THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 250172. October 6, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.NELSON MENDOZA y SOLOMON, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 6, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 250172 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, v. NELSON MENDOZA y SOLOMON, accused-appellant). — In rape, the inherently weak defense of denial and alibi of the accused cannot defeat the categorical and positive identification by the victim. For denial and alibi to prevail, it must be proven that it was physically impossible for the accused to commit the crime at the time and place of its occurrence.
This Court resolves an Appeal 1 from the Court of Appeals' Decision 2 which affirmed the Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court convicting Nelson Mendoza y Solomon (Mendoza) of two counts of qualified rape and one count of simple rape.
Mendoza was charged with raping his child, AAA, in three separate Informations, the accusatory portions of which read:
Criminal Case No. 02-3170(M)
xxx xxx xxx
That on or about the 25th day of November 2001, in the municipality of ______, 4 province of Pampanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design, through force, threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with his own daughter AAA, 17 years old, a minor, by inserting his penis into her vagina, against her will and without her consent.
Contrary to law.
Criminal Case No. 02-3171(M)
xxx xxx xxx
That on or about the 2nd day of January 2002 in the municipality of _____, province of Pampanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused NELSON MENDOZA, with lewd design, through force, threat and intimidation, and with the use of bolo, a deadly weapon, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with his own daughter AAA, 17 years old, a minor, by inserting his penis into her vagina, against her will and without her consent.
Contrary to law.
Criminal Case No. 02-3172(M)
xxx xxx xxx
That on or about the 25th day of January 2002 in the municipality of ________, province of Pampanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design, by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with his own daughter AAA, 18 years old, by inserting his penis into her vagina against her will and without her consent.
Contrary to law. 5
On arraignment, Mendoza pleaded not guilty to the charges. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. The prosecution presented the following as its witnesses: (1) AAA; (2) CCC, the mother of AAA; and (3) Senior Police Officer IV Avelino S. Balingit, Jr. (SPO4 Balingit). 6
According to the prosecution, at around 8:30 p.m. on November 25, 2001, AAA put her sister to sleep and laid down next to her. 7 Mendoza later joined them in bed. To AAA's surprise, Mendoza started to kiss her lips and face. AAA pushed Mendoza, but failed to stop him. Mendoza then told AAA to remove her clothes but she refused, prompting Mendoza to strangle AAA. Thereafter, Mendoza undressed AAA and himself, forcibly separated AAA's thighs, and went on top of her. AAA fought back but Mendoza punched her in the stomach, preventing her from doing anything. Mendoza then inserted his penis in AAA's vagina and made pumping actions. AAA begged Mendoza to stop and attempted to push him, but AAA failed. While kissing AAA, Mendoza remarked that he would marry AAA after he kills CCC, AAA's mother and Mendoza's wife. After satisfying his desires, Mendoza told AAA, who was crying, to put on her clothes. AAA then felt pain in her genitalia and saw a "sticky white substance and blood on her vagina." 8
The second incident happened at around 2:00 p.m. on January 2, 2002, when AAA woke up to find Mendoza on top of her. 9 Mendoza covered AAA's mouth when she tried to call for help from her siblings. He then forcibly pulled down AAA's pajamas, removed his short pants, spread AAA's thighs, and inserted his penis in AAA's vagina. AAA, who had fever that day, felt pain from Mendoza's actions. After satisfying his desire, Mendoza threatened AAA not to tell CCC of the incident, or he will kill them both. 10
The third incident occurred at around 12:45 p.m. on January 25, 2002. AAA, who was experiencing high fever and sleeping in the living room of their house, was awakened when Mendoza started kissing her lips. 11 AAA tried to escape but she failed, since Mendoza pulled her hair, dragged her inside the room, and punched her in the stomach. 12 AAA got severely hurt, and Mendoza took advantage of it by removing AAA's pajama bottom and panty. Mendoza then pinned AAA to the floor, pulled down his pants, and inserted his penis in AAA's vagina. AAA cried while Mendoza made pumping actions. After he was satisfied, Mendoza warned AAA not to tell anyone or he would kill her. Then, he left the house. 13
A few days passed and AAA was still not feeling well. She then consulted a physician, who diagnosed her with typhoid fever. After taking the medicines prescribed, AAA experienced severe pain around her pelvis and began bleeding extensively. Upon consultation with a doctor, she found out that she was pregnant and had a miscarriage. AAA then confided to CCC that Mendoza repeatedly raped her. Thereafter, AAA and CCC reported the incident to the ______ Municipal Police Station and filed the cases against Mendoza. 14
For his defense, Mendoza denied the accusations against him. He claimed that on November 25, 2001, he was resting in their house with his youngest daughter while his other two children were studying. His wife and his other daughters, who worked as sewers, came home to see them watching television. He claimed that nothing unusual happened during that night or in the following days. 15
In its December 3, 2014 Decision, 16 the Regional Trial Court found Mendoza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of qualified rape and one count of simple rape. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, this court hereby rules as follows:
In Criminal Case No. 02-3170(M), this court (a) finds accused Nelson S. Mendoza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified rape through sexual intercourse; (b) sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole; and (c) orders him to pay private offended party AAA seventy-five thousand pesos (PhP75,000.00) civil indemnity, seventy-five thousand pesos (PhP75,000.00) moral damages, and thirty-thousand pesos (PhP30,000.00) exemplary damages.
In Criminal Case No. 02-3171(M), this court (a) finds accused Nelson S. Mendoza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified rape through sexual intercourse; (b) sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole; and (c) orders him to pay private offended party AAA seventy-five thousand pesos (PhP75,000.00) civil indemnity, seventy-five thousand pesos (PhP75,000.00) moral damages, and thirty-thousand pesos (PhP30,000.00) exemplary damages.
In Criminal Case No. 02-3172(M), this court (a) finds accused Nelson S. Mendoza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of simple rape through sexual intercourse; (b) sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; and (c) orders him to pay private offended party AAA fifty thousand pesos (PhP50,000.00) civil indemnity, fifty thousand pesos (PhP50,000.00) moral damages, and twenty-five thousand pesos (PhP25,000.00) exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED. 17
The Regional Trial Court ruled that rape was indeed committed after considering AAA's conduct and medical condition. 18 The trial court held that AAA's testimony was clear, convincing, free from material contradiction, and established Mendoza's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 19 Furthermore, the trial court concluded that AAA's testimony is worthy of full faith and credence, finding no improper motive for AAA to fabricate false accusations against her father. 20 The trial court also held that Mendoza's defenses of denial and alibi are feeble, flimsy, and uncorroborated, which cannot prevail over AAA's unwavering and positive identification of Mendoza as the perpetrator of the crime. 21
Aggrieved, Mendoza appealed before the Court of Appeals. 22
In its March 29, 2019 Decision, 23 the Court of Appeals affirmed Mendoza's conviction but modified the penalty, as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal is DENIED. The appealed Decision dated December 3, 2014 of the RTC, Branch 55 of Macabebe, Pampanga in Criminal Cases Nos. 02-3170(M), 02-3171(M) and 02-3172(M) is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS as follows:
(1) In Criminal Case No. 02-3170(M), this Court (a) finds accused-appellant [Mendoza] guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified rape through sexual intercourse; (b) sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole; and (c) orders him to pay private offended party AAA one hundred thousand pesos (Php100,000.00) civil indemnity, one hundred thousand pesos (Php100,000.00) moral damages, and one hundred thousand pesos (Php100,000.00) exemplary damages.
(2) In Criminal Case No. 02-3171(M), this court (a) finds accused-appellant [Mendoza] guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified rape through sexual intercourse; (b) sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole; and (c) orders him to pay private offended party AAA one hundred thousand pesos (Php100,000.00) civil indemnity, one hundred thousand pesos (Php100,000.00) moral damages, and one hundred thousand pesos (Php100,000.00) exemplary damages.
(3) In Criminal Case No. 02-3172(M), this court (a) finds accused-appellant [Mendoza] guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of simple rape through sexual intercourse; (b) sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; and (c) orders him to pay private offended party AAA seventy-five thousand pesos (Php75,000.00) civil indemnity, seventy-five thousand pesos (Php75,000.00) moral damages, and seventy-five thousand pesos (Php75,000.00) exemplary damages.
(4) Interest on all damages is imposed at the rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of this judgment until fully paid. 24 (Emphasis in the original)
The Court of Appeals gave full credence to AAA's consistent and straightforward testimony, after considering: (1) AAA's emotional state on the witness stand; 25 (2) her being a child-victim as "[y]outh and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity"; 26 and (3) the impossibility for a daughter to fabricate such a story against her own father without any motive. 27 The Court of Appeals concluded that Mendoza's defenses of denial and alibi cannot trump AAA's testimony. 28
On November 21, 2019, the Court of Appeals elevated the records of this case to this Court in compliance with its August 6, 2019 Resolution 29 giving due course to the Notice of Appeal filed by Mendoza.
In its February 3, 2020 Resolution, 30 this Court noted the records forwarded by the Court of Appeals and informed the parties that they may file their supplemental briefs, if they so desire, within 30 days from notice.
The Public Attorney's Office, on behalf of accused-appellant, filed an August 25, 2020 Manifestation 31 adopting its Accused-Appellant's Brief filed before the Court of Appeals. The Office of the Solicitor General, on behalf of plaintiff-appellee, filed a similar Manifestation 32 on September 3, 2020, adopting its Brief for the Appellee filed before the Court of Appeals.
The sole issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not accused-appellant Nelson Mendoza y Solomon is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of qualified rape and one count of simple rape.
We dismiss the appeal.
Article 266-A, paragraph 1, and Article 266-B, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, provide the elements of simple rape and qualified rape, as follows:
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.
Article 266-B. Penalties. — Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
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[.]
Rape becomes qualified when committed by a parent against their children less than 18 years of age. The elements of qualified rape are: "(1) sexual congress; (2) with a woman; (3) [done] by force and without consent; . . . (4) the victim is under [18] years of age at the time of the rape; and (5) the offender is a parent (whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted) of the victim." 33
We are guided by three principles in reviewing decisions of convictions of rape: "(1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense." 34
Factual findings and the evaluation of witnesses' credibility by the trial court are entitled to great respect, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, unless it is clearly shown and proven that the trial court overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied any fact or circumstance of weight and substance. 35 Trial courts are in the best position to weigh the credibility of a rape survivor's testimony because it can observe a witness's body language, gestures, and overall manner of testifying. 36
Here, we agree with the Court of Appeals and the trial court's assessment of AAA's credibility upon finding that she made a candid, consistent, and straightforward testimony of the commission of rape by her father. AAA recounted in detail the occurrence of the elements that constitute the crime of rape in three different occasions: (1) accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of her when she was still a minor, through the use of force by punching her stomach and strangling her; (2) accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of her, when she was still a minor and experiencing fever, through the use of force and threat; and (3) accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of her, when she was experiencing high fever and with the use of force by dragging her and punching her stomach. AAA consistently and categorically identified accused-appellant, her father, as her rapist. 37
An accused may be convicted for rape even on the sole basis of the victim's testimony if it is found credible. 38 The Court even found a doctor's testimony as "merely corroborative and is not an indispensable element in the prosecution of this case." 39 Thus, contrary to accused-appellant's argument, it is unnecessary for AAA's siblings to testify as to the commission of rape despite being in the same house when the incidents occurred. More so, there is nothing to show AAA's ill motive in testifying against her father.
Furthermore, apart from bare denial and alibi, accused-appellant presented nothing to defeat the unwavering testimony of AAA identifying him as the perpetrator in all three instances. Accused-appellant's inherently weak defense of denial and alibi cannot defeat the categorical and positive identification of the victim. 40 For denial and alibi to prevail, it must be proven that it was physically impossible for the accused to commit the crime at the time and place of its alleged occurrence. 41 Here, accused-appellant admitted that at the time AAA was raped, he was inside the same house as her.
Thus, for having carnal knowledge of his daughter AAA twice when she was still a minor, accused-appellant is guilty of two counts of qualified rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1, and Article 266-B, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353. Also, for having carnal knowledge of his daughter AAA, through force, intimidation and threat, accused-appellant is guilty of simple rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353.
WHEREFORE, this Court ADOPTS the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals. The March 29, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07481 is AFFIRMED:
(1) In Criminal Case Nos. 02-3170 (M) and 02-3171 (M), the Court finds accused-appellant Nelson Mendoza y Solomon GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of the crime of qualified rape defined and penalized under Article 266-A and Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, and hereby sentences him to suffer two terms of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole under Republic Act No. 9346. He is ORDERED to PAY AAA the following amounts for each count of qualified rape: (a) P100,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) P100,000.00 as moral damages; and (c) P100,000.00 as exemplary damages;
(2) In Criminal Case No. 02-3172 (M), the Court finds accused-appellant Nelson Mendoza y Solomon GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of one count of the crime of simple rape defined and penalized under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, and hereby sentences him to suffer one term of reclusion perpetua. He is ORDERED to PAY AAA the amounts of: (a) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) P75,000.00 as moral damages; and (c) P75,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
(3) Accused-appellant Nelson Mendoza y Solomon is also ORDERED to PAY interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the time of finality of this Resolution until fully paid, to be imposed on the civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages. 42
SO ORDERED." (Dimaampao, J., designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2839 dated September 16, 2021)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 16-17.
2. Id. at 3-15. The March 29, 2019 Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07481 was penned by Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, and concurred in by Associate Justices Edwin D. Sorongon and Gabriel T. Robeniol of the Special Fourteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3. CA rollo, pp. 63-92. The December 3, 2014 Decision in Criminal Case Nos. 02-3170 (M), 02-3171 (M), and 02-3172 (M) was penned by Judge Ma. Josephine M. Rosario-Mercado of the Regional Trial Court, Macabebe, Pampanga, Branch 55.
4. In line with Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015, as mandated by Republic Act No. 9262, the names of offended parties, along with all other personal circumstances that may tend to establish their identities, are made confidential to protect their privacy and dignity.
5. Id. at 63-64.
6. Id. at 64.
7. Rollo, p. 5.
8. Id.
9. Id.
10. Id.
11. Id. at 5-6.
12. Id. at 6.
13. Id.
14. Id.
15. Id.
16. CA rollo, pp. 63-92.
17. Id. at 91-92.
18. Id. at 86.
19. Id. at 69.
20. Id. at 86.
21. Id. at 88.
22. Id. at 41.
23. Rollo, pp. 3-15.
24. Id. at 13-14.
25. Id. at 10.
26. Id. at 11.
27. Id. at 11-12.
28. Id. at 12.
29. Id. at 20.
30. Id. at 22.
31. Id. at 27.
32. Id. at 32.
33. People v. Divinagracia, Sr., 814 Phil. 730, 747-748 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
34. People v. Corpuz, 517 Phil. 622, 632 (2006) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
35. People v. Divinagracia, Sr., 814 Phil. 730, 751 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
36. People v. Corpuz, 517 Phil. 622, 633 (2006) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
37. CA rollo, p. 69.
38. People v. Orita, 262 Phil. 963, 978-979 (1990) [Per J. Medialdea, First Division].
39. Id.
40. People v. Corpuz, 517 Phil. 622, 638 (2006) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
41. People v. Ambatang, 808 Phil. 236, 243 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
42. Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013) [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].