FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 253565. September 14, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.HERMINIO LIBAO y BAYANI, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 14, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 253565 — People of the Philippines v. Herminio Libao y Bayani
The appeal utterly lacks merit.
Article 266-A (1) (d) of the Revised Penal Code defines and penalizes statutory rape, 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:
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. (Emphasis added) ACTIHa
To sustain a verdict of conviction, the prosecution must sufficiently establish the following elements: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) such act was accomplished through force or intimidation; or when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age. 1
Here, AAA 2 narrated in detail her harrowing experience of unwanted sexual congress with appellant Herminio Libao y Bayani, thus:
Q: Papaano ka naman napunta sa lugar na iyon kasama itong itinuro mong tao? Paano ka napunta sa lugar na iyon eh, ang sabi mo hindi mo naman alam iyong lugar na iyon?
A: Pinunta niya po ako doon.
COURT
Dinala. 3
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Bakit ka sumama sa kanya?
A: Inuto niya po ako.
Q: Paano ka niya inuto? Sabi mo inuto ka niya, ano bang sinabi niya sa iyo?
A: Sabi niya, 'birthday ng mama ko ngayon, tapos pupunta tayo sa malayo.' 4
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Ano naman iyong iba pang ginawa sa iyo maliban doon sa sinabi mong sinaktan ka niya, sinuntok ka?
A: Hinubaran niya po ako.
Q: Matapos ka niyang hubaran, ano pang ginawa niya?
A: Ari niya po, pinasok po niya sa ari ko?
Q: Noong ginawa ba niya ito sa iyo, noong pinasok niya iyong ari niya sa ari mo, ilang taon ka noon?
A: Five po. HCSAIa
Q: Five. Ngayon, ilang taon ka na ba, AAA?
A: 10 po. 5
xxx xxx xxx
PROS. MARTIN
Q: Meron tayong gagamiting manika ngayon, AAA, para lalo nating maintindihan iyong sinasabi mo na iyong masasakit na ginawa sa iyo, iyong isusumbong mo na iyong dating kaibigan mo, na ngayon hindi mo na siya kaibigan, kasi ginawa[n] ka nya ng masama?
INTERPRETER
Witness nodded.
PROS. MARTIN
Q: Itong manika na hawak ko, babae ba ito o lalake?
A: Babae po.
Q: Itong manika na ito, AAA, parang totoong tao ito, kumpleto [ang mga] parte [nito]. Ipapaturo ko sa iyo kung ano iyong parte ng katawan mo iyong sinasabi mo na ipinasok noong dating kaibigan mo iyong kanyang ari sa ari mo. Pwede mo bang gawin iyon? Ipapahawak ko sa iyo ito. Ituro mo nga sa amin kung saan iyong sinasabi mo na ipinasok noong itinuro mo kanina na dati mong kaibigan, iyong ari niya sa parte ng katawan mo?
COURT
At this juncture, witness is holding a girl doll provided by the Supreme Court through the PHILJA, raised the skirt of that doll and pointed to the vagina of the anatomically correct female doll. ACcaET
PROS. MARTIN
Q: Itong doll na ito, sa tingin mo ano ito, lalake o babae?
A: Lalake po.
Q: Kunwari ito iyong dating friend mo. Ganoon din siya kumpleto din itong parte ng katawan ng tao. Kung ipatuturo ko ba sa iyo iyong sinasabi mo na ipinasok doon sa itinuro mo kanina na parte ng katawan mo, magagawa mo? Kaya mong gawin?
INTERPRETER
Witness nodded.
PROS. MARTIN
Q: Sige papahawak ko ulit sa iyo ito, at ipapaturo ko kung alin iyong sinasabi mo na parte ng katawan na ipinasok doon sa ari mo, para ipakita sa amin kung alin iyong parte na iyon?
PROS. MARTIN
Your honor please, the minor witness, after pulling down the pants of the anatomically correct adult male doll, pointed to the penis of the said doll, your Honor. 6
AAA was forced to retell the sordid details of the bestial act when she took the witness stand. When AAA was five (5) years old, appellant fetched her at their house in Meycauayan, Bulacan to supposedly attend his mother's birthday party. But in truth, there was no party to speak of. It was all a ruse to take AAA to a far-off grassy place while her mother was away. When they reached the grassy area, appellant forced AAA to lie down. AAA refused, prompting appellant to box her in the stomach and undress her by force. Thereafter, the appellant inserted her penis in AAA's private organ. After consummating the crime, he ran and left AAA. 7
The courts below found AAA's clear and categorical testimony worthy of credence. More so, considering that AAA was only ten (10) years old when she bravely faced the rigors of trial and was forced to relive the traumatic assault on her dignity. As we have repeatedly held, a young girl's revelation that she had been raped, coupled with her willingness to undergo public trial cannot be so easily dismissed as mere concoction. 8
By itself, AAA's testimony withstands scrutiny sufficient to sustain a verdict of conviction. But when corroborated by physical evidence, AAA's testimony assumes even more probative weight. 9 Here, Police Chief Inspector Marianne S. Ebdane (PCI Ebdane) performed a medical examination on AAA a day after the rape incident and found the "[p]resence of deep fresh lacerations at 3 and 6 o'clock positions." Thus, in her Medical Report dated March 8, 2010, PCI Ebdane concluded that there was "clear evidence of blunt force or penetrating trauma." 10 Considering the consistency between the testimony of the victim, on the one hand, and the medical findings, on the other, the essential requisite of carnal knowledge is deemed sufficiently established. 11
Appellant nevertheless assails the credibility of AAA's testimony on ground that the charge of rape was part of her mother's revenge plot for his refusal to sell his property in Marilao. Too, the prosecution failed to establish that force and intimidation attended the crime. SaIEcA
We are not convinced.
Time and again, we have held that when it comes to the issue of credibility of the victim or the prosecution witnesses, the findings of the trial courts carry great weight and respect especially when sustained by the Court of Appeals, as here. This is so because trial courts are in the best position to ascertain and measure the sincerity and spontaneity of witnesses through their actual observation of the witnesses' manner of testifying, their demeanor and behavior in court. 12
At any rate, we agree with the courts below that AAA's mother does not appear to have been ill motivated to falsely charge appellant with such heinous crime as rape. Indeed, it is highly unlikely, nay, immoral that a mother would expose her child of tender age to public humiliation and social scrutiny just for a piece of property. Adding to the insult is the harshness of trial which her daughter was forced to undergo, and the indelible stigma that will mark her for the rest of her life. Clearly, appellant's defense is unavailing.
As for the supposed absence of coercion and intimidation, such circumstance is immaterial here. The Court stresses that appellant was charged with statutory rape under Article 266-A (1) (d) of the RPC. Its commission does not require force or intimidation, it being sufficient that the victim is below twelve (12) years of age. Here, the prosecution and the defense stipulated during the pre-trial that based on AAA's birth certificate, she was only five (5) years old when the alleged rape happened. Hence, the element of coercion and intimidation is dispensable in this case.
In any event, evidence on record bears that appellant nevertheless employed coercion and intimidation when he raped AAA. To recall, AAA was brought to a grassy area and instructed to lie on the ground. When she refused, appellant boxed her in the stomach and forcibly undressed her. 13
All told, the Court does not find any reason to acquit appellant of statutory rape. For against appellant's denial and alibi, AAA's positive testimony deserves greater weight and credit.
Penalty
Rape is qualified and punishable by death when committed against a child below seven (7) years of age. 14 Consequently, the death penalty should have been imposed here were it not for the enactment of RA 9346 15 which suspended the imposition of said penalty. In accordance with the same law, therefore, the courts below correctly sentenced appellant to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. 16
The Court also finds the award of civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages of P100,000.00 each to be in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. 17 These monetary awards shall earn six percent (6%) interest per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid. CcSTHI
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated February 14, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10455 is AFFIRMED.
Appellant Herminio Libao y Bayani is found GIULTY of QUALIFIED STATUTORY RAPE under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (d) in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. He is further ordered to pay: civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages of P100,000.00 each. These amounts shall earn 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. See People v. Ejercito, 834 Phil. 837, 859 (2018).
2. 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.
3.Rollo, pp. 8-9.
4.Id.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 13.
7. CA rollo, back of p. 38.
8.People v. Cadano, Jr., 729 Phil. 576, 585 (2014).
9.People v. XXX, G.R. No. 225339, July 10, 2019.
10.Rollo, p. 77.
11. See People v. Sabal, 734 Phil. 742, 746 (2014), citing People v. Perez, 595 Phil. 1232, 1258 (2008).
12.People v. Agalot, 826 Phil. 541, 550 (2018).
13.Rollo, p. 8.
14. Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code as amended.
15. An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines, approved on June 24, 2006.
16. Section 3, RA 9346.
17.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 839-840 (2016).