SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 233748. September 27, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.XXX, 1accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated27 September 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 233748 (People of the Philippines v. XXX). — This is an appeal from the March 30, 2017 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07514 affirming with modification the February 18, 2015 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 8, _______ City, finding accused-appellant XXX guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Statutory Rape under paragraph 1 (d), Article 266-A, in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
Factual Antecedents:
Accused-appellant is charged with Statutory Rape in an Information 4 which alleges:
That on or about the 27th of November, 2011 at about 4 o'clock in the afternoon, in ________________________________, [5] Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd and unchaste designs, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with [AAA], [6] an eleven (11)-year old minor girl, against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.
During his arraignment, XXX entered a plea of not guilty. 7 Trial thereafter ensued.
Version of the Prosecution:
The prosecution's version of the incidents is as follows:
7. On 27 November 2011 at around 4 o'clock in the afternoon, complainant AAA, an eleven (11)-year old girl, was at home when appellant [XXX] suddenly arrived at the said house. Appellant [XXX] told her that he came to gather small crabs but since her mother was away, she told him that her mother would not allow him to gather the said crabs. Afterwards, appellant [XXX] still entered the house and seated himself on a chair. He then told complainant AAA that they will play "tatsian," which means having sex, by demonstrating a gesture wherein the thumb is placed between the middle finger and the forefinger. Thereafter, appellant [XXX] approached complainant AAA and removed her panty. He also showed her his penis and inserted it inside her vagina. She felt pain but was not able to shout because she was afraid that appellant [XXX] would hurt her. Appellant [XXX] then walked away when she told him that she would report the incident to her mother.
8. When BBB arrived at their home, complainant AAA told her what appellant [XXX] did to her. Thus, BBB went to the basketball court to confront appellant [XXX]. Complainant AAA also told [her] uncle, CCC, about the incident. CCC thereafter, approached appellant [XXX] and brought the latter to the police station.
9. At the police station, PO2 Habalo was the officer on duty who received the report from complainant AAA. x x x He also called the Women and Children Protection Division (WCPD) to record the incident and to assist the victim for medical examination. x x x
10. The medical examination was conducted by [Dr. Ma. Crispa Florece], the Municipal Health Officer of ________________. She issued the Medico-Legal Certificate issued on 29 November 2011 containing the following findings:
NATURE OF THE INCIDENT: Alleged Rape
xxx xxx xxx
FINDINGS:
PE: Essentially Normal
Pelvic Exam: Normal looking labia minora/majora
Hymen: not intact, incomplete superficial & deep lacerations at 2, 6, 9, 11 o'clock position aScITE
IE — admit tip of examining finger (index)
Sperm detection: (-) negative for the presence of spermatozoa in the specimen submitted.
11. Dr. Florece testified that complainant AAA has fresh lacerations which may probably due to an insertion of an object. She also testified than an insertion of an erect penis is consistent with the findings of incomplete superficial and deep lacerations. Dr. Florece testified that there can be sexual contact without the presence of spermatozoa.
xxx xxx xxx 8
Version of the Defense:
XXX denied raping AAA. He claimed that on November 27, 2011, at around eleven o'clock in the morning, he was at the rice field together with his father. He went home at six o'clock in the evening. According to accused-appellant, it takes him around five minutes to walk from his house going to the house of AAA.
YYY, accused-appellant's mother, corroborated his testimony. Particularly, she testified that on November 27, 2011 at around eight o'clock in the morning, she, together with XXX and her youngest son, were at home preparing their meal for the day. At ten o'clock in the morning, she instructed accused-appellant to bring some food to his father in the farm, which is more or less 15 kilometers away from their house. After XXX left the house, she prepared pinangat until three o'clock in the afternoon. All the while she was preparing pinangat, accused-appellant was at the farm with his father. She later sold pinangat in _______________. Her husband and XXX were already home by the time she arrived back home from ____________. 9
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
On February 18, 2015, the RTC rendered its Decision 10 finding XXX guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Statutory Rape. The RTC gave weight to AAA's candid and straightforward manner of testifying that she was raped by accused-appellant. The RTC also held that the fact that AAA did not run away from XXX, and her failure to shout while the crime was being committed, should not be taken against her considering that child victims could not be expected to act the way mature individuals would when placed in a traumatic situation. The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, finding the evidence of the prosecution more than sufficient to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged, accused [XXX] is hereby found GUILTY of the offense charged and is sentenced to suffer a penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to pay the amount P50,000.00 as moral damages to [AAA], and another amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.
SO ORDERED. 11
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
On March 30, 2017, the CA rendered its assailed Decision 12 affirming with modifications the February 18, 2015 Decision of the RTC. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated February 18, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of XXX City, Branch YYY, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the award of Civil Indemnity as well as Moral Damages are both increased to Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) each. In addition, an award of Exemplary Damages in the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) is granted in favor of private complainant.
Interest is imposed on the total amount of damages herein awarded, at a legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum, until the same are fully paid.
In all other respects, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 13
The CA held that all the elements of Statutory Rape are present. First, AAA was only 11 years old at the time the crime was committed. Second, as testified by AAA, accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA by inserting his penis into her vagina. In this regard, the CA agreed with the RTC that AAA's testimony is credible, thus:
She was able to describe how the incident of rape took place. Her narrations of the incident were clear and detailed as she vividly remembered the harrowing experience she has in the hands of appellant. The RTC had the opportunity to hear the testimony of AAA firsthand and to observe her manner and demeanor during such trial such that it was convinced of her credibility and the truthfulness of her testimony. 14
The CA also gave importance to the testimony of Dr. Florece and emphasized that the results of AAA's genital examination are consistent with her testimony. Moreover, the appellate court held that accused-appellant's defense of denial cannot prevail over AAA's testimony and positive identification of accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crime charged.
Anent the civil liability of accused-appellant, the CA, citing People v. Jugueta15 modified the award granted by the RTC to AAA and increased the same from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00. It also increased the award of moral damages to AAA from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00.
Accused-appellant now seeks affirmative relief from this Court and pleads for his acquittal.
This Court, in its November 6, 2017 Resolution, 16 notified the parties that they may file their supplemental briefs, if they so desire. However, both parties manifested 17 that in lieu of filing supplemental briefs, they would adopt their respective briefs filed before the CA.
Assignment of Errors
Accused-appellant adopts the same assignment of errors he raised before the CA, viz.:
I.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING UNDUE CREDENCE TO PROSECUTION WITNESSES' TESTIMONIES.
II.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO OVERTHROW THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IN HIS FAVOR. 18
XXX asserts that he should be acquitted of Statutory Rape since the prosecution was not able to establish the required quantum of evidence in order to overcome the presumption of innocence accorded as an accused. Particularly, XXX insists that since the house of AAA, where the incident allegedly took place, is near that of her relatives, and the fact that AAA did not cry for help, are circumstances which create doubt as to the possibility of the commission of the crime charged. Moreover, accused-appellant casts doubt on the testimony of AAA when she supposedly did not close the door and seek help from her relatives when accused-appellant was urinating outside her house.
Accused-appellant also maintains that he was at the rice field together with his father at the time the crime occurred.
Our Ruling
We find no reason to deviate from the findings and conclusions of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. Accused-appellant's defenses of denial and alibi are bereft of merit.
The prosecution was able to
In the prosecution of Statutory Rape under Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 also known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, 19 all the following elements must exist: (1) the offended party is under 12 years of age; and (2) the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim, regardless of whether there was force, threat, or intimidation or grave abuse of authority. It is enough that the age of the victim is proven and that there was sexual intercourse. 20
The abovementioned elements were proven in the instant case. As to the first element, AAA's age at the time of the commission of the crime remain uncontroverted and is not disputed by accused-appellant. Notably, AAA's birth certificate, 21 which was duly presented and offered in evidence before the RTC, shows that she was born on September 4, 2000. Thus, it remains clear that AAA was only 11 years old when the crime was committed.
Accordingly, this Court only needs to contend with the sufficient establishment of the second element, that is, whether accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of the victim.
Carnal knowledge was proven
AAA rendered a detailed narration of her ordeal. As found by the RTC and affirmed by the CA, she recounted, in a clear, straightforward, and detailed manner, the circumstances showing that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of her: (1) XXX told AAA that they will play tatsian by inserting his middle finger in between his thumb and forefinger; (2) he opened the fly of his pants and showed AAA his penis; and (3) he removed AAA's underwear and proceeded to insert his penis inside AAA's vagina. The testimony of AAA is instructive, viz.:
Q: How old are you now AAA?
A: 11 years old.
Q: Can you tell us your birthday?
A: April 4, 2000.
Q: So you were born on April 4, 2000. Now, AAA, on November 27, 2011 at around 4 o'clock could you recall where were you (sic)?
A: At our residence.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Who were around in your house at the (sic) time aside from you?
A: I was alone.
Q: What were you doing?
A: I was lying down in a bench while playing my celphone (sic).
Q: While you were then playing your celphone (sic) do you recall what happened?
A: Suddenly [appellant] arrived.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Do you know why [appellant] arrive (sic) in your house at the (sic) time?
A: He told me that he will gather small crab for my mother but my mother will do the laundry in a well.
Q: So, what did you tell [appellant] when he said that he is going to gather small crab?
A: I also told him that my mother will not permit (him) to gather crab there because she will do the laundry.
Q: What happened after you told [appellant] that he cannot gather crab?
A: After that I saw [appellant] answer the call of nature by urinating near the coconut tree and keep (sic) on staring on (sic) me.
Q: What did you feel when [appellant] was urinating and kept staring at you?
A: I could sense that he is thinking bad against me.
Q: Why would you have that feeling or sense?
A: Because he was only pretending to urinate then.
Q: Now, after [XXX] urinated under the coconut tree what happened next?
A: He entered the house.
Q: Do you know why he entered the house?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: Why did he enter the house?
A: He seated himself on the chair.
Q: What happened next after [appellant] seated on a chair?
A: And then he approach (sic) me.
Q: What happened next after he approached you?
A: He removed my panty.
Q: Before he remove (sic) your panty did he say anything?
xxx xxx xxx
A: He told me that we will play tatsian but he demonstrated dirty finger by inserting the thumb between the forefinger and the middle finger.
xxx xxx xxx
COURT:
What do you understand by the work (sic)tatian? HEITAD
INTERPRETER:
Witness by demonstrating by placing her thumb in between her middle finger and forefinger.
xxx xxx xxx
APP RAYEL
Q: What was your reaction when [XXX] as you said that he made a gesture by placing his thumb between the middle finger and the forefinger?
A: I was afraid.
COURT:
What do you understand (by) the gesture of placing his thumb in between the middle finger and forefinger?
A: We will tatsi.
APP RAYEL:
Because as I know, Your Honor, is the bicol dialect the word 'tatsi' is to have sex.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Why were you afraid of [appellant]?
A: He might hurt me.
Q: Now, you said [appellant] approached you, what did you feel after he approached you?
A: He open (sic) his fly and show to me his penis removed my panty inserted his penis inside of my vagina and I told him that I will report the incident to my mother. He passed through the hole of the fence and telling that he is going to get some money from ____________.
Q: AAA, you said that [appellant] let his penis out and inserted his penis (sic)?
A: Inside my vagina.
Q: What did you feel when the penis was inserted into your vagina?
A: It was painful.
Q: For how long did he insert his penis inside your vagina?
A: Around five (5) minutes.
Q: What did you do while he was doing that to you?
A: I was simply lying down.
Q: Did you shout AAA?
A: No, because I was afraid.
Q: Why were you afraid?
A: I cannot shout because I was so afraid.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Now you said that it was [appellant] who raped you, if you see [appellant] now will you be able to identify him?
A: Yes, sir (sic).
Q: Will you please point to him if he is around?
A: He is the person who raped me.
INTERPRETER:
Witness pointing to the person who identified himself as the accused.
xxx xxx xxx 22
The RTC's conviction, as upheld by the CA, was based not only from AAA's testimony but also from the corroborative testimony of Dr. Florece. To be clear, Dr. Florece testified that complainant AAA has fresh lacerations in the hymen supposedly due to an insertion of an object. She also testified that an insertion of an erect penis is consistent with the findings of incomplete superficial and deep lacerations, thus:
Q: Now, I am referring you to the Medical Certificate you issued Madam Witness, what were your findings during the pelvic examination that you mentioned a while ago?
A: The PE or the Physical Examination is essentially normal, there was no physical injury noted so the findings or conclusion is essentially normal. On Pelvic Examination, normal looking labia minora/majora meaning there was no evidence of injury. Now, on Hymenal Examination, there were incomplete superficial and deep lacerations at 2, 6, 9, and 11 o'clock position and on I.E. or Internal Examination, admit tip of examining index finger.
Q: Now, it was stated here that the hymen was intact, there were incomplete, superficial and deep lacerations, what kind of lacerations are these Madam Witness, fresh, healing or healed?
A: Fresh lacerations, Ma'am.
Q: What could cause lacerations on the hymen?
A: Probably due to an insertion of an object, Ma'am.
Q: What are examples of objects inserted on the hymen that could cause lacerations?
A: Since this is an alleged rape case, I presume that the object inserted was a penis.
Q: Would insertion of an erect penis result or be consistent with the findings of incomplete superficial and deep lacerations?
A: Yes, Ma'am.
Q: So, you mean Madam Witness that sexual contact or insertion of an erect penis could cause this kind of laceration?
A: Yes, Ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx 23
Given the foregoing recitals, there is great reason to believe the veracity of AAA's statements, in conjunction with the testimony of Dr. Florece, as to the identity of accused-appellant being the perpetrator of the crime charged, and the fact that indeed, rape was committed against AAA.
The defenses of alibi and denial
What is clear in this case is that AAA, who was 11 years of age at the time the crime was committed, candidly and spontaneously testified that she was raped by XXX. In this regard, we have held that:
Testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl, particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has in fact been committed. When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. 24
And although AAA's testimony was already convincing proof, by itself, of accused-appellant's guilt, it was further corroborated by the testimony of Dr. Florece based on her physical examination of AAA.
In contrast, accused-appellant averred that he was at the rice field together with his father at the time AAA was raped. We have oft pronounced that both denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime. For alibi to prosper, the requirements of time and place must be strictly met. In other words, accused-appellant must prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and that he was so far away from the scene of the crime or its immediate vicinity that it was impossible for him to have been physically present thereat at the time of its commission. Thus, unless accused-appellant's alibi is substantiated by clear and convincing proof, such defense is negative, self-serving, and underserving of any weight in law. 25 Clearly, in this case, physical impossibility is not present. Accused-appellant failed to provide any proof that it was physically impossible for him to be at AAA's place of residence at the time the crime was committed. In fact, according to XXX, it only takes around five minutes to traverse the distance from his house to the house of AAA.
Accused-appellant attempts to cast doubt on the possibility of the commission of the crime charged considering that the crime took place near the houses AAA's relatives, and the fact that she did not cry for help. XXX's claim deserves scant consideration. "It is settled that lust is no respecter of time or place, and rape defies constraints of time and space." 26 Thus, rapists are not easily deterred "from committing the odious act of sexual abuse by the mere presence nearby of people or even family members; rape is committed not exclusively in seclusion." 27
Moreover, the fact that AAA did not shout for help or even escape the hands of accused-appellant at the time of commission of rape should not undermine the credibility of her statements. Her failure to scream does not in any way disprove the commission of rape. Thus, these circumstances are not fatal to the prosecution's case. In this regard, we have held that "no standard form of behavior can be anticipated of a rape victim following her defilement, particularly a child who could not be expected to fully comprehend the ways of an adult. People react differently to emotional stress, and rape victims are no different from them." 28 Besides, this Court cannot categorically lay a definite standard on how a victim of rape should react or behave during or immediately after she has been defiled by her perpetrator. Individuals, particularly minors of lesser experience such as AAA, may react differently during a situation characterized as most abhorrent by nature. As such, her credibility should not be tainted by any doubt or uncertainty needlessly imputed by XXX.
Given the foregoing recitals, we find no reason to disturb the findings and appreciation of facts of the RTC and the CA. Well-settled is the rule that the "assessment of the credibility of witnesses is a domain best left to the trial court judge because of his unique opportunity to observe their deportment and demeanor on the witness stand, a vantage point denied [to] appellate courts; and when [their] findings have been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, these are generally binding and conclusive upon this Court." 29
Penalty and Damages:
The CA was correct in increasing the award of civil indemnity and moral damages from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00, and for ordering accused-appellant to pay an additional amount of P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. In People v. Jugueta, 30 the Court addressed in detail the award of damages in criminal cases where the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua to death. It held that when the circumstances surrounding the crime call for the imposition of reclusion perpetua only, there being no ordinary aggravating circumstance, the proper amounts should be P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 exemplary damages. The award of exemplary damages "is justified under Article 2229 of the Civil Code to set a public example or correction for the public good." 31 Moreover, the monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this Resolution until full payment.
In view of the foregoing, the Court finds no reversible error on the part of the RTC and the CA in finding accused-appellant guilty of the crime of Statutory Rape and in imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The March 30, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07514 is AFFIRMED as follows:
(1) the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA is hereby imposed on accused-appellant XXX;
(2) accused-appellant XXX is hereby ordered to indemnify the victim in the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages;
(3) all damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this Resolution until full payment. ATICcS
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Initials were used to identify the accused-appellant pursuant to Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-15 dated September 5, 2017 Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders using Fictitious Names/Circumstances.
2.Rollo, pp. 2-22; penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon and concurred in by Associate Justices Rodil V. Zalameda (now a Member of the Court) and Ma. Luisa Quijano-Padilla.
3. Records (Criminal Case No. FC-11-0922), pp. 220-225; penned by Judge Isabelo T. Rojas.
4.Id. at 1-2.
5. Geographical location is blotted out pursuant to Supreme Court Amended Circular No. 83-2015.
6. "The identity of the victim or any information which could establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. 7610, An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, Providing Penalties for its Violation, and for Other Purposes; Republic Act No. 9262, An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, and for Other Purposes; and Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the Rule on Violence against Women and Their Children, effective November 15, 2004." People v. Dumadag, 667 Phil. 664, 669 (2011). In this regard, this Court withholds the real name of the complainant and her immediate family members, and uses fictitious initials instead to represent them. Thus, the initials "AAA" represent complainant, "BBB'' refers to her mother, and "CCC'' refers to the uncle of complainant.
7. Records, (Criminal Case No. FC-11-0922) p. 32.
8. CA rollo, pp. 59-60.
9.Id. at 33.
10. Records (Criminal Case No. FC-11-0922), pp. 220-225.
11.Id. at 225.
12.Rollo, pp. 2-22.
13.Id. at 21-22.
14.Id. at 16-17.
15. 783 Phil. 806, 840 (2016).
16.Rollo, pp. 28-29.
17.Id. at 30-32 and 38-39.
18. CA rollo, pp. 33-34.
19. 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:
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
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.
2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.
20.People v. Deliola, 794 Phil. 194, 205 (2016).
21. Records, (Criminal Case No. FC-11-0922), p. 37.
22. TSN, June 18, 2012, pp. 4-14.
23. TSN, July 2, 2013, pp. 7-10.
24.People v. Piosang, 710 Phil. 519, 526 (2013).
25.People v. Sato, 747 Phil. 407, 415 (2014).
26.People v. Regaspi, 768 Phil. 593, 599 (2015).
27.People v. Agudo, 810 Phil. 918, 929 (2017).
28.People v. Crespo, 586 Phil. 542, 566 (2008).
29.People v. Deliola, 794 Phil. 194, 208 (2016), supra note 20 at 208.
30.Supra note 15.
31.People v. Frias, 718 Phil. 173, 186 (2013).