THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 251971. July 7, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. JOSE RICHARD ROSCA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated July 7, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 251971 (People of the Philippines v. Jose Richard Rosca). — This is an Appeal 1 from the Decision 2 dated August 30, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02613 which affirmed in part the Joint Decision 3 dated May 25, 2017 of Branch 20, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Cebu City in Criminal Case Nos. CBU 92475 to 77 that found Jose Richard Rosca (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of Rape, defined under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code.
Antecedents
Three Informations 4 were filed charging accused-appellant with Rape committed as follows:
Crim. Case No. CBU-92475
That on or about the 30th day of October, 2010 at about 7:00 p.m. more or less at __________, __________ of Talisay, Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with deliberate intent, and by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had carnal knowledge upon one AAA, a minor of only 14 years of age by inserting his penis into the vagina of said AAA, without her consent and against her will.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
Crim. Case No. CBU-92476
That sometime in the month of November 2010 and for sometime prior and subsequent thereto at __________, _____, City of Talisay, Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with deliberate intent, and by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had carnal knowledge upon one AAA, a minor of only 14 years of age by inserting his penis into the vagina of said AAA, without her consent and against her will.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
Crim. Case No. CBU-92477
That on or about the 18th day of December, 2010 at about 8:00 p.m. more or less, at __________, _____, City of Talisay, Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with deliberate intent, and by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had carnal knowledge upon one AAA, a minor of only 14 years of age by inserting his penis into the vagina of said AAA, without her consent and against her will.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 7
When arraigned, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. 8
Trial on the merits ensued. 9
Version of the Prosecution
AAA 10 and accused-appellant were neighbors. AAA even called accused-appellant "daddy" as the latter's wife stood as sponsor during her confirmation. 11
On October 30, 2010, accused-appellant asked AAA to go with him to an area near a mango tree, more or less fifty (50) meters away from their respective houses. Under the mango tree, accused-appellant forcefully told AAA to lie down and removed her shorts and underwear. He then went on top of AAA and inserted his penis into her vagina for about one minute. Afterwards, he gave AAA P40.00 pesos. 12
Sometime in November 2010, accused-appellant once again brought AAA to the area near the mango tree. There, he removed her shorts and underwear, placed himself on top of her, and inserted his penis into her vagina. AAA could not shout for help as accused-appellant held both of her hands. After he satisfied himself, accused-appellant gave AAA P40.00. After a while, AAA walked away. 13
On December 18, 2010, AAA received a text message from accused-appellant telling her that he would teach her a new song. AAA and her companion then went to the area near the mango tree. Accused-appellant instructed AAA to tell her companion to leave, but AAA protested. In the end, AAA's companion left the area. Accused-appellant undressed AAA, placed himself on top of her, and inserted his penis into her genitals. 14
Sometime in February 2011, AAA told her mother that she was raped by accused-appellant three times under the mango tree. She told her mother that she was afraid to report the incidents to her right away. Consequently, AAA's mother brought her to the Talisay Police Station and afterwards, to the Vicente Sotto Memorial Medical Center for physical and psychological examination. 15
Dr. Naomi N. Poca (Dr. Poca) examined AAA. The physical and medical examination on AAA revealed the following physical findings: (1) ambulatory, not in cardiopulmonary distress; (2) conscious and coherent; and (3) breast — tanner 5, no evident injury at the time of examination. Dr. Poca found no evident injury on AAA's ano-genital examination and opined that the medical findings do not exclude the possibility that AAA was sexually abused. 16
Version of the Defense
For his part, accused-appellant denied the allegations. He maintained that: (1) nothing happened between him and AAA on October 30, 2010 as the latter had a companion; (2) he simply agreed to meet her on that day because it was her birthday and he promised to give her a bracelet as a birthday gift; (3) he and AAA were close friends, but they did not have a romantic relationship; (4) on December 21, 2010, he met again with AAA because she wanted to see him and ask why he was evading her; (5) after they talked, they went home separately; and (6) he transferred to Bakilid, Mandaue City because he was warned by AAA's mother not to see AAA again. 17
The Ruling of the RTC
On May 25, 2017, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty as charged. It held that accused-appellant's denial that no sexual intercourse occurred between him and AAA deserves scant consideration. As between the positive and proper identification and testimony of AAA and the mere denial of accused-appellant, the former deserves greater weight. 18 Hence:
WHEREFORE, on the basis of the foregoing, the [C]ourt hereby renders judgment as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. CBU-92475, the court finds the accused JOSE RICHARD ROSCA, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape as defined and penalized under Article 266-A, subparagraph 1(a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 8353, otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua.
He is further ordered to pay private complainant AAA P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
2. In Criminal Case No. CBU-92476, the court finds the accused JOSE RICHARD ROSCA, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape as defined and penalized under Article 266-A, subparagraph 1(a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 8353, otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua.
He is further ordered to pay private complainant AAA P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
3. In Criminal Case No. CBU-92477, the court finds accused JOSE RICHARD ROSCA, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape as defined and penalized under Article 266-A, subparagraph 1(a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 8353, otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua.
He is further ordered to pay private complainant AAA P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
SO ORDERED. 19
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA.
The Ruling of the CA
In the assailed Decision, 20 the CA affirmed accused-appellant's conviction in Criminal Case No. CBU-92475, but with modification as to his civil liability. However, it acquitted him in Criminal Case Nos. CBU-92476 and CBU-92477 for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The fallo of the Decision 21 states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the May 25, 2017 Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 20, Cebu City, convicting accused-appellant of rape in CBU-92475 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as to the civil liability. Accused-appellant is ORDERED to pay AAA civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages in the amount of P75,000.00 each. Interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum is imposed on all damages herein awarded from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.
The judgment of conviction in CBU-92476 and CBU-92477 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant is ACQUITTED on the ground that his guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
SO ORDERED. 22
The CA noted that based on AAA's straightforward testimony, there was sufficient force or intimidation when accused-appellant raped her. He immobilized AAA when he suddenly placed himself on top of her and inserted his penis into her vagina. Under the circumstances, force need not be irresistible, but may be just enough to bring about the desired sexual intercourse without the consent of the victim. 23 Moreover, AAA addressed accused-appellant as her "daddy" because his wife is her godmother. Thus, he had moral ascendancy over AAA. 24
Hence, the instant appeal.
The only issue here is whether the CA erred in finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for rape in Criminal Case No. CBU-92475.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal lacks merit.
To begin with, there is no cogent reason to deviate from the CA ruling affirming the RTC's finding that accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Rape. The issues raised here are factual in nature. The trial court's evaluation shall be binding on the Court unless it is shown that certain relevant facts have been overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied. None of the recognized exceptions is present in the case. 25 Even if the Court considers the factual issues raised, the findings of fact of the RTC and CA still sufficiently support the accused-appellant's conviction and the imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua upon him. On this, the Court quotes with approval the CA discussion, to wit:
We ascertain from the above-quoted portions of AAA's testimony that she gave simple, direct and consistent account on how she was raped in the evening of October 30, 2010. There was no hesitation on AAA's part, when she testified that accused-appellant brought her to the mango tree and immediately removed her short and panty. Although she tried to put back her shorts and panty she could not because accused-appellant all of a sudden, placed himself on top of her. AAA said she could not stand up because accused-appellant suddenly inserted his penis in her vagina and kissed her lips and different parts of her body. AAA explained that she could not shout because she was afraid. She was scared because accused-appellant was her "daddy."
xxx xxx xxx.
We quote the pertinent portion of the decision of the trial court —
x x x Furthermore, intimidation in rape depends not only on the age, size and strength of the parties, but also on their relationship with each other (People v. Barcena, G.R. No. 168737, February 16, 2006). Here, AAA was not able to shout during the incident because she feared Rosca who was her "Daddy." She offered no resistance since he was her "Daddy" who cared for her. AAA referred to him as "Daddy" as a sign of respect and ascendancy because his wife is AAA's godmother who stood as sponsor in her confirmation. AAA, being merely 14 years of age at the time of the rape incidents, also looked up to Rosca, who is in his 40's, as a second father.
And so, in CBU-92475, We conclude that the trial court was correct to find accused-appellant guilty of rape. We take heed to the advice of the Supreme Court that the findings and conclusion of the trial judge on the credibility of the witnesses shall not be disturbed unless there exists a fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been ignored or misconstrued. In this instant case, there is no reason for Us to deviate from the findings of the trial court that personally heard the testimony of the victim (AAA) and found it to be credible. 26 (Emphasis supplied).
In any case, accused-appellant's defense of denial cannot outweigh the testimony of AAA that he had sexual intercourse with AAA against her will. "[D]enial is an inherently weak defense which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime." 27 Under the circumstances, "a young girl's revelation that she has been raped, coupled with her voluntary submission to medical examination and willingness to undergo public trial where she could be compelled to give the details of her ignominy, cannot just be dismissed as a mere concoction." 28
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated August 30, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02613 finding accused-appellant Jose Richard Rosca GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Rape defined and penalized under Articles 266-A and 266-B in Criminal Case No. CBU-92475 and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that accused-appellant Jose Richard Rosca is ORDERED to pay AAA civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages in the amount of P100,000.00 each. All the award of damages shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED." (ROSARIO, J., designated as Additional Member per Special Order No. 2833 dated June 29, 2021).
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Notice of Partial Appeal, rollo, pp. 23-24.
2.Id. at 5-22; penned by Associate Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap with Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos (now a retired Member of the Court) and Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 38-55; penned by Assisting Judge Ricky Jones S. Macabaya.
4.Id. at 38-39.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 39.
7.Id.
8.Rollo, p. 7.
9. CA rollo, p. 39.
10. Any information to establish or compromise the identity of the victim, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be withheld, and fictitious initials are used, pursuant to RA 7610, "An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, and for Other Purposes"; Republic Act No. 9262, "An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, and for Other Purposes"; Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the "Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children," effective November 15, 2004.
11.Rollo, p. 7.
12.Id.
13.Id.
14.Id.
15.Id. at 8.
16.Id.
17.Id.
18. CA rollo, p. 53.
19.Id. at 54-55.
20.Rollo, pp. 5-22.
21.Id.
22.Id. at 21.
23.Id. at 14, citing People v. Jumawan, 733 Phil. 102, 152 (2014).
24.Id. citing People v. Cadano, Jr., 729 Phil. 576 (2014).
25.People v. Amoc, 810 Phil. 253, 261 (2017), citing People v. Ofemaniano, 625 Phil. 92, 98-99 (2010).
26.Id. at 15.
27.People v. Deocares, G.R. No. 246585, June 17, 2020 [Notice], citing People v. Fraga, 386 Phil. 884, 905 (2000).
28.Id.