People v. Pavillar y Istoponeng

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 240440. October 6, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. NOEL PAVILLAR y ISTOPONENG, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated October 6, 2021 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 240440 (People of the Philippines v. Noel Pavillar y Istoponeng). — Assailed in this appeal is the Decision 1 dated November 29, 2017 rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07750, which affirmed with modification, the Joint Decision 2 dated August 5, 2015, rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 88 of Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija in Criminal Case Nos. SD (08)-1792 and SD (09)-1937.

The instant case stemmed from two Informations charging accused-appellant Noel Pavillar y Istoponeng (accused-appellant) with the crime of statutory rape committed against AAA, 3 and the crime of statutory rape in relation to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610 against BBB, under the following Informations:

Criminal Case No. SD(08)-1792

That on or about the 9th day of May, 2008, at ______________________________________________________________________ and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd designs, by means of threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with [AAA], a minor of 7 years of age, against her will and consent, to the damage and prejudice of said minor complainant.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 4

Criminal Case No. SD(09)-1937

That sometime immediately prior to 27th April 2008 in the ______________________________________________ and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have a carnal knowledge with four years old girl [BBB] to the damage and prejudice of said minor.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 5

On arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges filed against him. 6 Thereafter, pre-trial commenced, thence, trial ensued.

During trial, the prosecution presented its evidence showing that accused-appellant and the victims, AAA and BBB, who live with their mother, CCC, reside in one compound. The compound belongs to the employer of accused-appellant and CCC, who are co-workers. It has been a habit of the siblings, AAA, a 7 year-old girl, and BBB, a 4 year-old girl, to go to accused-appellant's house to watch television, as they did not have their own at home. 7

On May 9, 2008, AAA was watching television in the house of accused-appellant when the latter called AAA to his room. While inside the room, accused-appellant instructed AAA to lie down on the bed. Initially, accused-appellant licked his fingers, followed by the licking of AAA's vagina. Thereafter, accused-appellant inserted his hand into AAA's vagina. Later, accused-appellant removed AAA's shorts and panties, took his own clothes off, and inserted his penis into AAA's vagina. AAA explained that she felt afraid and did not resist because accused-appellant threatened to kill her. After the act, accused-appellant put on his shorts and went out of the house, while AAA dressed herself and went home. AAA did not immediately report the incident to her mother because of fear. 8

The prosecution also adduced that at an earlier date, or on April 27, 2008, AAA and BBB were taking a bath in a spot approximately 10 meters away from accused-appellant's house. After some time, AAA went home while BBB remained in the bath. While BBB continued to bath, accused-appellant appeared, and suddenly held her hand. He then dragged BBB to his house, and once inside, they went to his room. Therein, accused-appellant inserted his finger and penis into BBB's private part. Afterwards, a watery substance came out of accused-appellant's penis. He then threatened BBB he would kill her if she would tell her mother of the incident. BBB thereafter dressed herself and went home. 9 CAIHTE

In one occasion, while AAA and BBB were quarrelling, CCC heard AAA say "isusumbong kita kay mama." CCC asked BBB what AAA meant, to which BBB responded that accused-appellant raped her. CCC reported the rape to the caretaker of the compound, and later to her employer, Ate Nene, who summoned accused-appellant. In turn, accused-appellant denied the accusation against him. CCC then went to the barangay office, where she was advised to go to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). CCC thereafter proceeded to the police station to report the incident. 10

The prosecution also presented a Medico-Legal Report regarding the physical examination conducted on AAA, which indicated that there was a blunt force or penetrating trauma that pierced her hymen, and there was an incomplete healing laceration located between the 6 o'clock and the 7 o'clock positions of the hymen. 11

With respect to BBB, the results of her Medico-Legal Report indicated that there was a vesicular lesion and an incomplete healed laceration located at the 7 o'clock position of her hymen. The vaginal smear and gram staining gave a negative result for gonorrhea, but positive for staphylococcus aureaus. 12

On the part of the defense, accused-appellant denied the charges against him and testified that on April 27, 2008, he was at work from 7:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. He claimed that he could not have raped BBB on April 27, 2008 because he was on duty from 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., and before 3:00 p.m., he and his son, Ricky, were at home. Thus, it was impossible for accused-appellant to rape BBB in the presence of his son. Ricky likewise took the witness stand and corroborated the testimony of accused-appellant. He narrated that AAA and BBB were never at accused-appellant's house in April and May 2008. Accused-appellant further surmised that CCC had concocted the rape charges after he and CCC had a misunderstanding regarding a water hose. 13

Due proceedings were conducted and, in a Joint Decision 14 dated August 5, 2015, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty as charged, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, FOREGOING PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Prosecution having sufficiently established the guilt of the accused, Noel Pavillar beyond reasonable doubt, this Court finds him GUILTY of the crime of Statutory Rape under Criminal Case Nos. SD(08)-1792 and SD(09)-1937. The accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each case pursuant to Art. 266-B of the Revised Penal Code as amended.

The accused is further ordered to pay private complainants [AAA] and [BBB] each, the following amounts:

1. Seventy Five-thousand (P75,000.00) pesos as civil indemnity,

2. Fifty-thousand (P50,000.00) pesos as moral damages, and

3. Thirty-thousand (P30,000.00) pesos as exemplary damages.

The accused is further ordered to pay each complainant interest on all damages awarded at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of judgment until full payment thereof.

Finally, the accused Noel Pavillar, being a detention prisoner is entitled to be credited four fifths (4/5) of his preventive imprisonment in the service of his sentence in accordance with Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code,

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED. 15

Aggrieved, accused-appellant elevated the case through an appeal to the CA, arguing that the testimonies of AAA and BBB were inconsistent, as it was not natural for AAA to frequent the house of accused-appellant, and for CCC to continue allowing her to frequent the said house despite knowledge of the rape incident. He also claimed that the testimony of CCC was inconsistent with the testimony of AAA because, while CCC testified that she discovered the rape incident when BBB disclosed the matter to Dr. Cynthia Daniel, AAA had a different account and testified that CCC found out about the incident when she heard AAA and BBB arguing. As regards the second Information, accused-appellant argued that BBB admitted that there were many people in the spot where she bathed, thus it was impossible for accused-appellant to drag BBB from her bath into his house without anyone seeing its occurrence. BBB also confirmed that Ricky was in accused-appellant's house when the latter allegedly dragged BBB into his house. 16

The prosecution nevertheless argued that there was proof beyond reasonable doubt to convict accused-appellant with two counts of statutory rape, essentially echoing the findings of the RTC. 17 DETACa

Due proceedings were conducted and in the assailed CA Decision, 18 the Joint Decision of the RTC was modified, with the CA disposing the case as follows:

We MODIFY the Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 88, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, thus:

1. Criminal Case No. SD(08)-1792

We find the appellant Noel Pavillar y Istoponeng GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of statutory rape of [AAA], and sentence the appellant to imprisonment of Reclusion Perpetua, and order the appellant to pay the victim AAA the following sums:

a) P75,000.00 (as civil indemnity),

b) P30,000.00 (as exemplary damages),

c) P75,000.00 (as moral damages).

All monetary judgments shall be subject to interest at the rate of 6% per annum computed from the date of finality of its judgment, until fully paid.

2. Criminal Case No. SD(09)-1397 [sic]

We find the appellant Noel Pavilar y Istoponeng GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of statutory rape of [BBB], and sentence the appellant to imprisonment of Reclusion Perpetua, and order the appellant to pay the victim BBB the following sums:

a) P75,000.00 (as civil indemnity),

b) P30,000.00 (as exemplary damages),

c) P75,000.00 (as moral damages).

All monetary judgments shall be subject to interest at the rate of 6% per annum computed from the date of finality of its judgment, until fully paid.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 19

Accused-appellant thereafter filed a Notice of Appeal, which was granted by the CA in a Resolution 20 dated March 12, 2018. Then, in a Resolution 21 dated September 17, 2018, this Court noted the records of the case as forwarded by the CA. In the same Resolution, the parties were likewise ordered to file their supplemental briefs, should they desire, within 30 days from notice.

On November 6, 2018, the Public Attorney's Office filed a Manifestation 22 on behalf of accused-appellant stating that it will no longer file a supplemental brief. A similar Manifestation was filed by the Office of the Solicitor General on behalf of the People of the Philippines on November 16, 2018. 23 Hence, the resolution of this case.

Issue

Whether accused-appellant should be held guilty of two counts of statutory rape.

Ruling

The crime of rape is defined and penalized under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), 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.

Accused-appellant was charged with the crime of statutory rape under Article 266-A par. 1 (d) of the RPC. The elements necessary in every prosecution for statutory rape are: (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 or grave abuse of authority. It is enough that the age of the victim is proven and that there was sexual intercourse. 24

In this case, carnal knowledge was established through the testimony of the victims themselves, AAA and BBB. On the part of AAA, she categorically narrated how accused-appellant succeeded in fulfilling his carnal desires as follows: aDSIHc

Q: Naalala mo ba AAA kung ipinasok ka minsan ni Lolo Noel mo sa kwarto niya?

A: Opo.

Q: Wala kayong kasama noon?

A: Opo.

Q: Eh nung dinala ka sa kwarto nya ano ang ginawa niya sayo?

A: Dinilaan niya po yung kamay nya tapos tsaka po nya nilagay sa puke ko tapos dinilaan din po niya puke ko.

Q: Kamay lang nya o daliri lang ba nya ang ipinasok nya sa puke mo?

A: Hindi po yung ano nya po yung titi nya pinasok nya po sa puke ko.

Q: Ibig sabihin AAA tinanggal nya damit mo, hinubaran ka nya?

A: Yung short ko po.

Q: Eh yung panty mo?

A: Pati din po.

Q: Tinanggal din yung panty mo?

A: Opo.

Q: Sinong nagtanggal ng shorts at panty mo?

A: Siya po.

Q: Sinong siya si Noel?

A: Opo.

Q: Eh anung ginawa mo nung tinanggal nya yung shorts at panty mo?

A: Wala po [pag sumigaw] daw po [ako] papatayin niya ako.

Q: Kaya hindi ka nakasigaw?

A: Opo.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: Nakahiga ka ba noon? Pinahiga ka ba nya sa kama sa loob ng kwarto o sa sahig?

A: Sa kama po.

Q: Tapos, anong ginawa mo nung tinanggal nya yung shorts nya?

A: Nakahiga lang po.

Q: Dahil natatakot ka baka patayin ka nya dahil sabi nga nya papatayin ka nya?

A: Opo.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: Nung nakahiga ka at nakahubad na sya doon na ba nya pinasok yung titi nya?

A: Opo.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: Nung pagkatapos nyang ipasok yung titi nya sa puke mo, anong ginawa nyang sumunod kung naaalala mo, umalis na ba sya?

A: Nagsuot po sya ng shorts nya. 25

Likewise, BBB was able to vividly recall the incident that transpired when she was brought by accused-appellant to his house, and thereafter to his room, where he committed the sexual acts complained of, thus:

Q: Noong huli tayong magkuwentuhan, tinanong kita kung natatandaan mo pa, ang pinag-uusapan natin ay noong naliligo kayo ni Ate Kulot mo sa gripo, natatandaan mo pa? (The last time we talked, I asked you about that instance when you were taking bath together with your sister Kulot. Do you still remember it?)

A: Naliligo lang po ako mag-isa. (I was then taking a bath alone, sir.)

Q: Mag-isa ka lang noon? (You were alone then?)

A: Opo. (Yes sir.)

Q: Nasaan si Ate Kulot mo? (Where was your sister Kulot then?)

A: Andon po sa bahay. (She was in our house, sir.)

xxx xxx xxx

Q: Tapos na siyang maligo? (Was she already finished in taking a bath?)

A: Opo. Ako na lang po ang naliligo. (Yes sir. I was already alone then taking a bath)

Q: Ikaw na lang? (You were already alone then?)

A: Opo. (Yes, sir)

xxx xxx xxx

Q: Noong naliligo ka doon, mag-isa ka lang, sabi mo hinila ka ni Lolo, tama ba? (You said you were then alone taking a bath when Lolo dragged you, is it not?)

A: Opo (Yes, sir.)

xxx xxx xxx

Q: Pinuntahan ka ba niya doon o nadaanan ka lang niya? (Did he directly go to you or he was just passing by?)

A: Nadaanan niya po ako (He was passing by, sir.)

Q: Hinawakan ka ba ni Lolo noong hinila ka niya? (Did Lolo hold you when he dragged you?)

A: Opo. (Yes, sir.)

Q: Saan ka hinawakan ni Lolo noong hinila ka niya? (Where were you held by Lolo when he dragged you?)

A: Sa kamay po. (My hand, sir.)

Q: Aling kamay ang hinawakan niya sa iyo? (Which of your hands did he hold?)

A: Dito po

NOTE:  Witness pointing to her right hand.

Q: Ah sa kanang kamay? (Your right hand?)

A: Opo. (Yes sir.)

Q: Basa ka pa noon, ang damit mo? Naliligo ka eh. (Your clothes were still wet then because you were then taking a bath?)

A: Opo (Yes, sir.)

Q: Noong hinila ka ni Lolo, basa pa rin ang damit mo? (When Lolo dragged you, your clothes were still wet?)

A: Opo (Yes sir.)

Q: Hindi ka pa nakapagbihis (You have not changed your clothes yet?)

A: Hindi pa po (Not yet, sir.)

Q: Noong hinila ka ni Lolo, saan ka dinala ni Lolo? (When Lolo dragged you, where did he bring you?)

A: Doon po sa bahay nila. (To their house, sir)

Q: Galing ka doon sa pinagliliguan mo na hose, hinila ka ni Lolo, dinala ka doon sa bahay? (From where you were taking a bath, Lolo dragged you to his house?)

A: Opo. (Yes, sir.)

xxx xxx xxx

Q: Anong ginawa mo sa doon sa bahay nila? (What did you do in their house?)

A: Hinipuan po niya ako tapos sabi niya huwag ko po siyang isusumbong sa Mama ko dahil papatayin daw po niya ako. (He touched me and he told me that he will kill me if I will tell my mother about what happened, sir) 26

Upon further clarification, BBB continued with her testimony, and narrated the following: ETHIDa

xxx xxx xxx

Q: Sinasabihan ka ni lolo na pumasok sa kuwarto?

A: Opo.

Q: Hindi ka niya hinihila o binubuhat?

A: Noong naligo po ako hinila po ako.

Q: Saan ka naligo?

A: Doon po sa may poso.

Q: Pag nanunuod ka ng t.v. doon, di ba sabi mo, sabi ni lolo pumasok ka sa kuwarto, tama?

A: Opo.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: Ano naman ginagawa niyo sa kuwarto pagdating niyo sa kuwarto?

A: Hinuhubad nya po yung short ko.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: Anong ginagawa mo pag hinuhuban niya yung short mo?

A: Ala po. Hinihiga lang po ako.

Q: Saan ka hinihiga?

A: Doon po sa kama

Q: Pag hinuhubad niya yung short mo anng ginagawa mo, hindi ka ba nagagalit?

A: Minsan lang.

Q: Anong gingawa mo pag nagagalit ka?

A: Sabi ko po, "huwag po"

Q: Anong ginagawa ni lolo pag sinasabi mong "huwag"

A: Inaano pa rin po ako.

Q: Anong "inaano"?

A: Yong kamay niya po dinidilaan niya tsaka nilalgay niya sa puke ko, po.

Q: Lagi niyang ginagawa iyon pagka pinapupunta ka sa kuwarto?

A: Opo.

Q: Yong kamay lang niya ang inilalagay nya sa puke mo?

A: Opo, at tsaka yong titi niya rin po inilalagay niya po.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: Sabi mo ipinasok ng lolo mo yung titi niya sa puke mo?

A: Opo.

Q: Bakit hindi ka sumigaw?

A: Kasi po sabi niya po huwag po akong sisigaw. Pag sumigaw raw po ako, papatayin po raw niya ako. 27

Both AAA and BBB were steadfast in their assertions that, on separate occasions, accused-appellant inserted his penis into their vagina. Likewise, they were threatened by accused-appellant, telling them that he would kill them should they raise their voice while they were engaging in carnal knowledge. AAA and BBB, being girls of tender years, knew that they could not resist the actuations of accused-appellant, as the difference in gender and age between them and accused-appellant would significantly prevent them from putting up any defense under the circumstances. Thus, they had no choice but to succumb to the desires of accused-appellant.

Further, the Medico-Legal Report of AAA and BBB showed that they suffered hymenal lacerations, which supports their narrations of the rape incidents. 28 It has been held that "hymenal lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best evidence of forcible defloration. And when the consistent and forthright testimony of a rape victim is consistent with medical findings, there is sufficient basis to warrant a conclusion that the essential requisites of carnal knowledge have been established." 29

Evidently, no woman, least of all a child, would concoct a story of defloration, allow examination of her private parts and subject herself to public trial or ridicule if she has not, in truth, been a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her being. 30 Testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit, for when a woman or a girl-child says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed. Youth and maturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. 31

Thus, as against the defense of denial posited by accused-appellant, the categorical testimonies of AAA and BBB prevail. It has been held that denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a self-serving assertion that deserves no weight in law, as in this case. Likewise, alibi is one of the weakest defenses not only because it is inherently frail and unreliable, but also because it is easy to fabricate and difficult to check or rebut. 32

Moreover, the rule is settled that when the decision hinges on the credibility of witnesses and their respective testimonies, the trial court's observations and conclusions are generally afforded great respect and accorded finality. 33 The rationale of this rule was explained in the case of People v. Descartin34 as follows:

The rule is settled that when the decision hinges on the credibility of witnesses and their respective testimonies, the trial court's observations and conclusions deserve great respect and are accorded finality, unless the records show facts or circumstances of material weight and substance that the lower court overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated, and which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the case. This is so because trial courts are in the best position to ascertain and measure the sincerity and spontaneity of witnesses through their actual observation of the witnesses' manner of testifying, their demeanor and behavior in court. Trial judges enjoy the advantage of observing the witness' deportment and manner of testifying, her "furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath" — all of which, are useful aids for an accurate determination of a witness' honesty and sincerity. Trial judges, therefore, can better determine if such witnesses are telling the truth, being in the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies. The rule finds an even more stringent application where the said findings are sustained by the CA. 35

Having observed the demeanors of AAA and BBB, the trial court gave credence to their testimonies and concluded the commission of the crime. The Court sees no reason to disturb the evidentiary value accorded by the RTC to their testimonies. In the absence of showing that the RTC misappreciated any of the facts on record in this case or any showing of any circumstance that would raise doubts on the credibility of witnesses, the Court can properly rely on the truthfulness of the testimony of the witnesses. Anent the allegations of inconsistency in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses as pointed out by accused-appellant, suffice it to state that those are trivial matters that do not affect the commission of the crime. The prosecution was able to establish that accused-appellant succeeded in having carnal knowledge with AAA and BBB. cSEDTC

Nevertheless, while the Informations against accused-appellant indicated that AAA was seven years old and BBB was four years old at the time of the commission of the incidents, which thereby classify the crime into statutory rape, the evidence on record does not support these allegations. Even in the pre-trial order, 36 accused-appellant denied the respective ages of AAA and BBB.

In its Decision, the RTC justified its finding regarding the respective ages of the victims as alleged in the Informations, based on the testimony of CCC, being the mother of AAA and BBB. It added that the physique and body built of the victims manifestly shows that they were children of tender age below the age of 10 at the time they took the witness stand. 37

In the case of People v. XXX, 38 the Court found that the evidence of the prosecution lacked evidentiary value insofar as classifying the crime committed by the accused therein as statutory rape, because of the absence of a birth certificate. Relying on the case of People v. Pruna, 39 it was held:

Here, the prosecution offered AAA's testimony that she was born on July 1, 1991 and an unauthenticated photocopy of her certificate of live birth to prove she was below twelve (12) years old when appellant, by asserting his moral ascendancy, succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her against her will in 1999. People v. Pruna enumerates the guidelines in proving the victim's age:

In order to remove any confusion that may be engendered by the foregoing cases, we hereby set the following guidelines in appreciating age, either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance.

1. The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party.

2. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents such as baptismal certificate and school records which show the date of birth of the victim would suffice to prove age.

3. If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of the victim's mother or a member of the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the following circumstances:

a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 7 years old;

b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 12 years old;

c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 18 years old.

4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the testimony of the victim's mother or relatives concerning the victim's age, the complainant's testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused.

5. It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the offended party. The failure of the accused to object to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken against him.

6. The trial court should always make a categorical finding as to the age of the victim.

On the basis of Pruna, we hold that AAA's testimony on her date of birth and the unauthenticated photocopy of her birth certificate do not constitute sufficient proof of her exact age during the two rape incidents. In People v. Lastrollo, the victim's testimony on her age was considered insufficient since it was not clearly and expressly admitted by the accused, as in this case. Also, in People v. Belen, a photocopy of the victim's birth certificate was not accorded probative weight.

To recall, the prosecution and the defense stipulated that AAA was still a minor in January 2000. But was she below twelve (12) years old when the twin counts of rape happened? The evidence on record do not say so. Surely, minority does not mean one is below twelve (12) years old. It only means one has not reached the age of majority (eighteen [18] years old).

In other words, appellant cannot be convicted of statutory rape. 40

Likewise, in the case of People v. Hilarion, 41 the Court rejected the testimony of the mother's victim as a basis for determining the age of the victim since it was not previously shown that no certificate of live birth or other similar authentic document was available, to wit: SDAaTC

In the present case, the records are completely devoid of evidence that the certificates recognized by law have been lost or destroyed or were otherwise unavailable. The mother simply testified without prior proof of the unavailability of the recognized primary evidence. Thus, proof of the victim's age cannot be recognized, following the rule that all doubts should be interpreted in favor of the accused.

xxx xxx xxx

To reiterate, while AAA's mother, BBB, testified that her daughter was six (6) years old at the time of the rape, it had not been previously established that the certificate of live birth or other similar authentic document such as the baptismal certificate or school records have been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable. Even AAA's own testimony on cross examination that she was six (6) years old at the time of the incident would not suffice to prove her minority since her age was not expressly and clearly admitted by the accused. We stress that age is an essential element of statutory rape; hence the victim's age must be proved with equal certainty and clarity as the crime itself. 42

Nevertheless, it was clarified in the case of People v. Bolo43 that despite the rules laid down in Pruna, and in the interest of justice and fairness, the pieces of evidence and the circumstances of a case should be appreciated in determining whether the age of the victim was actually established by the prosecution. 44

In this case, the trial court's observation must be given valuable consideration. It is settled that the trial court has the unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling examination. 45 As a necessary consequence of this opportunity to observe the witnesses, the trial court is able to discern not just the conduct, but also, the overall appearance of the witnesses that are presented before it. This is especially true as when the observation of the trial court is supported by the records of the case.

As the records bear, AAA first took the witness stand on September 15, 2010 and testified that she was nine years old at the time. 46 BBB likewise took the witness stand on the same date and testified that she was six years old at the time. 47 As the incidents complained of occurred in 2008, at which time, AAA was allegedly seven years old and BBB was allegedly four years old, there is a reasonable ground to believe that they were telling the truth with respect to their age. Moreover, the mother of AAA and BBB stated in her Sinumpaang Salaysay that AAA was seven years old on May 9, 2008, 48 while BBB was four years old on May 1, 2008, 49 which document she affirmed when she took the witness stand on October 3, 2012. 50

Further, the Medico-Legal Report of AAA indicated that she was eight years old at the time of examination on May 12, 2008. 51 Likewise, the Medico-Legal Report of BBB indicated that she was four years old at the time of examination on April 30, 2008. 52 Thus, the observation of the trial court that AAA and BBB were of tender years are duly supported by the records of this case.

This is consistent with the pronouncement of the Court in People v. Tipay, 53 where it was held that the minority of a victim of tender age who may be below the age of 10 is quite manifest and the court can take judicial notice thereof. The crucial years pertain to the ages of 15 to 17 where minority may seem to be dubitable due to one's physical appearance.

Considering that the age of AAA and BBB were not between 15 to 17, but of the tender years of four and seven respectively, it is not difficult to observe their physical appearance and take judicial notice of their age as what the trial court did in the proceedings below Us.

As to the exact age of the victims, the value of a Medico-Legal Report in establishing the age of a victim was discussed in the case of People v. Bolo54 as follows:

Furthermore, the Medico-Legal Report prepared by Police S/Insp. Dr. Ebdane, a government physician who took an oath as a civil service official, means that she is competent to examine persons and issue medical certificates which will be used by the government. As such, the Medico-Legal Report carries the presumption of regularity in the performance of her functions and duties. 44 As regards the other documents, under Section 44, Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court, entries in official records made in the performance of official duty are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. To be sure, in the absence of proof to the contrary, law enforcement agencies of the government similarly enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official functions. Verily, if baptismal certificates or school records are allowed to be presented in court to establish the age of the victim in the absence of a birth certificate, with more reason should Medico-Legal Reports and comparable documents be allowed to ascertain such circumstance in similar cases. 55

Considering that the contents of the Medico-Legal Report are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, the age of AAA, being eight years old and that of BBB, being four years old, as stated therein, should be given probative value. Whether AAA was seven years old as alleged in the testimony of her mother, or eight years old, as stated in her Medico-Legal Certificate, the element of the offense of statutory rape, where the offended party must be below 12 years of age, was still proven by the prosecution. acEHCD

As such, with respect to AAA, accused-appellant must be convicted of statutory rape, punishable by reclusion perpetua. Nonetheless, with respect to BBB, accused-appellant must be convicted of qualified statutory rape. This is because the rape was committed against a minor who is below seven years old, where the imposable penalty is death. 56 Indeed, accused-appellant would have been sentenced to death had it not been for the enactment of R.A. No. 9346. 57 In line with A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC, 58 the proper penalty to be imposed upon accused-appellant for the crime of qualified rape committed against BBB is reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.

With regard to the imposition of civil liability, the Court held in People v. Jugueta, 59 and People v. Tulagan, 60 that "when the circumstances surrounding the crime call for the imposition of reclusion perpetua, there being no ordinary aggravating circumstance, the proper amounts should be P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages." 61 Thus, We modify the award of exemplary damages in Criminal Case No. SD (08)-1792 to increase it to the amount of P75,000.00, and affirming the award of civil indemnity and moral damages in the amount of P75,000.00 each.

In Criminal Case No. SD (09)-1937, since there exists an aggravating circumstance, but upon which the death penalty cannot be imposed, We modify the civil liability of accused-appellant to P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,0000.00 as moral damages and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages in line with Jugueta62 and Tulagan. 63

These amounts shall earn six percent (6%) interest per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid.

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated November 29, 2017 rendered by the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. In Criminal Case No. SD (08)-1792, accused-appellant Noel Pavillar y Istoponeng is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of statutory rape. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay AAA P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, and the costs of the suit.

In Criminal Case No. SD (09)-1937, accused-appellant Noel Pavillar y Istoponeng is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified statutory rape. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and to pay BBB P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, and the costs of the suit.

In line with current jurisprudence, interest at the rate of 6% per annum should be imposed on all damages awarded from the date of the finality of this Resolution until full payment.

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. Penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, with Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a member of this Court) concurring; CA rollo, pp. 102-120.

2. Penned by Presiding Judge Anarica J. Castillo-Reyes; id. at 47-64.

3. The identity of the victim or any information which could establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610, An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, Providing Penalties for its Violation, 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; and Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the Rule on Violence against Women and their Children, effective November 15, 2002. See People v. Dumadag, 667 Phil. 664, 669 (2011).

4. See Records, SD (08)-1792, p. 3.

5. See Records, SD (09)-1937, p. 2.

6. See Records, SD (09)-1937, p. 17; SD (08)-1792, p. 27.

7. As culled from the CA Decision, CA rollo, p. 104.

8.Id.

9.Id.

10.Id. at 104-105.

11.Id. at 105.

12.Id.

13.Id. at 106.

14.Supra note 2.

15.Id. at 63-64.

16.Id. at 108.

17.Id. at 109.

18.Supra note 1.

19. CA Rollo, pp. 118-119.

20.Id. at 132.

21.Rollo, p. 27.

22.Id. at 29.

23.Id. at 34.

24.People v. Ronquillo, 818 Phil. 641, 648 (2017).

25. TSN of Criminal Case No. SD (08)-1792, September 15, 2010, pp. 4-7.

26. TSN, December 15, 2010, pp. 3-14.

27. TSN, June 15, 2011, pp. 10-21.

28. CA Rollo, p. 105.

29.Supra note 24 at 651, citations omitted.

30.People v. Pareja, 724 Phil. 759, 786-787 (2014), citing People v. Manuel, 358 Phil. 664, 674 (1998).

31.People v. Marmol, 800 Phil. 813, 826 (2016). (Citations omitted)

32.People v. Molejon, 830 Phil. 519, 534 (2018).

33. See People v. Descartin, 810 Phil. 881, 887 (2017).

34.Supra.

35.Id. at 887-888. (Citations omitted)

36. Records, pp. 41-42.

37.Id. at 152.

38. G.R. No. 229836, July 17, 2019.

39. 439 Phil. 440 (2002).

40.Supra note 38.

41. 722 Phil. 52 (2013).

42.Id. at 58-59.

43. 792 Phil. 905 (2016).

44.Id. at 923.

45. See People v. Abat, 731 Phil. 304 (2014).

46. See TSN, September 15, 2010, p. 2.

47.Id.

48. Records, SD (08)-1792, p. 5.

49. Records, SD (09)-1937, p. 7.

50. TSN, October 3, 2012.

51. Records, SD (08)-1792, p. 7.

52. Records, SD (09)-1937, p. 8.

53. 385 Phil. 689 (2000).

54.Supra note 43.

55.Id. at 924-925.

56. Revised Penal Code, Article 266-B. Penalty. x x x

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:

xxx xxx xxx

5) When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old;

57.An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines, July 26, 2005.

58. A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC — Guidelines for the Proper Use of the Phrase "Without Eligibility for Parole" in Indivisible Penalties:

xxx xxx xxx

[T]he following guidelines shall be observed in the imposition of penalties and in the use of the phrase "without eligibility for parole":

(1) In cases where the death penalty is not warranted, there is no need to use the phrase "without eligibility for parole" to qualify the penalty of reclusion perpetua; it is understood that convicted persons penalized with an indivisible penalty are not eligible for parole; and

(2) When circumstances are present warranting the imposition of the death penalty, but this penalty is not imposed because of R.A. No. 9346, the qualification of "without eligibility for parole" shall be used to qualify reclusion perpetua in order to emphasize that the accused should have been sentenced to suffer the death penalty had it not been for R.A. No. 9364.

59. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).

60. G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019.

61.Supra note 59 at 840.

62.Supra.

63.Supra note 60.