People v. XXX

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 206968. March 3, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appelleevs.XXX, 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. 206968 — (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appelleev. XXX, accused-appellant). — This treats of the Notice of Appeal 1 under Section 13, Rule 124 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, filed by accused-appellant XXX, seeking the reversal of the September 28, 2012 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB-CR HC No. 00473, finding XXX guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape and attempted rape.

The Case

XXX stands charged for three counts of rape in three separate Informations, the accusatory portions of which read:

Criminal Case No. BN-04-11-4110

That on or about the 15th day of October, 2003, in the Municipality of Dagami, Province of Leyte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force and intimidation, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of his daughter one AAA, 3 14 years old, against her will and consent.

Contrary to law with qualifying circumstance that the victim is under eighteen (18) years old and the offender is her father. 4

Criminal Case No. BN-04-11-4111

That on or about the 20th day of October, 2003, in the Municipality of Dagami, Province of Leyte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force and intimidation, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of his daughter one AAA, 14 years old, against her will and consent.

Contrary to law with qualifying circumstance that the victim is under eighteen (18) years old and the offender is her father. 5

Criminal Case No. BN-04-11-4112

That sometime in the month of January, 2004 in the Municipality of Dagami, Province of Leyte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force and intimidation, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of his daughter one AAA, 14 years old, against her will and consent. SCaITA

Contrary to law with qualifying circumstance that the victim is under eighteen (18) years old and the offender is her father. 6

Upon arraignment for the crimes charged, XXX, with the assistance of counsel, separately pleaded "not guilty" to the charges; thereupon, joint pre-trial and trial ensued. 7

The Antecedents

Prosecution's Version of Facts

AAA, the victim and the private complainant, is the daughter of XXX. She was, at the time of the alleged rape, only 14 years old.

Re: Criminal Case No. BN-04-11-4110

In the evening of October 15, 2003, while AAA was sleeping with her siblings in the living room of their house, XXX quietly lifted her and transferred her to the area where he was sleeping — near the door of the house. XXX then removed AAA's shorts and underwear. He also removed his shorts and brief. Thereafter, he mounted on her and inserted his penis into her vagina, making a push and pull movement. AAA felt pain in her vagina, which caused her to cry. After a while, XXX removed his penis and wipe it and AAA's vagina with a cloth. 8

Re: Criminal Case No. BN-04-11-4111

At around 7:00 to 8:00 in the evening of October 20, 2003, while AAA was sleeping with her siblings in the living room of their house, XXX again surreptitiously lifted her and brought her near the door of the house where he was sleeping. XXX then forcibly removed AAA's shorts and underwear. He also removed his shorts and brief and put himself on top of her. AAA, sensing the evil design against her, kicked XXX on his penis with her right foot. XXX then was constrained not to push through with his lustful plan. He then wore his brief while she put on her panty. 9

Re: Criminal Case No. BN-04-11-4112

In a late evening of January 2004, while AAA was sleeping in the living room of their house, XXX again quietly lifted her and placed her near the door of the house. There, XXX forcefully removed the panty and shorts of AAA. He also undressed himself and put himself on top of her. XXX was able to insert his penis into her vagina and made a push and pull movement. After three minutes, XXX stood up and wiped his penis with a cloth. He then put on his brief as AAA was crying due to the pain in her vagina. 10

Defense's Version of Facts

XXX denies the accusations made against him. He averred that he could not have had committed the crime of rape against AAA on October 15, and 20, 2003 because during those days, he was working as a concrete mixer operator at Brgy. Calansang, Dagami, Leyte which was about 15 kilometers away from their house. During those days, he did not go home and stayed in Brgy. Calansang. He likewise averred that he could not have committed rape against AAA in January 2004 since AAA was no longer living in their house as she was working as a helper in the house of certain Jimboy Bardillon. 11

On the contrary, XXX claimed that AAA filed the cases against him as a way of vengeance because he punished and scolded her whenever she did something wrong. In addition, XXX insisted that it was Engracio Sosing who raped AAA because he usually fetched AAA from their house without XXX's permission. 12

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) Ruling

The RTC rendered a Judgment 13 dated March 22, 2006, finding XXX guilty beyond reasonable doubt for two counts of rape and another one for attempted rape. The trial court gave credence to the testimony of AAA as it was candid, logical, straightforward and was not shaken even on cross-examination; based on her testimony the crime of rape was actually committed by her father. 14 The trial court likewise gave no probative value to XXX's defense of denial and alibi. Accordingly, the trial court disposed of the case in this wise:

WHEREFORE, premises considered this Court finds the accused [XXX] GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the following crimes:

A. In Criminal Case No. BN-04-11-4110 — of CONSUMMATED RAPE and considering the presence of the aggravating/qualifying circumstances that the offended party was below eighteen (18) years of age when the instant incident happened and the accused is her father, without any mitigating circumstance to offset them hereby sentences him to suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH; to pay [AAA] civil indemnity of Php75,000.00; moral damages in the amount of Php50,000.00 and Php25,000.00 as exemplary damages and to pay the costs of this suit.

B. In Criminal Case No. BN-04-11-4111 — of ATTEMPTED RAPE and considering the presence of the aggravating/qualifying circumstances that the offended party was below eighteen (18) years of age when the instant incident happened and the accused is her father, without any mitigating circumstance to offset them hereby sentences him to suffer imprisonment of an indeterminate penalty ranging from EIGHT (8) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY [of] Prision Mayor as minimum to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS AND ONE (1) DAY of Reclusion Temporal as maximum; to pay [AAA] civil indemnity of Php30,000.00 and moral damages of Php25,000.00 and to pay the costs of this suit.

C. In Criminal Case No. BN-04-11-4112 — of CONSUMMATED RAPE and considering the presence of the aggravating/qualifying circumstances that the offended party was below eighteen (18) years of age when the instant incident happened and the accused is her father, without any mitigating circumstance to offset them hereby sentences him to suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH; to pay [AAA] Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity; Php50,000.00 as moral damages and Php25,000.00 as exemplary damages and to pay the costs of this suit. aTHCSE

Let the entire records of these cases be forwarded to the Court of Appeals, Cebu City Division pursuant to A.M. No. 00-5-03 SC dated September 28, 2004.

SO ORDERED. 15

The CA Ruling

In a Decision 16 promulgated on September 28, 2012, the CA affirmed with modification the RTC Decision. The CA modified the penalty imposed, that is from death to reclusion perpetua pursuant to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9346. The CA found the testimony of the victim, vis-a-vis the explanation and findings of the physician who examined AAA, credible. The fallo of the assailed Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED for utter lack of merit. The Judgment rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, Barauen, Leyte dated March 22, 2006 is hereby AFFIRMED. However, as regards the penalty of death imposed in Criminal Case Nos. BN-04-11-4110 and BN-04-11-4112, it is modified to reclusion perpetua pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346. No pronouncement as to cost.

SO ORDERED. 17

Undaunted, XXX filed a Notice of Appeal 18 under Rule 124, Section 13 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 accused-appellant XXX of two counts of rape and attempted rape despite the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court's Ruling

The instant appeal is bereft of merit.

Herein, XXX continues to attack the credibility of AAA arguing that her testimony during trial is full of inconsistencies, hence, incredible and doubtful. He explained that during trial, AAA alleged that on the evening of October 15, 2003, she was babysitting her younger brother, Louie, who was three months old at that time. However, in her previous statement, she claimed that her brother was already five years old at the time of the incident. XXX further explained that during trial, AAA claimed that she did not know what time it was when she was raped. However, in her previous statement, AAA stated that it was 1:00 o'clock in the morning because she was able to see the clock. Finally, XXX insisted that if AAA was raped twice in October 2003, she should not have returned home in January 2004 after being away for two months. 19

This Court disagrees.

At the outset, both the trial court and the CA failed to make the proper designation or nomenclature of the crimes charged against XXX.

It is settled that rape is qualified when "the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim." 20 In this case, since a plain reading of the Informations in Criminal Case Nos. BN-04-11-4110, BN-04-11-4111, and BN-04-11-4112 would readily reveal that XXX was actually charged with raping his own biological minor daughter, AAA, which facts of minority and relationship were already stipulated upon during pre-trial, this Court finds it appropriate to modify XXX's conviction from two counts of rape and one count of attempted rape to two counts of qualified rape and one count of attempted qualified rape.

Now, a simple perusal of the alleged inconsistencies will easily show that these are only trivial, minor and insignificant. Needless to state, the age of AAA's younger brother, as well as the time when the alleged rape was committed are all immaterial to the case. So even assuming that AAA made inconsistent statements regarding the age of his brother and the time the crime committed, these do not, in any way, affect the presence/absence of the elements of the crimes charged. Simply put, they only refer to minor details and not upon the basic aspect of the crime. Accordingly, these alleged inconsistencies cannot be considered a ground to reverse XXX's conviction for qualified rape and attempted qualified rape.

Furthermore, these alleged inconsistencies cannot obliterate the fact that the totality of the prosecution evidence established beyond reasonable doubt the essential elements of the crimes of qualified rape and attempted qualified rape perpetrated by XXX.

To recall, the elements necessary to sustain a conviction for qualified rape are: (1) sexual congress; (2) with a woman; (3) done by force and without consent; (4) the victim is under eighteen [18] years of age at the time of the rape; (5) the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. 21

In the instant case, a thorough review of the records of the case supports the conclusion that the prosecution had sufficiently established the presence of all the elements of qualified rape and attempted qualified rape. AAA, then 14 years old, clearly testified that: (a) XXX, AAA's father, had carnal knowledge of her without her consent on two separate occasions, the first occurring on October 15, 2003 and the second happening sometime in January 2004; and (b) attempted to have carnal knowledge of her on October 20, 2003, but was stopped by a reason other than his own desistance, i.e., AAA kicked him on the groin. Moreover, AAA's account of the rape was corroborated by Dr. Nemia Y. Sangrano, who testified that her examination revealed that AAA suffered hymenal lacerations. 22 cAaDHT

It bears stressing at this point that time and again, this Court has held that "[w]hen the offended parties are young and immature girls from the age of twelve (12) to sixteen (16), courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability but also the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed by the trial court if the matter about which they testified is not true." 23 Moreover, no woman, much less a child of such tender age, would willingly submit herself to the rigors, the humiliation and the stigma attendant upon the prosecution of rape, if she were not motivated by an earnest desire to put the culprit behind bars. 24 This Court, thus, finds no reason to suspect the credibility of AAA and her narration of facts, which this Court finds to be straightforward, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.

Notwithstanding, XXX argues that he could not have had committed the crimes charged considering that in October 2003, he was working as a concrete mixer operator at Brgy. Calansang, Dagami, Leyte which was about 15 kilometers away from their house. Simply, he raised the defenses of denial and alibi. Unfortunately, against the prosecution's evidence, XXX's defenses of denial and alibi are worthless.

It is elementary that denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. 25 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. 26 Alibi, on the other hand, is the "weakest of all defenses, for it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove and for which reason it is generally rejected. For the alibi to prosper, it is imperative that the accused establishes two elements: (1) he was not at the locus delicti at the time the offense was committed; and (2) it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene at the time of its commission." 27

In the case at bench, XXX 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. Likewise, XXX failed to prove the two elements of alibi. While he averred that he was not at home during the incident, he failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for him to be at their house, some 15 kilometers away from his workplace, at the time of the commission of the crime. This Court takes judicial notice that 15 kilometers are considered a short distance that may be traversed in an hour or less than an hour using ordinary means of transportation. Thus, it was not physically impossible for XXX to be at the locus criminis owing to the relatively short distance between said places.

In view of all the foregoing, this Court is satisfied with moral certainty that the prosecution has established the guilt of XXX beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of qualified rape (2 counts) and attempted qualified rape.

The Penalty

The CA correctly modified the penalty imposed in Criminal Case Nos. BN-04-11-4110 and BN-04-11-4112 to reclusion perpetua for each count pursuant to R.A. No. 9346. 28 It must be clarified, however, that despite the imposition of reclusion perpetua, XXX is not eligible for parole, pursuant to Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the "Indeterminate Sentence Law," as amended. As regards the award of damages further modification must be made in view of this Court's ruling in People v. Jugueta. 29 Accordingly, the award of civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages are increased to P100,000.00 each.

Finally, the penalty imposed on XXX in Criminal Case No. BN-04-11-4111 where he is convicted of attempted qualified rape also requires modification. As discussed in the preceding paragraph, with the abolition of the death penalty by R.A. No. 9346, the penalty for qualified rape is reclusion perpetua. Further, pursuant to People v. Bon, 30 the penalty for attempted rape should also be reckoned from reclusion perpetua. In the scale of penalties in Article 71 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty two degrees lower than reclusion perpetua is prision mayor. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, absent any modifying circumstance, the maximum term of the indeterminate penalty shall be taken from the medium period of prision mayor or from eight years and one day to 10 years, while the minimum term is one degree lower than prision mayor, i.e., prision correccional, from six months and one day to six years. This is in line with the Court's ruling in the case of People v. Comboy. 31 Further, the award of damages likewise needs further modification per People v. Jugueta. 32 Accordingly, the award of civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages are increased to P50,000.00 each.

All monetary awards shall earn a legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of the finality of this Resolution until fully paid.

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed September 28, 2012 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-CR HC No. 00473 is AFFIRMED with Modification, finding accused-appellant XXX, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of qualified rape and one (1) count of attempted qualified rape, defined and penalized under Article 266-A (1) (a), in relation to Article 266-B (1), of the Revised Penal Code. Accordingly:

(a) In Criminal Case No. BN-04-11-4110, XXX is SENTENCED to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole, and is ORDERED to PAY AAA the amounts of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, and the costs of suit; HCaDIS

(b) In Criminal Case No. BN-04-11-4111, XXX is SENTENCED to suffer the penalty of imprisonment with an indeterminate period of two (2) years and four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, and is ORDERED to PAY AAA the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, and the costs of suit;

(c) In Criminal Case No. BN-04-11-4112, XXX is SENTENCED to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole, and is ORDERED to PAY AAA the amounts of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, and the costs of suit.

All monetary awards shall earn a legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of the finality of this Resolution until fully paid.

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. CA rollo, pp. 114-115.

2.Rollo, pp. 3-19; penned by then Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando (now a Member of this Court), with Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Zenaida Galapate-Laguilles, 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, G.R. No. 167693, 533 Phil. 703 [2006]).

4.Rollo, p. 4.

5.Id. at 5.

6.Id.

7.Id.

8. CA rollo, p. 80.

9.Id. at 80-81.

10.Id. at 81.

11.Id. at 45.

12.Id. at 46.

13.Id. at 9-21; penned by Executive Judge Yolanda U. Dagandan.

14.Id. at 14.

15.Id. at 20-21.

16.Rollo, pp. 3-19.

17.Id. at 18-19.

18.Id. at 20-21.

19.Id. at 47.

20. REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 266-B, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 (1997).

21.People v. XXX, G.R. No. 235662, July 24, 2019.

22. CA rollo, p. 13.

23.People v. Canonigo, 392 Phil. 78, 88 (2009). Citation omitted.

24.Id.

25.People v. Tamolon, et al., 599 Phil. 542, 552 (2009).

26.Talay v. Court of Appeals, 446 Phil. 256, 276 (2003).

27.People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 242276, February 18, 2020. Citation omitted.

28. Entitled "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines," approved on June 24, 2006.

29. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).

30. 536 Phil. 897 (2006).

31. 782 Phil. 187 (2016).

32.Supra note 29.