People v. Laoyon y Somino

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 233742. November 17, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.BENJIE LAOYON y SOMINO, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated17 November 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 233742 (People of the Philippines v. Benjie Laoyon y Somino). — Assailed in this ordinary appeal is the Decision 1 dated May 10, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07914, which affirmed with modification the Joint Decision 2 dated November 4, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of _______________ — Branch 207 finding Benjie Laoyon y Somino (accused-appellant): (1) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Statutory Rape under Article 266-A, Section 1 (d) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8353 3 in Criminal Case No. 11-058; and (2) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of committing Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in Criminal Case No. 11-059.

The Facts

This case stemmed from two (2) separate Informations charging accused-appellant with the crime of Statutory Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness, the respective accusatory portions of which read: 4

Criminal Case No. 11-058

That on or about the 8th day of November, 2010, in the ________________, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, an adult, through force, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of complainant, AAA, 5 a nine (9) year old minor on December 14, 2000, against the latter's will and consent.

Contrary to law.

Criminal Case No. 11-059

That on or about the 8th day of November, 2010, in the ______________, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, an adult, with lewd designs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit acts of lasciviousness on the person of the complainant AAA a nine (9) year old minor born on December 14, 2000, by then and there inserting his hand inside the skirt of the complainant and thereafter touching her private part against the will and consent of said AAA with an intent to abuse the minor complainant and to gratify his sexual desire. HSAcaE

Contrary to law. 6

During pre-trial, the parties stipulated on the existence, genuineness and due execution of AAA's Certificate of Live Birth, which established that she was only nine (9) years old at the time of the incident. 7

Version of the Prosecution

During trial, the prosecution presented private complainant AAA as its witness, whose testimony tended to prove that on November 8, 2010 at around 11 o'clock in the morning, accused-appellant, who was then 31 years old, invited AAA, then only nine (9) years old to accompany him to the _______________________________. Accused-appellant fetched AAA from her house and eventually brought her to the ________________. 8

At the ________________, AAA played with the other children. At around 5 o'clock in the afternoon, AAA asked accused-appellant to bring her home since they were the only ones left in area and it was already getting dark. AAA approached accused-appellant and when she sat down, the latter began touching her genitals. AAA resisted and tried to stop accused-appellant and attempted to remove his hand but it was to no avail since accused-appellant was way stronger and older than her. Despite the resistance of AAA, accused-appellant managed to push her to the ground in the grassy area of the _________________. Thereafter, accused-appellant started to remove AAA's dress and kissed her all over her body, in particular her breast, lips and cheeks. Accused-appellant then lowered AAA's panty and inserted his penis into her vagina, making a push and pull movement. Accused-appellant only stopped when AAA felt something wet inside her vagina. After satisfying himself, accused-appellant stood and fixed his clothes while AAA did the same. During this time, AAA could not ask or shout for help due to fear. 9

Thereafter, accused-appellant and AAA left the ________________ and started to go home. However, upon reaching the public market, they chanced upon AAA's father. Her father told AAA to go home and asked accused-appellant to bring her home, since they were neighbors. 10

Accused-appellant and AAA then rode a tricycle. While inside the sidecar of the tricycle, accused-appellant threatened AAA that he will kill her if she informs anyone of what happened. Thereafter, accused-appellant started to touch AAA's genitals. AAA could not shout or ask for help out of fear. 11

Instead of going home, AAA asked accused-appellant to bring her to a friend's house since she was afraid of being scolded by her parents for cutting class and going home late. 12

The next day, on November 9, 2010, AAA's father fetched her from her friend's house. Upon arriving home, she informed them of what accused-appellant did to her. The day thereafter, AAA and her parents filed a complaint before the police. 13

Version of the Defense

On the other hand, the defense only presented the sole testimony of accused-appellant denying the charges against him. According to accused-appellant at around 11:00 in the morning of November 8, 2010, he was waiting for passengers in ______________. AAA arrived and boarded his sidecar. AAA's father saw her and told her to go home. Accused-appellant also advised AAA to go home. However, AAA ignored them and instead of going home, she asked accused-appellant to bring her to her friend's place in _______________ which he obliged. 14

When asked a clarificatory question by the court a quo, accused-appellant testified that he is suffering from amnesia, although he is certain that he did not rape AAA. 15

The Ruling of the RTC

In its Joint Decision 16 dated November 4, 2015, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for both charges of Statutory Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the court finds accused Benjie Laoyon y Somino guilty beyond reasonable doubt of statutory rape under [Article] 266-A paragraph 1 (d) and is sentenced to reclusion perpetua without possibility of parole in Criminal Case No. 11-058. He is further found guilty of acts of lasciviousness defnied [sic] under Artivle [sic] 336 of the Revised Penal Code and is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of four (4) months of arresto mayor in its medium as the minimum period to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional in its medium as the maximum period.

Accused is ordered to pay "AAA" the amount of P75,000.00 as and [sic] for civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as and for moral damages, and P50,000 as and for exemplary damages, in Criminal Case No. 11-058. He is further ordered to pay "AAA" the amount of P10,000.00 as and for civil indemnity, P10,000.00 as and for moral damages, and P5,000.00 as and for exemplary damages in Criminal Case No. 11-059.

The Jail Warden __________________________, is directed to immediately transfer ther [sic] accused to the New Bilibid Prisons, [sic] Muntinlu;pa [sic] City for the service of his sentence. His full preventive imprisonment [sic] shall be credited in his favor. 17

According to the Joint Decision, the RTC observed that the testimony of AAA was direct to the point, full of details and was not rebutted during her cross-examination. 18 With respect to accused-appellant's defense, the RTC found no merit in his feigned lack of memory or amnesia regarding what transpired during the incident. 19

Aggrieved, accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal 20 dated November 9, 2015 which was given due course by the RTC in its Order 21 dated November 23, 2015. AcICHD

The Ruling of the CA

In a Decision 22 dated May 10, 2017, the CA affirmed the RTC's Joint Decision, likewise finding accused-appellant guilty of Statutory Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness concluding that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of the crimes charged. However, the CA modified the penalty for the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness by imposing the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision, reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The November 4, 2015 Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 207, ____________ in Crim. Case Nos. 11-058 and 11-059 is hereby AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS: 1) in Crim. Case No. 11-058, the exemplary damages is increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00; 2) in Crim. Case No. 11-059, accused-appellant Benjie Laoyon y Somino is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal as maximum, and to pay the private complainant AAA P20,000.00 civil indemnity, P30,000.00 moral damages, and P2,000.00 exemplary damages; and 3) all monetary awards in Crim. Case Nos. 11-058 and 11-059 shall be subject to 6% interest per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid. All other aspects of the assailed Joint Decision stand.

SO ORDERED. 23

The CA, in reviewing the evidence on record, likewise found that AAA was able to positively identify accused-appellant as her assailant and that she was able to narrate the incident in a consistent, steadfast, detailed and straightforward manner. 24 The CA likewise found unavailing accused-appellant's defense of denial and failure to recall the events that transpired on November 8, 2010. 25 The CA concluded that accused-appellant's bare denial cannot prevail over AAA's positive and credible testimony. 26

Thereafter, accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal 27 dated May 31, 2017 which was given due course by the CA in its Resolution dated June 28, 2017.

In its Resolution 28 dated November 6, 2017, this Court noted the records of the case forwarded by the CA. The parties were then ordered to file their respective supplemental briefs, should they so desire, within 30 days from notice. 29

On February 14, 2018, accused-appellant through the Public Attorney's Office filed a Manifestation (In Lieu of Supplemental Brief) 30 of even date stating that he would no longer file a supplemental brief considering that he had exhaustively discussed the assigned errors in his Brief 31 dated June 30, 2016. The Office of the Solicitor General, on behalf of the People of the Philippines filed a similar Manifestation 32 dated June 8, 2018.

In his Brief, 33 accused-appellant assigned several errors on the part of the RTC, to wit:

I

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING UNDUE CREDENCE TO THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT'S TESTIMONY.

II

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO OVERTHROW THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IN HIS FAVOR. 34

Accused-appellant is essentially challenging the findings of fact of both the RTC and the CA, raising doubts as to the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and credence accorded to the evidence of the prosecution. In particular, accused-appellant points out that if AAA was indeed raped at the _________________ — an open an public space, she would have struggled and cried out for help. 35 Moreover, accused-appellant claims that he is suffering from amnesia and denies knowledge of the charges against him. 36 TAIaHE

The Court's Ruling

In this jurisdiction, the Court is guided by the well-established principles laid down in the disposition and review of rape cases, to wit: (1) the prosecution has to show the guilt of the accused by proof beyond reasonable doubt or that degree of proof that, to an unprejudiced mind, produces conviction; (2) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the evidence of the defense; (3) unless there are special reasons, the findings of trial courts, especially regarding the credibility of witnesses, are entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal; (4) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; and (5) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution. 37

In rape cases particularly, the conviction or acquittal of the accused most often depends almost entirely on the credibility of the complainant's testimony. By the very nature of this crime, it is generally unwitnessed and usually the victim is left to testily for herself. Her testimony is most vital and must be received with the utmost caution. Once found credible, her lone testimony is sufficient to sustain a conviction. 38

In this regard, it is a settled rule that the findings of fact by the trial court should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is shown that the trial court had overlooked certain facts of weight and importance, it being acknowledged that the court below, having seen and heard the witnesses during the trial, is in a better position to evaluate their testimonies. 39

In People v. Quintos, 40 this Court ruled:

The observance of the witnesses' demeanor during an oral direct examination, cross-examination, and during the entire period that he or she is present during trial is indispensable especially in rape cases because it helps establish the moral conviction that an accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. Trial provides judges with the opportunity to detect, consciously or unconsciously, observable cues and microexpressions that could, more than the words said and taken as a whole, suggest sincerity or betray lies and ill will. These important aspects can never be reflected or reproduced in documents and objects used as evidence.

Hence, "[t]he evaluation of the witnesses' credibility is a matter best left to the trial court because it has the opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor during the trial. Thus, the Court accords great respect to the trial court's finding,' more so when the Court of Appeals affirmed such findings." 41

After a careful review of the arguments raised by accused-appellant and the evidence on record, We find no reason to disturb the findings of the CA, and likewise find accused-appellant guilty of the crime of Statutory Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness.

Accused-appellant is guilty of

Accused-appellant is charged with Statutory Rape defined and penalized under Article 266-A, Section 1 paragraph (d) and penalized under Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended:

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 twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present. cDHAES

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

xxx xxx xxx

The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:

1. When the victim is under eighteen (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.

Statutory Rape is committed by having sexual intercourse with a woman below twelve (12) years of age regardless of her consent, or the lack of it, to the sexual act. 42

In the prosecution for Statutory Rape, the following elements must be established: that the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that the woman is below twelve (12) years of age or demented. 43 Proof of force, threat, intimidation, or consent is unnecessary, since none of these is an element of Statutory Rape, where the only subject of inquiry is the age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge took place. 44

We find that both elements were proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

First, it was duly established that AAA was only nine (9) years old at the time of the incident, as proven by her Birth Certificate, the existence, genuineness and due execution of which were stipulated by the parties during pre-trial. 45

Second, We find that the prosecution, through AAA's candid, natural and straightforward testimony was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA. During her testimony, AAA was able to positively identify accused-appellant and narrated in detail what happened during the incident: 46

Q56 Tapos anong sumunod na nangyari kung maalala mo?

A56 Tapos po yung nagsialisan na yung mga bata sabi ko po sa kanya eh, sabi ko po eh, O ano, tara Benjie uwi na tayo baka hinahanap na ako ni mama ko saka ni papa ko, tapos tapos ano po bigla nya po ako hinipuan.

Q57 Saan ka nya hinipuan?

A57 Sa pepe ko po

xxx xxx xxx

Q59 Sa pepe ka niya hinipuan. Ano naman ang ginawa mo nung ginawa nya yung panghihipong yun?

A59 Ano po inalis ko po yung kamay tas' bigla nya na lang po akong tinulak tapos napahiga po ako.

Q60 Saan ka napahiga?

A60 Sa damuhan po kasi puro damuhan po yung nandoon e.

Q61 Ah, puro damuhan. O, napahiga ka sa damuhan, tapos anong sumunod nangyari?

A61 Tapos po tinaas nya po yung palda ko tas' binaba nya po yung panty ko.

Q62 Tinaas nya yung palda mo, binaba nya yung panty mo. Tapos anong sumunod na nangyari?

A62 Tapos hinahalik-halikan nya po ako sa ano katawan ko sa dibdib po pati po sa pisngi pati po sa labi.

Q63 Hinalik halikan ka nya. Anong ginawa mo naman habang ginagawa nya yun?

A63 Pinipigilan ko po sya eh, pero mas malakas naman po sya sa akin.

Q64 Tapos nya halik-halikan ang . . . nahalikan ka sa buong katawan, anong sumunod na nangyari?

A64 Tas po ano po dumagan po sya sa akin.

Q65 Dumagan. Tapos?

A65 Tapos pinasok nya po yung titi nya sa pepe ko.

Q66 Pinasok nya yung titi nya sa pepe mo, nakita mo o naramdaman mo?

A66 Naramdaman ko po. ASEcHI

Q67 Anong ginawa mo kung meron man?

A67 Tinulak ko po sya pero ano po mas malakas pa rin po sya eh.

Q68 Malakas pa rin sya. Tapos anong sumunod na na nangyari?

A68 Ayun po, inano nya na po yun.

Q68 Anong inano nya na po yun. Anong big sabihin?

A69 Pinasok nya na po 'tas tinuloy-tuloy nya na po yun tas' hawak nya po yung kamay ko.

Q70 Panong tinuloy-tuloy nya, anong ibig mong sabihin?

A70 Sa pagka ano po . . . parang ni-rape nya po ako.

Q71 Anong pagkakaintindi mo ng salitang rape?

A71 Ano po kasi po pinasok nya na po yang titi nya sa pepe ko 'tas . . .

Q72 Tapos?

A72 Dun nya po yung tinuloy, pinasok pasok nya po.

Q73 Pinasok-pasok nya. Tapos anong nangyari?

A73 Tapos po yung may ano po 'tas bigla po syang tumigil may naramdaman na lang po ako na ah . . . basa. Tapos . . .

Q74 San mo naramdaman basa?

A74 Sa pepe ko po tapos bigla na lang po syang tumayo tas' nag-ayos na rin po ako.

Q75 Paanong nag-ayos ang ginawa mo?

A75 Inayos ko na po, tinaas ko na po yung panty ko tapos po sabi ko po eh, Uwi na tayo. Tapos tas' pagdating po naming doon sa palengke ng sa __________. 47

When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability, but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. 48 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. 49

Moreover, accused-appellant's defenses of denial and alleged amnesia cannot overcome private complainant's clear and convincing testimony.

It is undisputed that Courts have always viewed the defenses of denial with considerable caution because it is inherently weak and unreliable, and can be easily made up. The defense of denial when unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving, and cannot overcome the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. 50

We likewise find no merit in accused-appellant's defense of selective amnesia, who seemingly could only recall and remember portions of the events that occurred on November 8, 2010. The RTC found accused-appellant's contrived claim of amnesia to be self-serving and could not refute AAA's clear and positive testimony. 51 Moreover, amnesia, in and of itself, is no defense to a criminal charge unless it is shown by competent proof that the accused did not know the nature and quality of his action and that it was wrong. Failure to remember is in itself no proof of the mental condition of the accused where the crime was performed. 52

In the instant case, the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant is guilty of Statutory Rape, defined and penalized under Article 266-A, Section 1, paragraph (d). Thus, We find no reason to reverse the CA Decision, and accordingly affirm the conviction of accused-appellant. ITAaHc

Accused-appellant is guilty of Acts

In Criminal Case No. 11-059, the RTC convicted accused-appellant of Acts of Lasciviousness defined under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, 53 which defines and penalizes Acts of Lasciviousness committed against a child under twelve (12) years old.

Lascivious conduct is defined as intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person. 54 In addition, the term "lewd" is commonly defined as something indecent or obscene; it is characterized by or intended to excite crude sexual desire. That, an accused is entertaining a lewd or unchaste design is necessarily a mental process the existence of which can be interred by overt acts carrying out such intention, i.e., by conduct that can only be interpreted as lewd or lascivious. 55

Article 336 of the RPC states that Acts of Lasciviousness is committed by:

1. Anyone who commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness;

2. The offended party is another person of either sex;

3. The act/s is done 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;

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. 56

On the other hand, Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610 provides that:

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 or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the victim 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:

Thus, before an accused can be held criminally liable for Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610, the requisites of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness as penalized under Article 336 of the RPC above-enumerated must be met in addition to the requisites for sexual abuse under Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610, as follows:

(1) the accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct;

(2) the said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and CHTAIc

(3) that the child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age. 57

In the instant case, We find that the prosecution was likewise able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the presence of the foregoing elements.

As correctly found by the RTC and the CA, AAA testified candidly and in a straightforward manner on how accused-appellant "hinipuan" or touched her private parts when they were riding a sidecar as they went home from the ___________. 58 It is thus unmistakable that accused-appellant's act of touching and groping the genitals of AAA constitutes lascivious or lewd conduct.

Given the foregoing, We find no reason to disturb the finding of the CA likewise finding accused-appellant guilty of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness defined under Article 336 of the RPC, in relation to Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610.

Penalty and Award of Damages

However, this Court finds it necessary to modify the penalty imposed by the RTC, and affirmed by the CA.

For Criminal Case No. 11-058

Under Article 266-A, Section 1, paragraph (d) in connection with Article 266-B, the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua and not death. Pursuant to Administrative Matter No. 15-08-02-SC, 59 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, such as reclusion perpetua, are not eligible for parole. 60 Accordingly, this Court modifies the penalty imposed by the RTC by deleting the phrase "without possibility of parole."

In accordance with Our ruling in People v. Jugueta, 61 for crimes of Rape, where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, the civil indemnity and moral damages will be P75,000.00 each, and another P75,000.00 as exemplary damages in view of the heinousness of the crime and to set an example. In this regard, We affirm the CA's modification of the award of damages.

For Criminal Case No. 11-059

Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, 62 the penalty for Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610 is reclusion temporal in its medium period or fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months. Since the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable, the appropriate penalty of imprisonment is twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal in its minimum period, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal in its medium period as maximum. Accordingly, We find that the CA correctly modified the penalty imposed by the RTC.

With respect to the award of damages, We find it necessary to modify the CA's Decision in light of Our ruling in People v. Tulagan and People v. Jugueta. Accused-appellant is therefore ordered to pay, AAA the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated May 10, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07914 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The Court finds accused-appellant Benjie Laoyon y Somino GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of:

1. Statutory Rape in Criminal Case No. 11-058 and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Accused-appellant is likewise ORDERED to pay AAA P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. EATCcI

2. Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610 in Criminal Case No. 11-059 and is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal in its minimum period, as minimum to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months, and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as maximum. Accused-appellant is likewise ORDERED to pay AAA P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages.

All monetary awards for damages shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.

SO ORDERED." (Perlas-Bernabe, J., on official leave;Hernando, J., designated Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2855 dated November 10, 2021.)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 2-18; penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales with Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now a Member of this Court), concurring.

2. CA rollo, pp. 18-23; penned by Presiding Judge Philip A. Aguinaldo.

3. Entitled "An Act Expanding the Definition of the Crime of Rape, Reclassifying the same as a Crime Against Persons, Amending for the Purpose Act No. 3815, as Amended, Otherwise Known as the Revised Penal Code, and for Other Purpose," approved on September 30, 1997.

4. Rollo, p. 3.

5. 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. (RA) 7610, "An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, Providing Penalties for its Violation and for Other Purposes"; RA 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 Administrative Matter 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 Attended 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.

6. Rollo, p. 3.

7. Id. at 4.

8. Id.

9. CA rollo, p. 19.

10. Rollo, p. 5.

11. Id.

12. Id.

13. Id.

14. Id. at 5-6.

15. Id. at 6.

16. CA rollo, pp. 18-23.

17. Id. at 23.

18. Id. at 22.

19. Id.

20. Id. at 24.

21. Id. at 25.

22. Rollo, pp. 2-18.

23. Id. at 17.

24. Id. at 9.

25. Id. at 15.

26. Id.

27. Id. at 19-20.

28. Id. at 24-25.

29. Id. at 24.

30. Id. at 28-30.

31. CA rollo, pp. 42-57.

32. Rollo, pp. 37-38.

33. CA rollo, pp. 42-54.

34. Id. at 44.

35. Id. at 51.

36. Id.

37. People v. Alcazar, 645 Phil. 181, 191-192 (2010), citing People v. San Antonio, Jr., 559 Phil. 188, 201 (2007).

38. People v. XXX, G.R. No. 239906, August 26, 2020.

39. People v. Dorado, 140 Phil. 450, 454-455 (1969).

40. 746 Phil. 809 (2014).

41. Id. at 820.

42. People v. Udtohan, 815 Phil. 449, 459 (2017).

43. People v. Eulalio, G.R. No. 214882, October 16, 2019.

44. People v. Brioso, 788 Phil. 292, 306 (2016).

45. Rollo, p. 3.

46. Id. at 10-12.

47. Id.

48. People v. Amaro, 739 Phil. 170, 178 (2014).

49. People v. Tulagan, G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019.

50. People v. Bensig, 437 Phil. 748, 760 (2002).

51. CA rollo, p. 22.

52. People v. Comanda, 553 Phil. 655, 674 (2007).

53. Entitled "An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, and for Other Purposes," approved on June 17, 1992.

54. Section 2 (h) of the Rules and Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases or the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 7610.

55. Amployo v. People, 496 Phil. 747, 756 (2005).

56. People v. Baya, G.R. No. 242512, August 14, 2019.

57. People v. Ladra, 813 Phil. 862, 874 (2017).

58. Rollo, pp. 14-15.

59. Guidelines for the Proper Use of the Phrase "Without Eligibility for Parole" in Indivisible Penalties, approved on August 4, 2015.

60. People v. Blanza, Jr., G.R. No. 247005, July 1, 2020.

61. 783 Phil. 806, 849 (2016).

62. People v. Tulagan, supra note 49.