: a) Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity; b) Php75,000.00 as moral damages; and c) Php75,000.00 as exemplary damages, with interest thereon at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum reckoned from the finality of this Decision until fully paid.
With costs against the accused.
SO ORDERED. 16
Appellant filed an appeal before the CA, imputing error against the court of origin when it declared him guilty beyond reasonable doubt despite the improbable testimony of AAA which was allegedly grossly inconsistent with human knowledge, observation and experience, and when it did not give weight and credence to his defense of denial. 17
CA Ruling
On April 4, 2019, the CA denied in a Decision 18 the appeal for lack of merit and affirmed with modification the RTC Decision as to the award of damages. It declared appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape and imposed upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole. 19
It, however, modified the award of damages to be paid in order to conform to the prevailing rule enunciated in People v. Jugueta, 20 where it was held that in the crime of rape where the penalty imposed is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua because of Republic Act No. (RA) 9346, the proper award for damages should be P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages.
On May 14, 2019, appellant filed a Notice of Appeal. 21
On May 17, 2019, the CA issued a Resolution 22 giving due course to the Notice of Appeal and forwarding the records of the entire case to the Court.
On March 9, 2020, the Court issued a Resolution 23 requiring the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs simultaneously, if they so desire, within 30 days from notice, otherwise, the case shall be considered submitted for deliberation.
On July 28, 2020, appellant manifested 24 that he would no longer file a supplemental brief.
Arguments Raised by Appellant
Appellant argues that the trial court gravely erred in convicting him of rape on the basis of AAA's testimony, which is improbably and grossly inconsistent with human knowledge, observation and experience. Appellant stresses that AAA did not resist or make any noise in order to attract attention and managed to escape from the said fateful day, considering the alleged incident happened at 8:30 in the morning, at the rooftop of the building, where five (5) families, all of whom were her relatives, lived. 25
Moreover, appellant contends that the trial court gravely erred in not giving weight and credence to appellant's defense of denial. He emphasizes that the lacerations found in the hymen of AAA were not proven to have been caused by rape that supposedly happened on the said date. The healed lacerations are undisputed but they can only prove that AAA has had prior sexual experience. Lacking is the specific proof that sexual intercourse occurred on or about the time she was alleged to have been raped by the appellant. 26
The Issue
The issue raised for the Court's resolution is whether the CA erred in sustaining appellant's conviction for Rape under Article 266-A (1) in relation to Article 266-B (1) of the RPC.
The Ruling of the Court
Time and again, the Court has held that when the issues involve matters of credibility of witnesses, the findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies, and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings, are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect. The factual findings of the trial court, more so when affirmed by the appellate court, are entitled to great weight and respect. 27 This is so because the trial court has the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and is in the best position to discern whether they are telling the truth. 28 Without showing that the trial court and the CA have overlooked or misinterpreted AAA's testimony, We find no cogent reason to grant the appeal and deviate from the findings and conclusions reached by the RTC and the CA. Consequently, appellant failed to sufficiently show any reversible error in the challenged Decision.
In reviewing rape convictions, the Court has been guided by three principles, namely: "(a) that an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult for the complainant to prove but more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (b) that in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape as involving only two persons, the rapist and the victim, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c) that 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." 29
Following a thorough and judicious review of the records of this case, We affirm the conviction of appellant.
The elements of qualified rape were
Under Article 266-A of the RPC, rape is committed as follows:
Art. 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 is otherwise unconscious;
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
d. When the offended party is under (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.
Moreover, pursuant to Article 266-B, paragraph 1, rape is qualified when the victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. Thus, the elements of the offense charged are that:
a. the victim is a woman over 12 years but under 18 years of age;
b. the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim; and
c. the offender has carnal knowledge of the victim either through force, threat or intimidation; or when she is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious; or by means of fraudulent machinations or grave abuse of authority. 30
In this case, the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the presence of all the elements of qualified rape under Article 266-A (1), in relation to Article 266-B (1) of the RPC. As duly established by the prosecution, AAA was merely 17 years old when she was raped by her father, appellant, in their very home. Thus, the moral ascendancy appellant has over AAA takes the place of violence and intimidation due to the fact that force, violence, and intimidation in rape are relative terms, depending not only on the age, size, and strength of the parties but also on their relationship with each other. 31
Moreover, AAA testified in open court that appellant had carnal knowledge or sexual intercourse with her on September 24, 2013. 32 In resolving rape cases, the primordial or single most important consideration is almost always given to the credibility of the victim's testimony. When the victim's testimony is credible, it may be the sole basis for the accused person's conviction since, owing to the nature of the offense, in many cases, the only evidence that can be given regarding the matter is the testimony of the offended party. A rape victim's testimony is entitled to greater weight when she accuses a close relative of having raped her. 33 Furthermore, AAA's testimony was corroborated by BBB, AAA's grandmother, who recounted what she had witnessed when she testified during the trial. 34
Lastly, appellant's argument that AAA did not offer any resistance or cried for help when the rape was committed did not negate the accusation of rape. In People v. Ramos, 35 the Court ruled:
Needless to say, it is a well-settled rule that "the force used in the commission of rape need not be overpowering or absolutely irresistible. A rape victim has no burden to prove that she did all within her power to resist the force or intimidation employed upon her." Resistance is not an element of rape. What is essential is simply that the force employed was sufficient to enable the offender to consummate the lewd purpose which he had in mind. In the instant case, there is no question that Ramos succeeded in his brutish objective.
xxx xxx xxx
Furthermore, AAA's failure to scream does not in any way disprove the commission of rape. The failure of the victim to run, shout or seek help does not negate rape, and neither does her lack of resistance imply that she consented to the sexual act, especially when she was intimidated into submission by the perpetrator. In fact, AAA persistently struggled against Ramos' advances, all the while constantly pushing him away until her strength finally gave out. Furthermore, AAA immediately escaped at the first opportunity she could, and forthwith reported the matter. 36 (Emphasis supplied)
The fact that AAA's hymen was healed
Appellant argued that the result of the medical examination of AAA's vagina revealed deep healed lacerations which means that no proof of sexual intercourse occurred on or about the time she was alleged to have been raped by appellant. Rather, it just shows that AAA had prior sexual experience.
The argument of appellant deserves scant consideration. Hymenal lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best physical evidence of forcible defloration. 37 And, when the consistent and forthright testimony of a rape victim is consistent with the medical findings, as in this case, the essential requisites of carnal knowledge are deemed to have been sufficiently established. 38 Lastly, in People v. De Jesus, 39 the Court, citing People v. Amistoso, 40 held that the fact that the examining doctor found healed lacerations did "not negatively affect AAA's credibility nor disprove her rape." In People v. Orilla, 41 the Court categorically opined that the absence of fresh lacerations in the victim's hymen does not prove that the appellant did not rape her:
The absence of fresh lacerations in Remilyn's hymen does not prove that appellant did not rape her. A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape and healed lacerations do not negate rape. In addition, a medical examination and a medical certificate are merely corroborative and are not indispensable to the prosecution of a rape case. The credible disclosure of a minor that the accused raped her is the most important proof of sexual abuse. 42
In view of the foregoing, We sustain appellant's conviction of Qualified Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph (1), in relation to Article 266-B of the RPC. We likewise sustain the penalty imposed and the amount of damages awarded by the courts below. Thus, appellant is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole, pursuant to A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC and in lieu of death, because of its suspension wider RA 9346. As to the award of damages, appellant is ordered to pay civil indemnity in the amount of P100,000.00, moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00, and exemplary damages in the amount of P100,000.00, pursuant to People v. Jugueta, 43 as well as a six percent (6%) interest per annum on all the amounts awarded reckoned from the date of finality of this Resolution until the damages are fully paid.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision dated April 4, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09811, which affirmed with modification the Decision dated June 30, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 124 in Criminal Case No. C-93646, is hereby AFFIRMED.
Accused-appellant Rico Labongray, Sr. y Bueno is guilty of Qualified Rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. He is also ordered to pay AAA P100,000.00 each as civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages. All awards are subject to six percent (6%) interest per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 18-19.
2.Id. at 3-17. Penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., with Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Gabriel T. Robeniol, concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 52-75. Rendered by Presiding Judge Glenda K. Cabello-Mario.
4. In conformity with Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 (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), the complete names and personal circumstances of the victim's family members or relatives, who may be mentioned in the court's decision or resolution have been replaced with fictitious initials.
5.Rollo, p. 4.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 4-5.
8.Id. at 5.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 5-6.
11.Id. at 6.
12.Id.
13.Id.
14.Id. at 7.
15.Supra note 3.
16. CA rollo, p. 74.
17.Id. at 59-74.
18.Supra note 2.
19.Rollo, p. 17.
20. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
21.Supra note 1.
22.Rollo, p. 21.
23.Id. at 23-24.
24.Id. at 26-28.
25. CA rollo, p. 46.
26.Id. at 46-47.
27.Villarba v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 227777, June 15, 2020.
28.People v. Dayaday, 803 Phil. 363, 370-371 (2017).
29.People v. Buado, Jr., 701 Phil. 72, 83-84 (2013).
30. See People v. XYZ, G.R. No. 244255, August 26, 2020, citing People v. Vitero, 708 Phil. 49, 59 (2013).
31.People v. AAA, G.R. No. 248777, July 7, 2020.
32. CA rollo, pp. 59-65.
33.Supra note 31.
34. CA rollo, p. 65.
35. G.R. No. 210435, August 15, 2018, 877 SCRA 424.
36.Id. at 439-440.
37.People v. XXX, G.R. No. 225339, July 10, 2019.
38.Id.
39. 719 Phil. 36, 50 (2013).
40. 701 Phil. 345, 360-361 (2013).
41. 467 Phil. 253 (2004).
42.Id. at 274.
43.Supra note 20.