THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 238211. February 26, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. XXX, 1accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 26, 2020, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 238211 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. XXX, Accused-Appellant). — In this appeal, accused-appellant assails the Decision dated 13 January 2017 2 promulgated by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07152, which affirmed his conviction for qualified rape.
Antecedents
Accused-appellant was charged with qualified rape in an Information, which pertinently reads:
That on or about the 19th day of March 2004, at Brgy. ____________, in the Municipality of Sto. Domingo, Province of Nueva Ecija, Republic of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to have carnal knowledge of his own daughter AAA, a minor, 11 years of age, with lewd designs and while using his influence and ascendancy feloniously have sexual intercourse with and carnal knowledge of said minor daughter, to her damage and prejudice.
DONE CONTRARY TO LAW.3
At the pre-trial, the parties stipulated that: 1) accused-appellant's real name is XXX; 2) victim, AAA, is accused-appellant's daughter; 3) AAA was eleven (11) years of age at the time of the incident in May 2004; and (4) AAA was subjected to a physical examination on 17 May 2004. 4
The factual antecedents of the case, as quoted by the Court of Appeals, are as follows:
AAA, who was born on 18 February 1993, is the eldest of the three (3) children of the accused-appellant XXX. At around 1:30 in the afternoon of 19 March 2004, AAA, who was then eleven (11) years old, was cleaning their house in Barangay _________, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, when her father, accused-appellant, arrived home. Accused-appellant ordered AAA to lie down. When AAA refused to obey, accused-appellant forced her to lie down. Once AAA was lying down, accused-appellant removed her short pants and panty, and proceeded to undress himself. Accused-appellant then applied oil on the private parts of AAA and on his own penis. He then inserted his penis inside the vagina of AAA, causing the latter to feel pain. AAA cried and begged her father to stop. Accused-appellant did not heed AAA's protests and continued having sexual intercourse with her. He also warned AAA that if she reported the incident to anyone he would kill her. This continued for one and a half minutes, and the accused-appellant pulled out his penis from AAA's vagina, only to insert it into the anus of AAA. This bestial act continued for over half an hour, and only stopped when accused-appellant noticed that a cousin of AAA entered the house.
AAA did not report the incident to her mother, who arrived at home sometime in the afternoon of the same day. It was only on 04 May 2003, 5 when AAA and her mother went to Pampanga to attend the fiesta of Sta. Monica Village, that AAA disclosed to her aunt CCC that she was raped by her father.
After revealing the fateful incident to her aunt, AAA proceeded to the Police Station and executed her sworn statement preparatory to the filing of the case against accused-appellant. AAA was subjected to a medical examination which resulted in the findings of "a complete old healed laceration at 7 o'clock position & incomplete old healed laceration at 5 and 6 o'clock position." 6
Accused-appellant offered the defense of denial and alibi and claimed to be cleaning his farm located near _______ Bridge, _________, Nueva Ecija at the time of the alleged incident. Since his farm is far from his house, he opted to erect a hut at the said farm and was residing thereat when the rape occurred. He purportedly went home only on 13 May 2004. 7
On 21 October 2004, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a decision finding accused-appellant guilty of qualified rape, the fallo of which reads:
WHEREFORE, FOREGOING PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Prosecution having sufficiently established the guilt of the accused, XXX[,] beyond reasonable doubt, this Court finds him GUILTY of the crime of Rape qualified by minority and relationship. The accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua pursuant to Art. 266-1 (a) of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. 8353.
The accused is further ordered to pay private complainant [AAA] the following amounts:
1. Seventy-five thousand (P75,000.00) pesos as civil indemnity,
2. Fifty-thousand (P50,000.00) pesos as moral damages, and
3. Thirty-thousand pesos (P30,000.00) pesos as exemplary damages.
The accused is further ordered to pay the complainant interest on all damages awarded at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of judgment until full payment thereof.
Finally, the accused Carlito Valdez, being a detention prisoner is entitled to be credited four-fifths (4/5) of his preventive imprisonment in the service of his sentence in accordance with Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED. 8
The RTC found the testimony of AAA credible, straightforward, and worthy of belief. Such testimony was, likewise, supported by the medico-legal report showing AAA had old healed lacerations in the hymenal area. Lastly, accused-appellant's defense of denial and alibi is inherently weak considering his failure to prove the physical impossibility of committing the crime. 9
Accused-appellant appealed his conviction but the CA affirmed the same through the assailed decision, viz.:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated 29 October 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Baloc, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, Third Judicial Region, Branch 99, in Criminal Case No. SD(04)-972 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.10
As held by the appellate court, the uncorroborated testimony of accused-appellant cannot prevail over the positive testimony of AAA, which was supported by a medical report. In addition, there was no indication of any improper motive on the part of AAA in accusing her own father of rape. All told, the prosecution has successfully discharged its burden proving the guilt of accused-appellant. 11
Issue
Accused-appellant now asks the Court to determine whether his guilt for the crime of qualified rape has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal lacks merit.
Under Art. 266-A (1) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 8353, rape is committed 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 twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present. Rape shall be qualified pursuant to Article 266-B (1) of the RPC if: (a) the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age; and (b) 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. 12
In this case, the Court finds the prosecution to have proven beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused-appellant for the crime of qualified rape.
Accused-appellant hinges his appeal on the supposed error of the lower courts in giving credence to the testimony of AAA. He asserts the improbability of committing the crime of rape in a place where his two (2) younger children could walk in at any time. However, such reasoning is greatly flawed. The Court has already recognized that a small living quarter is not a safe refuge from sexual assault. Rape can be committed in a house where there are other occupants or even in the same room with the rapist's spouse or other family members are also sleeping. For lust is apparently no respecter of time and place. Neither is it necessary for the rape to be committed in an isolated place, for rapists bear no respect for locale and time in carrying out their evil deed. 13
Besides, the assessment of a trial court in matters pertaining to the credibility of witnesses, especially when already affirmed by the CA, are accorded great respect — if not binding significance — on further appeal to this Court. The rationale of this rule is the recognition of the trial court's unique and distinctive position to be able to observe, first hand, the demeanor, conduct and attitude of the witness whose credibility has been put in issue. 14
It must also be remembered that denial and alibi, accused-appellant's main defenses, are viewed by this Court with disfavor. These are inherently weak defenses, especially in this case where AAA positively identified accused-appellant as the one who committed the crime against her. 15
With the credible and trustworthy account of AAA, corroborated by the medico-legal findings, there is little doubt that accused-appellant indeed raped AAA. Records of the case further show that AAA was only eleven (11) years old when the rape occurred. Accused-appellant also admitted to being the father of AAA. Hence, the Court finds no error with the conviction of accused-appellant for qualified rape.
Based on Art. 266-B of the RPC, the lower courts were correct in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua in lieu of death, which was suspended under RA No. 9346. Such penalty is understood to be imposed without eligibility for parole. 16
The Court, however, increases the award of damages to P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, in order to conform with the current jurisprudence. 17
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated 13 January 2017 promulgated by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07152 finding accused-appellant XXX guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified Rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant is ordered to pay the victim, AAA, the amount of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum18 from the finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Pursuant to People v. Cabalquinto (G.R. No. 167693, 19 September 2006) and SC Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated 05 September 2017, personal circumstances which tend to establish or compromise the identity of the victim, or any information, including the names of her immediate family or household members, and the barangay and town of the incident, are withheld.
2. Rollo, pp. 2-12; penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion, and concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas-Peralta and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela of the Sixth (6th) Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3. Id. at pp. 3-4.
4. Id. at p. 4.
5. See CA rollo, p. 74.
6. Id. at pp. 4-5.
7. Id. at p. 5.
8. CA rollo, pp. 83-84.
9. Id. at pp. 77-83.
10. Rollo, pp. 11-12.
11. Id. at pp. 10-11.
12. People v. YYY, G.R. No. 234825, 05 September 2018.
13. People v. Elimancil, G.R. No. 234951, 28 January 2019.
14. People v. Bay-od, G.R. No. 238176, 14 January 2019.
15. People v. Elimancil, G.R. No. 234951, 28 January 2019.
16. People v. BBB, G.R. No. 232071, 10 July 2019.
17. People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, 05 April 2016.
18. Nacar v. Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871, 13 August 2013, 716 Phil. 267-283 (2013).