FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 233534. April 28, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARNOLD SHIHANI y CONCHA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated April 28, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 233534 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, v. ARNOLD SHIHANI y CONCHA, accused-appellant). — This treats of the Notice of Appeal 1 under Section 13 (c), Rule 124 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, filed by accused-appellant Arnold Shihani y Concha (Arnold), seeking the reversal of the January 30, 2017 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 38110, finding Arnold guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.
The Case
Arnold stands charged for the crime of rape in an Information, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about February 27, 2011, in the City of Manila, Philippines the said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with lewd design, and by means of force and intimidation have carnal knowledge with AAA, 3 who has signs of abnormality, by then and there forcibly dragging her inside a side car pulling her legs, undressing her and placing himself on top of her and inserting his penis inside her vagina against her will and without her consent.
Contrary to law. 4
Upon arraignment for the crime charged, Arnold pleaded "not guilty" to the charge. Thereupon, pre-trial and trial ensued. 5
The Antecedents
Prosecution's Version of Facts
At around 9:00 to 9:30 in the evening of February 27, 2011, BBB asked her daughter AAA, a 25-year old girl with a mental age of a four (4)-year old child and the herein victim, to return a plastic water container to a certain "Lolo," who owns a tubigan in Muelle delas Trias Street, some five minutes away from where the victim lives. AAA, however, took a while to return home. 6 Thus, BBB, together with her other daughter and grandson, looked for AAA at Lolo's place. AAA, however, was not there and Lolo told them that AAA had already left and returned home. BBB then went home but AAA was still nowhere to be found. 7 Thus, BBB went back to San Fernando St., and there she saw AAA alighting from a sidecar owned and driven by Arnold. After alighting, AAA went straight home. 8 Meanwhile, BBB confronted Arnold as to why AAA was in his sidecar. Arnold, however, denied doing anything to AAA. 9 Upon arriving home, BBB asked why AAA was crying. AAA then replied that Arnold "hinubad ang shorts ko" and "ipinasok niya." 10 BBB then brought AAA to Lolo's place to discuss with Arnold what happened. Arnold denied doing anything to AAA but the latter insisted that Arnold raped her. 11
Meanwhile, while AAA was missing, a relative of AAA reported to the Barangay Hall that AAA cannot be located. 12Kagawad Jaime Mocon (Mocon), with the other tanods, took the time to look for AAA and they found her with Arnold inside the sidecar parked at P. Guevarra School. When they approached the sidecar, Kagawad Mocon saw Arnold's pants pulled down. Arnold, upon seeing the kagawad immediately wore his pants. Kagawad Mocon then invited Arnold to the barangay hall to explain what he was doing with AAA. 13
Defense's Version of Facts
On February 27, 2011, at around 9:00 in the evening, while he was at the igiban near the Petron gasoline station, Arnold saw AAA, who he knows since he usually sees her at the igiban, walking alone. Out of pity for AAA, Arnold offered her a ride home. On their way, Arnold encountered BBB, who told AAA to alight from the sidecar. Thereafter, Arnold went back to the igiban where he stayed and rested. After a while, the barangay tanod, AAA and BBB arrived and arrested him. 14
The RTC Ruling
The RTC rendered a Decision 15 dated March 2, 2015, finding Arnold guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of attempted rape. The trial court ratiocinated that although AAA testified that Arnold had succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her, the findings of the medico-legal that there were no lacerations in the hymen, no bruises and no active bleeding in the genitalia area, are in contradiction to AAA's statement that she was raped. 16 The trial court, thus, concluded that while Arnold commenced the commission of rape, he failed to "perform all the acts of execution which would produce the crime of rape by reason of a cause other than his own spontaneous desistance before the accused attained some degree of penile penetration upon her genitalia which was necessary to consummate rape." 17 Accordingly, the trial court disposed the case in this wise:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused ARNOLD SHIHANI y CONCHA GUILTY of the crime of Attempted Rape. ACCORDINGLY, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years of prision mayor, as maximum.
Likewise, he is ordered to [AAA] the amount of P20,000.00 as moral damages and the amount of P10,000.00, as and by way of exemplary damages. The preventive detention of the accused is credited to his time of service.
SO ORDERED. 18
Aggrieved, Arnold appealed the RTC ruling to the CA. 19
The CA Ruling
In a Decision 20 promulgated on January 30, 2017, the CA affirmed with modification the RTC Decision. The CA found Arnold guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, not attempted rape. The CA explained that based on the testimony of AAA, vis-a-vis the explanation of the physician that, despite the absence of lacerations in the hymen, bruises and bleeding in the genital area, consummated rape and/or sexual assault cannot be ruled out, Arnold did not merely commit attempted rape, but consummated rape. 21 The fallo of the assailed Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision dated March 2, 2015 of the Manila Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, in Criminal Case No. 11-282142, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in that accused-appellant ARNOLD SHIHANI y CONCHA is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Rape and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The awards for moral and exemplary damages are increased to P75,000.00 each. Accused-appellant Arnold Shihani y Concha is likewise ordered to pay [AAA] civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00. All damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of this decision until full satisfaction of the award. The preventive detention of the accused-appellant is credited to his time of service.
SO ORDERED. 22
Undaunted, Arnold filed a Notice of Appeal 23 under Rule 124, Section 13 (c) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure to this Court.
Issue
Whether the CA erred in affirming with modification the trial court's decision and convicting Arnold of the crime of rape, not attempted rape.
The Court's Ruling
The instant appeal is bereft of merit.
At the very outset, Arnold was convicted by the trial court of attempted rape. It was modified by the CA in that Arnold was held liable for rape, not attempted rape. It bears stressing that Arnold was convicted of the crime of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (a), that is, "through force, threat, or intimidation." Though the prosecution established that AAA was mentally retarded — she is a 25-year old girl with a mental age of a four (4)-year old child, it did so only to show that even with her condition, she was still qualified to be a witness; that AAA was able to perceive, and perceiving, made known her perception to others. Otherwise stated, her mental condition was not made as an essential element of the crime of rape. Here, the prosecution unequivocally focused on the force or intimidation employed by Arnold against AAA under Article 266-A (1) (a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
Now, the elements necessary to sustain a conviction for rape under Article 266-A of the RPC are as follows: (1) the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) the said act was accomplished (a) through the use of force or intimidation, or (b) when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or (c) when the victim is under 12 years of age or is demented. 24
In this case, Arnold avers that the prosecution failed to duly prove all the elements of the crime of rape, in that it failed to show how the alleged rape was committed. Arnold explains that aside from AAA's testimony that she was raped, the medical findings, as well as the prosecution's evidence, both documentary and testimonial, do not show that he committed any overt act to commit rape. 25
This Court disagrees.
At the outset, it is settled that due to its intimate nature, rape is usually a crime bereft of witnesses, and, more often than not, the victim is left to testify for herself. Thus, in the resolution of rape cases, the victim's credibility becomes the primordial consideration. 26
Now, it has been established that AAA is mentally retarded. To recall, she is a 25-year old girl with a mental age of a four (4)-year old child at the time of the incident. Notwithstanding, AAA was able to recount the ordeal done to her by Arnold, thus:
xxx xxx xxx
ATTY. GUPITA
Q: Sabi mo kanina ay ikaw rape Lando sa loob ng side car? [sic]
A: Opo.
Q: Anong ginawa sa iyo?
A: Na, hinablot. [sic]
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Ano pa gawa ni Lando sa iyo? [sic]
A: Yung suot kong short ay hinubad.
Q: Sinong nang hubad? [sic]
A: Lando.
Q: Tapos anong ginawa Lando? [sic]
A: Soksok tete dito. [sic]
Q: Anong dito, ulit mo saan soksok tete? [sic]
A: Dito. (the witness is pointing to her vagina.)
Q: Si Lando gawa sa iyo? [sic]
A: Opo.
Q: Anong ginawa ginawa (sic) pagkatapos?
A: Uwe Nanay. [sic]
Q: Anong nararamdaman mo noong suksuk tete Lando masakit ba? [sic]
A: Hindi po.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Diba sabi mo si Lando soksok "tete" anong naramdaman mo? [sic]
A: Masakit tyan ko.
Q: Gaano katagal ba suksuk tete? [sic]
A: Matagal.
Q: Natapos ba Lando gawa suksuk tete? [sic]
A: Opo.
Q: Noong natapos sya anong nangyare? [sic]
A: Nabasa "petpet" ko. [sic]
Q: Anong klaseng basa pula?
A: Blue.
xxx xxx xxx 27
It bears stressing that her testimony in court is consistent with her affidavit executed during the initial investigation of the case conducted by police officers, to wit:
xxx xxx xxx
07. T: Kilala mo ba si Lando?
S: Opo.
08. T: Sino si Lando?
S: side-car sya. [sic]
09. T: Ano ginawa ni Lando sa iyo?
S: Ni Rape niya po ako.
10. T: Ano pa?
S: Rape niya ako loob side-car. [sic]
11. T: Ano pa?
S: Hila niya shorts ko baba. [sic]
12. T: Ano pa?
S: Hawak niya ako.
xxx xxx xxx
15. T: Ano gawa Lando shorts niya? [sic]
S: Lando baba shorts niya. [sic]
16. T: Sunod ano pa gawa niya? [sic]
S: Sabi ko Lando gago, hudlom! [sic]
17. T: Ano pa gawa ni Lando sa iyo? [sic]
S: (Hinubad lahat ni Lando and suot niya.) Suot ko. [sic]
18. T: Ano pa gawa niya? [sic]
S: Ginaniyan niya ako. (Binuka ni Lando and dalawang binte niya.) [sic]
19. T: Tapos buka niya binte mo, ano gawa niya pa? [sic]
S: Lando (Pumatong si Lando sa biktima at kinanyod siya.) [sic]
20. T: Tagal ba?
S: Opo. (Matagal si Lando nakapatong sa biktima at kinanyod siya.) [sic]
xxx xxx xxx 28
While AAA cannot express herself in a manner normal people do, she was able to clearly and consistently narrate what Arnold had done to her. The above testimony of AAA vividly described her harrowing experience at the hands of Arnold. She was able to state in a clear and categorical manner the abuse done to her by Arnold from forcefully pulling her inside the sidecar, undressing her and then raping her against her will.
Without a doubt, AAA's testimony is straightforward, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. Thus, it passes the test of credibility. In fact, her credibility as a witness was not assailed during the proceedings in the court a quo and the CA. The trial court, therefore, committed reversible error when it did not give full weight and credence to AAA's testimony.
It bears stressing that AAA's ordeal was supported by the testimonies of the other prosecution witnesses. While AAA's mother and a barangay kagawad may have not actually witnessed the rape, they were able to lay down several circumstances that corroborate AAA's testimony.
Firstly, BBB testified that she saw AAA alight from Arnold's sidecar after she had gone missing for hours. 29 Secondly, Kagawad Mocon testified that when he approached Arnold's car parked at P. Guevarra School, he saw Arnold and AAA together and Arnold's pants pulled down. Further, he witnessed that Arnold, upon seeing the kagawad, immediately pulled up and wore his pants as if nothing happened. 30
Furthermore, while based on the Medical Certificate, 31 there were no lacerations in the hymen, no bruises and no active bleeding on the genital area of AAA, it does not necessarily follow that rape (consummated) had not been committed.
Settled is the rule that a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape inasmuch as the victim's testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict the accused of the crime. In fact, a doctor's certificate is merely corroborative in character and not an indispensable requirement in proving the commission of rape. 32
Furthermore, proof of hymenal laceration is not an element of rape. An intact hymen does not negate a finding that the victim was raped. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without laceration of the hymen, is enough to constitute rape, and even the briefest of contact is deemed rape. 33 In People v. Flores, 34 this Court explained further:
We stress that, in the crime of rape, complete or full penetration of the complainant's private part is not at all necessary. Neither is the rupture of the hymen essential. What is fundamental is that the entry or at least the introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum is proved. The mere introduction of the male organ into the labia majora of the victim's genitalia, even without the full penetration of the complainant's vagina, consummates the crime. Hence, the "touching" or "entry" of the penis into the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum of the victim's genitalia consummates rape. 35 (Citation omitted)
It is, therefore, not seldom that this Court had convicted an accused of the crime of rape despite the absence of lacerations in the victim's hymen.
As things are, Dra. Audrey Angeli O. Andres (Dr. Andres), explained that although there were no lacerations and bruises on AAA, sexual assault may still have been committed. She testified that while the initial examination was normal, during the follow-up check-up, there was already a discharge coming from AAA's genitals, signifying that she has an infection, which may have been caused by sexual abuse. 36
Notwithstanding, Arnold tries to extricate himself from criminal liability by positing that he was accused of something which he did not do. Simply, he raises the defense of denial.
It is elementary that denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. 37 It is a negative self-serving evidence which crumbles before positive declarations of truthful witnesses who testified that the culprits were at the scene of the incident and were the assailants of the victim. 38
In the case at bench, Arnold failed to substantiate his defense of denial. He merely denied the accusations but failed to adduce any evidence in support thereof. Worse, no other witnesses were presented to corroborate his defense. Thus, pursuant to the time-tested rule that as between the positive declarations of a prosecution witness and the negative statements of the accused, the former deserves more credence, 39 his defense of denial inevitably falters.
In view of the foregoing, this Court is satisfied with moral certainty that the prosecution has established the guilt of Arnold beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape. Otherwise stated, the prosecution was able to prove the existence of all the elements of the crime of rape under Article 266-A (1) (a) of the RPC.
All told, this Court holds and so rules that the CA correctly modified the trial court's Decision and upgraded the crime committed by Arnold from attempted rape to rape. The CA likewise correctly imposed upon Arnold the penalty of reclusion perpetua and awarded the correct amount of damages per this Court's ruling in People v. Jugueta. 40
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed January 30, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 38110 is AFFIRMED in toto.
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. 21-23.
2.Id. at 2-20; penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante, with Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Carmelita Salandanan Manahan, concurring.
3. Pursuant to Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004" and its implementing rules, the real name of the victim, together with the real names of her immediate family members, is withheld and fictitious initials instead are used to represent her, both to protect her privacy. (People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 (2006)).
4. Records, p. 1.
5.Rollo, p. 3.
6. CA rollo, p. 96.
7.Id. at 97.
8.Id.
9.Id.
10.Id.
11.Id.
12.Id.
13.Id. at 97-98.
14.Id. at 56.
15.Id. at 20-29; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Ma. Teresa E. De Guzman-Alvarez.
16.Id. at 27.
17.Id. at 28.
18.Id. at 29.
19.Id. at 30.
20.Rollo, pp. 2-20.
21.Id. at 14-17.
22.Id. at 19.
23.Id. at 21-23.
24.People v. XXX, G.R. No. 240441, December 4, 2019.
25. CA rollo, pp. 59-61.
26.People v. Dion, 668 Phil. 333, 348 (2011).
27. TSN, June 6, 2012, pp. 11-15.
28. Records, p. 3.
29. TSN, March 14, 2012, p. 10.
30. TSN, April 24, 2013, pp. 7-8.
31. Records, pp. 8-9.
32.People v. Bauit, 826 Phil. 166, 174 (2018), citing People v. Rubio, 683 Phil. 714, 726-727 (2012).
33.People v. Tanglao, G.R. No. 219963, June 13, 2018, 866 SCRA 279, 300-301.
34. 448 Phil. 840 (2003).
35.Id. at 856.
36. TSN, August 24, 2011, pp. 20-21.
37.People v. Tamolon, et al., 599 Phil. 542, 552 (2009).
38.Talay v. Court of Appeals, 446 Phil. 256, 277 (2003).
39.People v. Maglente, 722 Phil. 388, 402-403 (2013).
40. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).