FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252025. July 6, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ROMAN SANTOS y GASPAR a.k.a. "RONIE", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated July 6, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252025 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roman Santos y Gaspar a.k.a. "Ronie," Accused-Appellant.) — On appeal 1 is the Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12052 dated 16 October 2019, which affirmed the Judgment 3 of Branch 274, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Parañaque City in Criminal Case No. 2016-2300, finding accused Roman Santos y Gaspar (Santos) guilty of Rape.
Antecedents
An Information was filed against Santos accusing him of Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC):
That on or about the 9th day of December 2016, in the City of Parañaque, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a knife, with lewd designs and by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the complainant AAA, against her will and without her consent. 4
During his arraignment, Santos pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. 5 At pre-trial, the prosecution and defense entered into the following stipulations:
x x x It was stipulated at the pre-trial that Santos and private complainant were residing in the same house at the time of the incident. x x x The presentation of Dr. May David, Dr. Aida Mercado, and Barangay Tanod Ronaldo Cruz were dispensed with after stipulating that: (1) Dr. David examined AAA on December 9, 2016 and the results of the examination indicated a positive laceration on her right hand digits; (2) Dr. Mercado examined Santos on December 9, 2016; and (3) Cruz, together with Barangay Tanod Novelle Glenn Coronado, arrested the accused on December 9, 2016 at around 5:00 in the morning after he was positively identified by private complainant as the one who raped her. The prosecution then offered as documentary evidence AAA's sworn affidavit, Dr. David's medical exam and diagnosis, Dr. Mercado's medico-legal report, and an affidavit of arrest. 6
Thereafter trial ensued. The prosecution presented the victim, AAA, as witness. Similarly, Santos testified in his own defense. 7
The opposing versions of facts were summarized by the CA in this manner:
The Prosecution's Version
AAA was living in the same house as Santos whose wife is the sister of [AAA's] husband. They occupied the first level of the two-floor house, with the rooms of their respective families divided only by a cabinet. On December 9, 2016, at around 2:00 in the morning, her husband still at work, AAA was sleeping in their room together with her two children, aged five and three years old. She was suddenly awakened by the weight of Santos on top of her. She tried to push him back, but she felt a knife on her neck and sustained a cut on her right hand as a result. While Santos was poking the knife at her, he threatened to kill her and her children if she fought back. He then pulled down her shorts and underwear and inserted his penis into her vagina twice.
When AAA's husband knocked on the door, Santos stopped and went back to his room. She told her husband what happened and they both went to the barangay to report the incident. Santos was arrested by barangay tanod Cruz and Coronado. AAA meanwhile was brought to the hospital where she was found to have a laceration on her right hand.
The Defense's Version
Santos testified that AAA is the wife of his brother-in-law. His family lives in the same house as hers, along with one other family. The house was small, measuring about three arm's length. He denied the accusation, claiming that it stemmed from a disagreement over household expenses. He said that his family always paid for the electricity and water bills. The truth, he maintained, was that he was sleeping with his family at around 2:00 in the morning on December 9, 2016. 8
Ruling of the RTC
The trial court rendered Judgment finding Santos guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The dispositive portion of the trial court's Judgment states: cSEDTC
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds the accused Roman Santos y Gaspar GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape under Article 266-A, par. 1(a) as charged in the Information and hereby sentences the accused to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of reclusion perpetua and to pay the private complainant the amount of P80,000.00 in civil damages.
SO ORDERED. 9
Santos was found guilty on the basis of AAA's testimony, which the RTC found credible, convincing, and consistent with human nature. Further, AAA's declarations about the Rape incident and the use of a deadly weapon were confirmed by the medical certificates presented by the prosecution. Meanwhile, Santos's defense of denial was seen as uncorroborated, negative, self-serving, and not deserving of weight and evidentiary value over the positive testimony of AAA. 10
Undaunted, Santos appealed to the CA. 11
Ruling of the CA
The CA affirmed Santos's conviction. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The October 3, 2018 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 274, Parañaque City in Criminal Case No. 2016-2300 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that Ramon Santos is ORDERED to pay the victim the amounts of Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php75,000.00 as moral damages, and Php75,000.00 as exemplary damages, with legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 12
AAA's failure to shout, ask for help, and tell her partner immediately about Santos's act did not diminish her credibility since there is no typical reaction or norm of behavior among Rape victims. The failure to present the knife used by Santos is also not fatal for the prosecution since the manner the Rape was accomplished is duly established by AAA's testimony. Anent, Santos's "non-flight," the CA ruled that it is not a proof of innocence. In sum, the CA gave due respect to the factual findings of the trial court, and ruled that Santos's self-serving denial, unsupported by convincing and strong evidence, cannot prevail over AAA's credible testimony. 13
Nevertheless, the CA increased the monetary awards to the victim to conform with Our ruling in People v. Jugueta. 14
When notified by the Court that the parties may file their respective supplemental briefs, 15 they manifested their desire to dispense with the filing of the same. 16 In his Accused-Appellant's Brief 17 before the CA, Santos primarily argued against the credibility of AAA's testimony, which he claims was riddled with these "improbabilities":
(1) The victim did not shout or seek help from the other occupants of the house;
(2) Considering that their house is small and is being occupied by several families, it is impossible that no one noticed the alleged rape being committed; and,
(3) The victim failed to present in evidence the knife allegedly used to force her submission. 18
Santos also claimed that the allegation of Rape against him is incredible considering AAA's statement that he even interacted with the latter's live-in partner after the alleged Rape incident by borrowing a lighter from him. Santos surmises that it is contrary to human experience for a guilty person to stay at the scene of the crime. 19
Issue
The issue to be resolved is whether or not the appellate court erred in affirming the conviction of Santos for the crime of Rape. SDAaTC
Ruling of the Court
We sustain Santos's conviction.
The Court accords the trial court's factual determination utmost respect, especially when affirmed by the CA. It is settled that trial courts are better positioned to observe the demeanor and deportment of witnesses on the stand, making their assessment of a witness's credibility far more superior than that of appellate tribunals. 20 And in this case, the Court is persuaded that the RTC and CA correctly appreciated the pieces of evidence presented here.
We find that the appellate court correctly held that the victim's failure to seek help while Santos was raping her would not affect her credibility. After all, she is under no requirement to show that she had taken steps to stop or prevent Santos's advances. In People v. Tejero, 21 We expounded:
x x x The Court need not require AAA to prove that she fought back or protected herself in some way to stop the rape or to keep the rape from happening again. It is not accurate to say that there is a typical reaction or norm of behavior among rape victims, as not every victim can be expected to act conformably with the usual expectation of mankind and there is no standard behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling experience, each situation being different and dependent on the various circumstances prevailing in each case. 22
Equally without merit is Santos's insistence on the impossibility of committing Rape inside a small house with several people. We have consistently held that Rape does not only occur in seclusion because lust is no respecter of time and place, and known to happen in most unlikely places such as in a park, along a roadside, within school premises, or even in an occupied room. 23
We also agree that the non-presentation of the knife used to threaten AAA is not fatal for the case of the prosecution. In fact, the documentary and testimonial evidence presented proved that AAA was indeed threatened with a knife and was even injured by it. To recall, AAA testified:
Q: So you were surprised or you were awakened that somebody was on top of you?
A: Opo.
Q: What happened next? What did you do?
A: Tumingin po ako. Tapos nung pagtingin ko si Ronnie nga po yung nakaano sa akin.
Q: When it was Ronnie, what did you do?
A: Nagulat po ako. Tatayo po sana ako pero may nahawakan akong patalim na nakatutok na po sa leeg ko.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Can you please tell, how did you come to know that it was a knife that he was holding when you said that it was already dark.
A: Matalim po. Nasugatan po yung kamay ko. 24 (Emphasis supplied)
These statements were confirmed by the medical certificate showing that AAA suffered a laceration on her right hand digits. 25
In any event, it is settled that the use of a knife, or any other weapon for that matter, is not an element of the crime of Rape. So long as the accused was sufficiently shown to have succeeded in having carnal knowledge of the victim through the use of force, violence, or intimidation in whatever form, the requisite components of the crime are deemed satisfied. 26
Finally, We affirm the penalty imposed by the trial court. Article 266-B of the RPC provides that whenever the Rape incident is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. A knife is considered a deadly weapon in Rape cases when used to force a victim into submission. 27 In this case, accused's use of a knife was alleged in the Information and proven during trial.
Nevertheless, Article 63 of the RPC states that in cases where the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, as in this case, but there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, the lesser penalty shall be applied. Since no other circumstance was appreciated by the trial court, reclusion perpetua, being the lesser penalty, was correctly imposed. As regards the modifications introduced by the CA to Santos's pecuniary liabilities, the same are in accord with the Court's ruling in People v. Jugueta. 28
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 16 October 2019 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12052 is hereby AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant Roman Santos y Gaspar is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is ORDERED to pay AAA 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 six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid. acEHCD
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. 14-15; see Notice of Appeal dated 05 November 2019.
2.Id. at 3-13; penned by Associate Justice Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison and concurred in by Associate Justices Pedro B. Corales and Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas of the Special Tenth (10th) Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3. CA rollo, pp. 45-50; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Betlee-Ian J. Barraquias.
4.Rollo, p. 4.
5.Id.
6.Id.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 4-5.
9.Id. at 6.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 7.
12.Id. at 12.
13.Id. at 9-12.
14. 783 Phil. 806 (2016), G.R. No. 202124, 05 April 2016 [Per J. Peralta].
15.Rollo, p. 20.
16.Id. at 22-24, 27-30.
17. CA rollo, pp. 35-44.
18.Id. at 39-40.
19.Id. at 40-41.
20. See Bartolome v. People, 745 Phil. 54 (2014), G.R. No. 166441, 08 October 2014 [Per J. Bersamin].
21. 688 Phil. 543 (2012), G.R. No. 187744, 20 June 2012 [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro].
22.Id.
23.People v. Regalado, 793 Phil. 493 (2016), G.R. No. 210752, 17 August 2016 [Per J. Perez], citing People v. Cabillan, 334 Phil. 912, 919-920 (1997), G.R. No. 117684, 20 January 1997 [Per J. Vitug].
24.Rollo, p. 10.
25.Id. at 4.
26.People v. Garte, 592 Phil. 304 (2008), G.R. No. 176152, 25 November 2008 [Per J. Carpio-Morales], citing People v. Rodavia, 426 Phil. 707, 719 (2002), G.R. No. 133008, 06 February 2002 [Per Curiam].
27. See People v. XXX, G.R. No. 225059, 23 July 2018 [Per J. Caguioa].
28.Supra at note 14.