FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 235556. June 30, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. RODEL PINEDA y AMANTILLO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 30, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 235556 (People of the Philippines,Plaintiff-Appellee,v. Rodel Pineda y Amantillo,Accused-Appellant). — This is an appeal seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision 1 dated 30 March 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07992, which affirmed the Judgment 2 dated 05 October 2015 of Branch 102, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, in Criminal Case No. Q-11-172483.
Antecedents
Rodel Pineda (appellant) was indicted for Rape in an Information, the accusatory portion of which states:
That on or about the 25th day of September, 2011, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had carnal knowledge of one AAA, 3 a minor, 14 years of age, all done against her will and without her consent, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended party.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
Upon arraignment, appellant entered a plea of "not guilty" to the charge. 5 After pre-trial was terminated, trial on the merits ensued. 6
Version of the Prosecution
On 25 September 2011, at around 7:00 p.m., the victim, AAA, was on her way home when appellant, a tricycle driver who took her and her sibling to school, grabbed her arm and pulled her towards the back of a Toyota Revo parked on a vacant lot. Appellant pushed AAA to the ground and proceeded to kiss her lips, breasts, and vagina. Appellant then lifted the victim's skirt, pulled down her underwear, covered her mouth with his hand, and ordered her to be quiet. Thereafter, he inserted his penis inside her vagina. The victim shouted, "Tama na! Tama na!" but appellant slapped her in the face and told her to be quiet. He covered AAA's mouth again with one hand and inserted a finger in her vagina. AAA experienced pain and felt blood seep out of her vagina. Afterwards, appellant told AAA to ride his tricycle but she refused, crying as she walked home. 7
Upon reaching home, AAA told her brother, her aunt, and later her mother, about the incident. The following day, AAA, her mother, and aunt, reported the matter to the barangay. On 27 September 2011, AAA was taken to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory (PNP Crime Laboratory) at Camp Crame for her medical examination, 8 and later to the police station where she executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay.
During trial, the prosecution proffered the documentary evidence consisting of AAA's Sinumpaang Salaysay, 9 the Initial Medico-Legal Report, 10 and AAA's Certificate of Live Birth 11 showing her date of birth to be 08 March 1997, making her 14 years old at the time of the incident.
Version of the Defense
Appellant, then a 40-year old tricycle driver, 12 alleged that on the night of 25 September 2011, he was at home where he cooked dinner for his two (2) children and watched television. He further claimed that he spent the entire night of 25 September 2011 at home. 13
Ruling of the RTC
On 05 October 2015, the RTC rendered its Judgment, 14 the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused RODEL PINEDA y AMANTILLO, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape penalized under Article 266-A (1)(a) of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 8353.
Accordingly, said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua without eligibility of parole, and to indemnify private complainant [AAA] the amounts of Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php50,000.00 as moral damages and Php30,000.00 as exemplary damages and interest at the rate of 6% per annum is imposed on all damages awarded from the finality of this judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 15
The RTC held that, as against AAA's straightforward and candid testimony and her positive identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime of rape, the latter's defenses of denial and alibi must fail. 16
Aggrieved, appellant appealed to the CA.
Ruling of the CA
In its Decision 17 dated 30 March 2017, the CA affirmed the RTC's Judgment of conviction with modification of increasing the amounts of moral and exemplary damages to Php75,000.00 each. The CA also imposed interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum on all the monetary awards to be computed from date of finality of judgment until full payment.
The CA ruled that the prosecution succeeded in establishing all the elements of rape. Appellant's flimsy defense of denial and alibi cannot prevail over AAA's positive and categorical testimony identifying him as her rapist. 18 Hence, this appeal.
For purposes of this appeal, the Office of the Solicitor General 19 and the Public Attorney's Office 20 manifested that they were no longer filing their respective supplemental briefs.
Issue
The issue is whether the CA correctly found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.
Ruling of the Court
The Court finds no merit in the appeal.
To sustain a conviction of rape, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of the girl, and (2) that such act was accomplished through the use of force or intimidation. 21
We find that the prosecution indubitably established the elements of rape, as follows: appellant, a 40-year old man, suddenly grabbed the arm of AAA, a minor, pulled her towards a vacant lot, pushed her to the ground, and inserted his penis inside her vagina after removing her undergarment. And when the victim started shouting, appellant slapped her in the face.
The defense of denial cannot be
It has been an oft-repeated principle that "[t]estimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl, particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has in fact been committed. When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity." 22
This Court has, time and again, held that the assessment of a trial court in matters pertaining to the credibility of witnesses, especially when already affirmed by an appellate court on appeal, are accorded great respect — if not binding significance — on further appeal to this Court. 23
Furthermore, the testimony of AAA that she suffered sexual abuse was bolstered by the Initial Medico-Legal Report 24 issued by PCI Joseph C. Palmero (PCI Palmero), the Duty Medico-Legal Officer at the PNP Crime Laboratory, which stated that there was "[d]efinite evidence of abuse or sexual contact." PCI Palmero, thus, concluded that: "based on the physical examination findings, there's x x x evidence that [AAA's] genital was penetrated x x x." 25
To disprove the charge against him, appellant denied AAA's accusations and claimed that he was home at the time of the incident.
Denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses, which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime. Thus, as between a categorical testimony, which has the ring of truth on the one hand, and a mere denial and alibi on the other, the former is generally held to prevail. 26
In the case of an alibi, it must be sufficiently convincing as to preclude any doubt on the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the locus criminis or its immediate vicinity at the time of the incident. 27
Appellant is a tricycle driver. In fact, it was because of his occupation that he and AAA knew each other. It was not physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime since he had with him his tricycle at that time. He even ordered AAA to get inside the tricycle after raping her but the latter refused. 28
The testimony of the victim is
During her testimony in court, AAA stated that she was lying under the Revo when appellant raped her. 29 Appellant contends that it was impossible for two persons to fit under the vehicle, much less allow room for movement. 30
We, however, note that AAA, when asked during cross examination, if whether two people who are on top of each other can fit under the Revo, she replied in the negative. 31 Whether AAA was raped under the Revo or behind it is a trivial matter. The exact place where the rape took place is not an essential element of the crime of rape; hence, inconsistencies regarding this detail in AAA's testimony do not detract from her categorical testimony on the witness stand that appellant had carnal knowledge of her. 32 It should be pointed out that both the RTC and the CA found AAA's testimony to be credible. Consequently, it became incumbent upon the appellant to present clear and persuasive reasons to persuade the Court to reverse their unanimous determination of her credibility as a witness in order to resolve the appeal his way. However, he did not discharge this burden. 33
Appellant employed force and
Appellant contends that the employment of force and intimidation were not sufficiently proven, as there was an absence of physical injuries upon AAA.
The Court has ruled that the absence of physical injuries does not negate the rape, and although medical results may not indicate physical abuse, rape can still be established since medical findings or proof of injuries are not among the essential elements in the prosecution for rape. 34 Likewise, the absence of bodily injury does not make the victim a willing partner in the sexual intercourse. 35
AAA testified that appellant grabbed her arm, pulled her, and then pushed her to the ground. She was likewise slapped when she started shouting. From AAA's narration of the incident, appellant clearly employed force and intimidation to have his way with her.
In rape committed through force or intimidation, the force employed by the guilty party need not be irresistible. It is only necessary that such force is sufficient to consummate the purpose for which it was inflicted. Similarly, intimidation should be evaluated in light of the victim's perception at the time of the commission of the crime. It is enough that it produced the fear in the mind of the victim that if she did not yield to the bestial demands of her ravisher, some evil would happen to her at that moment or even thereafter. Hence, what is important is that the force and intimidation made the victim submit to the will of the appellant, 36 as what happened in the instant case.
There is no need to add the
Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, 37 provides that rape under paragraph 1 of Article 266-A is punishable by reclusion perpetua. The RTC, as affirmed by the CA, however, sentenced accused-appellant to reclusion perpetua with the addition of the phrase "not eligible for parole."
In A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC, 38 the Court had provided the guidelines to be observed in the use of the phrase "without eligibility for parole," to wit:
(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. 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. 9346.
In People v. Gozo, 39 the Court clarified that the need to qualify that the accused is not "eligible for parole" arises only in cases where the imposable penalty should have been death were it not for the enactment of R.A. No. 9346. 40 This is to differentiate cases where the penalty imposable was reduced to reclusion perpetua from cases where the penalty imposed was reclusion perpetua.
In the instant case, appellant is guilty of simple rape, punishable by reclusion perpetua; thus, there was no need to indicate that he was ineligible for parole because accused sentenced to indeterminate penalties are ipso facto ineligible for parole.
The CA properly awarded damages in the amounts of Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php75,000.00 as moral damages, and Php75,000.00 as exemplary damages in accordance with People v. Jugueta. 41 The CA likewise correctly ruled that all damages shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of the finality of judgment until fully paid. 42
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07992 dated 30 March 2017 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant Rodel Pineda y Amantillo is GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Simple Rape and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is likewise ORDERED to pay AAA the amounts of Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php75,000.00 as moral damages, and Php75,000.00 as exemplary damages. All monetary awards shall earn legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully satisfied.
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. 02-14; penned by CA Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, concurring.
2.CA rollo, pp. 11-18; penned by RTC Presiding Judge Ma. Lourdes A. Giron.
3. The identity of the victim or any information which could establish or compromise her identity, including the names of her immediate family or household members, and the barangay and town of the incident, are withheld pursuant to SC Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015.
4. Records, p. 01.
5.Id. at 25.
6.Rollo, p. 03.
7.Sinumpaang Salaysay of AAA; Records, pp. 06-07; Exhibits "E" and "E-1."
8. Records, p. 07; Exhibit "E-1."
9.Id. at 06-08; Exhibits "E," "E-1," and "E-2."
10.Id. at 10; Exhibit "B."
11.Id. at 74; Exhibit "A."
12.Id. at 06; Exhibit "E."
13. T.S.N. dated 29 September 2014 (witness: appellant), pp. 03-04.
14.CA rollo, pp. 11-18.
15.Id. at 17-18.
16.Id. at 16.
17.Rollo, pp. 02-14.
18.Id. at 11.
19.Id. at 22-25.
20.Id. at 26-30.
21.People v. Nievera, G.R. No. 242830, 28 August 2019 [Per J. Caguioa].
22.People v. Cadano, Jr., 729 Phil. 576 (2014), G.R. No. 207819, 12 March 2014 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
23.People v. Bay-Od, G.R. No. 238176, 14 January 2019 [Per J. Peralta].
24. Records, p. 10; Exhibit "B."
25. TSN dated 18 February 2013 (witness: PCI Palmero), p. 06.
26.People v. Nievera, G.R. No. 242830, 28 August 2019 [Per J. Caguioa].
27.People v. Batalla, G.R. No. 234323, 07 January 2019 [Per J. Peralta].
28.Sinumpaang Salaysay of AAA; Records, p. 07; Exhibit "E-1."
29. TSN dated 10 June 2013 (witness: AAA), pp. 07-08.
30.CA rollo, p. 49.
31. TSN dated 21 October 2013 (witness: AAA), p. 06.
32.People v. Santos, 590 Phil. 564 (2008), G.R. No. 171452, 17 October 2008 [Per J. Austria-Martinez].
33.People v. Domingo, 810 Phil. 1040 (2017), G.R. No. 225743, 07 June 2017 [Per J. Bersamin].
34.People v. Batalla, G.R. No. 234323, 07 January 2019 [Per J. Peralta].
35.People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 210435, 15 August 2018 [Per J. A.B. Reyes, Jr.].
36.People v. Galagati, G.R. No. 207231, 29 June 2016 [Per J. Peralta].
37. The Anti-Rape Law of 1997.
38. Guidelines for the Proper Use of the Phrase "Without Eligibility for Parole" in Indivisible Penalties.
39. G.R. No. 225605, 23 July 2018 [Per J. Martires].
40. Anti-Death Penalty Law.
41. G.R. No. 202124, 05 April 2016 [Per J. Peralta].
42.People v. Agoncillo, G.R. No. 229100, 20 November 2017 [Per J. Gesmundo].