THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 208074. October 9, 2017.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. PAULINO BOAC PONGOS, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 9, 2017, which reads as follows: HSAcaE
"G.R. No. 208074 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PAULINO BOAC PONGOS, Accused-Appellant.) — The accused assails the decision promulgated on May 17, 2013, 1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed his conviction for the rape of his daughter, AAA, 2 a minor, handed down by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 6, in Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur in Criminal Case No. 6817 and Criminal Case No. 6818. 3
The CA adopted the following findings of fact of the RTC, to wit:
On the night of 2 September 2004, accused-appellant allegedly raped his daughter AAA by forcibly opening her legs and then inserted his penis in her vagina. AAA tried to shout but accused-appellant covered her mouth. Accused-appellant succeeded in having sexual intercourse with his daughter AAA, who's (sic) vagina was already bleeding and wet with his semen.
Three years later or on 3 October 2007, AAA told her cousin about the incident who reported it to her father, Margarito Pongos, the brother of accused-appellant. After verifying the report with AAA, Margarito reported the incident to the barangay captain who escorted AAA to the municipal hall where she was examined by Dr. Rebecca Aquino, the attending medico legal.
In her medico-legal report, Dr. Aquino made the following findings:
Genital Findings:
- Thinned fossa
- Notching at 9 O'clock position
- Complete transaction at 6-7 O'clock positions
xxx xxx xxx
Assessment
Disclosure of sexual abuse
Genital Findings conclusive of penetrating injury.
Consequently, accused-appellant was charged with rape. The Information dated 2 January 2008 and docketed as Criminal Case No. 6817, reads:
That sometime in the month of September or thereabout of 2004, in the residence of the herein accused located at Purok-4, Wasian, Rosario, Agusan del Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd desire, and with the use of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously mount on top of the offended party while the latter was sleeping, and succeeded in having sexual intercourse with AAA, a minor, 9 years of age and his own biological daughter, against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice, consisting of actual, moral, and compensatory damages.
Contrary to law. (Art. 266-A of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 8353.)
Thereafter, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor filed a second Information for rape, docketed as Criminal Case No. 6818, against accused-appellant which he allegedly committed on the night of 3 October 2007 against his own daughter AAA. Both cases were jointly tried before the Regional Trial Court of Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur.
When arraigned, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty.
During trial, AAA narrated to the court how her father raped her with the use of two small dolls provided by the prosecutor. She raised the shorts of the female doll and lowered the trousers of the male doll. She placed the male doll on top of the female doll placing the penis in the vagina just like what accused-appellant did to her.
The prosecution also presented Dr. Rebecca Aquino, the medico-legal expert who examined AAA on 3 October 2007.
On the other hand, accused-appellant interposed the defense of denial. 4
It appears that the accused admitted during pre-trial that AAA was his biological daughter but he was not married to her mother; and that he shared a room with AAA and his own father, Teodoro Pongos. He then posited that he could not have raped AAA without waking up his father. However, when Teodoro Pongos was about to testify for the accused, the defense counsel dispensed with his testimony and manifested instead that "he has nothing to say which could favor the accused." 5 HESIcT
After the trial, the RTC rendered judgment finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape as charged in Criminal Case No. 6817, but acquitted him of the rape as charged in Criminal Case No. 6818 for failure of the Prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The RTC disposed thusly:
WHEREFORE, the court hereby declares the accused PAULINO BOAC PONGOS guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape on (sic) his own nine-year-old daughter AAA on the night of September 2, 2004 as charged in Crim. Case No. 6817, and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with accessory penalties, and to pay the said victim civil indemnity of P75,000.00, moral damages of P75,000.00, and exemplary damages of P25,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.
However, for lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is acquitted of the same offense allegedly committed three years later on October 3, 2007 as charged in Crim. Case No. 6818.
SO ORDERED.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the conviction of the accused with the modification of adding to the penalty of reclusion perpetua the phrase "WITHOUT the benefit of parole," to wit:
ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is DISMISSED (sic) for lack of merit. The appealed judgment of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 6) of Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur, under Civil (sic) Case No. 6817 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the accused-appellant is sentenced to serve the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, together with its accessory penalties, WITHOUT the benefit of parole.
SO ORDERED.6
The accused is now before the Court to challenge the credibility of AAA's testimony. He alleges that her actuations after the rape were contrary to common knowledge and human experience; that at the time of the rape her grandfather was then present inside the room they shared; that if she had really been raped, the rape would not have escaped her grandfather's attention; and her behavior following the rape did not indicate that she had just been through a harrowing experience.
We affirm the conviction of the accused.
Article 266-A and Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8352 (The Anti-Rape Law of 1997), provide as follows:
Art. 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;
xxx xxx xxx
Art. 266-B. Penalties. — 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:
1) When 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;
xxx xxx xxx
Rape is committed either through sexual intercourse or sexual assault. Rape under paragraph 1 of the above-cited article is rape through sexual intercourse. In this crime, often denominated as organ rape or penile rape, carnal knowledge by the accused of the complainant is the central element, and must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Rape under paragraph 1 must be attended by any of the circumstances enumerated in subparagraphs (a) to (d) of paragraph 1. Rape is qualified when the victim is under 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. The elements of qualified rape as charged herein are: (1) sexual congress; (2) with a woman; (3) done by force and without consent; (4) the victim is under 18 years of age at the time of the rape; and (5) the offender is a parent (whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted) of the victim. 7 caITAC
There is no question that the accused had carnal knowledge of AAA, his then eight-year old daughter, on September 2, 2004. The Prosecution proved the attendance of all the elements through the testimony of AAA herself as well as the testimony of Dr. Rebecca Aquino, the physician who had conducted the physical examination of AAA. Dr. Aquino identified her medico-legal report, and testified that AAA had healed lacerations in her vagina that could have been caused by penetration of a hard object. Dr. Aquino recalled that AAA had told her about the sexual abuse by the accused when she was only nine years old, and about the second rape by him when she was already 12 years old. 8
In rape cases, primordial is the credibility of the victim's testimony because the accused can be convicted solely on said testimony provided it is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. 9
Both the RTC and the CA found the testimony of AAA to be credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. She was adamant in identifying her own father as her sexual assailant. Her testimony was corroborated by another witness. She had no motive to falsely accuse her father of committing such a very serious crime against her unless it was the truth. 10 Indeed, a very young woman like AAA would require a great amount of psychological depravity to concoct a story that would put her own father to jail for the rest of his natural life and would drag the rest of the family, including herself, to a lifetime of shame. 11 Hence, we accord great weight to her accusation against her own father.
In contrast, the accused could only resort to uncorroborated denial. But his bare denial could not overcome AAA's candid and positive identification of him as her assailant. The denial was weak, for even the testimony of his own father — probably the only other person who could have been sympathetic towards him — had to be aborted by the Defense on the ground that that "he has nothing to say which could favor the accused." 12
The RTC and the CA properly appreciated the qualifying circumstances of AAA's minority and her relationship with the accused. Such circumstances were duly alleged and proved beyond reasonable doubt. To show her minority, the Prosecution presented AAA's birth certificate whereby she was shown to have been born on September 12, 1995, indicating her age of eight years and 11 months at the time of the rape in question. The birth certificate also proved his paternity although she bore the surname of her mother on account of her parents not being legally married. It is noted that her mother had left her father, and since then her whereabouts had remained unknown to AAA.
The concurrence of the minority of AAA and her relationship to the accused constituted a special qualifying circumstance that upgraded the penalty to death. However, with the intervening enactment of Republic Act No. 9346 (An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines), which took effect on June 30, 2006, the imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole as affirmed by the CA is correct.
The Court modifies the award of damages granted to AAA to conform with prevailing jurisprudence. Pursuant to People v. Jugueta, 13 she is entitled to recover P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, all of which shall earn legal interest of 6% per annum from the finality of this decision until full satisfaction.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on May 17, 2013 in all respects subject to the MODIFICATION that accused Paulino Boac Pongos shall pay to AAA P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, all of which shall earn legal interest of 6% per annum from the finality of this decision until full satisfaction.
The accused shall further pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-11, penned by Associate Justice Edgardo T. Lloren with the concurrence of Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles and Associate Justice Edward B. Contreras.
2. The name of the victim, her personal circumstances and other information that tend to establish or compromise her identity shall not be disclosed to protect her privacy. Fictitious initials are used instead, in accordance with People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419; see also A.M. No. 04-11-09-SC dated September 19, 2006.
3. CA rollo, pp. 70-74.
4.Rollo, pp. 4-5.
5. CA rollo, pp. 71, 73.
6.Rollo, p. 10.
7.People v. Marmol, Jr., G.R. No. 217379, November 23, 2016.
8.CA rollo, p. 71.
9.People v. Marmol, Jr., G.R. No. 217379, November 23, 2016.
10.People v. Pioquinto, G.R. No. 168326, April 11, 2007, 520 SCRA 712, 720-721.
11.People v. Felan, G.R. No. 176631, February 2, 2011, 641 SCRA 449, 453-454.
12.Supra note 5.
13. G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331.