People v. San Buena Ventura y Manalo

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 252281. May 14, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.RYAN SAN BUENA VENTURA y MANALO, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated May 14, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 252281 (People of the Philippines v. Ryan San Buena Ventura y Manalo). — Subject of this appeal is the Decision 1 dated October 15, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09389 which affirmed the Joint Decision 2 dated April 24, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela City, Branch 270, convicting accused-appellant Ryan San Buena Ventura y Manalo (Ryan) of two counts of Rape under Article 266-A (1) (a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), in relation to Republic Act No. (R.A.) 7610.

Antecedents

Ryan was initially indicted for the following charges:

 

Criminal Case No.	Crime	Date allegedly committed
475-V-16	Acts of Lasciviousness	April 10, 2016 3
476-V-16	Grave Threat under Article 282 of the RPC in relation to R.A. 7610, known as Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act	April 12, 2016 4
745-V-16	Rape under Article 266-A (i) (a) of the RPC in relation to R.A. 7610	March 12, 2016
746-V-16	March 13, 2016
747-V-16	March 16, 2016
748-V-16	March 18, 2016
749-V-16	March 19, 2016
750-V-16	March 29, 20165

 

The Informations subject of this appeal read as follows:

Criminal Case No. 745-V-16

That on or about March 12, 2016, in Valenzuela City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design, by means of force and intimidation employed upon the person of herein minor [AAA], 12 years old, (DOB: xxx), (complainant/victim), did, then and willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with said minor against her will and without her consent, thereby subjecting said minor victim to sexual abuse which debased degraded and demeaned her intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being. CAIHTE

CONTRARY TO LAW. 6

Criminal Case No. 750-V-16

That on or about March 29, 2016, in Valenzuela City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design, by means of force and intimidation employed upon the person of herein minor [AAA], 12 YEARS OLD (DOB: XXX), (complainant/victim), did, then and willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with said minor against her will and without her consent, thereby subjecting said minor victim to sexual abuse which debased, degraded and demeaned her intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 7

Ryan pleaded not guilty to all charges. The criminal cases were consolidated and joint trial ensued. 8

Version of the Prosecution

AAA, 9 12 years of age, testified that Ryan is the co-worker of her father in a vulcanizing shop. AAA, her sister, her father BBB, and Ryan used to sleep in a room located inside the vulcanizing shop. 10 They utilized a plywood and some tires as a makeshift bed. BBB sleeps on the right-most side, beside him is AAA's younger sister, AAA, and then Ryan. 11

On April 6, 2016, Ryan invited BBB to a drinking session with Kuya Bing at the vulcanizing shop. BBB hid himself inside the room since he does not drink alcohol. While sleeping, AAA felt that Ryan, who was already drunk, kissed and embraced her. When Ryan started to unclothe her by removing her underwear, BBB stopped Ryan by saying, "Pare walang ganyanan." Ryan stopped and then slept beside her. 12

On April 12, 2016, while playing with her five other friends in front of Ate Dang's store, Ryan approached her and threatened her that he will kill her if she tells her father about what happened. Afraid, AAA ran to her Aunt CCC. 13

Upon her Aunt CCC's questioning, AAA revealed that she was raped seven times by Ryan. 14

On March 12, 2016, while BBB was away to go to AAA's mother and her younger sister already asleep, Ryan went on top of her and instructed her to remove her shorts. AAA followed Ryan's instructions. Thereafter, Ryan inserted his penis inside AAA's vagina. AAA, during her testimony, recalled that it was painful. Ryan was also drunk at that time. 15

At around 11:00 p.m. of March 29, 2016, while AAA was asleep, she felt that Ryan removed her underwear and then inserted his penis inside her vagina. AAA was not able to shout because Ryan covered her mouth with his hands. Ryan, again, was drunk. He went to sleep after the incident. 16

BBB narrated that at around 2:00 a.m. of April 10, 2016, Ryan and his friends had a drinking session. Avoiding the alcohol, BBB just observed them without Ryan knowing that he was hiding inside the room. BBB saw that Ryan went beside AAA, then kissed and embraced her. When Ryan started to pull down AAA's underwear, he immediately stopped him by saying, "Pre, wag ganyan, anak ko yan eh." Ryan was surprised to see BBB. He stopped and then went to sleep beside AAA. According to BBB, he wanted to hurt Ryan at that time but was prevented by the fact that they are co-workers and the owner of the vulcanizing shop is Ryan's brother. Ryan was also very drunk at that time so BBB just allowed him to sleep. 17 DETACa

The following day, Ryan, AAA, and his younger daughter, left the vulcanizing shop and stayed with his sister CCC. A few days after, CCC told him that while bathing AAA, she noticed that AAA's vagina is swollen. When CCC asked AAA, she revealed that she was raped by Ryan. BBB recalled that prior thereto, or on April 7, 2016 at around 9:00 a.m., AAA told him that her vagina is aching. He asked AAA what caused it but she did not answer. BBB did not pay much attention to it. 18

On April 13, 2016 at 11:15 a.m., PCI Charyl Escaro (PCI Escaro) conducted the physical and ano-genital examination of AAA. Per Medico-Legal Report No. R16-131N (Exhibit E-3), 19 "medical evaluation shows clear evidence of blunt penetrating trauma to [AAA's] hymen." In her testimony, PCI Escaro explained that she found deep healed lacerations at 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock positions of AAA's hymen, consistent to AAA's declaration that she was raped several times prior to April 10, 2016. The lacerations were already present on April 10, 2016 and further penetration in the hymen would not cause another injury because it becomes elastic. Laceration on the hymen normally heals within seven days. 20 However, if the victim is well-nourished, the laceration could heal at least within 72 hours or three days. 21

Version of the Defense

Ryan denied the charges against him and claimed that he was in his house located at Block 2, Veinte Reales, Valenzuela City on all of the dates he allegedly raped AAA. As regards the incident on April 10, 2016, Ryan explained that he merely held the hands of AAA when BBB caught him and said "Walang ganyanan, Pre." Ryan admitted that he was drunk at that time and could not say what would have happened that night if BBB hadn't caught him. 22

According to Ryan, AAA is close to him and he would sometimes give her money so that she would not play with the machines at the vulcanizing shop. 23

Arnel San Buena Ventura (Arnel), Ryan's younger brother, testified that Ryan reports to work at the vulcanizing shop from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and goes home every day. On March 13 and 19, 2016, he did not notice anything unusual between Ryan, AAA, and BBB. According to Arnel, BBB and Ryan had a fight about "shabu" money which might be BBB's reason for filing cases against Ryan. Arnel described Ryan as a very kind person and even provides food to AAA. 24

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

On April 24, 2017, the RTC convicted Ryan for two counts of Rape, thus:

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

In Criminal Case No. 745-V-16 finding ACCUSED RYAN SAN BUENA VENTURA y MANALO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE under Article 266-A (i) (a) of the Revised Penal Code and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; and to indemnify [AAA] the amount PHP50,000.00 as moral damages and PHP50,000.00 as exemplary damages.

In Criminal Case No. 750-V-16, finding ACCUSED RYAN SAN BUENA VENTURA y MANALO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE under Article 266-A (i) (a) of the Revised Penal Code and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; and to indemnify [AAA] the amount PHP50,000.00 as moral damages and PHP50,000.00 as exemplary damages. aDSIHc

In Criminal Case No./s 475-V-16, 476-V-16, 746-V-16, 747-V-16 and 748-V-16 and 749-V-16, finding ACCUSED RYAN SAN BUEN VENTURA n y MANALO not guilty on account of reasonable doubt.

SO ORDERED. 25 (Emphasis in the original)

In convicting Ryan, the trial court held that AAA's testimony is categorical and definite as far as the rape incidents that happened on March 12 and 29, 2016 only. 26 The RTC found sufficient basis that carnal knowledge had taken place because AAA's testimony is consistent with the medical findings of PCI Escaro and CCC's observation that AAA's vagina was swollen. The element of force, threat, or intimidation is proven by the fact that AAA is a child of tender years and cannot be expected to resist in the same manner that an adult would under the same or similar circumstances. AAA's acts of trying to move away from the grasp of Ryan and attempting to shout during the incident are sufficient indication that the sexual acts perpetrated by Ryan upon AAA's tender and young body were against her will. Meanwhile, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt Ryan's guilt for the other charges. AAA was also very definite in her testimony that no sexual abuse was perpetrated by Ryan on April 10, 2016. 27

Ryan appealed to the CA. 28 He argued that AAA's testimony should not be given weight and credence because of the blatant inconsistencies in her statements. First, it was observed that AAA was smiling or laughing during her testimony. According to Ryan, any child who was repeatedly raped could, at very least, not laugh about such a horrific experience. 29Second, the rape incidents described by AAA cannot go unnoticed by BBB and AAA's younger sister especially when they were all lying on a makeshift bed consisting of detachable plywood and tires. Third, it is beyond human logic that BBB, as a father, barely had any violent reaction when he saw Ryan kissing his daughter and removing her underwear. Lastly, the swelling of AAA's vagina is not stated in the Medico-Legal Report issued by PCI Escaro. 30

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On October 15, 2019, the CA affirmed with modification the conviction of Ryan, to wit:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated November 24, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court of the Valenzuela City in Criminal Case Nos. [745-V-16] and [750-V-16] is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS that the civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages shall be increased to P75,000.00 each from the original P50,000.00 awarded by the trial court. The appellant is likewise ORDERED to PAY interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the time of finality of this decision until fully paid, to be imposed on the civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages.

SO ORDERED. 31 (Emphasis in the original)

The CA found no reason to reverse the ruling of the RTC. The appellate court maintained the trial court's assessment of AAA's credibility and consistency in relating the principal elements of the crime, as well as the positive and categorical identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime. 32 The CA found it difficult to believe that the young private complainant, without any ill-motive, would fabricate rape charges against the appellant who admitted being close to the former. 33 The CA sustained both penalties imposed by the RTC based on Article 266-B of the RPC which provided that the penalty for rape shall be reclusion perpetua. The award for damages was modified in line with People v. Jugueta. 34

Undaunted, Ryan filed a Notice of Appeal. 35 Both the plaintiff-appellee as represented by the Office of the Solicitor General 36 and the accused-appellant 37 manifested before the Court that they would not be filing supplemental briefs.

Issue

The issue in this case is whether the guilt of Ryan was proven beyond reasonable doubt. ETHIDa

Ruling of the Court

The Court rules in the affirmative and dismisses the appeal for lack of merit. The prosecution sufficiently established Ryan's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for two counts of the crime of rape.

Article 266-A of the RPC provides:

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.

xxx xxx xxx

The Court agrees with the lower courts that all the essential elements of rape are present in this case. The evidence on record clearly proves that Ryan had carnal knowledge with AAA, the minor daughter of his co-worker. The testimonies of AAA, BBB, and PCI Escaro were direct, straightforward, and corroborative of each other. Likewise, the Sinumpaang Salaysay (Exhibit "C") 38 executed by CCC and the Medico-Legal Report 39 are consistent with the testimonies presented by the prosecution.

As the CA correctly put it: "Truth be told, private complainant's testimony already established the elements of rape. Moreover, [AAA] consistently and categorically testified that appellant repeatedly penetrated her. Clearly, appellant succeeded in having carnal knowledge of [AAA]. She also testified that she attempted to move away to be able to free herself from the clasp of the appellant and her attempt to shout during the rape were sufficient indications that the carnal knowledge was against her will. One should bear in mind that in rape, the minor victim is at a great disadvantage. The assailant, by his overpowering and overbearing moral influence, can easily consummate his bestial lust with impunity. As a consequence, proof of force and violence is unnecessary of the victim." 40

On the other hand, Ryan merely interposed the weak defense of denial. The Court further notes that the appellant admitted the possibility of him committing the crime of rape against AAA were it not for the latter's father noticing his actions towards his daughter. 41 Below is the pertinent portion of Ryan's testimony:

Court:

Why, what was your intention?

Pros. Fajardo:

Gusto mo ng katabi ganun, katabi mo siya?

Witness:

Yes, tapos yun nakita na po kami nung tatay.

Court:

Had the father not seen you, what would have happened?

Witness:

Hindi ko po masasabi.

Pros. Fajardo:

Since you have already admitted the March 29 incident that you were trying to pull her towards you . . . cSEDTC

Atty. Kuong:

He was referring to the April 10 incident . . .

Pros. Fajardo:

Ah April 10, yung acts, anyway, you were there, by the way, since you were trying to pull her on April 10, 2016 and something might have happened if the father was not able to see it . . .

Court:

Something sexual?

Pros. Fajardo:

Maaring ganun ba, mahipuan mo siya, maaring ganun?

Witness:

No, Sir.

Court:

Eh ano?

Witness:

Yung panghahalay po.

xxx xxx xxx 42

However, the Court finds it proper to modify the nomenclature of the offense to conform to the ruling in the case of People v. Tulagan. 43

In the aforementioned case, it was already ruled that if the victim is 12 years or older, as in this case, the offender cannot be accused of both rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 of the RPC and sexual abuse under Section 5 (b) of R.A. 7610 because it may violate the right of the accused against double jeopardy. Furthermore, under Section 48 of the RPC, a felony, in particular rape, cannot be complexed with an offense penalized by a special law, such as R.A. 7610, to wit:

Assuming that the elements of both violations of Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 and of Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a) of the RPC are mistakenly alleged in the same Information — e.g., carnal knowledge or sexual intercourse was due to "force or intimidation" with the added phrase of "due to coercion or influence," one of the elements of Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610; or in many instances wrongfully designate the crime in the Information as violation of "Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a) in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610," although this may be a ground for quashal of the Information under Section 3(f) of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court — and proven during the trial in a case where the victim who is 12 years old or under 18 did not consent to the sexual intercourse, the accused should still be prosecuted pursuant to the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, which is the more recent and special penal legislation that is not only consistent, but also strengthens the policies of R.A. No. 7610. Indeed, while R.A. No. 7610 is a special law specifically enacted to provide special protection to children from all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation and discrimination and other conditions prejudicial to their development, We hold that it is contrary to the legislative intent of the same law if the lesser penalty (reclusion temporal medium to reclusion perpetua) under Section 5(b) thereof would be imposed against the perpetrator of sexual intercourse with a child 12 years of age or below 18.

Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a) in relation to Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, is not only the more recent law, but also deals more particularly with all rape cases, hence, its short title "The Anti-Rape Law of 1997." R.A. No. 8353 upholds the policies and principles of R.A. No. 7610, and provides a "stronger deterrence and special protection against child abuse," as it imposes a more severe penalty of reclusion perpetua under Article 266-B of the RPC, or even the death penalty if the victim is (1) 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 common-law spouse of the parent of the victim; or (2) when the victim is a child below 7 years old. SDAaTC

It is basic in statutory construction that in case of irreconcilable conflict between two laws, the later enactment must prevail, being the more recent expression of legislative will. Indeed, statutes must be so construed and harmonized with other statutes as to form a uniform system of jurisprudence, and if several laws cannot be harmonized, the earlier statute must yield to the later enactment, because the later law is the latest expression of the legislative will. Hence, Article 266-B of the RPC must prevail over Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610. 44

Hence, it is clear that the designation of the offense should be "Rape under Article 266-A (1) in relation to Article 266-B of the RPC" as Ryan committed "rape by carnal knowledge" against AAA, his victim of "12 years old or below 18." The rectification of Ryan's conviction for two counts of Rape under a single criminal law provision is in order. Ryan is liable for two counts of Rape defined in Article 266-A (1) in relation to Article 266-B of the RPC in Criminal Case Nos. 745-V-16 and 750-V-16. The penalty of reclusion perpetua in each case as imposed by the courts below are unaffected and retained.

As regards appellant's civil liability, the Court affirms the following awards for every count of Rape imposed by the CA for being consistent with prevailing jurisprudence: (1) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; (2) P75,000.00 as moral damages; and (3) P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. Legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum is imposed on all damages awarded from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated October 15, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09389 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant Ryan San Buena Ventura y Manalo is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of Rape under Article 266-A, Paragraph 1 in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in each case. Accused-appellant Ryan San Buena Ventura y Manalo is ORDERED to pay the victim AAA the following amounts for every count of Rape:

(1) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity;

(2) P75,000.00 as moral damages; and

(3) P75,000.00 as exemplary damages.

Legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum is imposed on all damages awarded from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.

SO ORDERED." (Gaerlan, J., no part.; Lazaro-Javier, J., designated as additional Member per Raffle dated July 6, 2020.)

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 Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a Member of this Court), with the concurrence of Associate Justices Eduardo B. Peralta and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi; rollo, pp. 3-18.

2. Penned by Judge Evangeline M. Francisco; CA rollo, pp. 53-68.

3. Records (Crim. Case No. 475-V-16) p. 1.

4. Records (Crim. Case No. 476-V-16) p. 1.

5.Id. at 24-28.

6. Records (Crim. Case No. 745-V-16), p. 1.

7. Records (Crim. Case No. 746-V-16), p. 28.

8. CA rollo, p. 56.

9. The identity of the victims or any information which could establish or compromise their identities, as well as those of their immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. (R.A.) 7610, titled "An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, and for Other Purposes," approved on June 17, 1992; R.A. 9262, titled "An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Other Purposes," approved on March 8, 2004; and Section 40 of Administrative Matter No. 04-10-11-SC, otherwise known as the "Rule on Violence against Women and Their Children" (November 15, 2004). See also Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015, titled "Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders Using Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances," dated September 5, 2017.

10. Records (Crim. Case No. 745-V-16), pp. 115-116.

11.Id. at 123-124.

12. CA rollo, p. 158.

13.Id.

14. Records (Crim. Case No. 475-V-16), p. 7.

15. CA rollo, p. 58.

16.Id.

17.Id. at 59.

18.Id.

19. Records (Crim. Case No. 745-V-16), p. 86.

20. CA rollo, p. 59.

21. Records (Crim. Case No. 745-V-16), p. 59.

22. CA rollo, pp. 59-60.

23.Id.

24.Id.

25.Id. at 68.

26.Id. at 60.

27.Id. at 67-68.

28.Id. at 13-14.

29.Id. at 48.

30.Id. at 48-50.

31.Rollo, p. 18.

32.Id. at 16.

33.Id. at 17.

34. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).

35.Rollo, p. 20.

36.Id. at 37.

37.Id. at 32-33.

38. Records (Crim. Case No. 475-V-16), pp. 13-14.

39. Records (Crim. Case No. 745-V-16), p. 18.

40.Rollo, p. 17.

41.Id. at 16.

42. TSN dated November 21, 2016, pp. 11-12.

43.People v. Tulagan, G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019.

44.Id.

n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.