FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252502. November 11, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.NESTOR OCAMPO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 11, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252502 (People of the Philippines v. Nestor Ocampo) — The conviction of the accused-appellant Nestor Ocampo (Nestor) for the crime of rape under Article 266-A (1) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) is the subject of review in this appeal of the July 29, 2019 Decision 1 and the October 22, 2019 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08415.
The facts of the case, as synthesized by the Regional Trial Court, are as follows:
On [October 3, 2007], accused went to [AAA's] 3 house in _____________ Bulacan. [AAA] was only 15 years old at that time. Only [AAA] and her two younger sisters, [BBB] and [CCC], who were respectively aged four and two at that time, were there. Accused gave P2.00 to each of the two siblings of [AAA]. Accused brought [AAA] to one of the beds in the house, he removed his [clothes] and he undressed her, and he placed himself on top of her. He sucked [AAA's] breasts and kissed her. He threatened her and told her that he would kill her parents. He subsequently inserted his manhood inside her sex organ. [AAA] felt pain. Accused then masturbated until he ejaculated. Later that day, when [AAA's] mother was about to wash [AAA's] panty, the mother noticed blood stain in the child's underwear. The mother asked [AAA] about it but the latter said that it was nothing. [AAA] did not report it to her mother as she was afraid. The mother proceeded to ask [BBB] and the child told her mother that accused, who is [BBB's] ninong or godfather, came to their house, undressed himself and [AAA], and laid down with [AAA] on the bed. The mother again confronted [AAA] and, this time, [she] confirmed that she was raped by accused and that the blood stain was caused by accused's violation of [AAA]. The mother accompanied her daughter [AAA] to the police station where they reported the incident. x x x [AAA] was also medically examined by a doctor who found Mindy to be "in non-virgin state physically." x x x. 4
Consequently, Nestor was charged with rape, 5 in relation to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610, 6 under the following Information:
That on or about the 3rd day of October, 2007, in the municipality of _____________, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused[,] with lewd designs and by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully have carnal knowledge of [AAA], a minor, fifteen (15) years old, against her will and consent, thereby degrading and debasing her intrinsic worth and dignity as a child, and prejudicial to her well[-]being and development.
Contrary to law. 7
In his defense, Nestor denied the accusations against him. He claimed that he did not see AAA on October 3, 2007, and averred that in the morning of the same day, he drove his tricycle, plying his usual route to and from the public market. At around noon, he was informed by a friend that his cow escaped, so he went home to look for his cow. And later that day, he brought his wife and child to Bunsuran, and went home at around 5:00 p.m. The next day, he was surprised that he was arrested for the alleged rape against AAA. 8
On November 16, 2015, the RTC found Nestor guilty of the crime of rape by sexual intercourse under Article 266-A (1) (a) of the RPC. It found AAA's testimony clear, categorical, and credible, 9 and sentenced him as follows:
Accordingly, accused Nestor Ocampo is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape by sexual intercourse, He is sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua, and the time which he spent in detention while this case is being tried shall be counted as part of his service of his sentence.
Accused is further ORDERED to pay his victim P50,000.00 civil indemnity and P50,000.00 moral damages. Legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum is imposed on the said awards of damages from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
So ordered.10
Aggrieved, Nestor moved for reconsideration. He argued that the RTC's decision failed to explain why the prosecution's evidence is credible, sufficient and convincing enough to constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt. 11 In a Resolution dated March 11, 2016, 12 the RTC denied reconsideration and elucidated as follows:
The Decision dated 16 November 2015 may be brief but it contains what is constitutionally required of every decision — a clear and distinct statement of facts and law on which the decision is based. The court made conscious effort in its Decision to make the presentation simple and the discussion clear. The Decision is brief precisely to avoid burdening the reader, especially the parties, with an unnecessarily lengthy and unduly verbose disquisition. x x x While accused may honestly disagree with the substance of the Decision, he cannot however honestly claim that the Decision fails to state its factual and legal basis. x x x.
Accordingly, accused's motion for reconsideration is DENIED with finality.
So ordered.13 [Citations omitted.]
Unsatisfied, Nestor appealed to the CA. He maintained that the decision of the RTC did not comply with the Constitutional mandate that judgments must clearly and distinctly state facts and law on which the ruling is based, and further contended that there were serious and substantial inconsistencies in AAA's sworn statement in the police station and her testimony. He argued that her sworn statement and testimony vary regarding where he ejaculated, the number of floors of her house, and the date when he allegedly raped her. 14 In contrast, the Office of the Solicitor General posited that the alleged inconsistencies are irrelevant and do not affect AAA's credibility as a witness. Likewise, the prosecution sufficiently proved the elements of the crime of rape. 15
On July 29, 2019, the CA affirmed the RTC's findings that Nestor is guilty of rape, with modification on the award of damages, 16 to wit:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 16 November 2015 of Branch 77, Regional Trial Court of Malolos City, Bulacan, in Criminal Case No. 967-M-2008 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION of the monetary awards, as follows:
a. Civil Indemnity ex delicto — P75,000.00
b. Moral Damages — P75,000.00
c. Exemplary Damages — P75,000.00
All monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of this Decision until full payment, in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.
SO ORDERED.17
The CA confirmed that the RTC's decision was tersely worded and compliant with the Constitutional requirement since it contained a summary of the facts, the elements of the offense charged, and pertinent jurisprudence. The prosecution sufficiently proved the elements of the crime, and the alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of AAA did not diminish her clear and categorical declarations against Nestor. AAA clearly explained the force, threat and intimidation employed by Nestor. She testified that AAA forcibly entered their house, dragged her onto the wooden bed, and threatened her when he said that he will kill her parents.
Nestor sought reconsideration, 18 but was denied in the October 22, 2019 Resolution. 19 Hence, this appeal. The People 20 and Nestor 21 filed their separate manifestations stating that they will no longer file their respective briefs and instead adopt the allegations made in the briefs filed before the CA.
Ruling
The appeal has no merit.
The pertinent portions of Articles 266-A and 266-B of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, 22 reads:
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 are present.
Article 266-B. Penalty. — Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished with reclusion perpetua.
For a charge of rape by sexual intercourse under Article 266-A of the RPC to prosper, the prosecution must prove that: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) he accomplished this act under the circumstances mentioned in the provision. The gravamen of rape is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will. 23 The prosecution must prove that force or intimidation was actually employed by accused upon his victim to achieve his end. The failure to do so is fatal to its cause. 24
In this case, the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the presence of all the elements of rape by sexual intercourse through force, threat or intimidation. The following excerpts from AAA's testimony sufficiently demonstrate that she did not consent to Nestor's bestial act, and that he employed physical force to bring her towards the bed, as well as threatened to kill her parents:
Q (Prosecutor Eduardo G. Dela Cruz):
And do you still recall how [Nestor] started to rape you?
A ([AAA]):
He brought gas in our house, sir, and he spread it in the door, and he gave Php2.00 [to] the two (2) [kids] and ordered them not to go down because other people might see them, sir.
Q After [Nestor] gave your two (2) siblings Php2.00, what happened next?
A He pulled me and he brought me [to] the bed of [my older sister], sir.
Q What happened after you were placed at the bed by [Nestor]?
A He removed his [clothes] and he also undressed me and then he put himself on top of me, sir.
Q After you were undressed by [Nestor] and placed himself on top of you, what action did AAA do?
A He sucked my two (2) [breasts], sir.
Q After he sucked your two (2) [breasts], what else did he do, Ms. Witness?
A He also kissed me, Sir.
Q What else did he do if you still recall?
A He threatened me, sir.
Q How did [Nestor threaten] you?
A That he will kill my mother and father, sir.
Q Why is he going to kill your mother and father?
A I do not know, sir, he just threatened me, sir.
Q And for how long did he place himself on top of you?
A For a long time, sir.
Q Aside from kissing your breast, what else did he do?
A He mashed my breast, sir.
Q What else, what other parts of your body was touched by [Nestor]?
A He [kept] on kissing my neck, sir.
Q What else?
A "Nilabasan po siya ng semilya." [Sperm] came out of his penis, sir.
Q Did you see his penis?
A Yes, sir.
Q What did he do with his penis?
A He masturbated it, sir.
Q In front of you?
A Yes, sir.
Q What else did he do with his penis?
A When something came out from his penis, he immediately left, sir.
Q In your statement you claimed, Ms. Witness, that after you were kissed on your lips, breasts, the accused [held] his penis and "pinasok sa ari ko at nilabasan," what do you mean [by] that statement of yours?
A His penis was inserted into my vagina, sir.
Q And for how long [did] the penis of [Nestor stay] inside of your vagina?
A For a long time, sir.
Q And what did you feel when the same was inserted in your vagina?
A I felt pain, sir. 25 [Emphasis supplied.]
Nonetheless, Nestor insists on the inconsistencies in the sworn statement and testimony of AAA. First, AAA failed to state in her sworn statement that Nestor ejaculated during the alleged sexual intercourse. Next, AAA testified that their house has two floors, but her sister claimed that the house had only one floor. Lastly, AAA testified that she can no longer recall the date of the alleged rape. We find these discrepancies inconsequential to warrant the reversal of Nestor's conviction as they do not refer to the essential elements of the crime of rape. 26
It is well-settled that since sworn statements are most always incomplete and inaccurate and do not disclose the complete facts for want of inquiries or suggestion, these statements are generally considered to be inferior to the testimony given in open court. What matters is, in the overall analysis of the case, the trial court's findings and conclusions are duly supported by evidence on record. 27 Moreover, inaccuracies and inconsistencies are expected in a rape victim's testimony. Rape is a painful experience which is oftentimes not remembered in detail. It causes deep psychological wounds that scar the victim for life and which her conscious and subconscious mind would opt to forget. Inconsistencies in the testimony of the witness with regard to minor or collateral matter do not diminish the value of the testimony in terms of truthfulness or weight. Thus, a few inconsistent remarks in rape cases will not necessarily impair the testimony of the offended party. 28 Inconsistencies, if any, tend to bolster, rather than weaken, the credibility of the witness, for these show that the testimony was not contrived or rehearsed. 29 The discrepancies relating to collateral and trivial matters in the victim's testimony neither taint her credibility nor dispute the commission of rape. 30
Here, the purported inconsistencies in AAA's testimony, do not negate her allegation that Nestor had carnal knowledge of her by physically forcing and threatening her. These do not indicate the impossibility of the rape, let alone touch on any of the elements of the crime. More importantly, these do not affect AAA's credibility, which was already determined by the RTC and affirmed by the CA.
Time and again, this Court has held that trial courts are in the best position to evaluate and gauge the sincerity and spontaneity of witnesses through their actual observation of the witnesses' manner of testifying, their demeanor and behavior in court. Trial judges have the advantage to observe the witness' deportment and manner of testifying that can reflect his honesty and sincerity. As they are in an ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies, they can better resolve if the witness is telling the truth. This rule finds more stringent application when the trial court's findings are sustained by the appellate court. 31 In this case, both the RTC and the CA found AAA's testimony clear, categorical, and direct, even on cross-examination. She was steadfast and straightforward in her account of the commission of rape by Nestor against her. Nestor failed to demonstrate that the RTC and the CA overlooked or misappreciated some facts of weight and substance that would render his conviction questionable. The RTC aptly observed:
The prosecution's evidence against accused, particularly, [AAA's] testimony is credible enough and sufficient enough to sustain accused's conviction for rape by sexual intercourse. Both the prosecution and accused agreed that [AAA] was 15 years old at the time of the alleged incident and that [AAA] knew accused as a neighbor and the ninong of her sisters. She has no reason to invent a story that is serious against accused. [AAA] was clear and categorical in her testimony that accused sexually violated her after threatening her that accused would kill her parents. The threat cowed [AAA] to submission and scared her thereby initially preventing her from reporting to her mother the truth of what she suffered in the hands of accused. The result of her medical examination showed that she is already "in non-virgin state physically." To the court's mind, the totality of [AAA's] testimony and the prosecution's evidence is credible enough and convincing enough to sustain the conviction of accused. [AAA] was steadfast and straightforward in her narration of the sexual abuse which she suffered in the hands of accused. She was consistent in the essential points of her story despite the grueling cross-examination conducted by accused's counsel on her. The alleged inconsistencies pointed out by accused are minor and do not significantly affect [AAA's] testimony. 32
Considering the positive and categorical identification of AAA that Nestor perpetrated the rape against her, Nestor's defense of denial was correctly rejected by the RTC and the CA. Denial, being self-serving negative evidence, cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight that the positive declaration of a credible witness. 33 Differently stated, denial is essentially the weakest form of defense and can never overcome an affirmative testimony especially when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness. 34
From the foregoing, the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the RTC and the CA is proper. Likewise, the award of damages — P75,000.00 civil indemnity, P75,000.00 moral damages, and P75,000.00 exemplary damages, with legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of the decision until full satisfaction — as modified by the CA is consistent with prevailing jurisprudence. 35
FOR THE STATED REASONS, the appeal is DENIED. The accused-appellant Nestor Ocampo is GUILTY of the crime of rape under Article 266-A (1) (a) of the Revised Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Accused-appellant is ordered to pay AAA the following amounts: civil indemnity of P75,000.00, moral damages of P75,000.00, and exemplary damages of P75,000.00. All monetary awards for damages shall earn legal interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 3-21. Penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh and concurred in by Associate Justices Franchito N. Diamante and Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon.
2. CA rollo, pp. 186-190. Rendered by the same Division of the Court of Appeals.
3. Any information to establish or compromise the identity of the victim, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be withheld, and fictitious initials are used, pursuant to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610, An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, and for Other Purposes; R.A. No. 9262, An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, and for Other Purposes; Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children. See also People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006.
4. Id. at 37-38.
5. Docketed as Criminal Case No. 967-M-2008.
6. AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, approved on June 17, 1992.
7. Rollo, p. 5.
8. CA rollo, p. 38.
9. Id. at 37a-40. Penned by Presiding Judge Gorgonio B. Elarmo, Jr.
10. Id. at 40.
11. Id. at 42.
12. Id. at 42-45.
13. Id. at 45.
14. Id. at 18-36.
15. Id. at 64-88.
16. Rollo, pp. 3-21. Penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh and concurred in by Associate Justices Franchito N. Diamante and Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon.
17. Id. at pp. 20-21.
18. CA rollo, pp. 179-183.
19. Id. at 186-190. The CA Resolution disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. The Decision dated 29 July 2019 stands unreconsidered.
SO ORDERED.
20. Id. at 35-36.
21. Id. at 30-31.
22. AN ACT EXPANDING THE DEFINITION OF THE CRIME OF RAPE, RECLASSIFYING THE SAME AS A CRIME AGAINST PERSONS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ACT NO. 3815, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, approved on September 30, 1997.
23. People v. Ejercito, 834 Phil. 837 (2018).
24. People v. Tionloc y Marquez, G.R. No. 212193, February 15, 2017, 805 Phil. 907-920.
25. Rollo, pp. 17-18.
26. See People v. Descartin, Jr. y Mercader, 810 Phil. 881-895 (2017).
27. Julian y Tanala v. People, G.R. No. 250827 (Notice), March 2, 2020; People v. Gonzales, Jr., 781 Phil. 149-163 (2016); People v. Rivera, 414 Phil. 430-460 (2001); People v. Gapasan, 312 Phil. 964-976 (1995).
28. People v. Tuballas y Faustino, 811 Phil. 201-219 (2017).
29. People v. Alipio, 618 Phil. 38-54 (2009).
30. People v. Ibañez y Morales, G.R. No. 231984, July 6, 2020.
31. People v. Descartin, Jr. y Mercader, 810 Phil. 881-895 (2017).
32. CA Rollo, p. 39.
33. People v. Gerola y Amar, 813 Phil. 1055-1069 (2017).
34. People v. Dulay y Pascual, 695 Phil. 742-761 (2012).
35. People v. Tulagan, G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019.