FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 240918. June 16, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.XXX, 1accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 16, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 240918 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appelleev. XXX, Accused-Appellant.) — This appeal 2 seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision 3 dated 10 January 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02326, which affirmed with modification the Decision 4 dated 05 August 2015 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 1 of ________________, Eastern Samar in Criminal Case No. 12105, finding XXX (accused-appellant), guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape.
Antecedents
Accused-appellant was charged with the crime of Rape in an Information that reads:
"That sometime in the month of November, 2008 and prior thereto at ________________, ___________, Eastern Samar, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with lewd design, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with [AAA], a minor being 12 years old only against her will and consent, and to the damage and prejudice of the herein victim.
CONTRARY TO LAW." 5
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. After pre-trial was terminated, trial on the merits ensued. 6 ITAaHc
Version of the Prosecution
Sometime in November 2008, while then twelve (12)-year-old AAA 7 was sleeping inside their residence at _____________________, ___________, Eastern Samar, accused-appellant, who was her uncle, entered their house, awakened her, took off her skirt and panty, kissed her, and tried to spread her legs. Accused-appellant continued to touch AAA, particularly her breast and vagina. Accused-appellant then took off his clothes, exposed his penis in front of AAA, and succeeded in inserting about one inch of his penis into her vagina. AAA struggled but was unable to free herself because accused-appellant pinned her down. Although her mouth was not covered, she did not shout for help considering accused-appellant's threat to kill her and her family if she ever makes any noise. 8 Afraid, AAA failed to shout or alert her father and her five (5) siblings who were also sleeping in the same room. 9
Based on the medical examination conducted by Dr. Ethel A. Lagria on 08 December 2008, AAA sustained injury on the left side of the labia majora, and abrasions at 3 o'clock, 6 o'clock, and at 9 o'clock of the vagina. These findings are consistent with the possibility of insertion of an object in AAA's vagina. 10
Version of the Defense
For his part, accused-appellant proffered the defenses of denial. He claimed that he was not in _____________________, ___________, Eastern Samar at the time of the alleged incident of Rape. Allegedly, he was farming in the mountain, 11 about six (6) kilometers away from the barangay proper. 12 When he learned of the accusation against him, he went down the mountain to inquire regarding the same. He neither received a subpoena nor any summons but nonetheless, he was arrested. 13
According to accused-appellant, he was framed up by AAA's father, BBB. Apparently, he disapproved of his sister's marriage to BBB because of their blood relationship as cousins. 14
Ruling of the RTC
On 05 August 2015, the RTC rendered its Decision finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape. The trial court gave more credence to AAA's testimony, which was supported by the medico-legal findings, than accused-appellant's denial and alibi. 15 The dispositive portion of the RTC's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises considered, this Court finds accused, XXX GUILTY of the crime of RAPE beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused [XXX] is hereby sentenced to serve the penalty of imprisonment of Reclusion Perpetua without eligibility of parole.
XXX is hereby directed to PAY AAA the sum of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (Php100,000.00) PESOS as civil indemnity for the rape; the sum of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (Php100,000.00) PESOS as moral damages; the sum of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (Php100,000.00) PESOS as exemplary damages, PLUS Six Percent (6%) interest from the finality of judgment until fully paid.
It appearing on record that accused has been detained for this crime on March 15, 2010, his period of detention shall be credited in full in the service of his sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty or imprisonment pursuant to Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code. CHTAIc
SO ORDERED. 16
Ruling of the CA
On 10 January 2018, the CA affirmed with modification accused-appellant's conviction, viz.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Judgment dated August 5, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 1, _______________________, Eastern Samar, in Criminal Case No. 12105, finding accused-appellant [XXX] guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape in Criminal Case No. 12105 is hereby AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:
(1) The award of civil indemnity is reduced to Seventy Five Thousand Pesos ([Php]75,000.00).
(2) The award of exemplary damages is reduced to Seventy Five Thousand Pesos ([Php]75,000.00).
(3) The award of moral damages is reduced to Seventy Five Thousand Pesos ([Php]75,000.00).
(4) Interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum is imposed on the total damages awarded from the date of the finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 17
The CA held that the prosecution has duly established all the elements of Rape beyond reasonable doubt. 18 However, the CA modified the penalty imposed since the circumstance of relationship was not alleged in the Information. Thus, despite accused-appellant's admission in open court that he is AAA's uncle, the same cannot be used to qualify the crime of Rape. 19 Hence, this appeal. 20
Issue
The sole issue is whether or not the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Rape.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal must be denied.
To obtain a conviction for a charge of Rape under Article 266-A (1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, 21 the prosecution must establish that: (a) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (b) he accomplished this act under the circumstances mentioned in the provision, e.g., through force, threat or intimidation. The gravamen of Rape is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will. 22
We agree with the lower courts that the prosecution had adequately proven accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Rape. AAA's testimony, corroborated by the medical findings, clearly established that accused-appellant had sexual intercourse with AAA without the latter's consent through force and intimidation. 23
Accused-appellant attacks AAA's credibility, claiming it was improbable that AAA cannot remember the exact date of the Rape incident. Accused-appellant also questions why AAA did not shout for help despite her family being around when the said incident took place. 24
We are not persuaded.
The general rule is that the allegation of the exact time and date of the commission of the crime is not important in a prosecution for Rape. The precise time and date when the complainant was sexually abused is not an essential element of the offense. 25 The essence of Rape is carnal knowledge of a female through force or intimidation against her will. 26 Verily, the actual date is normally not required to establish the crime itself. Precision as to the time when the Rape is committed has no bearing on its commission. 27 EATCcI
Anent AAA's failure to shout for help, it is well established that "the failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance does not make voluntary the victim's submission to the criminal act of the offender." 28 Notably, the law does not impose on the Rape victim the burden of proving resistance. 29
Further, this Court has consistently 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. 30 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. 31
Likewise, testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit, for when a woman or a girl-child says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that Rape was indeed committed. 32 Here, AAA was merely twelve (12) years old when the crime 33 occurred and fourteen (14) years old when she testified on the witness stand to recount her painful ordeal. 34 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. 35
None of accused-appellant's numerous arguments and defenses is persuasive enough for the Court to disturb the factual findings and conclusions of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. To be sure, no cogent reason exists to doubt the veracity of AAA's accusations against accused-appellant. Like the RTC and the CA, this Court sees her testimony credible and sufficient, enough to establish the guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The records easily reveal how candid and steadfast she was during her testimony as she unequivocally and positively identified accused-appellant as her transgressor.
As to accused-appellant's defense of denial and alibi, the Court has consistently pronounced that the same are inherently weak defenses which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime. Thus, as between a categorical testimony which has the ring of truth on the one hand, and a mere denial and alibi on the other, the former is generally held to prevail. 36
We now come to the propriety of the penalty imposed.
While AAA's minority is sufficiently alleged in the Information and duly proven during trial, 37 the circumstance of relationship was not alleged in the Information. As such, despite accused-appellant's admission in open court of his relationship with AAA, 38 the same cannot be appreciated and used to qualify the crime of Rape. 39
Considering the same, We find that the penalty imposed by the RTC is improper and should be modified. Accused-appellant should be sentenced to suffer imprisonment of reclusion perpetua, without further qualification as to eligibility for parole. 40 DHITCc
However, in light of the ruling in People v. Jugueta, 41 We affirm the CA's modified award of damages in the amount of: (a) Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) Php75,000.00 as moral damages; and (c) Php75,000.00 as exemplary damages, with legal interest of six percent ( 6%) per annum on all damages awarded from date of finality of this judgment until its full payment. 42
WHEREFORE, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Court of Appeals in its Decision dated 10 January 2018 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02326, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accordingly, accused-appellant XXX is found GUILTY of Rape and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. 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."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division 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. 14-16; see Notice of Appeal dated 13 February 2018.
3.Id. at 4-13; penned by Associate Justice Edward B. Contreras and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos (who is now a Member of this Court) and Louis P. Acosta of the Nineteenth (19th) Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu City.
4. CA rollo, pp. 45-68; penned by Presiding Judge Elvie P. Lim of the Eighth (8th) Judicial Region, Regional Trial Court, Branch 1, Borongan City, Eastern Samar.
5.Id. at 45.
6.Rollo, p. 5.
7. In view of the ruling in People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 (2006); G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006 [Per J. Tinga], the real name and personal circumstances of the victim, and any other information tending to establish or compromise her identity, including those of her immediate family or household members, are not disclosed in this Decision.
8. CA rollo, p. 48.
9.Supra at note 6.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 6.
12. CA rollo, p. 49.
13.Supra at note 11.
14.Id.
15. CA rollo, pp. 53-67.
16.Id. at 68.
17.Rollo, p. 12.
18.Id. at 7-10.
19.Id. at 10.
20.Id. at 14-16.
21. Entitled "AN ACT EXPANDING THE DEFINITION OF THE CRIME OF RAPE, RECLASSIFYING THE SAME AS A CRIME AGAINST PERSONS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ACT NO. 3815, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on 30 September 1997.
22.SeePeople v. Ejercito, 834 Phil. 837 (2018); G.R. No. 229861, 02 July 2018 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe], citing People v. Bagamano, 793 Phil. 602, 608 (2016); G.R. No. 222658, 17 August 2016 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
23. CA rollo, pp. 55-56.
24.Id. at 38-41.
25.People v. Trelles, 395 Phil. 38-47 (2000); G.R. No. 137659, 19 September 2000 [Per J. Vitug].
26.People v. ____________, G.R. No. 229836, 17 July 2019 [Per J. Lazaro-Javier].
27.Id.; People v. Caralipio, Supra at note 25.
28.People v. Nievera, G.R. No. 242830, 28 August 2019 [Per J. Caguioa], citing People v. Palanay, 805 Phil. 116, 124 (2017); G.R. No. 224583, 01 February 2017 [Per J. Velasco, Jr.].
29.Id. citing People v. Fabian, 453 Phil. 328, 337 (2003); G.R. Nos. 148368-70, 08 July 2003 [Per C.J. Puno].
30.People v. Alberca, 810 Phil. 896-971 (2017); G.R. No. 217459, 07 June 2017 [Per J. Tijam], citing People v. Barcela, 734 Phil. 332-353 (2014); G.R. No. 208760, 13 April 2014 [Per J. Mendoza].
31.Id.
32.Id.
33. TSN dated 28 June 2011 of CCC (civil registrar), p. 2.
34. TSN dated 17 February 2011 of AAA, p. 2.
35.SeePeople v. Ronquillo, 818 Phil. 641-654 (2017); G.R. No. 214762, 20 September 2017 [Per J. Martires], citing People v. Sabal, 734 Phil. 742, 746 (2014); G.R. No. 201861, 02 June 2014 [Per J. Brion].
36.People v. Nievera, Supra at note 28.
37.Rollo, pp. 5-6; Supra at note 33.
38. TSN dated 20 March 2014 of XXX, p. 4.
39.SeePeople v. Roxas, 735 Phil. 366-383 (2014), G.R. No. 200793, 04 June 2014 [Per J. Leonardo-de Castro]; People v. Perez, G.R. No. 208071, 09 March 2016 [Per J. Peralta]; People v. Lastrollo, 798 Phil. 103-121 (2016), G.R. No. 212631, 07 November 2016 [Per J. Caguioa].
40.SeePeople v. Tulagan, G.R. No. 227363, 12 March 2019 [Per C.J. Peralta].
41. 783 Phil. 806, 849 (2016); G.R. No. 202124, 05 April 2016 [Per C.J. Peralta].
II. For Simple Rape/Qualified Rape:
2.1 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, other than the above-mentioned:
a. Civil indemnity — [Php]75,000.00
b. Moral damages — [Php]75,000.00
c. Exemplary damages — [Php]75,000.00
42.SeeNacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267-283 (2013); G.R. No. 189871 [Per C.J. Peralta].