THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 196969. October 4, 2017.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. PABLO CESAR RAMIREZ, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 4, 2017, which reads as follows: HTcADC
G.R. No. 196969 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PABLO CESAR RAMIREZ, Accused-Appellant.) — The accused appeals the decision promulgated on December 22, 2010, 1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the judgment rendered on October 14, 2008 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 29, in Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of qualified rape aggravated by relationship as defined and penalized under Article 266-A, Section 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353. 2
Antecedents
The accused was charged in the RTC with three counts of qualified rape through the following informations dated July 4, 2000, to wit:
Information dated July 4, 2000
That on or about December 23, 1999 in the evening, in Barangay Vista Alegre, Municipality of Bayombong, Province of Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused Pablo Cesar Ramirez being the step-father of the offended party AAA and the latter while residing in the house of the said accused, by means of force, threat and intimidation, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously did lie, and succeed in having carnal knowledge of said AAA 3 who was fifteen years of age at that time, to the loss, damage and prejudice of the latter.
The foregoing crime is attended with the aggravating circumstance of: "victim is under eighteen years of age and the offender is a step-parent of the victim."
Contrary to law. 4
Information dated July 4, 2000
That on or about December 29, 1999 in the evening, in x x x and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused Pablo Cesar Ramirez being the step-father of the offended party AAA and the latter while residing in the house of the said accused, by means of force, threat and intimidation, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously did lie, and succeed in having carnal knowledge of said AAA who was fifteen years of age at that time, to the loss, damage and prejudice of the latter.
The foregoing crime is attended with the aggravating circumstance of: "victim is under eighteen years of age and the offender is a step-parent of the victim."
Contrary to law. 5
Information dated July 4, 2000
That on or about February 18, 2000 in the evening, in x x x, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused Pablo Cesar Ramirez being the step-father of the offended party AAA and the latter while residing in the house of said accused, by means of force, threat and intimidation, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously did lie, and succeed in having carnal knowledge of said AAA who was fifteen years of age at that time, to the loss, damage and prejudice of the latter.
The foregoing crime is attended with the aggravating circumstance of: "victim is under eighteen years of age and the offender is a step-parent of the victim."
Contrary to law. 6
After the accused pleaded not guilty to all charges, the trial on the merits ensued. 7
The CA summarized the evidence and version of the parties as follows:
Prosecution's Evidence:
Private complainant, AAA, a resident of Barangay x x x, testified: Appellant is her stepfather. On December 23, 1999, she was at her mother BBB's house in Barangay Vista Alegre taking care of her half-siblings DDD and EEE — children of appellant and her mother. At 10 pm, she woke up and went outside the house to urinate. Appellant came, covered her mouth, and dragged her inside an unfinished house. There, he covered her mouth with a cloth and tied her hands. He removed her pants and panty, tore her shirt, and laid her down on the cement floor. He lay on top of her and inserted his penis into her vagina. She struggled but could not do anything because her hands were tied. Afterwards, he untied and told her he would kill her if she reported the matter and he would follow her if she would go away. aScITE
On the eve of December 29, 1999, she again went outside the house to urinate, as she was pulling up her panty, appellant came, covered her mouth, and dragged inside a house that was being constructed. He tied her hands, removed her pants and panty, laid her on the cement floor and raped her once more. He threatened to kill her if she reported the incident.
On February 18, 2000, she was on her way home from appellant's house where she was watching TV. Appellant was on the road. She tried to get away. He kicked her in the stomach and she fell unconscious. When she woke up, she was on the grassy portion of the road. Thereupon, appellant raped her again. She knew it was him because she was holding a lamp at that time.
It was only on April 25, 2000 that she reported the rape incidents to the authorities. Her sister had noticed that her belly was getting bigger. She was pregnant. On August 1, 2001, she gave birth to a baby girl.
On cross, she averred that the first two incidents occurred around 11 pm. The third incident occurred around 10 pm. She was staying in appellant's house for 3 months before the first incident. Appellant had another house under construction at that time which was about 8 meters away from his original house. It was inside the unfinished house where she got raped. Her father accompanied her when she filed the case against appellant. On December 30, 1999, she told her mother that she was raped but her mother did not mind her.
On redirect, she alleged that she was 15 years old when she got raped.
Dr. Prescila Duran, Chief Resident Physician of the O.B. Gyne Department, Veterans Regional Hospital, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, testified that per hospital record, AAA was examined by her colleague Dr. Marietta Ann Balbas on April 25, 2000. Dr. Balbas was no longer connected with the hospital and is now in Singapore. Dr. Marietta Ann Balbas made the following findings in her Medico-Legal Certification dated April 25, 2000, viz.:
Extragenital Injuries — none
Genitalia:
Pubic Hairs — Abundant
Labia Majora — coaptated
Hymen — (+) old healed laceration at 3 o'clock, 6.6 o'clock position
Orifice — admits 2 finger w/ease
Rugosition — (+)
Uterus — enlarged to 20-21 wks. Size
Cervix — closed, non tender.
CCC, AAA's father, testified that AAA was born on January 4, 1985, as evidenced by a certification from the Local Civil Registrar, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya.
Defense's Evidence:
Appellant averred: On December 23, 1999, at 6:30 pm, he was already asleep because he was tired from working on a cable satellite. AAA was staying at his house on that day to take care of his children. It was his first time to see her. It was not true that he raped her that day. If he raped her on the 23rd, she would not have returned to his house on December 29, 1999. He likewise did not rape her on the latter date. AAA left his house on December 23, 1999 and returned on February 21, 2000. He could not have raped her on February 18, 2000 either for he was at the hospital taking care of his father who was in critical condition. He could not think of any reason why AAA filed a case against him. On cross, he said that AAA's mother was his live-in partner since 1994. He only knew AAA on December 23, 1999 when she came to his house. On redirect, he testified that AAA stayed at his house from December 23 to 29. On the 24th, she joined the family Christmas celebration. From December 24 to 29, AAA's reaction was "good."
BBB, AAA's mother, wondered why AAA did not react when she was raped on December 23 and 29, 1999. After AAA left appellant's house on January 2, 2000, there were times that AAA would visit her. Whenever AAA saw appellant, they would just exchange greetings. AAA got pregnant twice. One of the children was put up for adoption. She loved AAA but she could not tolerate her daughter's wrongdoing. She also theorized that AAA's children were sired by CCC. 8 HEITAD
On October 14, 2008, the RTC rendered judgment finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of qualified rape aggravated by relationship, 9 disposing:
WHEREFORE, premises considered judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Pablo Cesar Ramirez of Vista Alegre, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya "GUILTY" beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of qualified rape aggravated by relationship, defined and penalized under Article 266-A Section 1 paragraph (a) of Republic Act No. 8353 and the court hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua for each count of Rape, without eligibility for parole, and to pay the victim AAA the sum of P225,000.00 as moral damages, P225,000.00 as civil indemnity and P75,000 as exemplary damages, plus costs.
SO ORDERED. 10
On appeal, the CA affirmed the convictions through the assailed decision promulgated on December 22, 2010, 11viz.:
ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated October 14, 2008 is AFFIRMED in all respects. 12
Hence, this appeal, whereby the accused contends that the convictions were contrary to the facts, law and jurisprudence. 13 He did not submit any supplemental brief, but reiterated his positions and arguments contained in his appellant's brief submitted to the CA, 14viz.:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT'S TESTIMONY.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED. 15
Ruling of the Court
The appeal is without merit.
Qualified rape is defined in Article 266-A and punished by Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, 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 is otherwise unconscious;
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
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.
xxx xxx xxx
Article 266-B. Penalty. — x x x
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. (Emphasis ours) x x x
xxx xxx xxx
Under Article 266-B, supra, the death penalty is imposed when the victim of rape is below 18 years of age, and the offender is her parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of her parent. 16 The qualifying circumstances of the victim being below 18 years of age and the accused being her step-father were sufficiently proved by the Prosecution aside from such circumstances not having been disputed by him. 17 Moreover, both the RTC and the CA gave full credence to AAA's straightforward and categorical narration of the events surrounding the crime. ATICcS
As a general rule, the findings of fact and assessment of the credibility of witnesses are matters best left to the trial court because of the trial judge's unique position in having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying. 18 Indeed, it is settled in jurisprudence that the testimonies of child-victims are given full weight and credit. When a woman, especially a minor, says that she was raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to establish that rape was committed. Youth and immaturity are generally considered to be badges of truth and sincerity. 19
In this case, both the RTC and the CA gave full credence to AAA's straightforward and candid testimony. We find no reason to deviate from their factual findings in the absence of any showing that the trial judge overlooked or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight that could affect the result of the case, or of any indication that the trial judge acted arbitrarily.
The accused's claim that AAA's testimony was plagued with inconsistencies that demonstrated its falsehood lacked basis. Considering that human memory is fickle and prone to the stresses of emotion, accuracy in a testimonial account has never been used as a standard in the testing of the credibility of a witness. In any event, inaccuracies and inconsistencies in a rape victim's testimony are generally expected considering that rape is a painful experience, and is oftentimes not remembered in detail. Such offense is not analogous to a person's achievement or accomplishments as to be worth recalling or reliving; rather, it is something that causes deep psychological wounds and casts a stigma on the victim, scarring her psyche for life. A rape victim cannot, therefore, be expected to mechanically give an accurate account of the traumatic and horrifying experience she had undergone. 20
A review of the supposed inconsistencies in AAA's testimony further reveals their minor and trivial nature. Details pertaining to the clothes she wore or where she stayed before the incident — which were the supposed inconsistencies she had incurred — were irrelevant to the ordeal she went through, and did not diminish the value of the testimony in terms of truthfulness or weight. We have to remind that the gravamen of the felony of rapes against AAA was the carnal knowledge of her by the accused when she was then a mere 15-year old and he was her mother's common-law spouse. Any inconsistency that was not an essential element of the crime should be ignored as insignificant, and had no bearing on the essential fact testified to. 21
The claim of the accused that AAA had accused him of the serious crimes of qualified rape as an afterthought on her part in order for her to account for her unexplained pregnancy deserves scant consideration. He did not present evidence to show that she had gotten pregnant by another man. Granting arguendo that another man had impregnated her, this did not necessarily discount the fact that he had raped her. We do stress that the moral character of the victim was immaterial because the essence of rape is the carnal knowledge of a woman by a man against her consent. 22
The penalty meted by law should be the death penalty. However, the CA and the RTC correctly ruled that the accused should instead suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole for each count of rape in lieu of the death penalty. This is because of Republic Act No. 9346. 23 Nonetheless, we increase the damages in order to conform to prevailing jurisprudence, specifically: P100,000.00 civil indemnity for each count of rape, P100,000.00 moral damages for each count of rape, and P100,000.00 exemplary damages for each count of rape. 24 Further, all the amount of damages awarded should earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of this judgment until full satisfaction. 25
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on December 22, 2010 by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03777, with MODIFICATION and ORDERS accused PABLO CESAR RAMIREZ to pay AAA P100,000.00 as civil indemnity for each count of rape; P100,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape; and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of rape, plus interest on all damages at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the finality of this judgment until full satisfaction.
Costs of said to be paid by the accused. TIADCc
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-20; penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and concurred in by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao and Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon.
2. CA rollo, pp. 16-31; penned by Presiding Judge Merianthe P.M. Zuraek.
3. An assumed name is used to conceal the victim's identity in line with People v. Cabalquinto (G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419), which requires the real names of the rape victim and of the members of her immediate family and household members, and other information tending to establish or compromise her identity.
4. CA rollo, p. 16.
5.Id. at 16-17.
6.Id. at 17.
7.Id.
8.Rollo, pp. 5-9.
9.Supra note 2.
10.Id. at 30-31.
11.Rollo, pp. 2-20.
12.Id. at 20.
13.Id. at 111.
14.Id. at 38.
15. CA rollo, p. 50.
16.People v. Traigo, G.R. No. 199096, June 2, 2014, 724 SCRA 389, 394-395.
17.Rollo, p. 20.
18.Supra note 16, at 393.
19.People v. Alfaro, G.R. Nos. 136742-43, September 30, 2003, 412 SCRA 293, 304.
20.People v. Pareja, G.R. No. 202122, January 15, 2014, 714 SCRA 131, 148.
21.People v. Macapans, G.R. No. 187049, 620 SCRA 54, 72-73.
22.People v. Bernaldez, G.R. Nos. 132779-82, January 19, 2000, 322 SCRA 462, 471.
23.An Act prohibiting the imposition of death penalty in the Philippines.
24.People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331, 382-383.
25.People v. Marmol, G.R. No. 217379, November 23, 2016.