FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 207227. April 23, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NICK MATULIN, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 23, 2014which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 207227 (People of the Philippines vs. Nick Matulin). — The victim, AAA, 1 was only eight (8) years old when her stepfather, accused-appellant Nick Matulin (Matulin), started to sexually abuse her. The year was 1996. The abuse continued until she was nine (9) and stopped only after her mother separated from Matulin and AAA lived with her aunt in Hinigaran, Negros Occidental, which was far from where they previously resided in Candoni, Negros Occidental. It was in 1999 that AAA, together with her aunt, reported the matter to the police. AAA was examined by the Rural Health Physician, Dr. Francisco Aycayno, Jr., (Dr. Aycayno) and it was revealed that she had old hymenal lacerations.
Matulin was indicted for Rape under an Information filed in Criminal Case No. 1220, and was subsequently convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental, Branch 55, in its Decision 2 dated December 26, 2007, to wit:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, this Court finds accused, Nick Matulin, "GUILTY" beyond any reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape punishable under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua or an imprisonment of up to Thirty (30) years. Accused is further ordered to pay [AAA], the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00) as civil indemnity.
SO ORDERED. 3
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision, with modification as to the award of damages. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision 4 dated June 28, 2012 provides:
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court hereby AFFIRMS with MODIFICATION the assailed Decision dated December 26, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 55, Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental in Criminal Case No. 1220. Accused-Appellant Nick Matulin is found GUILTY of the crime of Rape and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is likewise ordered to indemnify AAA Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php50,000.00 as moral damages, and Php30,000.00 as exemplary damages, plus legal interest on all damages awarded at the rate of six percent (6%) from the date of the finality of this decision.
SO ORDERED. 5HAICcD
Matulin is now before this Court, seeking a reversal of his conviction based on the same ground raised in the CA, that is, the RTC gravely erred in convicting him of rape despite failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 6 Matulin denied the charge against him and averred that on November 1996, which was when the first incident allegedly occurred, AAA was already under the care of her aunt in Hinigaran, Negros Occidental. Matulin also claimed that it was on the instigation of AAA's aunt and uncle that the rape complaint was filed against him because he was once maltreated by AAA's uncle, the husband of her aunt. 7
Matulin objected to the testimony of Senior Police Officer 1 Rodolfo Ariola (SPO1 Ariola), who testified that AAA reported the rape incident, which was recorded in the police blotter. SPO1 Ariola also testified that according to AAA, Matulin threatened to kill her if she reports the incident to anyone. 8 Matulin claimed that SPO1 Ariola's testimony was hearsay, and SPO1 Ariola did not have personal knowledge as regards the circumstances surrounding the incident. 9 Matulin also objects to the statement of Dr. Aycayno that the penetration of the penis "may" cause hymenal laceration, arguing that it was not a categorical and unequivocal finding. 10 Finally, Matulin contended that AAA's testimony consisted of general allegations and there were no specific details as to how she was sexually abused by him. 11
The elements of the crime of Rape are: (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 12 years of age. 12 The gravamen of the crime is the fact of carnal knowledge under any of the circumstances enumerated under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). 13 The victim need not describe with specificity and in detail how the sexual abuse occurred so long as the foregoing elements are adequately proven.
In this case, the CA found that the prosecution was able to establish the elements of the crime. Particularly, "AAA was able to show that [Matulin] had carnal knowledge over her when she was just nine years old. She was able to detail the act of undressing and insertion of the penis into her vagina. AAA was able to recollect the pain she suffered due to the penetration." 14 The Court cannot perceive what other kind of detail and specificity Matulin wants expressed for the courts to figure out that the abuse actually happened. The crime of rape is deemed consummated once the penis of the accused capable of consummating the sexual act touches either labia of the pudendum. 15 Moreover, "[i]n rape committed by close kin, such as the victim's father, step-father, uncle, or the common-law spouse of her mother, it is not necessary that actual force or intimidation be employed. Moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence and intimidation." 16
The Court also cannot concur with Matulin's argument that Dr. Aycayno's testimony as to the possibility that a penis penetrating a vagina may cause hymenal lacerations is rife of ambiguity, considering that medical examination of a victim is merely corroborative and not indispensable in a prosecution for rape. 17 Moreover, while hymenal lacerations may also be caused by other factors such as extraneous physical activities, 18 it is incumbent upon Matulin to show proof in support of his stance that some other reason caused AAA's hymenal lacerations.
In the same vein, the testimony of SPO1 Ariola withstands Matulin's objection as it merely established the fact that AAA, 12 years old at that time, reported to the police that she was sexually abused and threatened by Matulin, and that said report was subsequently recorded in the police blotter. It did not establish the truth or falsity of AAA's allegations but only that such report was made. 19 What sealed Matulin's fate was AAA's own testimony of her ordeal in his hands. SATDHE
As regards his defense of denial, Matulin's claim that AAA was already living with her aunt at the time of the incident in November 1996 was debunked by his own admission during cross-examination that AAA lived with him and her mother in 1996. Thus, the RTC found that Matulin's "denial . . . failed when he admitted during the cross-examination that [AAA] was living with them." 20 The CA added further, "such happenstance would not exculpate [Matulin] as it was not physically impossible for him to have been at the locus criminis since the house of AAA's Tita is within the same municipality and is just a stone[']s throw away from the house of [Matulin] shared with AAA's mother. The bare denial of [Matulin] cannot prevail over the positive identification and credible testimony of AAA." 21
Therefore, Matulin's conviction for the crime of rape must stand.
Under Article 335 of the RPC, then prevailing at the time of the incident in November 1996, 22 the crime of Rape is punishable by reclusion perpetua. AAA's minority cannot serve to increase the penalty 23 given that the prosecution failed to establish the same "with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself." 24 Thus, the CA correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, which Matulin shall serve without eligibility for parole pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346. 25
The CA also correctly awarded P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, to earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum, these being in accord with prevailing jurisprudence. 26
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 28, 2012 in CA-G.R. CEB-CR HC No. 00960 is AFFIRMED.
The penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed on accused-appellant Nick Matulin shall be without eligibility for parole.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. 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 their immediate family or household members, shall not be disclosed to protect her privacy and fictitious initials shall, instead, be used, in accordance with People v. Cabalquinto (533 Phil. 703 [2006]), and A.M. No. 04-11-09-SC dated September 19, 2006.
2. Issued by Judge Franklin J. Demonteverde; CA rollo, pp. 35-40.
3. Id. at 40.
4. Penned by Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino, with Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, concurring; id. at 60-70.
5. Id. at 69.
6. Id. at 28.
7. Id.
8. Id. at 35-36.
9. Id. at 28-29.
10. Id. at 29.
11. Id. at 30.
12. People v. Viojela, G.R. No. 177140, October 17, 2012, 684 SCRA 241, 250, citing People v. Manjares, G.R. No. 185844, November 23, 2011, 661 SCRA 227, 242.
13. Since the Information alleged that the rape was committed in November 1996, the applicable provision of the RPC is Article 335, which provides that rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: (1) by using force or intimidation; (2) when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and (3) when the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. Republic Act No. 8353, or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, took effect only on October 22, 1997.
14. CA rollo, p. 66.
15. People v. Teodoro, G.R. No. 175876, February 20, 2013, 691 SCRA 324, 340.
16. People v. Arpon, G.R. No. 183563, December 14, 2011, 662 SCRA 506, 531, citing People v. Yatar, G.R. No. 150224, May 19, 2004, 428 SCRA 504, 521.
17. People of the Philippines v. Bernabe Pareja y Cruz, G.R. No. 202122, January 15, 2014, citing People v. Colorado, G.R. No. 200792, November 14, 2012, 685 SCRA 660, 673.
18. People v. Barbosa, 414 Phil. 542, 560 (2001).
19. See Comilang v. Burcena, 517 Phil. 538, 547 (2006); Lea Mer Industries, Inc. v. Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., 508 Phil. 656, 670-671 (2005).
20. CA rollo, p. 39.
21. Id. at 67.
22. Id. at 28.
23. Article 335 of the RPC, as amended by Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659 [effective December 31, 1993] also provides that the death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed 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 spouses of the parent of the victim.
24. People v. Alipar, 407 Phil. 81, 99 (2001).
25. AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES. Section 3 thereof provides that "[p]ersons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended;" see People of the Philippines v. Ricardo Dearo, Paulino Luague and Wilfredo Toledo, G.R. No. 190862, October 9, 2013; People of the Philippines v. Ramil Mores, G.R. No. 189846, June 26, 2013; People of the Philippines v. Percival Dela Rosa y Bayer, G.R. No. 201723, June 13, 2013.
26. See People of the Philippines v. Guillermo Lomaque, G.R. No. 189297, June 5, 2013, People of the Philippines v. Roberto Velasco, G.R. No. 190318, November 27, 2013, People v. Viojela, supra note 12.