FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 239637. July 6, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.XXX,accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 6, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 239637 — (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee v.XXX, accused-appellant). — This is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated January 31, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02141 which affirmed the Judgment 2 dated January 29, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 22, in Criminal Case No. CBU-78317. The CA Decision sustained the conviction of XXX for the crime of qualified rape as penalized under Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8353.
The Antecedent Facts
An Information was filed charging XXX of the crime of qualified rape committed against his daughter, AAA, 3 of minor age, the accusatory portion of which provides:
That sometime in the evening in the month of August 2004, at x x x, Province of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, who is the father of complainant, by means of force, threat or intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with his own minor daughter, [AAA], a minor under 18 years of age, against her will.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
XXX, assisted by counsel de officio, was arraigned on December 3, 2007 and pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented in evidence the testimonies of complainant AAA and Dr. Naomi N. Poca (Dr. Poca). It also submitted AAA's birth certificate and the Medico-Legal Certificate issued by Dr. Liwayway Reyes (Dr. Reyes).
AAA testified that one evening in August 2004, inside their house in Cebu City, she was awakened from her sleep by her father, XXX. XXX pointed a knife at her and threatened her to acquiesce to his lustful desires. She acceded to his request for fear of her life. XXX proceeded to remove her shorts and panty, positioned himself on top of her, and forcefully inserted his penis into her vagina against her will. AAA cowered in fear and cried while she was molested due to the excruciating pain in her vagina. AAA was only ten years old at the time.
XXX repeatedly raped AAA on different occasions after the incident but AAA was afraid to tell anyone. It was only after two years when she finally mustered the courage and told her mother, BBB, about XXX's sexual abuses.
On June 6, 2006, BBB accompanied AAA to report the rape incidents to their Barangay Councilor, Vicente Aruba. They were afterwards accompanied by AAA's grandfather and Barangay Captain Mercedarius Alforque to the Municipal Social Welfare and Development Office and the __________ Police Station to record the incident in the police blotter. Social Worker Betty S. Ababan accompanied AAA to the Women and Children's Protection Center for her medical examination.
AAA's testimony was corroborated by Dr. Poca, a medical consultant of the Women and Children's Protection Center at the _____________________________ Cebu City. Dr. Poca interpreted the medical findings of Dr. Reyes who conducted AAA's medical examination on June 8, 2006 and issued the Medico-Legal Certificate which stated: CAIHTE
GENERAL PHYSICAL FINDINGS
xxx xxx xxx
|
External Genitalia: |
Tanner III |
|
Urethra and Periurethral Area: |
Normal |
|
Perihymenal Area and Fossa Navicularis: |
Normal |
|
Hymen |
Tanner IV — annular, estrogenized (+) shallow notch at 11 o'clock |
|
Perineum: |
Normal |
|
Discharge: |
None at the time of examination |
|
Internal and Speculum Exams: |
N/A |
|
Anal Examination: |
Normal |
xxx xxx xxx
IMPRESSIONS
Medical Evaluation is suggestive of sexual abuse. 5
The findings indicated a shallow notch in AAA's hymen. Dr. Poca opined that this could be an acute laceration or a fresh tear that healed to a shallow notch. Thus, although there was no perceivable injury at the time of the examination, this could not overrule the possibility of sexual abuse.
Version of the Defense
XXX interposed the defenses of denial and alibi. He first claimed that it was impossible for him to have raped AAA since he slept in their house for only four times a month. Most of the time he slept at his workplace in Liloan, Cebu, where he was a carpenter and laborer. During the nights he slept in their house, he would sleep beside BBB and their younger children. AAA would not even be in their house during such times as she would sleep in her grandmother's house.
XXX alleged that AAA accused him of rape to get back at him for the times he scolded and spanked her for coming home late from school. Alternatively, AAA was being used by his father-in-law, BBB's father, with whom he had a previous work conflict.
BBB, XXX's wife and AAA's mother, testified that she did not notice any untoward incident that happened to AAA in August 2004. She was not in the hospital during such time and was staying in their house. She also alleged that the instant case was a retaliation by AAA against her father for castigating her for coming home late from school.
RTC Ruling
The RTC rendered its Judgment 6 dated January 29, 2015 convicting XXX of the crime of rape:
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing and in accordance with Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, in relation to Articles 27 and 63 of the Revised Penal Code, the accused, [XXX], is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape.
Accordingly, said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty of imprisonment of reclusion perpetua.
Pursuant to Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, the Court hereby directs the herein accused to pay the minor victim the following, to wit:
1.) Civil Indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00;
2.) Moral Damages in the amount of P50,000.00;
3.) Exemplary Damages in the amount of P25,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency[.]
The herein accused shall be credited of [sic] the period of his preventive suspension. DETACa
No cost.
Furnish the parties through their respective counsel, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, and the Jail Warden, Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP), _____________ with a copy of this Judgment.
SO ORDERED. 7
The RTC gave credence to AAA's testimony which it found to be categorical and credible. On the other hand, XXX's defenses of denial and alibi were found to be flimsy and negated by the evidence on record.
CA Ruling
In its Decision 8 dated January 31, 2018, the CA affirmed the RTC Judgment convicting XXX, with modification on the amount of damages awarded, to wit:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 29 January 2015 rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, 7th Judicial Region, Branch 22, in Criminal Case No. CBU-78317, is AFFIRMED with modifications.
As modified, accused-appellant [XXX] is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole, and is ordered to pay the victim, AAA, the amounts of Php100,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php100,000.00 as moral damages, and Php100,000.00 as exemplary damages. Interest is imposed on all damages awarded at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 9
The CA gave full weight and probative value to AAA's testimony. It held that AAA was consistent and unhesitant in giving her testimony, and despite a grueling cross-examination, remained steadfast, never faltered, and gave a very candid and straightforward account of her harrowing experience with XXX. Her positive identification prevailed over XXX's alibi which is inherently unreliable.
The CA did not give merit to XXX's claim that it was improbable for him to sexually abuse AAA in their small house in the presence of her sleeping siblings. It held that "it is not necessary for the place to be ideal or the weather to be fine, for lust is no respecter of time or place, and rapists defy constraints of time and space." 10
The CA was also not persuaded by XXX's argument that the instant case against him was borne from AAA's anger towards him, or the prodding of her grandfather who had a grudge against him. It ruled that "[i]t is incredible for a young girl to publicly and falsely accuse her father of rape in retaliation for a minor disciplinary measure [against her]. The burden of going through a prosecution for rape is grossly out of proportion to whatever tinge of revenge AAA may be able to exact. A girl of tender age, like AAA, would not allow herself to go through the humiliation of a public trial if not to pursue justice for what befell her." 11
XXX filed a Notice of Appeal 12 to assail the CA Decision. The Court issued its Resolution 13 dated July 9, 2018 ordering the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs.
The Office of the Solicitor General, on behalf of plaintiff-appellee, filed a Manifestation and Motion 14 dated September 6, 2018 notifying the Court that it will not file a supplemental brief considering all issues have already been fully addressed in the Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee dated October 6, 2016. aDSIHc
XXX, through the Public Attorney's Office, also filed the Manifestation (In Lieu of Supplemental Brief) 15 dated November 8, 2018 alleging that it will no longer file a supplemental brief as all relevant issues have already been exhaustively discussed and argued in its Appellant's Brief.
The instant appeal was thus submitted for resolution.
Issue
The issue in this case is whether or not the CA committed reversible error in affirming the conviction of XXX for the crime of qualified rape.
The Ruling of the Court
The appeal is denied.
The crime of qualified rape is penalized under Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B 16 of the RPC, as amended, which provides:
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.
Article 266-B. Penalty. — Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
xxx xxx xxx
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[.]
The elements of qualified rape under Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B (1) of the RPC are: (1) sexual congress; (2) with a woman; (3) done by force, threat, or intimidation without consent; (4) the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the rape; and (5) the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, 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. 17
After a thorough review of the records of this case, the Court finds that all the elements of qualified rape were sufficiently proven by the prosecution.
The fourth and fifth elements are established and not in issue in this case. AAA was below 18 years of age at the time of the rape in August 2004. This was proven by her Birth Certificate and never denied by the defense. It is also an admitted fact that XXX is AAA's father.
The first, second, and third elements were also proven by AAA's credible and straightforward testimony. The positive identification of XXX as the perpetrator and his acts constituting the crime of rape are evident from the following quoted portions of AAA's testimony during trial:
Atty. Lobedica:
Where were you allegedly raped by your father [in] August 2004?
A: At our house.
Q: Where?
A: ______________
Q: What time was that when the rape was committed?
A: I can no longer remember the exact time but it happened at night.
Q: You were sleeping at that time?
A: Yes.
Q: How many siblings do you have?
A: Seven.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: At the time of the incident your other brothers and sisters were around?
A: Yes, one of my brothers were around at that time. ETHIDa
Court:
So you are sure that your brothers were around because when you were allegedly raped they were beside you?
A: Yes.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: What about your sisters? None of your sisters were around at that time?
A: At that time my other sisters were made by my father to sleep with my auntie.
Atty. Lobedica:
How about your mother, where was your mother at that time?
A: My mother was at the hospital at that time.
Q: Why, what happened to your mother?
A: One of my younger sister was at the hospital due to some illness.
Q: You claimed in your direct testimony that your father pointed a knife at you and saying in the vernacular "musogot baka o dili" (will you accede or not), is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: In what part of your body did your father point a knife at you?
A: At the back of my neck.
xxx xxx xxx
Court:
So, why can you say that your father raped you when you did not actually see him rape you?
A: Because at that time my father rose up and took a knife and pointed it at the back of my neck and telling me "musogot ka ug sa dili?" (will you accede or not) and because of that I was so afraid, so I let him proceed with his intention.
Court:
So are you telling this court that you actually saw your father raped you?
A: (witness is nodding her head indicating a yes answer)
Court:
So, why did you say earlier that you were not able to see your father rape you?
A: At that time I was asleep and when I woke up I no longer had my panty and shorts so I rose up from my sleep and then I look for another panty that I could wear and transferred.
Court:
I want to be clarified on this. Did you actually see your father rape you or not?
A: Yes, I saw my father rape me because when I transferred to another place to sleep my father took a knife and pointed it to me and threatened me.
Court:
So at that time, where you rape [sic] by your father when he poked a knife on you?
A: (Witness is nodding her head indicating a yes answer)
Court:
So, when you woke up you were not yet rape [sic] by your father?
A: No, I was not yet rape [sic] at that time.
Court:
But when you woke up, you observed that you were no longer wearing a panty, correct? cSEDTC
A: Yes.
Court:
And when you transferred to another bed that was the time that you were raped, is that what you mean?
A: Yes.
Direct Examination:
Q: And what happened next?
A: When I was already lying down on the floor, he still continued poking the knife on me, he kissed me and he touched my breast.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: After you were undressed by your father, what happened next?
A: He inserted his penis on my vagina.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: And after the penis of your father was inserted into your vagina, did he remove his penis from your vagina?
A: No sir, he forced it.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: What happened next?
A: It was very painful.
Q: What happened? What did you do after that?
A: I cried. 18
In addition to the fact that AAA was threatened and intimidated by XXX's knife pointed at her neck, the Court notes that "there can be no greater source of fear or intimidation than your own father — one who, generally, has exercised authority over your person since birth. This Court has recognized the moral ascendancy and influence the father has over his child. When a father rapes his daughter, violence and intimidation supplant such moral ascendancy and influence. The rapist father can easily subjugate his daughter's will, allowing him to coerce the child to do his every bidding." 19
It is well-settled that a conviction for rape can be sustained based on the sole testimony of the victim, provided it is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. 20 Further, the testimonies of child victims are often given full weight and credit since youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. It is recognized that "no sane woman, least of all a child, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and subject herself 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." 21
In this regard, the determination of the credibility of witnesses is best left to the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe their demeanor while testifying during trial. Thus, absent any substantial reason to reverse the trial court's assessment and conclusion, this Court will be bound by its findings. This rule is even more strictly applied when the findings of the lower court are affirmed by the CA. 22
In this case, the Court finds no reason to reverse and deviate from the findings of the RTC and the CA finding AAA's testimony clear, credible, and sufficient to prove XXX's conviction for qualified rape. AAA's testimony was likewise supported by the Medico-Legal Certificate and Dr. Poca's testimony that the results suggest an impression of prior sexual abuse.
XXX's defenses of alibi and denial are weak and easily crumble against AAA's testimony positively identifying him as the perpetrator of the crime. A denial which is unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence is a self-serving assertion that deserves no weight in law. 23 XXX in this case failed to support his denial with any evidence for the Court to give it any consideration.
The defense of alibi is also weak as it can easily be fabricated and inherently unreliable. For this defense to prosper, the accused must sufficiently prove that he/she was somewhere else when the offense was committed and that it was impossible for him/her to have been physically present at the place of the crime or at its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission. 24
XXX alleged that he slept in their house in Cebu City for only four times a month during the period the rape was committed. Even assuming this claim was true, it was not absolutely impossible for the rape to have been committed during the days that he slept in their house. Moreover, his alibi was negated by the defense's own witness, BBB, who testified that she, XXX, and all their children, including AAA, slept together in their house in Cebu City during the whole month of August 2004. 25
Consequently, XXX's conviction for qualified rape stands. As the CA surmised, XXX was most likely charged with qualified rape instead of statutory rape despite the fact that AAA was only 10 years old, considering her inability to recollect the exact day she was raped. Nevertheless, in accordance with Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended, the rape is considered qualified due to AAA's minority and the relationship of the parties, and is punishable by death. However, in light of the passage of R.A. No. 9346 suspending the imposition of the death penalty, XXX is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.
The amount of civil indemnity and damages awarded by the CA, and the interest rate of six percent (6%) per annum imposed until full payment, are affirmed.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated January 31, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02141 is AFFIRMED. XXX is GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of qualified rape punished under Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility of parole, and ORDERED to PAY AAA damages in the amount of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. SDAaTC
All damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the time of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 4-21; penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol and concurred in by Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap.
2. CA Rollo, pp. 34-48; penned by Presiding Judge Manuel D. Patalinghug.
3. In line with the Court's ruling in People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 (2006), citing the Rule on Violence Against Women and their Children, A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, Sec. 40; Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act No. 9262, Rule XI, Sec. 63, otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004," the real name of the rape victim will not be disclosed. The Court will instead use fictitious initials to represent her throughout the decision. The personal circumstances of the victim or any other information tending to establish or compromise her identity will likewise be withheld.
4. CA rollo, p. 34.
5.Rollo, pp. 6-7.
6. CA rollo, pp. 34-48.
7.Id. at 48.
8.Rollo, pp. 4-21.
9.Id. at 20.
10.Id. at 15.
11.Id. at 17.
12.Id. at 22.
13.Id. at 28.
14.Id. at 34-35.
15.Id. at 41-42.
16. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8353.
17.People v. XXX, G.R. No. 235662, July 24, 2019; People v. Palanay, 805 Phil. 116, 123 (2017).
18.Rollo, pp. 11-14.
19.People v. Marmol Jr., 800 Phil. 813, 826 (2016).
20.People v. Palanay, supra note 17 at 126.
21.People v. Famudulan, 763 Phil. 138, 147 (2015).
22.People v. Salvador, 761 Phil. 496, 505 (2015).
23.People v. XXX, supra note 17.
24.People v. Palanay, supra note 17 at 127-128.
25.Rollo, p. 43.