THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242268. July 10, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ARIEL OLINARES y LIMPOT @ "AYE", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 10, 2019, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242268 (People of the Philippines vs. Ariel Olinares y Limpot @ "Aye"). — Before the Court is an appeal 1 from the Decision 2 dated May 15, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08417, which affirmed with modification the Judgment 3 dated April 12, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 9 in Criminal Case No. 12-292417, convicting accused-appellant Ariel Olinares y Limpot @ "Aye" (Olinares) with Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (d) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8353, otherwise known as the "Anti-Rape Law."
The Facts
Olinares was charged with Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (d) of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 8353. The Information reads as follows:
Criminal Case No. 12-292417
That on or about July 17, 2012, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused[,] with lewd design, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully[,] and feloniously commit sexual abuse and lascivious conduct against [AAA], 4 an 8[-]year[-]old minor, by then and there bringing her inside the comfort room, removing her shorts and underwear and pressing ("idinikit") his penis against her vagina while [AAA] was standing on top of the bowl, against her will and consent.
Contrary to law. 5
Version of the Prosecution
Sometime around 12:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. of July 17, 2012, AAA, who was an 8-year-old minor at the time, went to her cousin who was living in Olinares' house. AAA testified that she and Olinares are neighbors, with their houses adjacent to each other. 6
AAA was washing her hands in the sink when Olinares approached her and carried her. Olinares then brought her inside the comfort room. Once inside, he forced AAA to stand on the toilet bowl while he stood in front of her. He then removed AAA's shorts and underwear, and even when the latter started crying, he still proceeded to remove his own underwear. 7
Olinares inserted his penis into AAA's vagina three times. AAA felt pain as Olinares continued with his beastly acts. When he had consummated the act, he wore his clothes again and gave AAA P20.00. Feeling utter disgust, AAA threw the P20.00 bill, left the comfort room and hurried home. 8
AAA did not disclose to her parents what Olinares did to her but decided to confide in BBB, her neighbor. BBB then narrated the incident to CCC who later on informed AAA's parents about what happened. AAA's parents confronted her about what happened and, after confirming the story, accompanied AAA to the barangay and then to the police station to report the incident. There, both AAA and her mother executed sworn statements. The following day, they proceeded to the hospital to have AAA medically examined. 9
On July 18, 2012, Dr. Sandra S. Hernandez of the Child Protection Unit, Philippine General Hospital, performed a genital examination on AAA. Thereafter, she released a medical report which provided that while there were no signs of hymenal injury, such fact does not exclude sexual abuse. 10
Version of the Defense
Olinares vehemently denied the allegations and claimed that it would be impossible for the sexual act to happen as he has nieces and is a God-fearing individual. Olinares, likewise, claimed that he has always treated AAA like his own niece; and that AAA and her family are his next door neighbors, with only a concrete wall to separate their abode from his. 11
According to Olinares, on July 17, 2012, he was in his room located at the upper floor of his house. At about 8:00 a.m., he went downstairs to have breakfast and that was when he saw his mother, siblings, nephews, and nieces, including AAA. AAA was playing with his nephews and nieces. He testified that he went back to his room to take a nap, and when he woke up, he ate lunch. At that time, his family were inside the house, but AAA was nowhere to be found. After lunch, Olinares stayed inside his room and continued watching television. 12
At around 4:00 p.m., while on his way to the basketball court, he was stopped by the Barangay Kagawad, AAA's father and five other police officers who accosted him and asked him to go with them for questioning. He was told by the latter to go with them peacefully as there was a complaint against him. Olinares acquiesced and was brought to the police detachment. He was surprised to learn that he was being accused of rape by AAA. 13
To corroborate Olinares' testimony, his brother, Rolando Olinares, testified that from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. of July 17, 2012, he was in his room watching a television program with Olinares. 14
Ruling of the RTC
In a Judgment 15 dated April 12, 2016, the RTC found Olinares guilty of the crime charged. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
Premises considered, the Court is morally convinced that [Olinares] is GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and is hereby imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
He is also ordered to indemnify [AAA] the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages.
Moral damages should be awarded without need of showing that the victim suffered trauma or mental, physical[,] or psychological suffering.
The facts and evidence of the case show a high degree of perversity of the accused in molesting a young girl barely 9 years old. To deter such behavior, the Court imposed P75,000.00 as exemplary damages on the accused as a warning to those who are similarly disposed.
The amount herein awarded shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from [the] date of the finality of Judgment.
SO ORDERED.16 (Emphases in the original)
Ruling of the CA
On appeal, the CA affirmed the conviction of Olinares on the charge, albeit with modifications on the cost of damages in view of the Court's recent ruling in People v. Jugueta. 17 The dispositive portion of the CA Decision 18 dated May 15, 2018 reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Judgment dated April 12, 2016 of the [RTC] of Manila, Branch 9, in Criminal Case No. 12-292417 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION as to the damages awarded. [Olinares] is ordered to pay private complainant seventy[-]five thousand pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity, seventy[-]five thousand pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages, and seventy[-]five thousand pesos (P75,000.00) as exemplary damages.
The amount herein awarded shall earn an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of judgment until full payment.
SO ORDERED.19 (Emphases in the original)
Hence, this appeal.
Ruling of the Court
Olinares' conviction is sustained.
All the elements of Statutory Rape are
Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, provides:
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.
Statutory rape is committed when the prosecution proves that:
(1) the offended party is under 12 years of age and (2) the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim, regardless of whether there was force, threat or intimidation; whether the offended party was deprived of reason or consciousness; or whether it was done through fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority. It is enough that the age of the victim is proven and there was sexual intercourse. 20 (Citation omitted)
First, it is undisputed that at the time of the incident, AAA was only 8 years old. Second, the sexual acts committed by Olinares were sufficiently proven by the clear, straightforward and categorical statement of AAA. In her sworn statement, she stated that Olinares pressed his penis ("idinikit") against her vagina, viz.:
Q You said your short (sic) and panty were removed by the accused?
WITNESS
A Yes, your Honor.
COURT
Q And then the accused also removed his short (sic) and brief?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q And then what happened while you were standing on the toilet bowl?
A He carried me again, Your Honor.
Q While you were standing on the toilet bowl?
A Yes, Your Honor.
FISCAL SADSAD
Q Where were you placed when he lifted you?
A In his penis, Sir.
Q A while ago you mentioned that he placed his penis into your vagina, was he standing at that time when he placed his penis?
A Yes, Sir.
Q He remain (sic) standing there?
A Yes, Sir.
Q For how long did he placed (sic) his penis into your vagina?
WITNESS
A For a long time, Sir.
FISCAL SADSAD
Q If you count 1 to 10, is it more than 10 or less than 10?
A About ten (10), Sir.
Q You said that the penis of the accused place (sic) into your vagina did it penetrate or it would (sic) insert to your vagina?
A He penetrate (sic), Sir.
Q Since he penetrate (sic), how long if you count to ten (10)?
A Less than ten (10), Sir.
Q For how many times did the accused place his penis into your vagina?
A Three (3) times, Sir.
Q On that date and time did the accused inserted (sic) his penis into your vagina three (3) times?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Were you hurt when he inserted his penis into your vagina?
A Yes, Sir.
Q How did you re-act (sic)?
A I cried, Sir.
Q Even when you were crying still the accused inserted his penis into your vagina?
WITNESS
A Yes, Sir. 21
In a charge for Rape, it is enough that there is proof of entry of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum of the female organ. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without laceration of the hymen, is enough to constitute rape, and even the briefest of contact is deemed rape. As long as the attempt to insert the penis results in contact with the lips of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, the rape is consummated. 22
The Court, in People v. Buca, 23 held that:
[T]estimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subjected to public trial, if she was not motivated solely by desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth. It is highly improbable that a girl of tender years, one not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to any man a crime so serious as rape if what she claims is not true. 24 (Citation omitted)
It is well-settled that when the issue focuses on the credibility of the witnesses or the lack of it, the assessment of the trial court is controlling because of its unique opportunity to observe the witness and the latter's demeanor, conduct, and attitude. 25
A person accused of a serious crime such as rape will tend to escape liability by shifting the blame on the victim for failing to manifest resistance to sexual abuse. However, this Court has recognized the fact that no clear-cut behavior can be expected of a person being raped or has been raped. It is a settled rule that the failure of the victim to shout or seek help does not negate rape. Even lack of resistance will not imply that the victim has consented to the sexual act by the accused. 26
Given AAA's minority at the time, it is understandable that even without actual force or intimidation, Olinares was still in an advantageous position to commit the beastly act of rape.
In statutory rape, force and intimidation are immaterial; the only subject of inquiry is the age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge took place. The law presumes that the victim does not and cannot have a will of her own on account of her tender years; the child's consent is immaterial because of her presumed incapacity to discern evil from good. 27
Probative and evidentiary weight of the
The fact that there were no healed lacerations in AAA's hymen is immaterial. Laceration is not an element of the crime of rape. Simply put, the absence of laceration does not negate rape. The presence of lacerations in the vagina is not necessary to prove rape; neither is a broken hymen an essential element of the crime. It has been held that prior sexual intercourse which could have resulted in hymenal laceration is irrelevant in rape cases for virginity is not an element of rape. 28 "Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration on the hymen, is enough to justify a conviction for rape." 29 Moreover, it is doctrinally settled that "full penetration of the vaginal orifice is not an essential ingredient nor is the rupture of the hymen necessary; the mere touching of the external genitalia or labia of the female organ by the penis capable of consummating the sexual act is sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge." 30
Denial and alibi are weak defenses
As to Olinares' denial and alibi, the Court finds the same undeserving of consideration. It was clearly established that AAA and Olinares are next door neighbors. Although Olinares claims that at the time of the incident, he was inside his room on the upper floor, it was not physically impossible for him to have been at the crime scene which was conveniently located in the same apartment.
It is a time-honored principle in jurisprudence that positive identification, more so when corroborated by other pieces of evidence, prevails over alibi since the latter can easily be fabricated by the accused. For the defense of alibi to hold water, the accused must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, (a) his presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense, and (b) the physical impossibility of his presence at the scene of the crime. Physical impossibility means that the accused was at some other place for such a length of time that it was impossible for him to have been at the crime scene, either before or after the time he was at such other place. 31
The Court thoroughly explained in People v. Palanay32 that by the distinctive nature of rape cases, conviction usually rests solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim, provided that such testimony is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. Thus, the victim's credibility becomes the primordial consideration in the resolution of rape cases. The evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court given its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling examination. 33
It is an oft-stated doctrine that factual findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of their probative weight are given high respect if not conclusive effect, unless the trial court ignored, misconstrued, misunderstood or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances of substance, which, if considered, will alter the outcome of the case. 34 In this regard, the Court finds no reversible error in the findings of the appellate court in upholding the conviction of Olinares for statutory rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (d) of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 8353.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated May 15, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08417, finding accused-appellant Ariel Olinares y Limpot @ "Aye" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA rollo, pp. 100-101.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Germano Francisco D. Legaspi, with Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, concurring; id. at 89-99.
3. Rendered by Acting Presiding Judge Marivic Balisi-Umali; id. at 46-52.
4. 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 her immediate family, or household members, shall not be disclosed to protect her privacy, and fictitious initial shall, instead, be used, in accordance with People v. Cabalquinto (533 Phil. 703 [2006]) and the Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017.
5. CA rollo, p. 46.
6.Id. at 90.
7.Id.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 90-91.
10.Id. at 91.
11.Id. at 49.
12.Id.
13.Id. at 49-50.
14.Id. at 50.
15.Id. at 46-52.
16.Id. at 52.
17. 783 Phil. 806, 848-849 (2016).
II. For Simple Rape/Qualified Rape:
xxx xxx xxx
2.1 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, other than the above-mentioned:
a. Civil indemnity — P75,000.00
b. Moral damages — P75,000.00
c. Exemplary damages — P75,000.00
18. CA rollo, pp. 89-98.
19. Id. at 98.
20. People v. Deliola, 794 Phil. 194, 205 (2016).
21. CA rollo, pp. 95-96.
22. People v. Borromeo, 474 Phil. 605, 616-617 (2004).
23. ILLEGIBLE PORTION 70 Phil. 318 (2015).
24. Id. at 328.
25. People v. Vitero, 708 Phil. 49, 60 (2013), citing People v. Manjares, 677 Phil. 242, 259 (2011).
26. People v. Pacheco, 632 Phil. 624, 633 (2010), citing People v. Ofemiano, 625 Phil. 92, 99 (2010).
27. People v. Arpon, 678 Phil. 752, 773 (2011), citing People v. Macafe, 650 Phil. 580, 588 (2010).
28. People v. Ferrer, 415 Phil. 188, 198 (2001); and People v. Garcia, 351 Phil. 624, 640 (1998).
29. People v. Ortoa, 599 Phil. 232, 247 (2009).
30. People v. Campuhan, 385 Phil. 912, 920 (2000).
31. People v. Buban, 541 Phil. 482, 502 (2007).
32. 805 Phil. 116 (2017).
33. Id. at 126.
34. Supreme Court Third Division Resolution dated December 8, 2004 in G.R. No. 165820, entitled Leonardo Mendoza v. People of the Philippines, citing People v. Cajurao, 465 Phil. 98, 107 (2004).