SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 228821. March 27, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.XXX, 1accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 27 March 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 228821 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versusXXX, accused-appellant.
After a careful review of the records of the case and the issues submitted by the parties, the Court finds no error committed in the Decision 2 dated June 15, 2016 of the Court of Appeals, Sixteenth (16th) Division (CA), in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 06934. The facts, as borne out by the records, sufficiently support the conclusion that accused-appellant XXX (accused-appellant) is indeed guilty of the crime of Rape charged against him. The issues and matters raised before the Court, the same ones as those raised in the CA, there being no supplemental briefs filed, were sufficiently addressed and correctly ruled upon by the CA.
It is well-settled that in the absence of facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would affect the result of the case, appellate courts will not overturn the factual findings of the trial court. 3 Thus, when the case pivots on the issue of the credibility of the victim, the findings of the trial courts necessarily carry great weight and respect as they are afforded the unique opportunity to ascertain the demeanor and sincerity of witnesses during trial. 4 Here, after examining the records of this case, the Court finds no cogent reason to vacate the RTC's 5 appreciation of the evidence, which was affirmed in toto by the CA.
In this connection, the Court agrees with the findings of the CA that private complainant AAA 6 (AAA) sufficiently identified accused-appellant as her assailant despite her blurry vision brought by the soda offered to her by accused-appellant. AAA's testimony was clear and categorical that it was her father, accused-appellant, who removed her undergarment after she fell down and was also the one who successfully had carnal knowledge of her. 7 CAIHTE
In the same vein, accused-appellant's defenses of alibi and denial cannot outweigh the candid and straightforward testimony of the private complainant that he indeed had sexual intercourse with her against her will. The Court has oft pronounced that denial is an inherently weak defense 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 on the other, the former is generally held to prevail. 8
Further, the continuing case law is that for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place when the crime was committed, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime or its immediate vicinity through clear and convincing evidence. 9 In the present case, there is nothing in the records which would indicate that it was physically impossible for accused-appellant to be at the scene of the crime at the time it happened. However, accused-appellant did not offer any proof as to this physical impossibility to establish his denial. The Court stresses that accused-appellant has the burden of proving his alibi to overcome the positive testimony of the prosecution witness. This, however, he failed to do.
Furthermore, the Court agrees with the CA that the supposed delay of AAA in reporting the incidents as claimed by accused-appellant deserves scant consideration. It is well-settled that the failure to immediately report to the authorities at the soonest possible time or any delay in reporting rape incidents, in the face of threats of physical violence, cannot be taken against the victim. 10 This is because a rape victim's actions are oftentimes overwhelmed by fear rather than by reason. It is this fear, springing from the initial rape, that the perpetrator hopes to build a climate of extreme psychological terror, which would, he hopes, numb his victim into silence and submissiveness. 11
In the present case, AAA testified that accused-appellant threatened to kill her if she reports the rape incidents. 12 Further, she did report the abuse years before to her mother, although the latter did not do anything. 13 More importantly, the alleged rapes from years prior are not the subject matter of this case. In fact, the only subject matter of this litigation is the incident on August 19, 2012, which was reported to the authorities days after it happened. Accused-appellant's argument thus has no merit.
Accused-appellant faults AAA for continually living with him in their house despite her claim that he was abusing her since she was 12 years old. According to him, this is not the normal behavior of a minor girl who had been sexually violated.
The argument fails to convince because not all rape victims react the same way. 14 Not every victim of a crime can be expected to act reasonably and conformably with the expectation of mankind. 15 Verily, there is no typical reaction or norm of behavior that ensue forthwith or later from victims of rape. 16 The abuser cannot dictate the behaviors and actions of the abused subsequent to the assault. To allow the same would be the height of injustice, especially in this case where accused-appellant was expecting his minor child to leave the family home and live alone as a consequence of her being abused.
Finally, the CA is correct in ruling that the lack of support from AAA's mother does not negate AAA's claim that she was molested by her own father. The support of the private complainant's parent is not part of the elements of the crime, and her reasons for not supporting the cause of her child is immaterial to this case. The Court is thus convinced of accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Court hereby ADOPTS the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Decision dated June 15, 2016 of the Court of Appeals, Sixteenth (16th) Division in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 06934. The Decision finding accused-appellant XXX guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Rape, defined and punished under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. The identity of the victims or any information which could establish or compromise their identities, as well as those of their immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. (RA) 7610, 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; RA 9262, entitled "AN ACT DEFINING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN, PROVIDING FOR PROTECTIVE MEASURES FOR VICTIMS, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on March 8, 2004; and Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, otherwise known as the "Rule on Violence against Women and Their Children" (November 15, 2004). (See footnote 4 in People v. Cadano, Jr., 729 Phil. 576, 578 [2014], citing People v. Lomaque, 710 Phil. 338, 342 [2013]. See also Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015, entitled "PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES IN THE PROMULGATION, PUBLICATION, AND POSTING ON THE WEBSITES OF DECISIONS, FINAL RESOLUTIONS, AND FINAL ORDERS USING FICTITIOUS NAMES/PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES," dated September 5, 2017; and People v. XXX and YYY, G.R. No. 235652, July 9, 2018.)
2.Rollo, pp. 2-14. Penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon, with Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob concurring.
3.People v. Gerola, G.R. No. 217973, July 19, 2017, 831 SCRA 469, 478.
4.People v. Aguilar, 565 Phil. 233, 247 (2007).
5. See Decision dated June 20, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City, Branch 172 in Criminal Case No. 870-V-12, penned by Judge Nancy Rivas-Palmones; CA rollo, pp. 56-59.
6. See note 1.
7.Rollo, pp. 7-8.
8.People v. Piosang, 710 Phil. 519, 527 (2013).
9.People v. Desalisa, 451 Phil. 869, 876 (2003).
10.People v. Delos Reyes, 697 Phil. 531, 552 (2012).
11.Id. at 552.
12.Rollo, p. 10.
13.Id. at 10-11.
14.People v. Soriano, 560 Phil. 415, 420 (2007).
15.People v. Gecomo, 324 Phil. 297, 315 (1996).
16.People v. Deleverio, 352 Phil. 382, 400 (1998).