THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 238593. February 12, 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 dated February 12, 2020, which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 238593(People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.XXX, Accused-Appellant) — This appeal 2 assails the 09 October 2017 Decision 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 08956, affirming the 09 December 2016 Decision 4 of Branch 94, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of ________ in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-15-09069-CR, which found accused-appellant XXX (accused-appellant), guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified rape.
Antecedents
Accused-appellant was charged with the crime of qualified rape under the following Information 5 dated 29 September 2015:
That on or about the 24th day of September, 2015 in __________, Philippines, the above named accused, by means of force and/or intimidation and exercising moral ascendancy over one AAA, since he is her stepfather, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the said AAA, daughter of his live-in partner and a minor 15 years of age at the time, against the will of the offended party to her damage and prejudice.
The crime described above is committed with the qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority for the accused is the stepfather of the offended party who was [a] minor 15 years of age at the time.
CONTRARY TO LAW. (Emphasis and underscore deleted) 6
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant, assisted by counsel de officio, pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. During the pre-trial, the prosecution and the defense agreed to stipulate on the following matters:
1. The jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused;
2. The identity of the accused as the same person charged in the Information, present in court and arraigned on the said date;
3. That the accused is the live-in partner of the mother of the private complainant. 7
After pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
On 23 September 2015, accused-appellant, through his son, FFF, invited his 15-year-old step-daughter, AAA, and her live-in partner, GGG, to spend the night at his house. AAA slept next to GGG and FFF, but when she woke up at around 6:00 a.m. the following day, she felt someone having intercourse with her. At first, she thought it was GGG, however, when she heard, "Be, saglit lang ito,"8 she looked behind and saw accused-appellant. AAA struggled to free herself from his grasp but failed. She noticed that her loose shorts were raised up to her waist, and her panties were askew. When accused-appellant stood up to go to the bathroom, AAA felt his penis pulling out from her vagina. She waited until he laid down again before she stood up, opened the door, and left. 9
Version of the Defense
On 24 September 2015, accused-appellant woke up between his son, CCC, and his step-daughter, AAA. After sending CCC to borrow money from his friend, he went back to sleep. When he woke up again, he noticed AAA had left and CCC had returned from his errand. Moments after, he was arrested by barangay officials as AAA filed a complaint for rape against him. 10
Accused-appellant claimed that AAA charged him with rape only because of his quarrel with her and BBB sometime in the prior year. 11
Ruling of the RTC
By a Decision 12 dated 09 December 2016, the RTC rendered judgment finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, viz.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused XXX guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Rape and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.
Accused is ordered to pay AAA P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100.000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages.
The amount of damages awarded are subject further to interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until they are fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 13
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA. 14
Ruling of the CA
In its Decision 15 dated 09 October 2017, the CA sustained accused-appellant's conviction. CAIHTE
Hence, this appeal.
Issue
Whether or not the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of qualified rape.
Ruling of the Court
We affirm.
The Information charged accused-appellant with qualified rape through the use of force, threat, or intimidation. To prove the crime of qualified rape in this case, the prosecution must establish the elements of sexual intercourse through force, threat, or intimidation under Article 266-A (1) of the RPC, as amended by RA 8353:
(1) That the offender is a man;
(2) That the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and
(3) That such act was accomplished by using force, threat, or intimidation. 16
In addition, the prosecution must also establish the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship. 17
The RTC, as affirmed by the CA, found the evidence of the prosecution sufficient to convict accused-appellant for the crime charged. It is important to note on this score that the findings of the trial courts are accorded the highest degree of respect, 18 especially when the factual findings are fully concurred in by the CA, 19 as in the instant case. Such findings are final and conclusive on appeal, unless there is a demonstrable error in appreciation, or a misapprehension of the facts as to materially affect the disposition of the case. 20 Accused-appellant failed to substantiate any circumstance which would warrant a review of the common findings of the RTC and the CA.
The elements of qualified rape were established through AAA's credible testimony as she vividly recounted how she was raped by accused-appellant, as follows:
[ACP Lagasca]
Q: So according to you, the night of September 23, 2015, you slept over at the house of XXX, and how did you wake up the following morning of September 24, 2015?
[Private Complainant AAA]
A: "Nagulat na lang po ako may gumagalaw po sa akin."
Q: When you said "gumagalaw," what do you mean by "gumagalaw"?
A: "Gumagalaw po, tapos po may nakatanday sa akin, akala ko po yong live-in partner ko na si GGG."
Q: When you felt that something was "gumagalaw " and you thought that it was GGG, what did you do, if any?
A: "I looked at the person and who said, "Be, saglit lang ito" and then I saw XXX.
Q: You said "gumagalaw," will you please demonstrate to us what you mean that something na "gumagalaw sa iyo"?
A: "Noong nagising po ako, naramdam ko po na pagtayo niya po, naramdaman ko po na lumabas po yung titi niya sa pepe ko." 21
xxx xxx xxx
[ACP Lagasca]
Q: AAA, in your Salaysay, in Question No. 6 or Tanong: Ano pa ang sumunod na nangyari? And your Sagot was: Agad akong pumalag ngunit hinigpitan niya ang yakap sa akin x x x" What do you mean by "pumalag"?
[Private Complainant AAA]
A: (Witness is demonstrating)
Court: The witness is demonstrating by as if she was trying to free herself. 22
xxx xxx xxx
[ACP Lagasca]
Q: When he inserted his penis into your vagina, you were asleep at that time, right?
[Private complainant AAA]
A: Yes, ma-m.
Q: He did not ask your permission or your consent when he inserted his penis into your vagina?
A: No, ma'am.
Q: It was without your consent, Ms. Witness?
A: None, Ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx 23
From the foregoing, it is clear that AAA was able to candidly and categorically narrate her experience of unwanted sexual intercourse with accused-appellant. She also positively identified accused-appellant as the perpetrator, having known him as her mother's live-in partner. It is settled that a stepfather's moral ascendancy or influence over his stepdaughter supplants the element of violence or intimidation in charge of rape. 24
Anent the qualifying circumstances, AAA's Certificate of Live Birth 25 shows that she was barely 15 years old when the incident occurred. It was likewise established that accused-appellant was the common law spouse of AAA's mother, as admitted by accused-appellant himself during the pre-trial 26 and trial on the merits. 27 It is settled that the rape of a female over 12 years but under 18 years of age by the common-law spouse of her mother is qualified rape. 28
On the other hand, against the affirmative testimony of AAA that accused-appellant raped her, the latter merely raised the defenses of denial and alibi. Accused-appellant insists that he could not have committed the crime of rape against AAA because he considers her as his own daughter. This argument fails to convince. Well-entrenched is the rule that denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is to be regarded as a weak defense, which deserves no credence at all, 29 as in the instant case.
His defense of alibi must likewise fail. Accused-appellant claims that on the morning in question, he sent his son, CCC, on an errand nearby. Hence, he asserts that he could not have committed the rape considering CCC could return anytime. Such reasoning, however, is untenable. In a long line of cases, the Court has ruled that lust is no respecter of time and place. It is not 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. 30
For alibi to prosper, it must be established that it was physically impossible for accused-appellant to be present at the place where the crime was committed at the time of commission. 31 However, accused-appellant himself testified that AAA and GGG spent the night in his house on 23 September 2016, and that he slept beside AAA. He also admitted in his testimony that he woke CCC up in the morning to run an errand. He testified that AAA was still asleep when CCC left. 32 If anything, his testimony proved that he was alone with AAA that time of the day, giving him sufficient opportunity to commit the rape.
All told, the prosecution was able to sufficiently establish the elements of the crime of qualified rape. Hence, accused-appellant's conviction must stand.
As to the penalty, the Court finds no error in the imposition made by the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. Considering the presence of the special qualifying circumstances of age and relationship, both properly alleged in the Information, and proven with certainty during trial, the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole, shall be imposed in lieu of the death penalty, 33 which remains prohibited by virtue of Republic Act No. (RA) 9346. 34
The award of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages of Php100,000.00 each is likewise in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. In the case of People v. Jugueta, 35 the Court held that when the penalty imposed is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua pursuant to RA 9346, the civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to be imposed shall be Php100,000.00 each. The aggregate amount of damages awarded is further subject to legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality until fully paid. 36
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly, the 09 October 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 08956, affirming the 09 December 2016 Decision of Branch 94, Regional Trial Court of ____________, finding accused-appellant, XXX, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Rape, is AFFIRMED. DETACa
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. The identity of the victim or any information which could establish or compromise her identity, including the names of her immediate family or household members, and the barangay and town of the incident, are withheld pursuant to SC Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015. The real name of the accused-appellant is also replaced with fictitious initials by reason of his relationship to the minor victim.
2.Rollo, pp. 24-26.
3.Id. at 2-23; penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos and concurred in by Associate Justices Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison and Socorro B. Inting of the Court of Appeals, Manila.
4. CA rollo, pp. 34-43; penned by RTC Presiding Judge Roslyn M. Rabara-Tria.
5.Rollo, p. 3.
6. Id.
7. CA rollo, p. 35.
8. TSN dated 11 February 2016, pp. 9-10.
9.Id. at 16.
10. Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Missing footnote text.
11. Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Missing footnote text.
12. Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Missing footnote text.
13. Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Missing footnote text.
14. Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Missing footnote text.
15. Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Missing footnote text.
16. Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Missing footnote text.
17. Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Missing footnote text.
18. Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Missing footnote text.
19. Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Missing footnote text.
20. Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Missing footnote text.
21. Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Missing footnote text.
22. Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Missing footnote text.
23. Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Missing footnote text.
24. Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Missing footnote text.
25. Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Missing footnote text.
26. Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Missing footnote text.
27. Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Missing footnote text.
28. Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Missing footnote text.
29. Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Missing footnote text.
30. Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Missing footnote text.
31. Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Missing footnote text.
32. Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Missing footnote text.
33. Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Missing footnote text.
34. Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Missing footnote text.
35. Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Missing footnote text.
36. Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Missing footnote text.