THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 240219. February 26, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. XXX, *accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated February 26, 2020, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 240219 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee,v. XXX,Accused-Appellant.) — In this appeal, 1 accused-appellant assails the Decision 2 dated 28 December 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07250, which affirmed with modification the Decision 3 dated 15 September 2014 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Criminal Case No. 1935-03 convicting accused-appellant of Violation of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) (statutory rape).
Antecedents
Accused-appellant was charged with statutory rape in an Information that reads:
That on or about December 19, 2002 in the Municipality of _______, Province of Tarlac and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had sexual intercourse with AAA, a minor below 12 years old. 4
The factual milieu of the case, as culled from the records, are as follows:
Version of the Prosecution
AAA was born on 14 May 1994, and was living with her mother and stepfather at the time of the incident. Being the ________ of AAA's stepfather, accused-appellant is addressed by AAA as "______." According to, AAA, she often goes to the house of accused-appellant to play with the latter's daughter. 5
On 19 December 2002, AAA, who was then eight (8) years old, was instructed by her stepfather to go to accused-appellant's house to borrow some sugar. While at the said house, accused-appellant removed her shorts and underwear while she was in a standing position. Accused-appellant, who was on his knees, then inserted his penis into her vagina. 6
A few days thereafter, AAA suffered from a fever. BBB, AAA's' mother, noticed bruises or "pasa" on AAA's upper legs. Since AAA kept silent when asked about her "pasa," BBB did not probe further. 7
Later, AAA's teacher summoned BBB and told her that AAA was talking to her classmates about being raped. When confronted, AAA admitted to having been raped by accused-appellant. Hence, BBB brought AAA to Tarlac Provincial Hospital for medical examination, 8 which revealed these results: CAIHTE
"Ext. Genitalia: (-) public hair, labia majora slightly gaping exposing labia minora, pinkish, thin haymen (sic); with superficial healed laceration at 3 & 7 o'clock position, (-) discharge, (-) bleeding. Speculum & IE; not done."
Dr. Ma. Lourdes Dantes, who conducted the medical examination, later testified in court that the laceration in AAA's hymen may be caused by the insertion of a hard object like a finger or a penis of a man. 9
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellant denied the accusations against him and claimed to have no opportunity to rape AAA. On 19 December 2002, he allegedly left his house at 5:00 a.m. to go to the "paradahan" or jeep terminal. He drove his jeepney the whole day and went home at around 10:00 p.m. He never saw AAA that day. Besides, he and AAA's stepfather are not in good terms. Hence, it was highly improbable for his brother-in-law to send AAA to his house. Accused-appellant surmises that the case was filed due to monetary consideration. 10
Ruling of the RTC
After trial, the RTC convicted accused-appellant of statutory rape in a Decision dated 15 September 2014, to wit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Judgement (sic) is hereby rendered by this Court finding accused ___________ guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Statutory Rape, defined and penalized in Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences said accused to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua (Life Imprisonment), with the accessories provided by law and to pay the costs.
The accused is also ordered to pay private complainant AAA [Php50,000.00] as indemnity and [Php30,000.00] as moral damages.
SO ORDERED. 11
As found by the RTC, all elements for statutory rape were clearly established by the prosecution. AAA's clear, categorical and straightforward testimony indubitably established the culpability of accused-appellant, whose defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive assertion and identification of AAA. 12
Ruling of the CA
On 28 December 2016, the CA affirmed with modification accused-appellant's conviction, viz.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed RTC Decision dated September 15, 2014 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION on the monetary awards. Accused-appellant is hereby ordered to pay private complainant Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php75,000.00 as moral damages and Php75,000.00 as exemplary damages with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum of the total damages awarded from the time of finality of this decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.13
The CA found AAA's testimony credible and trustworthy since it was unlikely for a child-victim to fabricate a story of sexual molestation against someone she considers as a relative. Also, the minor inconsistencies identified by accused-appellant did not discredit the victim's version of the events, which was supported by the medical findings. Accused-appellant's testimony, likewise, does not preclude the physical impossibility of him committing the crime. All told, the conviction of accused-appellant for statutory rape was proper. 14
Issues
Accused-appellant is now before the Court raising the following issues:
I.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL CREDENCE TO THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT'S DOUBTFUL TESTIMONY WHILE DISREGARDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S PLAUSIBLE DEFENSE.
II.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FLIMSY AND INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. 15
Ruling of the Court
Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) defines rape and explains how it is committed in the following manner:
Art. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. — Rape is committed:
By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
1. Through 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;
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.
Statutory rape is committed when: (1) the offended party is under 12 years of age; and (2) the accused has carnal knowledge of her, regardless of whether there was force, threat or intimidation; whether the victim was deprived of reason or consciousness; or whether it was done through fraud or grave abuse of authority. The only subject of inquiry is the age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge took place. The child's consent is immaterial since the law already presumes the victim's incapacity to discern good from evil. The victim does not and cannot have a will of her own on account of her tender years. 16
Given these tenets, we affirm the rulings of the RTC and the CA as to the guilt of accused-appellant. DETACa
The victim's age was sufficiently proven by the presentation of AAA's birth certificate, which was not disputed by accused-appellant. 17 Hence, the critical issue left to be determined focuses on whether accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA.
Accused-appellant attacks AAA's version of the events by stressing AAA's failure to state the proximate time when the alleged rape occurred. However, time was never considered an element of rape. In fact, an information stating the approximate rather than the precise time rape was committed is already sufficient in form. 18 Hence, we see no reason to depart from the findings of the RTC and the CA, which found the testimony of AAA credible and straightforward.
Time and again, this Court has held that questions on the credibility of witnesses should best be addressed to the trial court because of its unique position to observe the elusive and incommunicable evidence of witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying, which is denied to the appellate courts. Hence, the trial judge's assessment of the witnesses' testimonies and findings of fact are accorded great respect on appeal. In the absence of substantial reason to justify the reversal of the trial court's assessment and conclusion, as when no significant facts and circumstances are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded, the reviewing court is generally bound by the former's findings. The rule is even more strictly applied if the appellate court has concurred with the trial court as in this case. 19
Likewise, testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit, for when a man/woman or a boy or girl-child says that he or she has been raped, he or she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed. 20 In this case, AAA was merely eight (8) years old when the crime occurred, and was only 10 years old when she testified on the witness stand to recount her painful ordeal. When the unwavering and forthright testimony of a rape victim is consistent with medical findings, like in the present case, there is sufficient basis to conclude that the essential requisites of carnal knowledge have been established. 21
WHEREFORE, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Court of Appeals in its Decision dated 28 December 2016 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07250, finding accused-appellant XXX GUILTY of statutory rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, is hereby AFFIRMED. He is ordered to pay AAA the amount of Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php75,000.00 as moral damages, and Php75,000.00 as exemplary damages, with an interest of six percent (6%) per annum reckoned from the finality of this Resolution until full satisfaction.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* 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.
1. CA rollo, pp. 111-112.
2. Rollo, pp. 2-11; penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang (now a Member of this Court), and concurred in by Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez (now a Member of this Court) and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez of the Court of Appeals, Manila.
3. CA rollo, pp. 40-49.
4. Records, p. 1.
5. CA rollo, pp. 41-42.
6. Id.
7. Rollo 4.
8. Id.
9. Id.
10. Rollo, pp. 4-5.
11. CA rollo, p.48.
12. Id. at 43-48.
13. Rollo, p. 10.
14. Id. at 6-7.
15. CA rollo, p. 29.
16. People v. Gutierez, G.R. No. 208007, 02 April 2014; 720 SCRA 607, 616 [per J. Leonen].
17. CA rollo, p. 41.
18. People v. Cachapero, G.R. No. 153008, 20 May 2004; 472 Phil. 818-835 (2004); 428 SCRA 744, 746 [per J. Panganiban].
19. People v. Alberca, 810 Phil. 896-911 (2017); G.R. No. 217459, 07 June 2017; 827 SCRA 1, 13.
20. Id.
21. People v. Ronquillo, 818 Phil. 641-654 (2017); G.R. No. 214762, September 20, 2017; 840 SCRA 405, 415.