FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 251022. March 3, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JODERICK G. TAYABAN, a.k.a. "RODERICK G. TAYABAN", a.k.a. "KOKOY", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 3, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 251022(People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.Joderick G. Tayaban, a.k.a. "Roderick G. Tayaban," a.k.a. "Kokoy,"Accused-Appellant). — This appeal 1 seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision 2 dated 15 July 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10301, which affirmed with modification the Decision 3 dated 12 October 2017 of Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 14 of Lagawe, Ifugao in Criminal Case No. 2316, finding Joderick G. Tayaban, a.k.a. "Roderick G. Tayaban," a.k.a. "Kokoy" (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape, punishable under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
Antecedents
Accused-appellant was charged with rape in an Information that reads:
"That at around 1:00 o'clock in the morning of March 10, 2015 at ___________, ________, ________, Ifugao, or thereabout, hence, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously have carnal knowledge of one [AAA], 4 a minor of only 11 years old, while the victim was asleep.
CONTRARY TO LAW." 5
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. After pre-trial was terminated, trial on the merits ensued. 6
Version of the Prosecution
According to AAA, at around 1:00 o'clock in the morning of 10 March 2015, she and her younger sister were sleeping in their house at _______, _______, _______, Ifugao when she felt accused-appellant on top of her and his penis inserted in her vagina. She noticed that her pants and underwear were removed and that accused-appellant was not wearing any clothes. While having intercourse with her, accused-appellant threatened to kill her. As such, she did not shout for help. 7
AAA's sister then woke up, so AAA was able to leave the room and thereafter proceeded to the kitchen while accused-appellant stayed inside to sleep. When her mother asked them why they woke up early, AAA answered that it was because of accused-appellant who was sleeping in their room. 8 CAIHTE
It was only in the afternoon of that day, upon arriving from school, that AAA relayed the incident to her mother. 9 She told her mother that she had sexual intercourse with accused-appellant, and that she did not immediately tell her that morning because she was scared of accused-appellant's threat that he will kill her. 10
Version of the Defense
Through his and his mother's testimonies, accused-appellant proffered the defenses of denial and alibi, which the RTC synthesized as follows:
Accused testified that they had a drinking spree at the house of his Uncle Kokoy, where they consumed six (6) bottles of 2x2 Ginebra San Miguel in the night of March 9, 2015. His Uncle Kokoy scolded him when they were having a drinking spree because of their sharing with the harvested corn. Thereafter, he can no longer recall anything because he was drunk. Since he was very drunk, he was brought by his Uncle Rudy to their house at _______, _______, _______, Ifugao where he slept.
The case of rape in relation to Republic Act 7610 was filed against him as revenge because it was his mother who caused the imprisonment of [the] grandfather of [AAA]. If his family will let [the grandfather of AAA] out of prison, then the family of [AAA] will also let him out of prison.
xxx xxx xxx
Defense witness Norberta Galap narrated that she was at home at ________, _______, _______, Ifugao in the night of March 9, 2015. At around 9:00 o'clock, her son, accused, was brought to their house by her younger brother, Rudy. Accused[-appellant] was drunk and could not walk or stand so they let him sleep in the room and watched over him. Accused slept until the morning and she was sure that accused did not wake up in the middle of the night because she was there.
Accused could not have raped [AAA] at around 1:00 o'clock in the morning of March 10, 2015 because accused was at their house. The distance of _________ from _________ of _________, _________, Ifugao is about two (2) kilometers. 11
Ruling of the RTC
On 12 October 2017, the RTC rendered its Decision finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape punishable under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, to wit:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this court finds accused Joderick G. Tayaban, a.k.a. Roderick G. Tayaban, a.k.a. KOKOY GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape defined in paragraph 1(d), Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act 8353, and penalized under Article 266-B of the same Code, and hereby sentenced accused to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of reclusion perpetua. The accused is, likewise, ordered to pay [AAA] the amount of One Hundred Thousand (Php100,000.00) Pesos as moral damages, One Hundred Thousand (Php100,000.00) Pesos as exemplary damages and One Hundred Thousand (Php100,000.00) Pesos as civil indemnity with an interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of decision until satisfaction of the award.
SO ORDERED. 12
The RTC gave more credence to the testimony of AAA than accused-appellant's denial and alibi. 13
Ruling of the CA
On 15 July 2019, the CA affirmed accused-appellant's conviction, viz.:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated October 12, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Lagawe, Ifugao, in Criminal Case No. 2316, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.14
The CA emphasized that AAA was able to identify accused-appellant as her molester, especially in her re-direct examination. 15 Hence, this appeal. 16
Issues
Accused-appellant is now before this Court insisting that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of Rape based on the following:
I.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE THAT HE IS THE PERPETRATOR THEREOF.
II.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FACT THAT HIS DEFENSE OF DENIAL AND ALIBI WAS CORROBORATED BY A CREDIBLE WITNESS. 17
Ruling of the Court
The appeal must be denied.
Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) defines rape and explains how it is committed in the following manner:
Art. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. — Rape is committed:
By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
1. Through force, threat or intimidation; DETACa
2. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
3. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
4. When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
Statutory Rape is committed when (1) the offended party is under 12 years of age, and (2) the accused has carnal knowledge of her, regardless of whether there was force, threat or intimidation; whether the victim was deprived of reason or consciousness; or whether it was done through fraud or grave abuse of authority. The only subject of inquiry is the age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge took place. The child's consent is immaterial since the law presumes the victim's incapacity to discern good from evil. The victim does not and cannot have a will of her own on account of her tender years. 18
Given these tenets, We affirm the rulings of the RTC and the CA as to the guilt of accused-appellant.
The victim's age was sufficiently proven by the presentation of AAA's birth certificate, which was not disputed by accused-appellant. 19 In fact, both parties stipulated the same. 20 Hence, the critical issue left to be determined focuses on whether accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA.
At this juncture, it must be underlined that the prosecution presented a Medico-Legal Certificate which shows that there was injury at the hymen of AAA and the laceration was found at the posterior part of the vaginal wall with odorous vaginal discharge. As explained by Dr. Rhodora Montesa, who prepared said Certificate, for an eleven (11)-year-old child, inflammation at the perineum and periurethral area with laceration of the hymen at the vaginal wall were definitive signs of sexual trauma. 21
Accused-appellant attacks AAA's version of the events by stressing AAA's failure to positively identify accused-appellant as her molester. He hinges his defense on the following answer of AAA on cross-examination:
Q You said earlier it was dark when Kokoy Tayaban entered your room and you were able to see his penis. And now, because of the illumination of the light in the kitchen, you were able to see the penis of Kokoy?
A It is the penis.
Q Why did you look at his penis and not his face?
A I am looking at his penis. 22
At first blush, it would appear that AAA did not see her molester apart from his sex organ. However, as the CA correctly pointed out, this was clarified on AAA's re-direct examination, to wit:
Q Madam witness, earlier you said it was Kokoy Tayaban who had sexual intercourse with you at dawn. How were you able to recognize it was indeed Kokoy Tayaban who had sexual intercourse with you?
xxx xxx xxx
A There was light in the kitchen.
Q Because of the illumination from the kitchen, you were able to recognize it was Kokoy Tayaban who had sexual intercourse with you?
A Yes, sir.
Q You are very sure that it was Kokoy who entered your room and had sexual intercourse; (sic) with you?
A Yes, sir. 23
Even in response to the trial court's clarificatory questions, AAA was resolute and unwavering, and affirmed accused-appellant as the culprit. 24
As may be gleaned from above, the light from the kitchen illuminated the room, enabling AAA to see accused-appellant's face. AAA was positive that she saw accused-appellant. 25 Hence, We see no reason to depart from the findings of the RTC and the CA, which found the testimony of AAA credible and straightforward.
Time and again, this Court has held that questions on the credibility of witnesses should best be addressed to the trial court because of its unique position to observe the elusive and incommunicable evidence of witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying, which is denied to the appellate courts. Hence, the trial judge's assessment of the witnesses' testimonies and findings of fact are accorded great respect on appeal. In the absence of substantial reason to justify the reversal of the trial court's assessment and conclusion, as when no significant facts and circumstances are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded, the reviewing court is generally bound by the former's findings. The rule is even more strictly applied if the appellate court has concurred with the trial court as in this case. 26
Here, AAA was merely eleven (11) years old when the crime occurred, and was only twelve (12) years old when she testified on the witness stand to recount her painful ordeal. When the unwavering and forthright testimony of a rape victim is consistent with medical findings, like in the present case, there is sufficient basis to conclude that the essential requisites of carnal knowledge have been established. 27
Further, AAA's conduct during and after the sexual molestation and her inability to report the incident immediately are not enough to discredit her. After all, AAA relayed her ordeal to her mother the very day of the incident. Neither can AAA be faulted for not shouting for help while being raped because accused-appellant threatened to kill her. 28 AAA is under no requirement to show that she had taken steps to stop accused-appellant's advances. 29 aDSIHc
At any rate, victims of a crime as heinous as rape cannot be expected to act within reason or in accordance with society's expectations. 30 No fixed period is given to victims to make a report, and a myriad of reasons could be offered to explain why a rape victim would decide to keep mum about her ordeal, which includes threat of bodily harm to the victim or her family, or the shame she has to face if her dishonor is made public. 31 Rape victims react differently. Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all. There is no standard form of reaction for a woman when facing a shocking and horrifying experience such as a sexual assault. However, any of these conducts does not impair the credibility of a rape victim. 32
As to accused-appellant's defense of denial and alibi, We have consistently pronounced that the same are inherently weak defenses which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime. Thus, as between a categorical testimony which has the ring of truth on the one hand, and a mere denial and alibi on the other, the former is generally held to prevail. 33
In sum, none of accused-appellant's arguments was able to convince the Court to discredit AAA's credibility. The Court thus affirms the findings of both the RTC and the CA that AAA's testimony deserves full faith and credit.
However, in light of the ruling in People v. Jugueta, 34 We find that the awards of damages imposed against the accused-appellant for the crime of rape must be modified as follow: (a) Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) Php75,000.00 as moral damages; and (c) Php75,000.00 as exemplary damages, with legal interest of 6% per annum on all damages awarded from date of finality of this judgment until its full payment.
WHEREFORE, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Court of Appeals in its Decision dated 15 July 2019 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10301, finding Joderick G. Tayaban, a.k.a. "Roderick G. Tayaban," a.k.a. "Kokoy" GUILTY of statutory rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. He is ordered to pay AAA the amount of Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php75,000.00 as moral damages, and Php75,000.00 as exemplary damages, with an interest of six percent (6%) per annum reckoned from the finality of this Resolution until full satisfaction.
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. 16-19; Notice of Appeal dated 05 August 2019.
2.Id. at 3-15; penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. of the Tenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3. CA rollo, pp. 36-46; penned by RTC Presiding Judge Romeo U. Habbiling.
4. The identity of the victim or any information which could establish or compromise her identity, including the names of her immediate family or household members, and the barangay and town of the incident, are withheld pursuant to SC Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015.
5. CA rollo, p. 36.
6.Id. at 37.
7. Records, pp. 3 & 144.
8. TSN dated 14 April 2016 of AAA, p. 8.
9. TSN dated 19 May 2016 of BBB (mother of AAA), p. 3.
10.Rollo, pp. 4-5.
11. CA rollo, pp. 39-40.
12.Id. at 45.
13.Id. at 42.
14.Rollo, p. 15.
15.Id. at 8.
16.Id. at 16-18.
17. CA rollo, p. 23.
18.People v. Gutierrez, 731 Phil. 353, 357 (2014), G.R. No. 208007, 02 April 2014 [Per J. Leonen].
19. CA rollo, p. 41.
20. Records, pp. 48, 143.
21.Id. at 11, 143.
22.Supra at note 8 at 13.
23.Id. at 12.
24.Id. at 14.
25. Records, p. 144.
26.People v. Alberca, 810 Phil. 896, 906 (2017), G.R. No. 217459, 07 June 2017 [Per J. Tijam].
27.People v. Ronquillo, 818 Phil. 641, 651 (2017), G.R. No. 214762, 20 September 2017 [Per J. Martires].
28.Rollo, p. 11.
29.See People v. Tejero, 688 Phil. 543, 551-559 (2012), G.R. No. 187744, 20 June 2012 [Per J. Leonardo-de Castro].
30.People v. XXX, G.R. No. 230981, 15 July 2020 [Per J. Inting].
31.See People v. Segundo, 298-A Phil. 698, 705 (1993), G.R. No. L-88751, 21 December 1993 [Per J. Bellosillo].
32.People v. Palanay, 805 Phil. 116, 126-127 (2017), G.R. No. 224583, 01 February 2017 [Per J. Velasco, Jr.].
33.Id.
34. 783 Phil. 783, 847 (2016), G.R. No. 202124, 05 April 2016 [Per C.J. Peralta].
II. For Simple Rape/Qualified Rape:
1.1 Where the penalty imposed is Death but reduced to reclusion perpetua because of RA 9346:
a. Civil indemnity — [Php]75,000.00
b. Moral damages — [Php]75,000.00
c. Exemplary damages — [Php]75,000.00