People v. Maulion y Panganiban

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 230339. June 10, 2020.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. MARIO MAULION y PANGANIBAN, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 10, 2020, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 230339 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee v. MARIO MAULION y PANGANIBAN, accused-appellant). —On appeal is the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed theRegional Trial Court Decision 2 convicting Mario Maulion (Maulion) of rape under Article 266-A (1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. HTcADC

In an Information, Maulion was charged with "rape in relation to Republic Act No. 7610," 3 as follows:

That sometime before February 28, 2004, at Barangay San Vicente North, City of Calapan, Province of Oriental Mindoro, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, motivated by lust and lewd desire, and by means of force, intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had carnal knowledge of one [AAA], his six (6) year-old virgin step daughter, living with him in the same house, and also commit sexual assaults on said [AAA], by inserting his finger in the vagina of the said complainant, against her will and without her consent, acts of child abuse which debase, degrade and demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of said [AAA], as a human being, to her damage and prejudice.

Contrary to law. 4 (Citations omitted)

Maulion pleaded not guilty to the charge when arraigned. 5

The prosecution presented three (3) witnesses: the victim AAA, her mother BBB, and Dr. Ma. Teresita Nieva-Bolor, n the physician who medically examined AAA. 6

AAA testified that she, BBB, and Maulion, who was BBB's husband, had lived together in a house in San Vicente, Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro. Many times, AAA and Maulion would be left at home while BBB sold balut in front of a market in San Vicente. 7

On one of those days in February 2004, when AAA was just six (6) years old, Maulion ordered her, after giving her food, to lie down inside the only room in their house. There, Maulion undressed himself and removed AAA's shirt, shorts, and panties. He went on top of AAA and inserted his finger in her vagina, much to the child's pain. AAA asked why Maulion was doing that, but he retorted with a threat that he would maul AAA if she made any noise. He then kissed her lips before moving to her vagina, kissing and inserting his penis in it. Maulion did not heed AAA's pleas for him to stop. Once done, Maulion warned AAA not to tell anyone about his savage act. 8

AAA did not tell BBB of her ordeal as she was afraid of Maulion. Instead, she informed her friend whom she called Ate Ana, who later told BBB what happened. Ana also reported the incident to the police. BBB and the police did not initially believe AAA, and were only convinced after AAA had undergone a medical examination. 9

Dr. Nieva-Balor, a physician at the Calapan City Health and Sanitation Department, testified that she examined AAA on March 7, 2004. The tests showed that AAA had sustained incomplete fresh hymenal lacerations at the 3, 7, and 9 o'clock positions, which could have been caused by insertions of a finger or a sex organ. 10

BBB recalled that on February 28, 2004, Ana confided to her that AAA wanted to leave their house because she was repeatedly being abused by Maulion. When BBB confronted her daughter about this, AAA finally revealed what Maulion had been doing. BBB then had AAA physically examined to confirm these allegations. 11

On the other hand, the defense only presented Maulion, who denied the charge against him. He asserted that BBB filed the case against him only because she wanted to be separated from him. He added that BBB would often get jealous whenever he talked to other women. 12

Maulion further asserted that prior to the filing of the case, a certain MacMac would often fetch and bring AAA to school. There was even a time that AAA failed to go home. 13

Finally, Maulion averred that AAA had once visited him in jail and divulged her molester's real identity. He said that when he asked AAA to tell this to her mother, AAA agreed, so he did not know why she testified against him despite her confession. He also claimed that BBB proposed a settlement of the case, though this did not materialize. 14

On October 10, 2014, the Regional Trial Court rendered a Decision 15 finding Maulion guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape under Art. 266-A (1) of the Revised Penal Code. It disposed as follows:

ACCORDINGLY, finding herein accused MARIO MAULION y PANGANIBAN guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal by direct participation of the crime of Rape punishable under paragraph 1(a) and (d) of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, with the qualifying circumstance that the victim was under 12 years of age at the time the rape incident took place and that the offender is her stepfather, said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA without the benefit of parole with all the accessory penalties as provided for by law.

The accused is hereby directed to indemnify the private complainant [AAA] the amount of Php100,000.00 as civil indemnity; the amount of Php75,000.00 as moral damages and the amount of Php50,000.00 as exemplary damages.

SO ORDERED. 16

The trial court found AAA's testimony more credible than Maulion's self-serving claim that BBB had instigated the supposedly false rape charge. It observed that AAA was clear, sincere, and convincing in her testimony. 17

Maulion appealed to the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals, in its July 26, 2016 Decision, 18 affirmed the Regional Trial Court's Decision with modification. It sustained the trial court's findings on AAA's credibility, 19 holding that the supposed inconsistencies in her testimony did not affect her credibility as they did not refer to facts indispensable to Maulion's guilt or innocence. To the Court of Appeals, AAA's positive testimony and the physician's findings were sufficient to conclude that Maulion had carnal knowledge of AAA. 20

The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated October 10, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 40 of Oriental Mindoro in Criminal Case No. C-04-7626 is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION in that accused-appellant Mario Maulion y Panganiban is hereby ORDERED to pay private complainant AAA the amount of Php100,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php100,000.00 as moral damages and Php100,000.00 as exemplary damages, plus legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of this Decision until the amounts due are fully paid.

SO ORDERED.21 (Emphasis in the original)

In its August 31, 2016 Resolution, 22 the Court of Appeals gave due course to Maulion's Notice of Appeal 23 and directed the elevation of the case records to this Court. aScITE

Both the Office of the Solicitor General, on behalf of plaintiff-appellee People of the Philippines, and accused-appellant manifested 24 that they would no longer file supplemental briefs.

Accused-appellant assails AAA's credibility by focusing on the inconsistencies in her testimony. First, AAA testified that he gave her food, asked her to lie down, then undressed and molested her. But, on cross-examination, she stated that upon arriving home, he prepared her beddings and told her to clean herself, and that she slept and did not know what happened. Second, AAA never mentioned that she was raped on a specific date, only that the rape happened once on a Monday. Third, AAA claimed that she was repeatedly raped by Maulion every night but failed to mention when the rape first and last took place. This also supposedly contradicted her earlier statement that she was only raped once, when Maulion gave her food. 25

The sole issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not accused-appellant Mario Maulion y Panganiban is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the rape of AAA.

I

The Court sustains accused-appellant's conviction for statutory rape.

Perceived inconsistencies on minor and collateral matters that do not touch upon the central fact of the crime do not impair AAA's credibility. 26 Her failure to testify on the exact date she was raped does not matter. Indeed, "the date, place, and time of the rape incident need not be accurately established since these are not elements of rape." 27 It is understandable that rape victims cannot recount the exact details of a traumatic experience, 28 especially here, where a 12-year-old victim testified on the rape committed against her six (6) years ago.

Moreover, "[j]urisprudence has held 'youth and immaturity [to be] badges of truth and sincerity' and has generally given leeway to minor witnesses when relating traumatic incidents of the past." 29 In People v. Garcia, 30 this Court held:

Testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl, particularly if she is 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. 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. 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. 31 (Citations omitted)

The seeming contradictions in AAA's story do not weaken the substance of her declaration that she was raped by accused-appellant. The elements of the crime of rape were established by her clear and straightforward narration:

Q: During those times that your Mama was selling balut, Papa Mario and you usually were left at home?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: On that February 28, 2004, when you were allegedly raped by your Papa Mario, the accused in this case, will you please tell us how did he start molesting you?

A: At one time, I arrived in the house and he accused, he gave me food and then instructed me to lie down.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: So, when you were being instructed by your Papa Mario after you took your meal, you indeed lie (sic) down?

A: It was the accused who instructed me to lie down, sir.

Q: Was there any room rented by your mother?

A: There was only one (1) room, sir.

Q: And was there any bed inside that room?

A: I cannot recall, sir.

Q: So, you were required by your Papa Mario to lie down. Was it inside the room or outside the room?

A: Inside the room, sir.

Q: And after you were being required by your Papa Mario to lie down, what else did you do?

A: Papa Mario removed his shorts and brief and clothes, sir.

Q: What did he do to you after you were required to lie down considering that you were still on your clothes?

A: He undressed me, sir.

Q: Do you remember what was the garment that he first undressed from you?

A: My upper clothes, sir.

Q: And the next garments that he undressed you?

A: My shorts, sir.

Q: Did you wear panties during that time?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And he removed also your panties?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: After he removed your panties, what did he do? HEITAD

A: He placed himself on top of me, sir.

Q: After that, what else did he do?

A: He inserted his finger to my vagina, sir.

Q: What did you feel after he inserted his finger inside your vagina?

A: It was painful, sir.

Q: Did it not come to your mind to ask to your Papa Mario why he was doing that to you?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And what was his reaction when you plead to your Papa Mario why he was doing that to you?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And what was his reaction when you plead to your Papa Mario not to do that to you?

A: He warned me not to make any noise that somebody might hear.

Q: So you did not scream because of the suggestion of your Papa Mario not to create any noise?

A: I did not scream because of Papa Mario's threat that he would maul me if I did, sir.

Q: Aside from the insertion of his finger inside your vagina, what else did he do?

A: Papa Mario kissed me on my lips which he called lips to lips.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: Aside from kissing you to your lips, what else did Papa Mario do?

A: I somewhat felt that Papa Mario was inserting his sexual organ into my sexual organ, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: At that time that he allegedly inserted his private organ inside yours, what did you feel?

A: I felt pain, sir. 32 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)

The trial court found that AAA's testimony bore "the earmarks of truth," 33 after she had "testified in a clear, convincing and straight-forward (sic) manner and with a deepest sincerity and candor to the Court." 34 This Court finds no reason to disturb the trial court's assessment, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Indeed, as this Court has held:

The trial court's evaluation of a witness' credibility is accorded the highest respect because it had the direct and singular opportunity to observe the facial expression, gesture, and tone of voice of a witness while testifying. The trial court has the strategic position to determine whether a witness is telling the truth and its findings thereon are accorded finality, unless there appears on record some fact or circumstance of weight which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood, or misappreciated and, if properly considered, would alter the results of the case. 35 (Citation omitted)

AAA's positive testimony is consistent with the medical finding that she had incomplete hymenal lacerations — an indication that something had been inserted in her sex organ. This Court has held that "when the testimony of a rape victim is consistent with the medical findings, sufficient basis exists to warrant a conclusion that the essential requisite of carnal knowledge has thereby been established." 36

Hence, this Court affirms accused-appellant's conviction for statutory rape under Article 266-A (1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals correctly sentenced accused-appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, following Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. Likewise correct is the imposition of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages worth P100,000.00 each. 37 All monetary awards for damages shall earn the legal interest rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of this Resolution's finality until fully paid. 38

II

An appeal under Rule 124, Section 13 (c) of the Rules of Court, as amended, throws the entire records of the case open for review. As held in People v. Bonaagua: 39

Verily, in criminal cases, an examination of the entire records of a case may be explored for the purpose of arriving at a correct conclusion, as an appeal in criminal cases throws the whole case open for review, it being the duty of the court to correct such error as may be found in the judgment appealed from. 40 (Citation omitted)

This Court holds that accused-appellant should also be held liable for rape through sexual assault under Article 266-A (2) of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610. The elements of this crime were sufficiently alleged in the Information and duly proven during trial.

In the Information for this case, accused-appellant had been charged with two (2) offenses: (1) rape by carnal knowledge; and (2) rape through sexual assault. ATICcS

Under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, only one (1) offense can be charged in an information. 41 Failure to comply with this rule must be raised by the accused in a motion to quash filed before entering his or her plea; 42 otherwise, the accused may be convicted for as many offenses as are charged and proved. 43 In Pendoy v. Court of Appeals: 44

The Court observes that albeit the April 7, 2006 Information designated the offense charged as one of Rape under Article 266-A (1) (a) of the RPC, a perusal of the allegations therein would clearly show that Pendoy was actually charged with two offenses. Petitioner was charged with having carnal knowledge of AAA, employing force or intimidation, under paragraph 1 (a) of Article 266-A. The Information also charged Pendoy with committing sexual assault by inserting his finger into the private part of AAA under the second paragraph of Article 266-A. It is undisputed that at the time of the commission of the sexual abuse, AAA was sixteen (16) years old as duly proved by her Certificate of Live Birth.

The Information, read as a whole, has sufficiently informed Pendoy that he is being charged with these two offenses. It is true that Section 13, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure requires that "a complaint or information must charge only one offense, except when the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses." Failure to comply with this rule is a ground for quashing the duplicitous complaint or information and the accused may raise the same in a motion to quash before he enters his plea, otherwise, the defect is deemed waived. In this connection, Section 3, Rule 120, as well as settled jurisprudence, states that "when two or more offenses are charged in a single complaint or information but the accused fails to object to it before trial, the court may convict the appellant of as many as are charged and proved, and impose on him the penalty for each offense, setting out separately the findings of fact and law in each offense."

In the case at bench, the evidence bears out that what was proven by the People beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 1089 was the felonious coitus committed by Pendoy against AAA on January 24, 2006. Likewise borne by records is the insertion of petitioner's finger into AAA's vagina. AAA testified that before Pendoy mounted on her and inserted his penis into her private part, he first inserted his finger into her genital. Inasmuch as Pendoy failed to object and file a motion to quash anchored on the ground that more than one offense is charged in April 7, 2006 Information before he pleads to the same, the effect is that he is deemed to have waived such defect and he can be convicted of the crimes of rape and rape as an act of sexual assault. Jurisprudence elucidates that an offender may be convicted for both rape and rape as an act of sexual assault for one incident provided that these crimes were properly alleged in the information and proven during trial. 45 (Citations omitted)

Here, nothing in the records shows that accused-appellant objected to the defect or moved to quash the Information before trial. Thus, he can be convicted of both offenses, which were adequately alleged in the Information and established by the prosecution's evidence.

AAA's testimony clearly showed the occurrence of two (2) rapes — rape by sexual assault and rape by carnal knowledge — committed by accused-appellant in the same incident. It was established that he had inserted his finger in AAA's vagina before having carnal knowledge of her.

For rape through sexual assault, the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period if committed against a minor below 12 years old, pursuant to Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610. 46 As the crime was committed by a stepfather against his six-year-old stepdaughter, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period, pursuant to Section 31 47 of Republic Act No. 7610.

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term of the indeterminate penalty is 17 years and four (4) months. The minimum term is within the range of the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed, which is reclusion temporal in its minimum period, or 12 years and one (1) day to 14 years and eight (8) months. Thus, accused-appellant should be meted with the indeterminate penalty of 12 years, 10 months, and 21 days of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to 17 years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. 48

As to civil liabilities, civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages worth P50,000.00 each are awarded in favor of AAA, consistent with jurisprudence. 49

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Court of Appeals' July 26, 2016 Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07682 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS.

Accused-appellant Mario Maulion y Panganiban is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of rape by carnal knowledge and rape through sexual assault under paragraphs 1 and 2, respectively, of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in relation to Republic Act No. 7610.

For rape by carnal knowledge, accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is also ordered to pay AAA civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages worth P100,000.00 each.

For rape through sexual assault, accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 12 years, 10 months, and 21 days of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to 17 years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. He is also ordered to pay AAA civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages worth P50,000.00 each. TIADCc

All damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid. 50

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 2-12. The Decision dated July 26, 2016 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07682 was penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. (now a member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob of the Special Fifth Division of the Court of Appeals, Manila.

2. CA rollo, pp. 36-44. The Decision dated October 10, 2014 in Crim. Case No. C-04-7626 was penned by Presiding Judge Tomas C. Leynes of the Regional Trial Court of Calapan City, Branch 40.

3.Rollo, p. 2.

4.Id. at 2-3.

5.Id. at 3.

6.Id.

7.Id.

8.Id.

9.Id.

10.Id.

11.Id. at 4 and CA rollo, p. 39.

12.Id. at 4.

13.Id.

14.Id.

15. CA rollo, pp. 36-44.

16.Id. at 43-44.

17.Id. at 42-43.

18.Rollo, pp. 2-12.

19.Id. at 7.

20.Id. at 10.

21.Id. at 11.

22.Id. at 16.

23.Id. at 13-15. Filed under Rule 124, Section 13 (c) of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC.

24.Id. at 20-24, accused-appellant's Manifestation, and 25-30, OSG's Manifestation.

25. CA rollo, p. 30.

26.See People v. Corpuz, 812 Phil. 62 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division] and People v. Perez, 406 Phil. 153 (2001) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division].

27.People v. Corpuz, 812 Phil. 62, 87 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

28.People v. Entrampas, 808 Phil. 258 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division]; People v. Esperanza, 453 Phil. 54 (2003) [Per C.J. Davide, Jr., En Banc]; and People v. Perez, 406 Phil. 153 (2001) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division].

29.People v. Divinagracia, Sr., 814 Phil. 730, 747 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

30. 695 Phil. 576 (2012) [Per J. Reyes, First Division].

31.Id. at 588-589.

32.Rollo, pp. 7-9.

33. CA rollo, p. 42.

34.Id.

35.People v. Abellano, 551 Phil. 826, 839 (2007) [Per J. Nachura, En Banc].

36.Pendoy v. Court of Appeals (18th Division)-Cebu City, G.R. No. 228223, June 10, 2019, <http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65215> [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].

37.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].

38.Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013) [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].

39. 665 Phil. 750 (2011) [Per J. Peralta, Second Division].

40.Id. at 766.

41. REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, Rule 110, sec. 13 states:

SECTION 13. Duplicity of the Offense. — A complaint or information must charge only one offense, except when the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses.

42. REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, Rule 117, secs. 1 and 3 state:

SECTION 1. Time to Move to Quash. — At any time before entering his plea, the accused may move to quash the complaint or information.

xxx xxx xxx

SECTION 3. Grounds. — The accused may move to quash the complaint or information on any of the following grounds:

(a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;

(b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged;

(c) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused;

(d) That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so;

(e) That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form;

(f) That more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law[.]

43.Pendoy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 228223, June 10, 2019, <http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65215> [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].

44.Id.

45.Id.

46.People v. Tulagan, G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019, <http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65020> [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].

47. Republic Act No. 7610 (1992), sec. 31 (c) provides:

SECTION 31. Common Penal Provisions. —

xxx xxx xxx

(c) The penalty provided herein shall be imposed in its maximum period when the perpetrator is an ascendant, parent, guardian, stepparent or collateral relative within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity, or a manager or owner of an establishment which has no license to operate or its license has expired or has been revoked[.]

48.People v. Tulagan, G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019, <http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65020> [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].

49.Id.

50.Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013) [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].

n Note from the Publisher: Also referred to as "Nieva-Balor" in some portions of the decision.