THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 238752. June 28, 2021.]
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 June 28, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 238752 (People of the Philippines v. XXX). — This appeal 2 seeks the reversal of the May 30, 2017 Decision 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 08513 which affirmed the May 25, 2016 Decision 4 and July 7, 2016 5 Order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 52 of Guagua, Pampanga in Criminal Case Nos. G-6281, G-6282 and G-6283, finding accused-appellant XXX (accused-appellant or XXX) guilty of two (2) counts of Qualified Rape by Sexual Assault and one (1) count Qualified Rape by Sexual Intercourse, defined and penalized under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act No. (RA) 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997.
The antecedents:
Accused-appellant was charged with raping his daughters AAA 6 and BBB 7 in the following Informations dated October 15, 2003, as follows:
Criminal Case No. G-6281:
That on or about the 10th day of August 2003, in ____________________________ 8 within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused XXX, being the father of private complainant AAA, a 13-year-old child, with lewd designs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of said AAA by then and there inserting his finger into her vagina, against her will and without her consent.
Contrary to law. 9
Criminal Case No. G-6282:
That on or about the 27th of July 2003, in ____________________________ and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused XXX, being the father of private complainant BBB, a 12-year-old child, with lewd designs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of said BBB by then and there inserting his finger into her vagina, against her will and without her consent.
Contrary to law. 10
Criminal Case No. G-6283:
That sometime in 1995, in __________________________________ and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused XXX, being the father of private complainant BBB, then being below twelve (12) years of age, with lewd designs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of said BBB against her will and without her consent.
Contrary to law. 11
The three cases were consolidated and tried jointly. Accused-appellant was arraigned on September 15, 2004 where he entered a plea of not guilty to the offenses charged. 12
During pre-trial on November 10, 2004, the defense admitted the following: (1) that XXX is the same accused in these cases; (2) that AAA and BBB are the legitimate daughters of XXX; (3) that AAA and BBB were born on February 22, 1990 and August 8, 1991, respectively; and (4) that accused-appellant is married to CCC, the mother of the two private complainants. 13
Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution:
The version of the prosecution as summarized in the CA Decision is as follows:
Accused-appellant x x x and his family lived in a sixty-four-square-foot dwelling at ZZZ. Accused-appellant and his wife CCC were married on September 24, 1989. His daughter AAA was born on February 22, 1990 while his other daughter BBB was born on August 8, 1991.
Sometime in 1995, BBB, who was about four (4) years old, was alone with accused-appellant in their home. BBB was wearing a dress at that time when suddenly, accused-appellant removed her underwear, went on top of her and inserted his penis into her vagina several times. Since BBB's mother CCC was not around at that time, she was not able to tell CCC about what happened.
In the evening of July 27, 2003, BBB who was twelve (12) years old then, was again sexually abused by accused-appellant. BBB was lying down beside CCC and her other siblings on the floor of the house where they were all sleeping while accused-appellant was watching television in the same room. BBB then felt accused-appellant inserting his finger inside her vagina. When BBB opened her eyes, she saw accused-appellant sitting on her right side near her waist, touching her. She immediately stood up and kicked him but accused-appellant just smiled at her and turned to CCC's side. BBB told CCC about the incident but the latter just told her to avoid accused-appellant.
On August 10, 2003, around 12:00 midnight, thirteen (13) year-old AAA was at home sleeping beside CCC and her other siblings, as they were tired from vending/selling drinks in the "peryahan." When AAA opened her eyes, she saw that her shorts were pulled down and felt accused-appellant's finger inside her vagina. It was not the first time that AAA experienced this because accused-appellant had done the same to her vagina when she was seven (7) years old.
That night, AAA was not able to tell CCC or her siblings about what happened because she was afraid that accused-appellant would hurt her. In the early morning of August 11, 2003, AAA told her mother about the incident that transpired the night before. 14
Presented as witnesses for the prosecution were private complainants AAA and BBB, and Dr. Christine S. Cortez, the medico-legal expert. 15
Version of the Defense.
On the other hand, the version of the defense, as likewise summarized in the CA Decision, is as follows:
For his part, accused-appellant denied having raped AAA and BBB. Allegedly, (i) in 1995, accused-appellant was working as a security personnel in Quezon City and he was staying in Caloocan City; (ii) on July 27, 2003, he just slept all day after work; (iii) on August 10, 2003, accused-appellant was at their home watching television while his wife, CCC and children, AAA, BBB and DDD, were sleeping on the floor beside him; (iv) around midnight, accused-appellant went to sleep and woke up at seven o'clock the following morning; and (v) CCC merely manipulated their daughters AAA and BBB in filing fabricated charges against accused-appellant because she resented him. 16
The defense presented accused-appellant, his wife CCC, and his parents as witnesses. 17
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
In a Decision 18 dated May 25, 2016, the trial court found accused-appellant guilty of the crimes of Qualified Rape by Sexual Assault and Qualified Rape by Sexual Intercourse and sentenced him as follows:
WHEREFORE, this court hereby:
1) in Criminal Case Nos. G-6281 and G-6282, finds accused XXX GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified rape by sexual assault for which he is sentenced to suffer in each case all indeterminate penalty the minimum period of which is nine (9) years of prision mayor and the maximum period of which is fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal. The accused is further ordered to pay in each case AAA and BBB P30,000.00 civil indemnity, P30,000.00 moral damages and P30,000.00 exemplary damages; and
2) in Criminal Case No. G-6283, finds accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of qualified rape by sexual intercourse for which he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility of parole, and ordered to pay BBB P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages and a fine of P100,000.00 as exemplary damages.
AAA and BBB are each 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. 19
Accused-appellant moved for reconsideration but it was denied by the trial court in its July 7, 2016 Order. 20
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
On May 30, 2017, the appellate court rendered a Decision 21 affirming the trial court's Decision. The CA held that the prosecution successfully established the elements of the crimes charged. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated May 25, 2016 and Order dated July 7, 2016 of branch 52, Regional Trial Court of Guagua, Pampanga, are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 22
Thus, this appeal.
Issues
The accused-appellant raised the following issues in his Brief: 23
(1) That the [courts] gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant of the crime charged in Criminal Case No. G-6283, despite its inherent defect as to violate the Constitutional right of the accused-appellant to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him;
(2) That the courts gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant of the crime charged in Criminal Case No. G-6283, despite that it was physically impossible for him to commit the imputed crime[;] and
(3) That the courts gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant of the crimes charged in Criminal Case Nos. G-6281 and G-6282, despite the inconsistencies and dubious circumstances found in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses as to doubt their credibility. 24
Our Ruling
The Court dismisses the appeal and affirms the trial court's and appellate court's judgment of conviction against accused-appellant.
First, accused-appellant alleges that his right to be informed of the nature and cause of his accusation as embodied in the 1987 Constitution was violated because the Information merely stated the alleged commission of the crime in 1995 without mentioning a specific date or even a rough estimate.
Second, accused-appellant alleges that it was physically impossible for him to commit the crime imputed to him as he showed proof that he was residing outside the province where the alleged crime was committed at the time of the commission. He averred, through certifications presented in court, that he was working as a security guard in Metro Manila, clearly far from the residence of private complainants.
Third, accused-appellant also claims that there were many uncertainties in AAA's conflicting testimony, and that BBB's testimony was incompatible with human experience, thus, casting doubt as to the certitude of their accusations.
All three errors, which will be discussed in consolidation, are clearly unfounded.
To begin with, based on the prosecution's evidence and as correctly found by the courts below, the crimes charged in the Informations have been sufficiently established beyond reasonable doubt. Article 266-A of the RPC provides:
Art. 266-A. 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.
A careful examination of the testimonies of AAA and BBB together with the facts admitted by accused-appellant during the pre-trial established the following elements of qualified rape: (1) sexual congress; (2) with a woman; (3) done by force, threat, or intimidation and without consent; (4) the victim is under 18 years of age at the time of rape; and (5) the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree of the victim, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. This can be gleaned from pertinent portions of the Transcript of Records:
Q: Do you remember where you were sometime on August 10, 2003?
A: Yes, madam.
Q: Where were you on that date?
A: I was already in our house, madam.
Q: What time were you in the house?
A: Night, madam.
Q: Where were you before you were at your house?
A: Peryahan, madam.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: When you arrived at your house at ____________, what happened?
A: I immediately fell asleep because I was so tired and after a while, I felt something [enter] my vagina, madam.
Q: And when you felt something [enter] your vagina, what did you do?
A: I was afraid, madam.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: I will repeat my question: you said you were lying down and you felt something [enter] your vagina and you opened your eyes and you saw your father: what was your father doing when you saw him?
A: When I opened my eyes, I saw my father, his finger was inside my vagina and when I moved, he suddenly laid down and suddenly turned off the television, madam. 25
xxx xxx xxx
Q: On July 21, 2003, you were at ______________ and the rest of your family, can you tell us what happened at that evening in connection with this case?
A: He inserted his finger in my vagina, sir.
Q: Who was that? Who inserted his finger in your vagina?
A: My father, [XXX], madam.
Q: Where were you when he inserted his finger in your vagina?
A: At _____________, in our house madam. 26
xxx xxx xxx
Q: When you were four or five years old and you were living in the resettlement in _____________, was there anything unusual that happened between you and your father?
A: Yes, madam.
Q: What is that unusual thing that happened?
A: He raped me, madam.
Q: When you said he raped you, what do you mean by that?
A: He went on top of me, madam.
Q: After he went on top of you, what did he do?
A: He inserted his penis into my vagina, madam.
Q: Where were you at that time when the incident happened?
A: In that bedroom where it was quite dark, madam.
Q: And how did you feel when that happened?
A: Painful, madam.
Q: Do you remember if somebody else was in the house at that time?
A: There was nobody else, only my father, madam.
Q: And did you tell anybody about the incident after it happened?
A: No, madam.
Q: Why?
A: Because my mother was not there, madam. 27
In this case, the trial court which is in the best position to hear and assess the testimonies of the prosecution and defense witnesses, consistently held in its Decision that the testimonies of the victims were so clear and convincing, free from material contradiction, that it clearly established the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt in accordance with the applicable law. 28
The Court agrees.
The heavy reliance of both the trial court and the appellate court on the testimonies or the witnesses, as long as the testimonies passed the test of credibility, are entitled to great respect by the Court. The factual findings of the lower courts, along with their evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies, must not be disturbed on appeal, unless it can be shown that the lower courts "overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied" facts or circumstances of weight and substance. 29
As held in the case of People v. Abulon: 30
The duty to ascertain the competence and credibility of a witness rests primarily with the trial court, because it has the unique position of observing witness's deportment on the stand while testifying. Absent any compelling reason to justify the reversal of the evaluations and conclusions of the trial court, the reviewing court is generally bound by the former's findings.
In rape cases particularly, the conviction or acquittal of the accused most often depends almost entirely on the credibility of the complainant's testimony. By the very nature of this crime, it is generally unwitnessed and usually the victim is left to testify for herself. Her testimony is most vital and must be received with utmost caution. When a rape victim's testimony, however, is straightforward and marked with consistency despite grueling examination, it deserves full faith and confidence and cannot be discarded. Once found credible, her lone testimony is sufficient to sustain a conviction. 31 (Emphasis supplied)
The Court especially considers the tender ages of both victims when accused-appellant committed the crime against their persons. As consistently held by the Court, testimonies of victims who are young and of tender age deserve full credence and should not be easily dismissed as mere fabrication. 32 For no woman, least of all a child, would weave a tale of sexual assaults to her person, open herself to examination of her private parts and later be subjected to public trial or ridicule if she was not, in truth, a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her. 33
On the other hand, accused-appellant failed to overturn the burden of evidence against him with his defenses of denial and alibi. Against the credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, accused-appellant's defenses do not hold water.
Finally, we find that accused-appellant was correctly held liable by the courts below for two counts of Qualified Rape by Sexual Assault and one count of Qualified Rape by Sexual Intercourse. The courts below also correctly imposed the penalty for each count of Qualified Rape by Sexual Assault of nine (9) years of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum. For the crime of Qualified Rape by Sexual Intercourse, accused-appellant was also correctly sentenced suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without the eligibility of parole.
The awards of damages awarded by the trial court and the appellate court are also pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence. 34
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The May 25, 2016 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 08513 is AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant XXX is hereby found GUILTY of Qualified Rape by Sexual Assault in Criminal Case Nos. G-6281 and G-6282 committed against AAA and BBB, respectively. He is SENTENCED in each case to suffer the indeterminate penalty of nine (9) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum and to PAY each of the victims P30,000.00 as civil indemnity, P30,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. Moreover, accused-appellant is also found GUILTY of Qualified Rape by Sexual Intercourse in Criminal Case No. G-6283 and is SENTENCED to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. He is ordered to PAY BBB P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. All monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this Resolution until full payment.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision 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/Personal Circumstances issued on September 5, 2017.
2. CA rollo, pp. 141-144.
3.Rollo, pp. 2-26, penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta and concurred in by Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes.
4. CA rollo, pp. 54-72 penned by Judge Jonel S. Mercado.
5. Records, p. 616.
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]).
7.Id.
8. Geographical location is blotted out pursuant to Supreme Court Amended Circular No. 83-2015, supra note 1.
9. Records, p. 3-a.
10.Id. at 3-b.
11.Id. at 3.
12.Id. at 28.
13.Id. at 34.
14.Rollo, pp. 3-5.
15. Records, p. 34.
16.Rollo, p. 5.
17. Records, p. 34.
18. CA rollo, pp. 54-72.
19.Id. at 72.
20. Records, p. 616.
21.Rollo, pp. 2-26.
22.Id. at 25.
23. CA rollo, pp. 35-52.
24.Id. at 37-38.
25. TSN, January 19, 2005, pp. 4-6.
26. TSN, June 1, 2005, p. 5.
27. TSN, June 8, 2005, pp. 4-5.
28.Id.
29.People v. Kelley, G.R. No. 243653, June 22, 2020 citing People v. De Jesus, 695 Phil. 114 (2012) and People v. Jubail, 472 Phil. 527 (2004).
30. 557 Phil. 428 (2007).
31.Id. at 432.
32.People v. Sarazan, 443 Phil. 737, 751 (2003).
33.People v. Amatorio, 641 Phil. 417 (2010).
34.People v. Tulagan, G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019.