SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252244. June 23, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ERNANI VILLANUEVA y VALDEZ, A.K.A. "NANIE", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 23 June 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252244 (People of the Philippines v. Ernani Villanueva y Valdez, a.k.a. "Nanie"). — Appellant Ernani1Villanueva y Valdez, a.k.a. "Nanie" assails the Decision 2 dated November 12, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09745 entitled "People of the Philippines v. Ernani Villanueva y Valdez, a.k.a. 'Nanie'" which affirmed his conviction for the rape of AAA. 3
Antecedents
By Information 4 dated December 4, 2008, appellant was charged with Rape under Article 266-A (1) (d) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), in relation to Republic Act No. 7610 (RA 7610), 5viz.:
That sometime during the month of December 2007, in the Municipality of YYY, Province of ZZZ, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with deliberate intent, with lewd design and actuated by lust, by means of force, threat[,] and intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully[,] and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one AAA, a ten (10) year-old minor, having been born on July 1, 1997, against her will and consent, thus debasing, degrading[,] and demeaning her intrinsic worth and dignity as a child, to the damage and prejudice of said minor.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
The case was raffled to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 17, Cavite City docketed as Crim. Case No. 28-09.
On arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued. 7
The Prosecution's Version
In their Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay8 dated January 18, 2008, AAA and BBB narrated:
They were best friends aged ten (10) and eleven (11), respectively, at the time of the incident.
In December 2007, around 8 o'clock in the morning, they decided to fetch their classmate CCC as their English teacher was absent. On their way to CCC's house through a shortcut known as Lawa, they noticed that a limping man was following them. The man introduced himself as "Nanie" herein appellant, and invited them to eat. He led them to a house which allegedly belonged to his ninang.
After eating, they asked for permission to leave, but appellant grabbed them by the back of their clothes and brought them to a secluded place. There, he asked them "sino ang mauuna?" As they had no idea what he meant, BBB mustered the courage to ask for clarification. Appellant replied that she (BBB) would be the first.
Appellant ordered BBB to sit on a rock and undress but she refused. Appellant then pulled out a knife from his waist and pointed it at her. Out of fear, BBB undressed herself. Thereafter, appellant inserted his penis in BBB's vagina and made push and pull movements while pointing his knife at AAA. As appellant was ravishing BBB, AAA was able to get hold of a piece of wood and hit appellant's back. This angered appellant who then boxed AAA's arm twice and even pulled her hair. Meanwhile, BBB shouted which also irked appellant who then also boxed her left arm.
Not contented with BBB, appellant turned to AAA. Appellant ordered AAA to undress and sit on a rock. Thereafter, he inserted his penis into AAA's vagina. This time, appellant pointed his knife at BBB while ravishing AAA. After raping both girls, appellant noticed a man approaching their direction. Appellant hurriedly dressed himself and before leaving, threatened them not to tell anyone what he did or he would kill them.
When the passerby arrived at their location, he asked them why they were shouting and why they looked haggard and sweaty. They confided that appellant had raped them. The man replied he will report the incident to the barangay.
They washed themselves at a shallow well. Thereafter, they returned to school and were reprimanded for cutting classes. They did not report the incident to the school or their parents out of fear.
Notably, the present case only involves AAA as the private complainant. The rape of BBB was heard in a separate case docketed as RTC Crim. Case No. 27-09, which eventually reached this Court in G.R. No. 248075 and got resolved on October 14, 2020.
The prosecution offered BBB's testimony. 9 She essentially reiterated the statements in the Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay10 and added that she and AAA mustered up their courage to report the rape incident to their parents after they learned that appellant raped another person.
AAA's mother DDD11 testified on the victim's minority. She presented AAA's baptismal certificate which indicated that she was born on July 1, 1997. DDD clarified that AAA's real date of birth was July 1, 1996. She also manifested that AAA had no birth certificate yet as their family was still processing AAA's late registration with the National Statistics Office (now Philippine Statistics Authority). 12
She only came to know of the rape incident on January 9, 2008. Thereupon, she immediately sought the assistance of barangay officials who then apprehended appellant and brought him to the police station.
Dr. Bernadette Madrid13 (Dr. Madrid) testified in lieu of Dr. Irene Baluyot (Dr. Baluyot) who conducted the genital and physical examination of AAA on January 17, 2008. She used to be Dr. Baluyot's supervisor before the latter left to work abroad in October 2009.
She identified Dr. Baluyot's signature on the Medico Legal Report No. 2008-1564 14 involving patient AAA. There, Dr. Baluyot noted the "absence of evident injury at the time of examination but medical examination did not exclude sexual abuse." She (Dr. Madrid) clarified though that in 95% of child sexual abuse cases, the findings would appear normal, albeit there was actual abuse. Hence, the existence of abuse should not be dependent on physical examinations alone. To support her opinion, she submitted the following studies: (a) Healing of Hymenal Injuries on Adolescent Girls; (b) Reports of Repetitive Penile Genital Penetration often have no Definitive Evidence of Penetration; and (c) Children Referred for Possible Sexual Abuse: Medical Findings in 2,384 Children. 15
The Defense's Version
Appellant16 denied the charge against him. While he could not remember the exact date, he first met AAA while the latter was scrounging garbage and discarded items. He pitied her and gave her money.
On the day of the supposed incident, he reported for work at the Beautification Clean and Green of Rosario, Cavite where he was tasked with tending the plants of the municipality. As much as he would like to adduce evidence, the municipality retrieved his identification card and a typhoon destroyed his daily time records. He could not have committed the crime imputed since he reported for work from 8 o'clock in the morning until 4 o'clock in the afternoon.
The Ruling of the Trial Court
By Decision dated July 12, 2017, the trial court found appellant guilty as charged, viz.:
Wherefore, premises considered, the prosecution having proved all the elements of Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(d), of our Revised Penal Code, in relation to Republic Act No. 7610, beyond reasonable doubt, the accused herein ERNANIE VILLANUEVA y VALDEZ a.k.a "Nanie," of Taway Residence, Barangay Ligtong 3, Rosario, Cavite, is hereby CONVICTED of the crime of RAPE against the private complainant, AAA, without modifying circumstances, and the Court hereby sentence[s] him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay his victim, AAA the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity, Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages, and Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages, all with interest at the rate of Six Percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this judgement (sic). No costs.
So Ordered. 17
According to the trial court, the prosecution sufficiently established all the elements of rape in relation to RA 7610. Ten (10) year old AAA recounted that appellant, with a knife, forcibly made her sit by a rock and undress herself. Thereafter, he satisfied his lust by inserting his penis in the child's vagina and made push and pull movements. The lack of hymenal injury did not negate rape.
Proceedings before the Court of Appeals
On appeal, 18 appellant faulted the trial court in rendering the verdict of conviction despite the prosecution's alleged failure to establish his guilt to a moral certainty. For one, The prosecution failed to prove AAA's minority through a certificate of live birth. For another, AAA and BBB's incredible claim of rape which allegedly took place on December 2007 should not be believed, unsupported as it was by the Medico-Legal Report. Against the prosecution witnesses' incredible testimonies and the inconsistency between AAA's allegation of rape and the results of her medical examination, his defense of denial should have prevailed.
The People, 19 through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), defended the trial court's verdict of conviction. BBB positively identified appellant as the one who ravished her and AAA at the secluded place in Lawa. On cross, she remained steadfast in her recount of the rape. The inconsistencies pointed out by appellant pertained to collateral matters which did not diminish the witnesses' credibility. Meanwhile, the parties already stipulated during the pre-trial that AAA was born on July 1, 1997 and was then only ten (10) years old at the time of the incident.
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Through its assailed Decision 20 dated November 12, 2019, the Court of Appeals affirmed but with modification as to the monetary awards in conformity with People v. Jugueta: 21
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated July 12, 2017 issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 17, Cavite City, in Criminal Case No. 28-09, finding accused-appellant ERNANI VILLANUEVA y VALDEZ, a.k.a. "Nanie" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as to the civil indemnity.
As modified, accused-appellant Ernani Villanueva y Valdez, a.k.a. "Nanie" is hereby ORDERED to PAY the private complainant AAA the following: a) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; b) P75,000.00 as moral damages; and c) P75,000.00 as Exemplary Damages.
SO ORDERED. 22
It gave weight and credence to BBB's positive identification and straightforward testimony that appellant was the one who raped her and AAA. The lack of finding of evident injury in the Medico-Legal Report did not necessarily negate the incident of rape, for hymenel laceration was not an element of the crime. Finally, appellant could no longer deny AAA's minority. For as borne in the trial court's Order dated June 8, 2009, appellant categorically admitted AAA's date of birth during the pre-trial.
The Present Petition
Appellant now seeks affirmative relief from the Court and prays anew for his acquittal. In compliance with Resolution 23 dated September 8, 2020, both appellant 24 and the OSG 25 manifested that in lieu of supplemental briefs, they were adopting their respective briefs before the Court of Appeals.
Ruling
The appeal must fail.
Appellant is guilty of Statutory Rape
In People v. Tulagan, 26 the Court clarified that if sexual intercourse is committed with an offended party who is a child less than 12 years old or is demented, whether or not exploited in prostitution, it is always a crime of statutory rape under Article 266-A (1) in relation to Art. 266-B of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
Article 266-A (1) (d) of the RPC as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 (RA 8353) or The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 defines statutory rape, viz.:
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:
xxx xxx xxx
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 27
The gravamen of the offense is the carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve (12) years old. In such a case, the only subject of inquiry is whether the woman is below twelve years old or is demented and whether carnal knowledge took place; force, intimidation, and physical evidence of injury are not relevant considerations. 28 To sustain a verdict of conviction, the prosecution need only prove: first, the age of the complainant; second, the identity of the accused; and third, the carnal knowledge between the accused and the complainant. 29
Here, the prosecution sufficiently established all the above elements.
a. AAA was only ten (10) years old at the time of the rape incident.
The best evidence to prove the age of a person is the original birth certificate or certified true copy thereof. In their absence, similar authentic documents may be presented such as baptismal certificates and school records. Credible testimonies of the victim's mother or a member of the family may also be sufficient under certain circumstances. In the event that both the birth certificate or other authentic documents and the testimonies of the victim's mother or other qualified relative are unavailable, the testimony of the victim may be admitted in evidence provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused. 30
Here, DDD testified that AAA was born on July 1, 1996. Meanwhile, AAA's baptismal certificate stated that she was born on July 1, 1997. But whether born in 1996 or 1997, AAA would still be only 11 or 10 years old, respectively, when the rape was committed in December of 2007. In either case, AAA's age would still fall below the threshold age for statutory rape.
In People v. Jacob, 31 the Court held that the victim's minority was established through her baptismal certificate showing that indeed she was born on September 23, 1980 in Silang, Cavite; was christened three (3) months later on December 25, 1980; and was about 15 years old when his father raped her on November 1, 1995.
At any rate, appellant categorically admitted AAA's minority during the pre-trial as shown in the trial court's Order dated June 8, 2009, viz.:
ORDER
In today's pre-trial, the prosecution and the defense admitted the identity of Accused Ernanie Villanueva y Valdez alias Nanie, and the jurisdiction of the [c]ourt over the person of said accused, as well as the minority of complainant.
xxx xxx xxx 32
The first element was therefore established.
b. BBB positively identified appellant as the one who raped her and AAA.
Prosecution witness BBB positively identified appellant as the one who raped her and AAA in December 2007, thus:
PROS. ROJO:
Q: And you have classes on that day?
A: Yes, [M]a'am.
Q: So what happened while you were in school at that time?
A: Our English teacher was absent.
Q: So, what happened when you found out that your English teacher was absent?
A: We fetched our classmate.
Q: Who was your companion when you fetched this classmate?
xxx xxx xxx
A: AAA
Q: And who is this classmate you are going to fetch?
A: CCC.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: So, what happened when you and AAA left to fetch CCC?
A: We noticed that somebody is following us.
Q: Where were you at that time when you noticed that somebody was following you and AAA?
A: We we're already near [the] 'lawa' because we are going to take a shortcut.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: And how did you come to know that someone was following you and AAA?
A: We saw somebody who is walking when we looked back.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: So, what happened next when you saw this limping man?
A: He approached us and introduced himself.
Q: What did he tell you?
A: That he is Nanie.
Q: What happened next after he introduced himself to you and AAA?
A: He invited us to eat.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: And after eating, you told him that you have to go?
A: Yes, [M]a'am.
Q: So, what happened next after that?
A: After that[,] he pulled us from the back of our clothes.
Q: When you say us, you are referring to yourself and AAA?
A: Yes, [M]a'am.
Q: What were you wearing at that time?
A: Uniform, [M]a'am.
Q: Where were you already when he pulled you and AAA?
A: We were already at the vacant lot, [M]a'am.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Where did he bring you?
A: At a vacant lot [which] used to be a parking space for baby bus.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: So, what happened when you were already at that vacant lot?
A: He asked us who should be first.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: And what was his reply?
A: That I will be first.
Q: So, what happened next after he said that?
A: He ordered me to undress.
Q: And did you follow his order?
A: No, [M]a'am.
Q: And so, what happened when you refused to follow his order?
A: He took out a knife from his right waist.
Q: An what did he do with that knife?
A: He pulled out a knife and then pointed the knife at me, and so, I just undressed so as not to be hurt.
Q: What about AAA, what happened to her at that time?
A: The knife was also pointed at her.
Q: You were already naked at that time?
A: Yes, [M]a'am.
Q: And then, what happened next?
A: He inserted his penis into my vagina.
xxx xxx xxx
A: Then he pulled AAA and ordered her to sit on a rock.
Q: And then what happened to AAA?
A: He ordered her to sit on a rock and to undress, and he also inserted his penis into her vagina.
Q: What about you, what were you doing at that time?
A: At that time the knife was pointed at me. 33
xxx xxx xxx
BBB remained steadfast, clear, and categorical in her narration of the horrendous incident that had befallen her and AAA that fateful day. She retained her composure despite having to narrate how appellant sexually ravished her and AAA at the secluded place in Lawa. Having accorded full faith and credit by the trial and appellate courts, the Court sees no reason to deviate, much less doubt, BBB.
As for the absence of evident injury on AAA's vagina at the time of examination, the same does not ipso facto negate rape. In People v. Pamintuan, 34 the Court categorically held that the fact that a victim did not sustain any injury in her sex organ did not ipso facto negate the crime of rape. Like Dr. Baluyot herein, Dr. Tan explained that in rape cases, an insertion in the vagina of a minor child victim would not necessarily result in an injury, such as a laceration of the hymen. The presence or absence of injuries would depend on different factors such as the forcefulness of the insertion, the size of the object inserted, the method by which the injury was caused, the changes occurring in a female child's body, and the length of healing time, if indeed injuries were caused.
Against appellant's uncorroborated denial and alibi, BBB's positive identification and categorical narration surely deserve greater weight and credit. At any rate, appellant failed to show it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the approximate time of its commission. 35 According to him, he reported at the house of one Ruben Quinto at San Isidro Village, Barangay Ligtong II, Rosario, Cavite on the day of the incident. Meanwhile, the rape incident happened at the Lawa in Barangay Ligtong II, Rosario, Cavite. As the rape incident happened within the same barangay where appellant claimed to have allegedly reported for work, coupled with the absence of proof that he indeed was at work during the commission of the crime, his defense of denial and alibi must perforce fail.
In view of the foregoing, the Court does not find any reason to acquit appellant of the crime of statutory rape.
Penalty
The Court of Appeals correctly sentenced appellant to reclusion perpetua under Article 266-A (1) in relation to Art. 266-B of the RPC in accordance with People v. Tulagan. 36 Pursuant to the same jurisprudence, the appellate court also properly increased the awards of civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages to P75,000.00 each. These awards shall earn six percent (6%) interest per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid. 37
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED, and the Decision dated November 12, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09745, AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Appellant Ernani Villanueva y Valdez, a.k.a "Nanie" is found GUILTY of STATUTORY RAPE under Article 266-A (1) (d) in relation to Art. 266-B of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua. He is further ORDERED to PAY the following:
a) Civil Indemnity of P75,000.00;
b) Moral Damages of P75,000.00; and
c) Exemplary Damages of P75,000.00.
These awards shall earn six percent (6%) interest per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED." (J. Lopez, J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Sometimes referred to as "Ernanie" in the records.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla and concurred in by Associate Justices Edwin D. Sorongon and Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas, rollo, pp. 3-14.
3. The real name of the victim, her personal circumstances and other information which tend to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family, or household members, shall not be disclosed to protect her privacy, and fictitious initial shall, instead, be used, in accordance with People v. Cabalquinto [533 Phil. 703 (2006)] and Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017.
4. Record, p. 1.
5. Entitled, "An Act providing for stronger deterrence and special protection against child abuse, exploitation and discrimination, and for other purposes," approved on June 17, 1992.
6.Rollo, p. 4.
7.Id.
8. Record, pp. 8-90.
9. TSN dated November 23, 2009, CA rollo, pp. 130-161.
10. Record, pp. 8-9.
11. TSN dated February 2, 2009, CA rollo, pp. 163-181.
12.Id. at 168.
13. TSN dated September 23, 2011.
14. Record, p. 97.
15. Record, pp. 100-139.
16. CA rollo, pp. 208-230.
17.Id. at 74.
18.Id. at 40-52.
19.Id. at 89-103.
20.Rollo, pp. 3-14.
21. 783 Phil. 806-856 (2016).
22.Rollo, p. 13.
23.Id. at 22-23.
24.Id. at 25-27.
25.Id. at 30-32.
26. G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019.
27. The Anti-Rape Law of 1997, Republic Act No. 8353, September 30, 1997.
28. See People v. Tulagan, supra.
29. See People v. Dalan y Paldingan, 736 Phil. 298, 301 (2014).
30. See People v. Sariego, 781 Phil. 659, 670 (2016).
31. 413 Phil. 542, 549 (2001).
32. Record, p. 40.
33. TSN dated November 23, 2009, CA rollo, pp. 130-146.
34. 710 Phil. 414, 423 (2013).
35. See People v. Regalado, 793 Phil. 493, 502 (2016).
36. See supra at 26.
37. See People v. Juilo, G.R. No. 225063 (Notice), November 28, 2019.