SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 235464. November 28, 2018.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. XXX, 1respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 28 November 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 235464 (People of the Philippines vs. XXX). — Before the Court is an appeal 2 from the Decision 3 dated June 30, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 08465, which affirmed the Decision 4 dated June 21, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City, Branch 59, finding XXX guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Incestuous Rape and Statutory Rape, in relation to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610.
The Facts
In two separate Informations, XXX was charged with one (1) count of Incestuous Rape and one (1) count of Statutory Rape, both in relation to R.A. No. 7610, to wit:
Criminal Case No. 12-9251
That on or about the 13th day of September 2012 in the City of Angeles, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, [XXX], being then the biological father of the complainant AAA, 5 then 15 year-old minor, with lewd design and taking advantage of the innocence and tender age of his daughter, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with said AAA by forcibly inserting his finger in AAA's vagina to satisfy his carnal desire, by means of force and against his daughter's will and consent, thereby degrading and debasing the child's intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being and endangering her normal development, to her damage and prejudice.
xxx xxx xxx
Criminal Case No. 12-9252
That on or about the 12th day of September 2012 in the City of Angeles, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, [XXX], being then the biological father of the complainant BBB, then 4 year-old minor, with lewd design and taking advantage of the innocence and tender age of his daughter, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with said BBB, by forcibly inserting his finger and penis in BBB's vagina to satisfy his carnal desire, by means of force and against his daughter's will and consent, thereby degrading and debasing the child's intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being and endangering her normal development to her damage and prejudice. 6 SDAaTC
During his arraignment, XXX pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged. After the parties held their pre-trial conference, trial ensued. 7
The prosecution established that AAA and BBB are the daughters of XXX. On September 13, 2012, AAA, then 15 years old, was sleeping on the upper deck of a double deck bed in their living room when she was awakened by XXX, her father, who was throwing clothes at her. XXX was motioning her to go to the comfort room with him but she ignored XXX and pretended to be sleeping. XXX then turned off the light. AAA then felt XXX's hand touching her vagina. Eventually, XXX succeeded in inserting his finger into AAA's vagina. AAA opened her eyes and XXX immediately walked away. 8
A day before, or on September 12, 2012, BBB, then 4 years old, was left alone with XXX. XXX took off BBB's clothes and inserted his penis and finger into her vagina. BBB cried during the incident. BBB then told her mother what had happened to her. 9 AAA, BBB, and their mother, CCC, went to the barangay hall and police station to report the crimes. They also went to a hospital to undergo medical examination. 10 After conducting medical examinations on AAA and BBB, the attending physician noted the presence of several hymenal lacerations on BBB, and two (2) healed hymenal lacerations on AAA. 11
For his part, XXX denied the accusations against him. In the morning of September 12, 2012, XXX sent his children to buy "katol." When he woke up at night, he was looking for the "katol" and tapped AAA on the right side of her hip but nothing happened. The following day, XXX was at Marquee Place in Pulung Maragul where he worked as a carpenter. He was arrested around noon at his workplace. XXX believes that the cases were filed against him because he was always fighting with CCC. He concluded that CCC was a having a relationship with a certain Resmer. 12
On June 21, 2016, the RTC of Angeles City, Branch 59, rendered a Decision, 13 the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court finds:
1. [XXX] GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT in Criminal Case No. 12-9251 of the crime of Incestuous Rape defined in Article 266-A (2) of the Revised Penal Code and penalized under the last paragraph of Article 266-B thereof embodied in the Information dated September 17, 2012.
Accordingly, [XXX] is hereby SENTENCED to suffer an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years of prision mayor as the minimum term, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as the maximum term.
Furthermore, [XXX] is hereby ordered to PAY private complainant AAA: (1) civil indemnity in the amount of Thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00); (2) moral damages in the amount of Thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00); and (3) exemplary damages in the amount of Thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00).
2. [XXX] GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT in Criminal Case No. 12-9252 for the crime of Statutory Rape defined in Article 266-A (1) of the Revised Penal Code and penalized under number 1, sixth paragraph, of Article 266-B thereof embodied in the Information dated September 17, 2012.
Accordingly, [XXX] is hereby SENTENCED to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility of parole.
Furthermore, [XXX] is hereby ordered to PAY private complainant BBB: (1) civil indemnity in the amount of One hundred fifty thousand pesos (P150,000.00); (2) moral damages in the amount of One hundred fifty thousand pesos (P150,000.00); and (3) exemplary damages in the amount of One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00).
No costs.
SO ORDERED.14 acEHCD
Aggrieved by the RTC decision, XXX appealed to the CA. 15 On June 30, 2017, the CA promulgated the assailed Decision, 16 which affirmed the RTC decision, to wit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated June 21, 2016 of the [RTC] of Angeles City, Branch 59, finding [XXX] guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged is AFFIRMED.
1. In Criminal Case No. 12-9251 for Incestuous Rape, [XXX] is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years of prision mayor as the minimum term, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as the maximum term and to pay the priva(t)e complainant civil indemnity of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00); moral damages in the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00); and exemplary damages in the amount of Thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00); and
2. In Criminal Case No. 12-9252 for Statutory Rape, [XXX] is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility of parole and to pay private complainant moral damages of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00); civil indemnity in the amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00); and exemplary damages in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00).
Both private complainants are entitled to an interest on all damages awarded at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.17
The sole issue is whether XXX's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal lacks merit.
After a careful review of the records of the case, the Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the findings of both the RTC and CA that the prosecution was able to sufficiently prove beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of the crimes of Incestuous Rape and Statutory Rape.
In Criminal Case No. 12-9251, the prosecution was able to prove the elements to convict XXX of the crime of Rape under Article 266-A (2) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) as well as one of the aggravating circumstances mentioned in the last paragraph of Article 266-B of the same Code. Under Article 266-A of the RPC, 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.
However, when the offender is the victim's father, as in this case, there need not be actual force, threat or intimidation because when a father commits the odious crime of rape against his own daughter, who was also a minor at the time of the commission of the offenses, his moral ascendancy or influence over the latter substitutes for violence and intimidation. 18 SDHTEC
It is also provided under Article 266-B of the same Code that, "the death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances: 1) 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."
The trial court found that AAA's testimony was clear and positive. She declared that XXX inserted his finger into her vagina. XXX was able to consummate his bestial desire.
Time and again, the Court has held that in resolving rape cases, primordial consideration is given to the credibility of the victim's testimony. Settled is the rule that the trial court's conclusions on the credibility of witnesses in rape cases are generally accorded great weight and respect, and at times even finality, unless there appears certain facts or circumstances of weight and value which the lower court overlooked or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the case. 19 The Court, however, does not find any such circumstance here. Indeed, the trial judge is in the best position to assess whether the witness was telling the truth as he had the direct and singular opportunity to observe the facial expression, gesture and tone of voice of the complaining witnesses while testifying. 20
In Criminal Case No. 12-9592, the RTC held that there is no doubt that XXX had carnal knowledge with BBB. It found that BBB's distinct and definite testimony that XXX inserted his penis inside her vagina duly established that he had carnal knowledge of her. BBB's narration is supported by the findings of Dr. Czarinna Chuidian who noted three (3) hymenal lacerations on her.
Under Article 266-A of the RPC, rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
1. By using force, threat, or intimidation;
2. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
3. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
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.
For the accused to be found guilty of the crime of statutory rape, two (2) elements must concur: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) that the victim is below twelve (12) years old. If the woman is under 12 years of age, proof of force and consent becomes immaterial not only because force is not an element of statutory rape, but the absence of a free consent is presumed. Conviction will therefore lie, provided sexual intercourse is proven. 21 In this case, BBB positively identified XXX as the person who molested her. She clearly and straightforwardly narrated the incident of rape.
Thus, all the elements of statutory rape have been sufficiently established. Jurisprudence holds that "the findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses, and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded respect if not conclusive effect." 22
Anent XXX's defense of denial and alibi, bare assertions thereof cannot overcome the categorical testimony of the victim. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. On the other hand, for alibi to prosper, it must be demonstrated that it was physically impossible for XXX to be present at the place where the crime was committed at the time of commission. 23 AScHCD
As to the penalty imposed, the RTC was correct in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua in lieu of death because of its suspension under R.A. No. 9346. 24
In Criminal Case No. 12-9251, the Court maintains that the award of damages in the amount of P30,000.00 in favor of AAA as a victim of rape through sexual assault is consistent with jurisprudence. The court has stated that "jurisprudence from 2001 up to the present yields the information that the prevailing amount awarded as civil indemnity to victims of simple rape committed by means other than penile insertion is P30,000.00." 25
However, with respect to the award of damages in Criminal Case No. 12-9592, there is a need to a modify the same pursuant to our pronouncement in People v. Jugueta. 26 In this case, the aggravating circumstance of relationship between XXX and BBB was sufficiently proven by the prosecution during trial. Thus, XXX is guilty of Qualified Statutory Rape. Where the penalty imposable is death but because of its suspension under R.A. No. 9346, the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, the amounts of damages shall be as follows:
1) Civil Indemnity — P100,000.00
2) Moral Damages — P100,000.00
3) Exemplary Damages — P100,000.00
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision dated June 30, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. C.R.-H.C. No. 08465, finding XXX guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Incestuous Rape and Statutory Rape, in relation to Republic Act No. 7610, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that in Criminal Case No. 12-9252, XXX is ordered to pay victim BBB civil indemnity in the amount of P100,000.00, moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00, and exemplary damages in the amount of P100,000.00, with interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of the finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED." (Reyes, J., Jr., J., designated as Additional Member per Special Order No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. At the victim's instance or, if the victim is a minor, that of his or her guardian, the complete name of the accused may be replaced by fictitious initials and his or her personal circumstances blotted out from the decision if the name and personal circumstances of the accused may tend to establish or compromise the victims' identities, in accordance with and the Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017.
2.Rollo, pp. 10-11.
3. Penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, with Associate Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and Samuel H. Gaerlan concurring; id. at 2-9.
4. Rendered by Presiding Judge Maria Angelica T. Paras-Quiambao; id. at 44-65.
5. 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 the Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017.
6. CA rollo, pp. 44-45.
7.Id. at 45.
8.Id. at 48-49.
9.Id. at 49.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 55.
12.Id. at 53-54.
13.Id. at 44-65.
14.Id. at 64-65.
15.Rollo, p. 10.
16.Id. at 2-9.
17.Id. at 8-9.
18.People v. Fragante, 657 Phil. 577, 592 (2011).
19.People v. Padilla, 617 Phil. 170, 183 (2009), citing People v. Noveras, 550 Phil. 871, 881 (2007).
20.People v. Dollano, Jr., 675 Phil. 827, 840 (2011), citing People v. Lopez, 617 Phil. 733, 744 (2009).
21.People v. Bagsic, G.R. No. 218404, December 13, 2017.
22.People v. Vitero, 708 Phil. 49, 60-61 (2013).
23.People v. Abulon, 557 Phil. 428, 448 (2007).
24. Art. 266-B, Revised Penal Code. x x x
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
1) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim; x x x.
25.Ricalde v. People, 751 Phil. 793, 815 (2015).
26. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).