THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 229664. October 6, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PAULINO MATA y MINIANO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated October 6, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 229664 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, v.PAULINO MATA y MINIANO,accused-appellant.). — This Court accords the highest respect to a trial court's factual findings and its conclusions of law, as these are based on its unique opportunity to observe first-hand the conduct of witnesses on the stand. Unless it is shown that certain facts or circumstances that would affect the result of the case have been misinterpreted or overlooked by a trial court, an appellate court will generally not disturb a trial court's factual findings. HTcADC
This resolves an appeal, assailing the Court of Appeals Decision 1 and Resolution, 2 which upheld the Regional Trial Court Judgment 3 that convicted Paulino M. Mata of the crime of rape penalized under Article 266-A (1) (d) of the Revised Penal Code.
The accusatory portion of the Information against Paulino reads:
That on or about the 21st day of August, 2008, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have carnal knowledge with his niece, one ANGELINE MATA y MIRABALLES, a minor, 5 years old, against her will and without her consent, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended party.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
On September 17, 2008, Paulino pled not guilty to the charge against him. Upon termination of the pre-trial, the trial on the merits ensued. 5
The prosecution evidence showed that on August 21, 2008, at about 5:00 p.m., Richie Mirables-Mata was washing laundry when her five-year-old twin daughters, Angelica and Angeline, woke up from their nap and played outside their house. She instructed the twins not to wander around. When she noticed they were no longer outside their house, she asked a neighbor about them. The neighbor informed her that they went with their grandfather. 6
Angelica soon went back to their house and Richie asked where her sister was. Angelica replied that Angeline was with their uncle Paulino, Richie's brother-in-law, 7 at the house of a certain Jepoy. 8
Richie quickly went to Jepoy's house, which was merely a house away from hers, and knocked loudly on the door. She saw a hole on the wall and stuck her head in to see inside the house. She then saw Paulino in the act of putting on his undergarments, while a trembling Angeline was getting up from the bed. 9
Richie hurled invectives at Paulino and ordered Angeline to get out of the house. Once the child was out, Richie asked her what happened. The child said that her uncle removed her clothes and placed his penis on her vagina. 10
Angeline corroborated her mother's testimony, testifying before the Regional Trial Court that she was alone with Paulino inside the house after her sister ran away. She said that Paulino removed her shorts and panty and placed his penis on her vagina ("Inilagay niya ang titi niya sa akin puke''). Angeline further testified that that was the only time Paulino did that to her and that she did not feel any pain when her uncle's penis touched her vagina. 11
Richie and Angeline then sought help from an anti-crime group. However, they were unable to locate Paulino. 12
The following day, Police Senior Inspector Marianne Ebdane, a medical legal officer at Camp Crame, conducted a physical examination on Angeline. 13 In her final medico legal report, she concluded that there was no injury in Angeline's hymen. 14
Paulino denied the allegations thrown at him. He claimed that in the afternoon of August 21, 2008, he was watching a basketball game when he saw his nieces playing around the basketball court. He scolded his nieces and told them to go home since their mother might be looking for them. 15
After the game, he was on his way home when he heard his nieces' voices inside his friend's house. He went inside and told them again to go home. At that point, their mother suddenly appeared and the two girls went out to go to their mother. 16
The following day, Paulino was surprised when he was arrested by some barangay officials. He claimed that he was falsely accused and that he did not rape his niece. 17
On June 11, 2014, the Regional Trial Court found Paulino guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape. 18
The Regional Trial Court deemed Angeline's testimony to be straightforward and credible. 19 It also pointed out that when a minor "says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has in fact been committed." 20
The Regional Trial Court stressed that as between Angeline's positive identification of Paulino as her abuser and Paulino's denial, the latter was "weak and unworthy of credit." 21 aScITE
The dispositive portion of the Regional Trial Court Judgment reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused PAULINOMATA y MINIANO, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape penalized under Article 266-A (1) (d) of the Revised Penal Code.
Accordingly, said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to indemnify private complainant Angeline Mata y Miraballes the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED. 22
Paulino filed a Notice of Appeal. 23 However, the Court of Appeals denied his appeal. 24
The Court of Appeals concurred with the Regional Trial Court's appreciation of Angeline's testimony. It found that the same was straightforward and "made with such richness of detailed specifics as only one telling the truth could do so." 25
The Court of Appeals also pointed out that the condition of the hymen is irrelevant in a rape case. It held that the "mere touching" of the penis to the vagina already constitutes carnal knowledge. 26
Additionally, it stressed that Paulino's bare denials could not overcome Angeline's positive declaration that he abused her. It also stated that his defense of alibi could not be appreciated. The Court of Appeals found that he failed to show that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the crime scene. 27
The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated June 14, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 102, is hereby AFFIRMEDwith MODIFICATION, that is, accused-appellant Paulino Mata y Miniano is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape defined and penalized under Article 266-A (1) (d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 8353, and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. Accused-appellant is ORDERED to pay the victim AAA the following sums: 1) Php75,000.00 as and for civil indemnity; b) Php75,000.00 as and for moral damages; c) Php30,000.00 as and for exemplary damages as provided by the Civil Code in line with recent jurisprudence plus legal interest on all damages awarded at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 28
Paulino moved for the reconsideration of the Court of Appeals Decision. 29 However, his Motion was denied in the Court of Appeals Resolution. 30
The dispositive portion of the Resolution reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the instant motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED. 31
Paulino then filed a Notice of Appeal, 32 which the Court of Appeals gave due course to. 33
This Court notified 34 the parties that they may file their respective supplemental briefs. Accused-appellant Paulino 35 and plaintiff-appellee People of the Philippines 36 both manifested that they would no longer file their supplemental briefs and would instead be adopting the briefs they filed before the Court of Appeals.
In his appellant's brief, 37 accused-appellant denies raping Angeline. He emphasizes that it was highly unlikely that he raped her because she admitted that she neither fought him off nor cried during the supposed rape. He stresses that it was improbable that a five-year-old girl would not feel any pain if her vagina was penetrated by a penis. He then asserts that the medico-legal's lack of finding of injury in Angeline's hymen disproves the rape charge against him. 38
Accused-appellant argues that the lower courts erred in giving credence to Richie's testimony. She allegedly had no personal knowledge over what actually occurred between him and Angeline. 39
He cautions the courts not to easily believe the complainant's testimony, as charges of rape can easily be concocted and are difficult to disprove. 40
In its appellee's brief, 41 plaintiff-appellee contends that it was able to prove accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 42 It underscores that it was irrelevant if Angeline did not feel pain or her hymen bore no injury because the mere touching of the penis to the vagina already constitutes carnal knowledge. 43
Finally, plaintiff-appellee posits that accused-appellant's lone defense of denial is not enough to overcome the victim's positive identification of accused-appellant as her abuser. 44
The sole issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt accused-appellant Paulino M. Mata's guilt for the crime of one count of statutory rape.
We affirm with modifications.
Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides the following the elements for the crime of statutory rape:
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.
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. 45 HEITAD
People v. Gutierrez46 listed down the elements of statutory rape:
Statutory rape is committed when (1) the offended party is under 12 years of age and (2) the accused has 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. It is enough that the age of the victim is proven and that there was sexual intercourse. 47
Here, the private complainant's minority is not in debate. The Information stated her age as five years old 48 and accused-appellant did not contest this. Hence, the only issue at hand is whether accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of the child.
We have repeatedly stated that this Court accords the highest respect to a trial court's factual findings and its conclusions of law as these are based on its unique opportunity to observe first-hand the conduct of witnesses on the stand. Unless it is shown that certain facts or circumstances that would affect the result of the case have been misinterpreted or overlooked by a trial court, an appellate court will generally not disturb a trial court's factual findings. 49
Here, both the trial court and appellate court found that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant committed the crime charged against him.
Additionally, we note that the private complainant consistently identified accused-appellant as her abuser. She told her mother after the latter rescued her that accused-appellant removed her underwear and placed his penis on her vagina. 50 She also did not waver from her assertion that accused-appellant abused her, as seen in her testimony before the Regional Trial Court:
DIRECT EXAMINATION: WITNESS IS TESTIFYING ASSISTED BY SUPPORT PERSON MA. CECILIA DELA TORRE
ACP TAGABAN:
Q: AAA, how old are you?
A: Six (6) years old.
Q: Do you know of a person by the name of Paulino Mata?
A: Yes. sir.
Q: Why do you know him?
A: He is the brother of my father.
Q: How do you call Paulino Mata, the brother of your father?
A: Uncle.
Q: Is your Uncle now (sic)?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Take a look around and point to him?
A: He is the one. (Witness pointing to a person inside the Chamber room who upon being asked identified himself as Paulino Mata)
Q: Do you know what did Paulino Mata, your uncle, do to you?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What did he do to you?
A: He put his penis to my vagina. (Inilagay niya ang titi niya sa akin puke).
Q: Before he placed his penis in your vagina did your Uncle Paulino removed (sic) your shorts?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What else did he remove?
A: My panty.
Q: And what about your Uncle what did he remove?
A: His shorts.
Q: And you said he placed his penis in your vagina?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: After that what did your Uncle Paul do?
A: Only that. ('Yon lang po') 51
Accused-appellant attempts to discredit private complainant's testimony as she admitted that she did not fight off her uncle and did not feel any pain when he placed his penis in her vagina. He points to the medico-legal's testimony that private complainant's hymen did not have any evident injury to support his assertion that private complainant was merely fabricating her testimony. 52
Accused-appellant's contention has no merit.
It is well-established that a victim's failure to resist or struggle against an attacker does not affect their credibility. "[T]he very nature of the crime entails the use of intimidation and fear that may paralyze a victim and force [them] to submit to the assailant." 53 ATICcS
Accused-appellant likewise cannot take refuge in the medico-legal's finding of lack of hymenal injury. Aside from the fact that the state of the hymen is not an element of rape, 54 PSI Ebdane also testified that the hymens of young girls tend to be elastic and will merely stretch when an object is inserted into the vagina. 55
Further, the lack of injury may be attributed to accused-appellant's failure to fully penetrate his minor victim's vagina, as her mother came in the nick of time. Nonetheless, the lack of full penetration does not negate the finding of rape. 56 Rape is consummated upon "the entrance of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum of the female organ. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify a conviction for rape." 57 Private complainant consistently testified that accused-appellant's penis touched her vagina as he placed his penis on her vagina.
In controverting private complainant's positive assertions, accused-appellant only interposed the defenses of denial and alibi, which are self-serving and inherently weak defenses. 58 Hence, the bare denial of the accused "falters against the 'positive identification by, and straightforward narration of the victim.'" 59
This Court notes, however, that the proper designation of the crime is qualified statutory rape, not statutory rape, considering the circumstances of minority and relationship between accused-appellant and private complainant. These circumstances were alleged in the Information and proven during the trial.
Qualified statutory rape is punishable by death under Article 266-B, which provides:
Article 266-B. Penalty. — Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusionperpetua.
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 |.| 60 (Emphasis provided)
Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals did not err in meting out the penalty of reclusion perpetua given the prohibition on the imposition of the death penalty. 61 However, this should be modified to include the lack of eligibility for parole.
Moreover, the civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages are increased to P100,000.00 each, in line with our ruling in Peoplev. Jugueta. 62
All damages awarded shall also be subject to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of this Resolution until their full satisfaction. 63
WHEREFORE, the December 7, 2015 Decision and February 26, 2016 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 07021, finding accused-appellant Paulino Mata y Miniano guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, as defined and penalized under Article 266-A (1) (d) of the Revised Penal Code, are AFFIRMEDwith MODIFICATION.
Accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusionperpetua without eligibility of parole. He is also ordered to pay private complainant the amounts of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages.
All damages awarded shall be subject to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of this Resolution until their full satisfaction.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA Rollo, pp. 96-117. The December 7, 2015 Decision docketed as CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 07021 was penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz and concurred in by Associate Justices Elihu A. Ybañez and Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a member of this Court) of the Special Fifth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
2.Id. at 137-138. The February 26, 2016 Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz and concurred in by Associate Justices Elihu A. Ybañez and Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a member of this Court) of the Former Special Fifth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3.Id. at 22-28. The June 11, 2014 Judgment docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-08-153740 was penned by Presiding Judge Ma. Lourdes A. Giron.
4.Id. at 22.
5.Id.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 23.
8.Id. at 22-23.
9.Id. at 23.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 23-24.
12.Id. at 23.
13.Id. at 23.
14.Id. at 24.
15.Id. at 25.
16.Id.
17.Id.
18.Id. at 28.
19.Id. at 26.
20.Id. at 27.
21.Id.
22.Id. at 28.
23.Id. at 19-20.
24.Id. at 116.
25.Id. at 105.
26.Id. at 111.
27.Id. at 113-114.
28.Id. at 116.
29.Id. at 119-125.
30.Id. at 138.
31.Id.
32.Id. at 139-141.
33.Id. at 143.
34.Rollo, pp. 30-31.
35.Id. at 37-39.
36.Id. at 32-35.
37. CA rollo, pp. 37-57.
38.Id. at 44-45.
39.Id. at 46.
40.Id. at 47.
41.Id. at 72-86.
42.Id. at 80-83.
43.Id. at 84.
44.Id.
45. REV. PEN. CODE, Art. 266-A, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 (1997).
46. 731 Phil. 352 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
47.Id. at 357.
48. CA rollo, p. 22.
49.People v. Gahi, 727 Phil. 642, 658 (2014) [Per J. Leonardo-de Castro, First Division].
50. CA rollo, p. 23.
51.Id. at 105-106.
52.Id. at 107-108.
53.People v. Sumayod, G.R. No. 230626. [March 9, 2020] [Per J. Leonen, Third Division], citing People v. Lomaque, 710 Phil. 338 (2013) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division].
54.People v. Araojo, 616 Phil. 275, 288 (2009) [Per J. Velasco, Third Division], citing People v. Espino, Jr., 577 Phil. 546, 566 (2008) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
55. CA rollo, p. 100.
56.People v. Ortoa, 599 Phil. 232, 247 (2009) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, En Banc].
57.Id.
58.People v. Remudo, 416 Phil. 422, 436 (2001) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
59.People v. Divinagracia,Sr. 814 Phil. 730, 753 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division], citing Imbo v. People, 758 Phil. 430, 437 (2015) [Per J. Perez, First Division].
60. REV. PEN. Code, Art. 266-B.
61. Republic Act No. 9346 (2006), Sec. 1.
62. 783 Phil. 806, 848 (2016) [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].
63.Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013) [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].