THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 233320. January 10, 2017.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ANTONIO TANIO, JR. y TAYROS a.k.a. "ALLAN", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 10, 2018, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 233320 (People of the Philippines vs. Antonio Tanio, Jr. y Tayros a.k.a. "Allan"). — The Court NOTES:
(1) the Office of the Solicitor General's Manifestation (in Lieu of Supplemental Brief) dated December 11, 2017 stating that it would no longer file a supplemental brief considering that it has already discussed its argument in its brief; and
(2) the letter dated December 11, 2017 of Gerardo F. Padilla, MPA, CSMS, Acting Superintendent of Davao Prison and Penal Farm, confirming the confinement therein of accused-appellant since June 5, 2014.
At bench is an appeal 1 from the decision 2 dated 7 April 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01284-MIN. In the said decision, the CA affirmed the conviction 3 of herein appellant Antonio T. Tanio for three (3) counts of qualified rape under Article 266-A (1) in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and one (1) count of child abuse under Section 5 (b), Article III of Republic Act (RA) No. 7610.
The facts:
In 2011, four (4) separate criminal informations were filed against the appellant before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cagayan de Oro City.
Of the four, three (3) informations accused the appellant of committing three (3) counts of qualified rape against AAA, 4 his minor sister-in-law. These informations were docketed as FC Criminal Case Nos. 2011-454, 2011-455 and 2011-456. They read: 5
FC Criminal Case No. 2011-454
That on or about November 8, 2011 at around 10:00 o'clock in the morning in Sitio [XXX], Barangay [XXX], Municipality of [XXX], Province of Misamis Oriental and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable [C]ourt, the above-named [herein appellant] being the brother-in-law of the complainant and taking advantage of his moral ascendancy, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with AAA, minor, 14 years old, without her consent and against her will, to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO and in violation of Article 266-A and Article 266-B of the [RPC]. (Emphases supplied.)
FC Criminal Case No. 2011-455
That on or about November 8, 2011 at around 11:00 o'clock in the morning in Sitio [XXX], Barangay [XXX], Municipality of [XXX], Province of Misamis Oriental and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable [C]ourt, the above-named [herein appellant] being the brother-in-law of the complainant and taking advantage of his moral ascendancy, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with AAA, minor, 14 years old, without her consent and against her will, to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO and in violation of Article 266-A and Article 266-B of the [RPC]. (Emphases supplied.)
FC Criminal Case No. 2011-456
That on or about November 8, 2011 at around 12:00 o'clock noon in Sitio [XXX], Barangay [XXX], Municipality of [XXX], Province of Misamis Oriental and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable [C]ourt, the abovenamed [herein appellant] being the brother-in-law of the complainant and taking advantage of his moral ascendancy, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with AAA, minor, 14 years old, without her consent and against her will, to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO and in violation of Article 266-A and Article 266-B of the [RPC]. (Emphases supplied.)
The remaining information, on the other hand, accused the appellant for one count of child abuse against AAA. This information was docketed as FC Criminal Case No. 2012-032 and reads as follows:
FC Criminal Case No. 2012-032
That on or about the year April 2008, in Barangay [XXX], Municipality of [XXX], Province of Misamis Oriental, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable [C]ourt, the above-named [appellant], being the brother-in-law of the complainant and taking advantage of his moral ascendancy, with lewd design did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had sexual intercourse with AAA, minor, 14 years old, which act demeans, debases and degrades the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child, to her damage and prejudice. aScITE
CONTRARY TO and in violation of Section 5 (b) of [RA 7610]. 6 (Emphases supplied.)
When arraigned, the appellant pleaded not guilty to all the charges against him. During the pre-trial conference, the parties admitted these facts: (1) the appellant's identity; (2) that the appellant is a brother-in-law of AAA; (3) that AAA has a neighbor named Liza Binanda (Liza); and (4) that AAA was staying at the house of the appellant at the time of the incident. After the completion of the pre-trial conference, joint trial on the merits ensued. 7
At the trial, the following testified for the prosecution: (1) AAA, the victim herself; (2) BBB, the mother of AAA; (3) Jennys Mangconsay (Jennys); (4) Dr. Angelie Taruc (Dr. Taruc); and (5) Police Officer 1 Catherine Hibaya (PO1 Hibaya). For the defense, the appellant and her wife were presented as witnesses.
The gist of the testimonies of the prosecution and defense witnesses were summarized by the CA as follows: 8
AAA testified that she was born on February 6, 1997 and a student of [XXX] Elementary School. She declared that her elder sister, CCC got married to [herein] appellant whom she calls Manong Allan. Since the house of CCC and appellant is much nearer to her school, she would stay at the couple's abode in [XXX], [XXX], Misamis Oriental during school days and goes home to her parents' house in [XXX] only during weekends.
AAA recounted that sometime in April 2008, while she was alone in her parents' house at [XXX], appellant came. AAA stated that appellant, while holding a scythe, told her to be quiet and not to tell anybody. AAA claimed that out of fear, she acceded to what he wanted. AAA revealed that appellant undressed her and then laid on top of her while placing the scythe beside her. AAA recalled that afterwards, he inserted his penis into her vagina and made a push and pull motion. AAA admitted that as she was being molested by appellant, she was feeling the pain and once appellant was done, he stood up and threatened her again not to tell anybody, otherwise he would kill all of them. AAA admitted that because she got afraid of his threats, she did not report the matter to anyone.
AAA added that on November 8, 2011, at about 10:00 o'clock in the morning, she was on her way to CCC and the appellant's house coming from her parents' house at Sitio [XXX]. AAA recollected that while walking on the road, appellant waylaid her by grabbing her hand and when she tried to shout for help, appellant covered her mouth. AAA averred that she resisted by pushing him aside but appellant punched her in the abdomen and pulled her towards a coffee plantation. AAA declared that upon reaching a spot near a stream at [XXX], appellant wrestled her down to the ground and placed his bolo beside her. AAA revealed that appellant then removed her shorts and pulled out her shirt while also undressing himself. AAA testified that as she was lying down, appellant spread her legs, began to mash her breasts and when he was already on top of her trying to insert his penis into her vagina, he was also kissing her. AAA stated that although appellant failed initially to penetrate her because of her resistance, he was determined and so he later succeeded and continued with his push and pull motion. AAA declared that after appellant was done, he sat beside her and held her hands. AAA admitted that by that time, she began crying and was too afraid already but she could not think of running away because he was holding her.
AAA further testified that not long after, appellant laid on top of her again and while molesting her, he also mashed and kissed her breasts. AAA revealed that after he was done for the second time, he sat beside her and after a short break, he repeated the sexual act for the third time. AAA disclosed that while appellant was still on top of her, she pleaded to him to stop but he did not listen and instead continued to insert his penis into her vagina. AAA divulged that when appellant was finished, he again sat beside her but by this time, he already put back on his clothes while allowing her also to dress up. AAA expressed that by the time she stood up, she was thinking of running away but she just could not do so because appellant kept restraining her. Appellant even warned her not to tell anybody, otherwise, he would kill them all.
AAA professed that at about 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon, they left the coffee plantation and along the way, they met "Tatay" Carlos Linsagan [Carlos] but the [appellant] told her to hide. AAA revealed that she quickly run away towards Tatay Carlos leaving appellant to hide near a boulder. AAA admitted that while she and Tatay Carlos were walking, she kept on crying which prompted Tatay Carlos to ask why she was crying; but that she did not tell him anything. AAA avowed that when they reached [XXX] at around 2:30 o'clock in the afternoon, she proceeded to the house of her cousin [DDD] and when the latter asked her why she had dirt all over her, it was then that she revealed everything.
AAA disclosed that after appellant left, [DDD] had her be bathed at the rain gutter. AAA recounted that after taking a bath, they went to the house of CCC to change her clothes. AAA admitted that CCC was there and the latter asked AAA why she was wet to which AAA answered that she stumbled and fell and as a result, her dress got drenched. AAA revealed that [she] and [DDD] then went to the house of "Manang" [Liza] and the three of them went to see [her] mother, BBB. AAA divulged that she told BBB what appellant did to her.
Prosecution witness BBB confirmed that AAA is her daughter who was born on February 6, 1997, while the appellant is her son-in-law, being the husband of an older daughter CCC. BBB testified that at about 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon of November 8, 2011, AAA narrated to her that she was raped by appellant at about 10:00 o'clock in the morning of that day. BBB stated that after she was told about what had allegedly happened to AAA, they went to the house of her sibling for advice. BBB admitted that after seeking advice, they reported the incident to the Police Station at [XXX], Misamis Oriental. BBB also revealed that she referred her daughter to the Provincial Hospital for a medical examination. HEITAD
Prosecution witness [Jennys], a resident of [XXX], [XXX], Misamis Oriental and also a Barangay Kagawad of that place, testified that she knows appellant because he is his brother-in-law, being a younger brother of his wife, while AAA is a cousin on his father's side. Jennys recollected that on November 8, 2011, at 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon, he was at his house at [XXX] when appellant came to seek an advice because he was allegedly a suspect in a rape case involving AAA.
Prosecution witness [Dr. Taruc] testified that on November 8, 2011, she attended and examined AAA relative to a rape complaint. Dr. Taruc divulged that during the time of her examination, she noted that the victim was still [14] years old. Dr. Taruc revealed that after conducting a general physical examination, she found that there was a 0.5 mm healed laceration at 9:00 o'clock position in the hymen of AAA.
On the other hand, appellant denied the allegations against him. Appellant testified that on March 31, 2008, he went to Dalipuga, Iligan City because his father died. Appellant divulged that after the burial on April 1, 2008, he opted to stay in that place and engaged in driving trisikad.
Appellant further testified that on November 8, 2011, at 10:00 o'clock in the morning, he was just staying at home in Barangay [XXX] together with his family, doing some repairs on his house. Appellant declared that after he finished working at around 11:00 o'clock, he took time to relax and then an hour later, he had lunch with his family.
Defense witness CCC confirmed that appellant is her husband while the complainant is her younger sister. CCC testified that on March 31, 2008, they went to Dalipuga, Iligan City because the father of her husband died. CCC revealed that while in Iligan, they stayed at the house of her husband's aunt. CCC added that during that time, her husband was driving trisikad for a living. CCC maintained that it was only on May 30, 2008 that they returned to [XXX], [XXX], Misamis Oriental. CCC further testified that on November 8, 2011, she and her husband, along with their children x x x were just at their house in [XXX]. Since that day was also their anniversary, she cooked some root crops for their lunch. (Italics supplied.)
On 2 January 2014, the RTC rendered a joint decision finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of qualified rape and of one count of child abuse as charged. In so finding, the RTC accorded full weight and credence to the testimony of AAA but assigned little value on the testimonies of the appellant and CCC.
Accordingly, the RTC imposed the following penalties and obligations against the appellant:
1. As to the three (3) counts of qualified rape under Article 266-A (1) in relation to Article 266-B of the RPC, the appellant was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count.
The appellant was also ordered to pay AAA: (a) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, (b) P75,000.00 as moral damages and (c) P30,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of qualified rape.
2. As to the one count of child abuse under Section 5 (b), Article III of RA No. 7610, the appellant was sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison sentence of fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
The appellant was also ordered to pay AAA: (a) P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, (b) P50,000.00 as moral damages and (c) P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Unperturbed, the appellant appealed to the CA.
On 7 April 2017, the CA rendered a decision denying the appellant's appeal and sustaining his convictions for the three (3) counts of qualified rape and one count of child abuse by the RTC. The CA, however, modified the RTC's disposition as follows:
1. With respect to the amounts of civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages that are due from the appellant from his conviction for the three (3) counts of qualified rape, the CA increased such amounts to P100,000.00 each. Thus, the appellant was now liable to pay AAA: (a) P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, (b) P100,000.00 as moral damages and (c) P100,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of qualified rape.
2. With respect to the prison sentence to be served by the appellant for his conviction for the one count of child abuse, the CA raised the same to reclusion perpetua. ATICcS
3. The CA also directed the appellant to pay interest on all damages awarded in relation to the three counts of qualified rape and one count of child abuse, at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of the decision until fully paid.
Hence, the instant appeal. In this appeal, the appellant claims that the RTC and the CA erred in according full weight and credence to the testimony of AAA. He argues that AAA cannot be considered as a credible witness because key parts of her testimony are not in harmony with the common experience of mankind and are even contradicted by the physical evidence on record. Thus:
1. AAA's accusation of rape and child abuse against the appellant is belied by the fact that AAA continued to live in the house of the appellant for years after their alleged first sexual encounter in 2008. AAA also never told anyone in her family that she had been molested until 2011. Such actuations are not consistent with the usual actions of a bona fide victim of rape or child abuse.
2. AAA claimed that she was punched in the stomach by the appellant during their sexual encounter on 8 November 2011. This claim, however, was contradicted by the Living Case Report dated 10 November 2011 and the Emergency Room Record which reveal that AAA did not sustain any injury, bruise or contusion in her stomach.
3. AAA's claim that she had been raped three times on 8 November 2011 was contradicted by the medico-legal findings of Dr. Taruc showing that AAA did not have fresh lacerations in her hymen when the latter was examined on the same date.
In view of the supposedly weak credibility of AAA as a witness, the appellant thus urges this Court to consider his alternate version of events as the truth of what happened in this case and, ultimately, to acquit him of the crime charged.
Our Ruling
We dismiss the appeal. AAA is a credible witness and the RTC and the CA did not err in according full weight and credit to her testimony.
It is a well-settled rule in our jurisdiction that the assessment of a trial court in matters pertaining to the credibility of witnesses is accorded great respect — if not finality — on appeal. 9 The rationale behind this rule is the recognition of the trial court's unique and distinctive position to be able to observe, first hand, the demeanor, conduct and attitude of the witness whose credibility has been put in issue. 10
While conformity to the foregoing rule is not absolute, it must be underscored that any deviation therefrom is only allowed in light of the presence of highly meritorious circumstances, such as when it is clearly shown that the trial court had "overlooked certain facts of substance and of value which, if considered, might affect the outcome of the case."11
The appellant, in the present appeal, argues that a deviation from the general rule is warranted in this case. It is claimed that the RTC and the CA had erred in their appreciation of AAA's testimony as they overlooked circumstances in the latter's version of events that makes the same implausible and unbelievable.
We do not agree.
First. AAA's credibility as a witness is not impaired by the fact that she continued to live with the appellant for three (3) years after she was first molested in 2008 nor by the fact she only reported her experiences with the appellant to her family in 2011. Case law had long held that delay or vacillation in making a criminal accusation will not compromise a witness' credibility if the delay is satisfactorily explained. 12 In this connection, fear of reprisal, social humiliation, familial considerations, and economic reasons have all been considered by jurisprudence as sufficient explanations for such delay. 13
In this case, AAA clearly relayed that, after the first incident in 2008, she had been threatened by the appellant that he would "kill them all" should she tell anyone about what happened. Given such threat and taking into account the tender age of AAA during those times, it becomes apparent that AAA had kept her tongue for she feared the appellant and the latter's reprisal. Verily, AAA's delay in reporting her molestation by the appellant cannot be taken against her. TIADCc
Second. The lack of any observable injury or contusion on the part of AAA is also not prejudicial to the latter's credibility. That "[n]ot all blows leave marks" is a truism already accepted by jurisprudence as applicable in rape cases. 14 Hence, the mere fact that AAA did not sustain any external signs of physical injury does not necessarily mean that she had lied about being hit by the appellant.
At any rate, the absence of any injury on the part of AAA would not have the effect of discrediting her accusations of rape against the appellants, in general. It is well settled that the existence of injury on the part of the victim is not an essential element of the crime of rape. 15
Third. AAA's accusation that she had been raped by the appellant is likewise not discounted by the mere fact that the results of her medico-legal examination revealed no fresh lacerations in her hymen. The absence of fresh lacerations is only an indication that, long before being examined, AAA's hymen was already been torn either by penetration from a blunt object or by an accident. Such a finding, however, does not preclude the possibility of AAA having been raped since a newly ruptured hymen on the part of the victim — like the existence of external injury — is not an element of rape. 16
All told, AAA's testimony is deserving of the full weight and credence accorded to it by the RTC and the CA. We find such testimony, like the RTC and the CA before us, to be categorical, explicit and replete with the details of how appellant molested and raped AAA. Against such a testimony, the denial and alibi of the appellant must certainly fail. 17
There being no reason to depart from the ruling of the CA on any matter, we resolve to affirm.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated 7 April 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01284-MIN is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. By way of an ordinary appeal pursuant to Section 13 (c) of Rule 124 of the Rules of Court.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Ronaldo B. Martin with Associate Justices Edgardo T. Lloren and Perpetua T. Atal-Paño, concurring, Rollo, pp. 3-18.
3. Penned by Presiding Judge Richard D. Mordeno, CA rollo, pp. 38-49.
4. The real name of the minor victim is withheld pursuant to Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 83-2015. Likewise, the names of the victim's relatives and her other personal circumstances that tend to establish or compromise her identity shall not be disclosed. The names of victim, her relatives and other personal circumstances shall be replaced with fictitious initials.
5. CA Decision dated April 7, 2017, Rollo, p. 4.
6.Id.
7. RTC Joint Decision dated January 2, 2014, CA rollo, p. 39; CA Decision dated April 7, 2017, id. at 6.
8. CA Decision dated April 7, 2017, id. at 6-9.
9.People v. Piosang, G.R. No. 200329, 5 June 2013.
10.People v. Costelo, G.R. No. 134311, 13 October 2009.
11.People v. Mali, G.R. No. 206738, 11 December 2013 citing People v. De Jesus, G.R. No. 191753, 17 September 2012.
12.People v. Fuensalida, G.R. No. 119963, 6 November 1997 citing People v. Gornes, G.R. No. 104869, 23 February 1994.
13.Id. See also People v. Lusa, G.R. No. 122246, 27 March 1998.
14.People v. Paringit, G.R. No. 83947, 13 September 1980; People v. Zafra, G.R. No. 197363, 26 June 2013.
15.People v. Paringit, G.R. No. 83947, 13 September 1980.
16.People v. Opong, 577 Phil. 571, 592 (2008).
17.People v. Del Castillo, G.R. No. 180925, 20 August 2008.