THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252562. June 30, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. FLORESTO NARRA y OLIVEROS, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 30, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252562 (People of the Philippines v. Floresto Narra y Oliveros). — This is an Appeal 1 from the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 2 dated August 5, 2019 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11252 which affirmed the Judgment 3 dated May 21, 2018 of Branch 35, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iriga City finding Floresto Narra y Oliveros (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of Qualified Rape in Criminal Case Nos. 9819 and 9820.
The Antecedents
Accused-appellant was charged with Serious Illegal Detention and two counts of Rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended, in relation to Republic Act (RA) No. 7610, 4 in three separate Informations 5 as follows:
Crim. Case No. 9818 [Serious Illegal Detention]
That on July 19, 2011 and several days thereafter, at _______ Camarines Sur, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the accused, and with intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously detains his own daughter AAA, a minor or in any manner being deprived her of [her liberty.] by preventing her from leaving their house, which act of the accused debases, degrades, and demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of the said minor as a human being, to her damage and prejudice. 6
Crim. Case No. 9819 [Rape in relation to RA 7610]
That sometime in the month of February, 2011 in the morning thereof, at __________, Camarines Sur, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the accused, who is the father of the offended party, taking advantage of the minority of the private complainant and with abuse of authority, with lewd design and through force and intimidation, did(,) then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of her own daughter, AAA, a minor, against the will of the latter, which act of the accused debases, degrades, and demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of the said minor as a human being, to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 7
Crim. Case No. 9820 [Rape in relation to RA 7610]
That sometime in the month of February 2011, about 4:00 o'clock in the morning thereof, at ________, Camarines Sur, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the accused, who is the father of the offended party, taking advantage of the minority of the private complainant and with abuse of authority, with lewd design and through force and intimidation, did(,) then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of her own daughter, AAA, a minor, against the will of the latter, which act of the accused debases, degrades, and demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of the said minor as a human being, to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 8
When arraigned, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. Joint trial on the cases ensued. 9
Version of the Prosecution
Relevant evidence show that the private complainant is a daughter of the accused, the 5th among his 11 children. She was born on x x x. The private complainant bears the surname of her mother, BBB as the latter and the accused are not married. x x x
About 4:00 o'clock in the morning of February 2011, private complainant went out of the room to answer a personal need. She passed by the accused who was sitting on the bed. BBB was not there as she leaves early, at times at 3:00 in the morning, to sell cassava. Accused told the private complainant to get her sibling who was crying; however, when she approached, she saw that her sibling was asleep. Accused began to undress her. She did not seek help while in this situation as there was nobody else and the neighbors were yet in slumber. He removed her shirt, pants and underwear. He laid her down after which he removed his own short pants. After doing this, he laid on top of the private complainant and inserted something in her which caused her to cry. She is certain that what was inserted was a penis and it caused her pain. Utilizing a drawing of an anatomically male person, private complainant pointed to a penis as having been inserted by her father in her vagina. The latter she demonstrated by referring to another anatomical drawing of a female person. After this, accused threatened the private complainant not to report what has happened and then left. This incident was repeated a second time, in the same house.
In this second incident, BBB was not at home as she went to see the grandmother of the private complainant. They were about to sleep at that time when accused told her that he had something to tell her. Accused pulled the private complainant to the kitchen. He removed her short pants and underwear but not her shirt. He made her sit on the bench then removed his own short pants. He laid her on the bench then placed himself on top of her. He held her arms, then entered her. x x x After the incidents, the accused forbade the private complainant from fetching water from the spring outside and instead made her bathe inside the house with the accused fetching water for her. He also prevented her from doing the laundry outside the house and going to the neighbors. x x x Private complainant gave birth on September 27, 2011. 10
For his part, accused-appellant interposed the defense of denial. 11 He alleged that it was impossible for him to rape AAA considering that their house had no dividing walls. He likewise denied detaining AAA, saying that there was no instance where he locked her inside their house. 12
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
In the Judgment 13 dated May 21, 2018, the RTC dismissed the case for Serious Illegal Detention, but found accused-appellant guilty of two counts of Rape under Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended. It held that the facts of the case make out a case for Rape under Article 266-A (1) of the RPC, as amended, rather than a violation of Section 5 (b) of RA 7610. 14 It also found that the elements of Rape under Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended, are present in the two cases. 15
While the RTC did not categorically state that accused-appellant is liable for Qualified Rape under the RPC, as amended, it nevertheless discussed that the qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship were alleged in the Informations and proven during trial. Thus, it ruled that the higher penalty of death under Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended, would have been the proper penalty to be imposed were it not for RA 9346. 16 Considering the foregoing, the RTC sentenced accused-appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole for each count of Rape. 17
The dispositive portion of the Judgment 18 reads:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered:
Crim. Case No. 9818 for Serious Illegal Detention is hereby ordered dismissed.
In Crim. Case No. 9819, finding accused Floresto Narra y Oliveros guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Rape as penalized under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, said accused is hereby sentence[d] to reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole. Accused shall pay unto the private complainant civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00, moral damages of P75,000.00 and exemplary damages of P25,000.00.
In Crim. Case No. 9820, finding accused Floresto Narra y Oliveros guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Rape as penalized under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, said accused is hereby sentence[d] to reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole. Accused shall pay unto the private complainant civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00, moral damages of P75,000.00 and exemplary damages of P25,000.00.
SO ORDERED. 19
The CA Ruling
In the assailed Decision 20 dated August 5, 2019, the CA affirmed the RTC with modification as to the damages awarded and corrected the designation of the crimes committed by accused-appellant. 21 It further found that all the elements of Qualified Rape are present in the case.
Accordingly, the CA found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of Qualified Rape. The dispositive portion of its Decision 22 reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The Judgment dated 21 May 2018 of the Regional Trial Court of Iriga City, Branch 35 in Crim. Case Nos. 9819 and 9820 finding accused-appellant Floresto Narra y Oliveros guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of qualified rape under Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility of parole for each count of qualified rape is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that accused-appellant is ordered to pay private complainant AAA the amounts of Php100,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php100,000.00 as moral damages and Php100,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of qualified rape, plus interest at the rate of 6% per annum on all damages from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 23
Hence, the appeal before the Court.
Issue
The issue in this case is whether accused-appellant's guilt for two counts of Qualified Rape has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Our Ruling
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to dismiss the appeal for failure to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in affirming the conviction of accused-appellant for two counts of Qualified Rape, as defined and penalized under Article 266-A, in relation to Article 266-B, of the RPC, as amended.
The elements of Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (a) of the RPC, as amended, are the following: (a) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (b) he accomplished this act under the circumstances mentioned in the provision, i.e., through force, threat or intimidation. 24 The gravamen of rape is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will. 25
Under, Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended, rape becomes qualified if, among others, the victim is below 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. 26 To appreciate the qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship in the crime of Rape, they must be alleged in the information and proven during trial. 27
In the case, both qualifying circumstances were alleged in the Informations. 28 During the trial, the prosecution proved that accused-appellant is the father of the minor victim AAA; that per her certificate of live birth, AAA was born on March 10, 1996; 29 and that in the certificate of live birth, accused-appellant was indicated as AAA's father. 30 Thus, at the time of the rape incidents, AAA was fifteen (15) years old and the rapist was her father, the herein accused-appellant. 31 Additionally, during trial, accused-appellant admitted that AAA is his daughter. 32
The Court often repeats that when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, it accords great weight and even finality to the trial court's factual findings thereon 33 especially when they carry the full concurrence of the CA, 34 as in this case.
AAA clearly recounted her harrowing experience with accused-appellant. She made a detailed narration on how accused-appellant, her own father, sexually ravished her twice. During her testimony, she categorically pointed to him as her violator. A victim's credible testimony is in fact sufficient to support the verdict of conviction. 35 Moreover, 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." 36
Furthermore, AAA's statements were corroborated by the medical findings of Dr. Romualdo Claveria (Dr. Claveria), the examining physician. She testified that AAA had her last normal menstrual period on February 6, 2011 and that the pregnancy test done on her on July 19, 2011 yielded a positive result. 37 According to Dr. Claveria, AAA was about five to six months pregnant based on her last menstrual period; and that he no longer conducted an external genital examination because a positive result in a pregnancy test is a more confirmatory procedure to establish that there was previous sexual contact. 38
As for accused-appellant, he miserably failed to overturn the burden of evidence against him. His defense consisted of a bare denial and an attack against AAA's testimony. It is an unyielding fact that denial is an inherently weak defense. 39 AAA's testimony was categorical, leaving no room for doubt that accused-appellant raped AAA twice. To be sure, accused-appellant's unsubstantiated defense of denial cannot prevail over AAA's positive identification of him as her defiler.
Under Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended, the prescribed penalty for Rape is death where the victim is below eighteen (18) years of age and the violator is her parent. However, by virtue of RA 9346, the death penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. 40
The damages awarded by the CA are affirmed for being in conformity with prevailing jurisprudence. 41
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision dated August 5, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11252 is AFFIRMED. The Court sentences Floresto Narra y Oliveros to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of Qualified Rape without eligibility for parole, and to pay civil indemnity in the amount of P100,000.00, moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00, and exemplary damages in the amount of P100,000.00, for each count, subject to 6% interest per annum from finality of judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED." (ROSARIO, J., designated as Additional Member per Special Order No. 2833.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 23-24.
2.Id. at 3-22; penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo with Associate Justices Edwin D. Sorongon and Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 51-60; penned by Presiding Judge Salve Eva Q. Villareal-Dimabayao.
4. Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, approved on June 17, 1992.
5.Id. at 4-5.
6. As culled from the CA Decision, id. at 4.
7. As culled from the CA Decision, id.
8. As culled from the CA Decision, id. at 5.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 5-7.
11.Id. at 18.
12.Id. at 8.
13. CA rollo, pp. 51-60.
14.Id. at 57.
15.Id.
16. An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines, approved on June 24, 2006.
17. CA rollo, pp. 59-60.
18.Id. at 51-60.
19.Id. at 59-60.
20.Rollo, pp. 3-22.
21.Id. at 19.
22.Id.
23.Id.
24.People v. XYZ, G.R. No. 244255, August 26, 2020.
25.Id.
26.People v. XXX, G.R. No. 252858, February 3, 2021.
27.Id.
28. See CA Decision, rollo, pp. 4-5.
29. CA rollo, p. 59.
30.Id.
31.Id.
32.Rollo, p. 12.
33.People v. Llanas, Jr., 636 Phil. 611, 622 (2010).
34.People v. Magayon, G.R. No. 238873, September 16, 2020.
35.People v. XXX, G.R. No. 228961, February 3, 2021.
36.Id. citing People v. Padit, 780 Phil. 69, 80 (2016).
37.Rollo, p. 16.
38.Id.
39.People v. ZZZ, G.R. No. 226144, October 14, 2020.
40.People v. XXX, G.R. No. 242280, January 20, 2021.
41. See People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 847 (2016).