SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 251115. July 28, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.LARRY MAÑACAP, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated28 July 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 251115 (People of the Philippines v. Larry Mañacap). — This resolves the appeal pursuant to Section 13 (c), Rule 124 of the Rules of Court, as amended, assailing the Decision 1 dated July 19, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-C.R. CR-HC No. 02025-MIN which affirmed with modification the Consolidated Judgment 2 dated June 4, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), 12th Judicial Region, Branch 17, Kidapawan City, Cotabato in Criminal Case Nos. 399-99, 122-2005 and 123-2005, convicting accused-appellant Lang Mañacap (accused-appellant) of statutory rape, rape by sexual assault and frustrated murder.
Antecedents
Accused-appellant was indicted for statutory rape, rape by sexual assault and frustrated murder through the following Informations:
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 399-99
That on or about May 29, 1999, in the Municipality of x x x, Province of Cotabato, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused, with lewd design, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had sexual intercourse with the victim and with intent in having carnal knowledge with [AAA], 3 who is a minor, 9 years old, against her will.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 122-2005
That on or about May 29, 1999, in the Municipality of x x x, Province of Cotabato, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused, with lewd design, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, sexually assaulted [sic] [AAA], who is a minor, 9 years old by inserting his penis into her mouth and forced her to have oral sex with him against her will. ASEcHI
CONTRARY TO LAW.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 123-2005
That on or about May 29, 1999, in the Municipality of x x x, Province of Cotabato, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with intent to kill, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with treachery and evident premeditation, attack, assault and pulled [sic] the hair of [AAA] and smashed her head in the nearby boulder, struck the victim at her nape, thereby rendering her unconscious and after believing her to be dead, carried her body in the river, submerged her in the water and thereafter threw her in the raging waters, accused having performed all the acts of execution which would have produced the crime of Murder but did not produce it by reason of causes independent of his will, that is, the victim regained consciousness in the waters and was able to survive the ordeal.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the offenses charged. 5 Accordingly, pre-trial ensued, followed by trial on the merits.
The prosecution presented AAA, the victim herself; BBB, her mother, and Dr. Celestino Lazaro (Dr. Lazaro), the physician who conducted the medical examination on AAA. 6
Version of the Prosecution
On May 29, 1999, AAA, was directed by her mother BBB to sell shrimp paste or uyap, in their neighborhood in order for her to earn money which she would use to buy school supplies for the coming school year. She was only nine (9) years old at that time as testified by BBB and evidenced by her birth certificate submitted to the court. 7
AAA then obliged and brought 10 packs of uyap packed by BBB and peddled them in the neighborhood. She already sold two packs, when she saw a group of houses near the Kabacan River. Hoping to sell more, AAA proceeded to the houses that she saw. On her way, she met accused-appellant. Accused-appellant offered to buy all of AAA's uyap, however, accused-appellant does not have money with him so he proposed to AAA that she go with him to his house. 8
Lured by the prospect of selling all her goods, AAA agreed. However, on their way, accused-appellant suddenly grabbed AAA and carried her to the river bank. There, AAA was made by the accused-appellant to lie on a big flat stone, covered her mouth and removed her dress. 9
AAA was merely nine (9) years of age at that time but despite her age, she was aware of accused-appellant's intention. She fought and resisted, however, she was helpless against the stronger accused-appellant. 10
Accused-appellant succeeded in removing AAA's clothes and when AAA was naked, accused-appellant raped her, inserting his penis into her vagina many times. AAA testified that it was painful. The insertion lacerated AAA's genital. AAA thought that she would not survived the ordeal. She pleaded the accused to stop. But the accused ignored her plea, instead, he separated her legs farther and boxed her thigh. 11
Accused-appellant failed to ejaculate but because of the tremendous desire to satisfy his lust, accused-appellant removed his penis from AAA's vagina and forced it into AAA's mouth at AAA's refusal. 12 ITAaHc
When accused-appellant was done, he let AAA put on her clothes. Accused-appellant then brought AAA to the nearby river, where he grabbed AAA's hair and shoved her head into the water to drown her. Not contented, accused-appellant got a stone and struck it to AAA's head. AAA became dizzy. Believing that AAA was already dead, the accused-appellant threw AAA's body into the river. 13
AAA miraculously regained her consciousness upon hitting the water. She then grabbed on a rock to prevent being carried away by the current of the river. While holding onto the rock, she saw accused-appellant running away, and when accused-appellant was out of her sight, AAA swam to the river bank, got up and walked into a cornfield. She then reached the road and walked towards home. She was seen by her uncle CCC and caught up on her. She then told CCC about her ordeal. 14
AAA's family brought her to the police station. Thereafter, she was brought to the hospital where she was confined for three days because of lacerated perinium, head wounds, and injuries on other parts of her body. 15
Meanwhile, CCC went to the place where AAA was waylaid. Some residents apprised CCC that they saw AAA with the accused-appellant. Based on this information, CCC, along with AAA's father, DDD went to the accused-appellant's house but they did not found him there. CCC saw a picture in the house and took it with him to show to AAA. AAA identified the picture CCC brought as her perpetrator. 16
Accused-appellant was arrested on February 12, 2005, in Calapan, Mindoro Oriental. 17
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellant denied the allegations made by the prosecution. As the lone witness for the defense, accused-appellant alleged that on May 29, 1999, he left for Davao City because he could no longer endure his wife's infidelity. In Davao City, he stayed with his sister. The next day, he went to Mindoro, the hometown of his mother. There he worked as a masseur until he was arrested on February 12, 2005 in Calapan. 18
RTC's Ruling
On June 4, 2019, the Branch 17 of the RTC of Kidapawan City, Cotabato rendered a judgment finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, rape by sexual assault and frustrated murder. RTC gave credence to the testimony of AAA over the uncorroborated alibi of accused-appellant.
The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds accused Larry Mañacap:
1. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 399-99 of the crime of rape. The accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to pay "AAA" Php75,000.00 as moral damages; Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity; and, Php75,000.00 as exemplary damages;
2. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 122-2005 of the crime of rape by sexual assault. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the accused is sentenced to suffer imprisonment of from (sic)six (6) years of Prision Correccional to ten (10) years of prision mayor medium as maximum and to pay "AAA" Php50,000.00 as moral damages, Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity, and Php50,000.000 as exemplary damages.
3. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 123-2005 for the crime of Frustrated Murder. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is sentenced to suffer imprisonment of from (sic)eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum and to pay "AAA" the amount of Php75,000.00 as moral damages, Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity, and Php75,000.00 its exemplary damages.
All the civil damages shall earn the legal interest of 6% per annum from the finality of this judgement until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 19
Accused-appellant, claiming that he is innocent of the crimes charged, interposed an appeal to the CA.
The CA's Ruling
On appeal, accused-appellant questioned the ruling of the trial court claiming that the prosecution has not sufficiently established his identity as the assailant of AAA. Accused-appellant further claimed that the fact of carnal knowledge was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. 20 The CA was not persuaded. In its assailed Decision, the CA affirmed accused-appellant's conviction but modified the award of damages in favor of AAA in accordance to the latest jurisprudential development. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
DISPOSITION
Accused-appellant's appeal is DENIED. The assailed Consolidated Judgment dated 04 June 2018 issued by the Regional Trial Court, 12th Judicial Region, Branch 17, Kidapawan City, Cotabato in Criminal Cases No. 399-99, No. 122-2005 and No. 123-2005, are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The dispositive portion of the assailed Consolidated Judgment, as modified, shall read:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds accused Larry Mañacap: cHDAIS
1. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 399-99 of the crime of statutory rape. The accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA without eligibility of parole, and to pay AAA P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages;
2. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 122-2005 of the crime of rape by sexual assault. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the accused is sentenced to suffer imprisonment of twelve (12) years, ten (10) months and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to pay AAA the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
3. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 123-2005 for the crime of Frustrated Murder. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is sentenced to suffer imprisonment of from (sic) eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to pay AAA the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages.
All the civil damages shall earn the legal interest of 6% per annum from the finality of this judgement until fully paid.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 21
Hence, the present appeal. We note that both parties manifested that they would no longer submit supplemental briefs. They are both adopting their briefs previously submitted before the CA. 22
Herein accused-appellant maintains that the prosecution failed to prove his identity as the alleged perpetrator and that the elements of the crimes with which he was charged were not established beyond reasonable doubt.
Court's Ruling
The appeal is unmeritorious.
In the present case, herein accused-appellant committed three crimes against the person of AAA. As found by both the RTC and CA, all the elements of the crimes charged were sufficiently established by the prosecution.
Statutory rape is committed when the (1) the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age, and (2) the accused had carnal knowledge of her, 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. What the law punishes in statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve (12) years old. Thus, force, intimidation and physical evidence of injury are not relevant considerations; the only pertinent concern is the age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge indeed took place. 23
In the present case, the age of AAA was an undisputed fact. She was merely a minor, nine (9) years of age, when the rape happened. Accused-appellant however claims that carnal knowledge was not clearly established by the prosecution. He claims that based on the testimony of AAA, carnal knowledge was not consummated as there is doubt on whether his penis was successfully inserted in AAA's vagina. 24
We are not convinced.
It must be noted that in rape cases "full penetration is not required. It is enough that there is proof of entrance of the male organ within the labia or pudendum of the female organ. Even the slightest penetration is sufficient to consummate the crime of rape." 25 The mere touching of the external genitalia by the penis capable of consummating the sexual act, is sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge. 26 The act of touching should be understood here as inherently part of the entry of the penis into the labial of the female organ and not mere touching alone of the moons pubis or the pudendum. 27 It was clear in AAA's testimony that it was not merely touching of the male organ and female organ that occurred, to wit:
Q: Was he able to insert his penis into your vagina? ISHCcT
A: Yes, ma'am
Q: What did you feel?
A: Painful, ma'am 28
Clearly, AAA categorically stated that accused-appellant was able to penetrate her as she experienced pain. AAA's statements were supported by the findings of the medico legal report showing that AAA has a lacerated perinium. 29 As testified by Dr. Lazaro, "[the laceration perinium could have been caused by] a male genitalia that was forcibly inserted or it could be something that could be inserted in that specific anatomical area of the body x x x." 30 Due to the laceration AAA suffered, she was, in fact, hospitalized for three days to recuperate. "It has been held that when the victim's testimony is corroborated by the physician's finding of penetration, there is sufficient foundation to conclude the existence of the essential requisite of carnal knowledge, and that laceration, whether healed or fresh, is the best physical evidence of forcible defloration." 31
Further, it must be noted that AAA was merely a minor when the rape was committed against her. "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." 32
Accused-appellant's identity as AAA's assailant was also clearly established by the in-court identification made by AAA herself. "[I]t is settled that an out-of-court identification does not necessarily foreclose the admissibility of an independent in-court identification and that, even assuming that an out-of-court identification was tainted with irregularity, the subsequent identification in court cured any flaw that may have attended it." 33 Thus, in the case at bar, any doubt as to the identity of herein accused-appellant was already cured when AAA positively and unequivocally identify him as her assailant, to wit:
Q: This person that did all these things to you, is he here in court?
A: Yes, ma'am
Q: Can you identify him?
A: (Witness pointing to a man sitting on the defendants' bench wearing an orange T-shirt, who when asked his name, answered that he is Larry Mañacap.) 34
Based on the foregoing, We find no reason to deviate from the findings of the RTC and the CA. As to the other crimes committed by the accused-appellant, rape by sexual assault and frustrated murder, the prosecution has successfully established their elements based on the clear and concise testimony given by AAA in open court. It is settled that the factual findings of the trial court, including its assessment of the witnesses' credibility, are entitled to great weight and respect by the Court, particularly when the CA affirmed such findings. 35 This is because the trial court is in the best position to determine the truthfulness of witnesses. It is established that the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grueling examination. 36 Thus, in the absence of any clear showing that the trial court overlooked or misconstrued cogent facts and circumstances that would justify altering or revising such findings and evaluation, 37 the Court is impelled to give due deference to the trial court's determination of credibility of witnesses and other evidence.
"Accused-appellant's defenses of denial and alibi, in the absence of clear and convincing proof to substantiate the same, do not stand against the categorical statement and positive identification of the victim, particularly, as the same is corroborated by the physical evidence of injury." 38 The findings in the medico legal report in this case show not only the evidence of rape but the physical injuries suffered by AAA, i.e., bite marks on the ear and lips, wounds on the head, which accused-appellant inflicted to her, before, during and after the rape. 39 CAacTH
Accused-appellant's claim that on the day the incident happened, he left for Davao due to his wife infidelity, deserves scant consideration. The records of the case show that no evidence, testimonial nor documentary, was presented and offered by the accused-appellant before the court. "It is well-settled that alibi cannot be sustained where it is not only without credible corroboration but also does not, on its face, demonstrate the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the place of the crime or in its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission." 40
All told, We find the CA did not err in affirming the conviction of herein accused-appellant. However, in view of the pronouncements made in the recent jurisprudence, this Court deems it proper to correct the nomenclature and the amount of damages imposed in Criminal Case No. 122-2005 and Criminal Case No. 123-2005. Considering AAA is under twelve (12) years of age, accused-appellant should be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of "Sexual Assault under Art 266-A of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section (5) of Republic Act No. 7610" 41 and the amount of damages to be paid to AAA shall be P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages in Criminal Case No. 122-2005. 42 As to Criminal Case No. 123-2005, accused-appellant being found guilty of the crime of frustrated murder should be ordered to pay AAA the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages. 43 Further, it is deemed proper to delete the phrase "without eligibility for parole" as provided in A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC. 44
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02025-MIN is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision, as modified shall read:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds accused Larry Mañacap:
1. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 399-99 of the clinic of statutory rape. The accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, and to pay AAA P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages;
2. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 122-2005 of Sexual Assault under Art 266-A of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section (5) of Republic Act No. 7610. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the accused is sentenced to suffer imprisonment of twelve (12) years, ten (10) months and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and 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; and
3. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 123-2005 for the crime of Frustrated Murder. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is sentenced to suffer imprisonment of from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and 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.
All the civil damages shall earn the legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this judgement until fully paid. IAETDc
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. 5-33; penned by Associate Justice Walter S. Ong and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Florencio M. Mamauag, Jr.
2. CA rollo, pp. 45-55; penned by Presiding Judge Arvin Sadiri B. Balagot, CPA.
3. Pursuant to Supreme Court Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015, the personal circumstances and other information which tend to establish or compromise the identity of the victim, including the names of her family members or relatives, and the barangay and town where the incidents occurred, are withheld. The names of the victim and her family members or relatives are replaced with fictitious initials.
4.Rollo, pp. 7-8.
5.Id. at 8.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 8-9.
8.Id. at 9.
9.Id.
10.Id.
11.Id.
12.Id.
13.Id.
14.Id. at 10.
15.Id.
16.Id.
17.Id.
18.Id.
19. CA rollo, p. 54.
20.Rollo, p. 11.
21.Id. at 31-32.
22.Id. at 43-47 and 52-54.
23.People v. Ordaneza, G.R. No. 250640, May 5, 2021.
24.Rollo, p. 19.
25.People v. Salinas, 302 Phil. 305, 310 (1994).
26.People v. Sonido, 787 Phil. 403, 412 (2016).
27.People v. Bejim, 824 Phil. 10, 26 (2018), citing People v. Trayco, 612 Phil. 1140, 1158-1159 (2009) further citing People v. Bali-Balita, 394 Phil. 790, 809 (2000).
28.Rollo, p. 23.
29.Id. at 24.
30.Id. at 25-26.
31.People v. Manson, 801 Phil. 137-138 (2016). Citation omitted.
32.People v. Sobusa, 624 Phil. 533, 547 (2010).
33.People v. Sagala, G.R. No. 213595, March 11, 2015.
34.Rollo, pp. 15-16.
35.People v. Camannong, 793 Phil. 738, 747 (2016).
36.Heirs of Teresita Villanueva v. Heirs of Petrinila Syquia Mendoza, 810 Phil. 172, 184 (2017).
37.Medina, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 161308, January 15, 2014, 724 Phil. 226, 234 (2014).
38.People v. Salazar, G.R. No. 232654, July 15, 2020. Citations omitted.
39.Rollo, pp. 24-25.
40.People v. Sally, 647 Phil. 615, 626 (2010).
41. AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSE, Approved on June 17, 1992.
42. See People v. Tulagan, G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019.
43.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
44. Guidelines for the proper use of the phrase "without eligibility for parole in indivisible penalty, August 4, 2015.