THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 230617. June 10, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.RICARDO PADUA y TOLENTINO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 10, 2019, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 230617 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, v. RICARDO PADUA y TOLENTINO, accused-appellant). — A rape victim's lone yet credible testimony suffices to establish the guilt of an accused. Hence, the accused's uncorroborated defense of denial must fail when confronted by the victim's straightforward narration and positive identification.
This Court is asked to review the Court of Appeals' August 30, 2016 Decision 1 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 07689. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant Ricardo Padua y Tolentino (Padua) for two (2) counts of qualified rape under Article 266-A, in relation to Article 266-B, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353. It imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of qualified rape.
Two (2) Informations for rape were filed against Padua before the Regional Trial Court of Tayug, Pangasinan. The first Information was docketed as Criminal Case No. T-5428 and read:
That sometime on August 19, 2011 at 2:00 o'clock (sic) in the afternoon, at [XXX], municipality of [XXX], province of Pangasinan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, who is the uncle of the complainant (victim), by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously remove the clothes, kiss and mash the breast of AAA, a minor, 16 years of age, then laid her down on the bed and inserted his penis into the vagina of said AAA, while poking the knife towards her ribs, against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY to Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act 8353. 2 (Emphasis in the original)
The second Information, docketed as Criminal Case No. T-5429, read:
That on or about 2:00 o'clock (sic) in the afternoon of October 19, 2011, at [XXX], municipality of [XXX], province of Pangasinan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, who is the uncle of complainant (victim), by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously remove the clothes, kiss and insert his penis into the vagina of AAA, a minor, 16 years of age, against her will and consent, to the damage and prejudice of said AAA. aScITE
CONTRARY to Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act 8353. 3 (Emphasis in the original)
The two (2) Informations were consolidated. Padua pleaded not guilty to both charges of qualified rape against him. 4
The prosecution presented as its witnesses: (1) complainant AAA; (2) her mother BBB; and (3) Dr. Ria Adova Viado Loresto (Dr. Loresto). 5 The facts, as found by the trial court and the Court of Appeals, are as follows:
AAA testified that she was repeatedly raped by her uncle while her mother was confined in a hospital. She was then only 16 years old. 6
At about 2:00 p.m. on August 19, 2011, AAA arrived home from school and changed her clothes in her room. Suddenly, Padua, her mother's brother, entered her room with a knife and threatened to stab her if she resisted him. 7
Padua undressed and kissed AAA at knifepoint. She struggled against him, but her uncle was stronger. He pushed her onto the bed, where he repeatedly thrust his penis into her vagina, causing her to cry in pain. 8
Once he sated his lust, Padua again threatened AAA and warned her not to tell anyone what happened or he would kill her. He then left AAA inside her room. 9
The rape happened several more times, AAA stated. Almost every afternoon, after she had returned from school, Padua would forcibly go into her room, similarly threatening her with a knife, raping her, then warning her not to tell anyone about it. She said that he raped her for the last time on October 19, 2011. 10
AAA explained that her bedroom door did not have a lock, so after the first time Padua raped her, she tried to prevent him from entering her room by propping an ironing board against her door. However, Padua was able to push the door open despite her attempt at barricading it. 11
AAA explained that she did not tell her parents or friends about what her uncle had done to her because she was afraid that he would hurt her. She knew that he had a mental disorder and was capable of violence. 12
BBB testified that on April 18, 2011, she was confined at the Villamor Airbase Hospital after suffering a stroke brought about by hypertension. 13 She said that she only learned about AAA's rape on January 27, 2012, the same day she knew her daughter was pregnant. Having noticed AAA's growing belly, BBB asked if she was pregnant. AAA initially denied her pregnancy, but upon her mother's prodding, eventually admitted that Padua raped her several times and got her pregnant. 14
BBB immediately went to her sister's house, where Padua was a caretaker, and confronted him about AAA's accusations against him. She said that Padua denied raping AAA and claimed that he never forced himself on her as they had consensual sex. 15
On January 31, 2012, Dr. Loresto, a municipal health officer, conducted a pregnancy test on AAA, which confirmed that she was pregnant. However, Dr. Loresto admitted that she could not remember the age of gestation when she conducted the test. She also did not know if AAA was raped or had consensual sex. 16
In June 2012, AAA gave birth to a baby boy but left the infant at the hospital. She never went back for the baby and did not know what happened to him. 17
Padua solely testified in his defense, denying that he raped his niece. He claimed that AAA had a boyfriend at the time he supposedly raped her. Moreover, when BBB was hospitalized, he claimed that he and AAA were not alone in the house since AAA's sibling and a female boarder also lived there. However, he admitted that the boarder worked at a pawnshop while attending school, and would only arrive home after 5:00 p.m. 18
Padua speculated that his sister and niece concocted the charge against him because he was a burden to BBB, who resented supporting him and providing his needs. 19 HEITAD
In its July 20, 2015 Decision, 20 the Regional Trial Court found Padua guilty of the two (2) rape charges against him.
The Regional Trial Court found AAA's "straightforward, spontaneous[,] and frank recollection . . . of her harrowing experience" 21 to be more believable than Padua's uncorroborated denial. 22
The Regional Trial Court also pointed out that AAA's obstetrical ultrasound conducted on March 12, 2012 confirmed her pregnancy and estimated that she was impregnated around October 2011, around the time AAA claimed Padua last had carnal knowledge with her. 23
The Regional Trial Court disregarded claims that Padua had a mental disorder since it was not established with competent evidence. 24
The dispositive portion of the Regional Trial Court Decision read:
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of QUALIFIED RAPE and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count.
As to the civil liability, the accused is ORDERED to pay AAA for each of the two (2) counts of rape P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, plus legal interest on all damages awarded at the legal rate of 6% from the date of finality of this Decision.
No costs.
SO ORDERED. 25
On August 4, 2015, upon Padua's timely filing of a Notice of Appeal, 26 the Regional Trial Court directed the transmittal of the case records to the Court of Appeals. 27
In its August 30, 2016 Decision, 28 the Court of Appeals denied Padua's appeal and affirmed the Regional Trial Court Decision.
The Court of Appeals concurred with the Regional Trial Court that the prosecution managed to establish all the elements of qualified rape beyond reasonable doubt. 29 Furthermore, it deferred to the trial court's appreciation of AAA's credibility, pointing out that its conclusion on the credibility of rape victims should be given great weight and respect. 30
The Court of Appeals disregarded Padua's assertion that AAA's repeated return to her house despite her supposed abuse tainted her credibility. It pointed out that there is no established behavioral template for rape victims because each one will react differently to the abuse that he or she has experienced. Nonetheless, it emphasized that AAA went back to her own home, which could not be considered contrary to normal behavior. 31
Likewise, the Court of Appeals emphasized that AAA's reluctance to report her rape did not detract from her credibility as a witness. It stated that her tender age and fear of her abuser naturally made her apprehensive to disclose her ordeal. 32
The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals Decision read:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision of the trial court dated 20 July 2015 is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED. 33 (Emphasis in the original)
On October 10, 2016, Padua filed a Notice of Appeal. 34
On October 13, 2016, the Court of Appeals gave due course 35 to Padua's Notice of Appeal and directed the elevation of the case records to this Court.
In its June 5, 2017 Resolution, 36 this Court noted the records forwarded by the Court of Appeals and notified the parties that they may file their respective supplemental briefs.
On July 28, 2017, plaintiff-appellee People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a Manifestation and Motion, 37 praying that it be excused from filing a supplemental brief as it had already extensively addressed all the matters and issues raised by accused-appellant in its own Brief 38 filed before the Court of Appeals. ATICcS
On August 11, 2017, accused-appellant filed a Manifestation 39 informing this Court that he would no longer file a supplemental brief and would adopt his Brief 40 filed before the Court of Appeals.
In its September 25, 2017 Resolution, 41 this Court noted both parties' Manifestations.
Accused-appellant maintains that the Regional Trial Court gravely erred in relying upon AAA's incredible testimony to secure his conviction. 42 He insists that AAA's testimony was contrary to human experience as she continued to go home even if accused-appellant supposedly raped her several times in her own bedroom. 43
Accused-appellant also highlights AAA's reluctance to tell her mother about her rape, only doing so after her mother asked her about her obvious pregnancy. 44 He emphasizes that despite AAA claiming that she was a fighter, she failed to present evidence that she fought off his unwanted advances. 45
For its part, plaintiff-appellee insists that accused-appellant was rightfully convicted of two (2) counts of qualified rape as the prosecution proved the existence of all the elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. 46
Plaintiff-appellee underscores that it was not incumbent upon a rape victim to prove that he or she resisted, especially when there was intimidation, which would cow the victim into submitting to his or her assailant. 47
Furthermore, plaintiff-appellee avers that it was immaterial if AAA and BBB had differing testimonies as to when BBB was hospitalized since it has already been proven that AAA was alone in her house during the times accused-appellant raped her. 48
Plaintiff-appellee argues that AAA's act of going home despite the threat of rape did not taint her credibility as a witness. This is because she tried to protect herself and prevent further abuse by barricading her bedroom door, although to no avail. 49
Finally, plaintiff-appellee points out that AAA's delay in reporting her ordeal was typical of rape victims who would often choose to suffer in silence rather than put their lives or their loved ones' in danger. 50
The sole issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not accused-appellant Ricardo Padua y Tolentino's guilt for the two (2) qualified rape charges against him was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The appeal must fail.
The elements for the crime of rape is provided for in Article 266-A (1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997:
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.
Rape is qualified "[w]hen 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[.]" 51
Here, the prosecution proved that AAA was 16 years old at the time accused-appellant, her maternal uncle, or her relative by consanguinity within the third civil degree, had carnal knowledge of her through threat or intimidation. TIADCc
The Regional Trial Court found AAA's testimony to be "straightforward, spontaneous[,] and [a] frank recollection . . . of the lurid details of her harrowing experience at the fiendish hands of no less than [her] maternal uncle." 52 This Court sees no reason to supplant the trial court's findings with its own.
It is settled that a trial court's factual findings and evaluation of a witness' credibility and testimony is entitled to great respect, unless it is proven that the trial court may have "overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied any fact or circumstance of weight and substance." 53 Indeed, the lower courts made no such misapprehension or misapplication of facts that would compel this Court to reassess their findings of fact and evaluation of the witnesses' testimonies.
Thus, accused-appellant's bare defense of denial fails when confronted by the victim's straightforward narration and positive identification. 54 This Court has repeatedly emphasized that the lone yet credible testimony of a rape victim will suffice to establish the guilt of an accused. 55
Accused-appellant attempts to cast doubt on AAA's credibility by, among others, insisting that it was contrary to normal human behavior for her to continue returning to her house if he really sexually abused her in her own bedroom.
This Court is not convinced.
As the Court of Appeals pointed out, there is no established template of behavior that rape victims are expected to follow to give credence to their accusation against their attackers. Rape victims act and react differently to the abuse they suffered. 56 Furthermore, AAA testified that she tried to protect herself from him by blocking her bedroom door with an ironing board. 57 Hence, contrary to accused-appellant's assertions, her continued return to her own home was still within the bounds of normal human behavior and did not detract from her credibility.
Even AAA's delay in revealing her rape to her mother will not discredit her testimony against accused-appellant. Accused-appellant threatened AAA with harm if she told anyone what he had done to her. Believing her uncle's threats and experiencing his violent nature firsthand, it was unsurprising that AAA kept her ordeal to herself and only recounted what happened to her mother when her pregnancy could no longer be hidden, as the Regional Trial Court observed:
After accused had carnal knowledge of AAA, he threatened to kill her if she would tell anybody. AAA was left crying in her room. She did not report accused to her parents fearing he might make good of his threat until her mother noticed signs of pregnancy. After her daughter's tearful revelation, BBB confronted accused, who did not deny having sexual intercourse with AAA, and, instead claimed that he did not force AAA. 58
In People v. Delos Reyes, 59 this Court explained that a rape victim's delay in reporting his or her rape is rooted in fear, and should not be taken against him or her:
The failure to immediately report the dastardly acts to her family or to the authorities at the soonest possible time or her failure to immediately change her clothes is not enough reason to cast reasonable doubt on the guilt of Delos Reyes. This Court has repeatedly held that delay in reporting rape incidents, in the face of threats of physical violence, cannot be taken against the victim. Further, it has been written that a rape victim's actions are oftentimes overwhelmed by fear rather than by reason. It is this fear, springing from the initial rape, that the perpetrator hopes to build a climate of extreme psychological terror, which would, he hopes, numb his victim into silence and submissiveness. 60 (Citations omitted)
With all the elements of qualified rape duly proven by the prosecution, the Court of Appeals correctly upheld the Regional Trial Court Decision. However, in line with prevailing jurisprudence, 61 this Court increases the amount of civil indemnity from P75,000.00 to P100,000.00; moral damages from P75,000.00 to P100,000.00; and exemplary damages from P30,000.00 to P100,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the August 30, 2016 Decision the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 07689 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant Ricardo Padua y Tolentino is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of qualified rape and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of two (2) counts of reclusion perpetua to be served successively, without the benefit of parole. He is also ordered to pay AAA, for each count of qualified rape, the amounts of: (1) One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as civil indemnity; (2) One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as moral damages; and (3) One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as exemplary damages. AIDSTE
All damages awarded shall be subject to interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Resolution until its full satisfaction. 62
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-13. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Leoncia Real-Dimagiba, and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Jhosep Y. Lopez of the Fifteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
2. CA rollo, pp. 19-20, RTC Decision.
3.Id. at 20.
4.Rollo, p. 3.
5. CA rollo, p. 20.
6.Id. at 22.
7.Id.
8.Id.
9.Id.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 24.
12.Id. at 22-23.
13.Id. at 21.
14.Id.
15. Id.
16. Id. at 21-22.
17. Rollo, p. 8 and CA rollo, p. 25.
18. CA rollo, pp. 25-27.
19. Id. at 25-26.
20. Id. at 19-33. The Decision, in Criminal Case Nos. T-5428 and T-5429, was penned by Presiding Judge Rusty M. Naya of Branch 51, Regional Trial Court, Tayug, Pangasinan.
21. Id. at 28.
22. Id. at 31.
23. Id. at 30.
24. Id. at 31.
25. Id. at 33.
26. Id. at 35.
27. Id. at 36.
28. Rollo, pp. 2-13.
29. Id. at 10-12.
30. Id. at 10.
31. Id. at 11-12.
32. Id. at 12.
33. Id. at 13.
34. Id. at 14-16.
35. Id. at 17.
36. Id. at 19-20.
37. Id. at 24-29.
38. CA rollo, pp. 87-104.
39. Rollo, pp. 32-36.
40. CA rollo, pp. 47-63.
41. Rollo, pp. 37-38.
42. CA rollo, p. 49.
43. Id. at 55-56.
44. Id. at 57.
45. Id. at 56.
46. Id. at 94-96.
47. Id. at 100.
48. Id.
49. Id. at 100-101.
50. Id. at 101.
51. REV. PEN. CODE, art. 266-B, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 (1997).
52. CA rollo, p. 28.
53. People v. De Jesus, 695 Phil. 114, 122 (2012) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
54. Imbo v. People, 758 Phil. 430, 437 (2015) [Per J. Perez, First Division].
55. Ricalde v. People, 751 Phil. 793, 807 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division]; Garingarao v. People, 669 Phil. 512, 522 (2011) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division]; and People v. Tagaylo, 398 Phil. 1123, 1131-1132 (2000) [Per C.J. Davide, Jr., First Division].
56. Rollo, p 12.
57. CA rollo, p. 24.
58. Id. at 29.
59. 697 Phil. 531 (2012) [Per J. Mendoza, Third Division].
60. Id. at 552.
61. People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].
62. Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013) [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].