ADVERTISEMENT
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242478. June 23, 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 dated June 23, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242478 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versus XXX, accused-appellant.
After a careful review of the records of the case and the issues submitted by the parties, the Court AFFIRMSWITHMODIFICATION the Decision 2 dated April 20, 2018 of the Court of Appeals, Special Eighth Division (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07286. The facts, as borne out by the records, sufficiently support the conclusion that accused-appellant is GUILTY of the following crimes: (1) Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph (1) (a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), in CriminalCaseNo. 32949-R; and Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the same code, in Criminal Case No. 33497-R.
Settled is the rule that in the absence of facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would affect the result of the case, appellate courts will not overturn the findings of the trial court. Thus, when the culpability or innocence of an accused hinges on the issue of credibility of witnesses and the veracity of their testimonies, findings of the trial court are given the highest degree of respect as they are afforded the unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grueling examination during trial. 3
In this case, after a careful examination of the records of this case, the Court finds no cogent reason to reverse accused-appellant's conviction, as affirmed with modification by the CA.
Criminal Case No.
The Court finds no reason to depart from the findings of the RTC, as affirmed with modification by the CA, that all the elements of Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (a) of the RPC committed against AAA 4 have been established beyond reasonable doubt. AAA positively identified accused-appellant as the one who forcibly had carnal knowledge of her. AAA testified that on February 8, 2012, accused-appellant forcibly pulled her to a bedroom, where accused-appellant removed his pants, held his penis and inserted it to AAA's vagina. 5 After accused-appellant succeeded in having carnal knowledge of AAA, he held a knife and threatened AAA not to tell anyone of what happened as he feared no one, not even their relatives. 6
To exculpate himself from liability, accused-appellant raises the lack of medical report to confirm the existence of lacerations or physical trauma on the vaginal area of AAA. Accused-appellant also takes issue on AAA's delay in reporting the incident to the authorities.
Accused-appellant's arguments deserve scant consideration.
It has been consistently held that a medical report is no means controlling. It is merely corroborative in character and is not indispensable in the prosecution for rape. The medical examination of the victim or the presentation of the medical certificate is not essential to prove the commission of rape. 7 Thus, in rape cases, the accused may be convicted on the basis of the lone, uncorroborated testimony of the rape victim, provided that her testimony is clear, convincing, and otherwise consistent with human nature. 8 Here, the trial court explicitly stated that AAA was consistent, credible, straightforward and spontaneous in narrating on the witness stand what accused-appellant did to her. 9 These findings of the trial court carry very great weight and substance; and the reversal thereof becomes even more inappropriate when affirmed by the CA. 10
Likewise, the vacillation of a rape victim in making a criminal accusation does not necessarily impair her credibility and the veracity of her charges. 11 It must be remembered that accused-appellant and AAA lived in the same house. AAA also testified that accused-appellant threatened her with a knife when she told him that she would tell her siblings of the incident. In the face of this threat, it is quite understandable that AAA took time to report the incident to the proper authorities. Her belated exposition of the sexual abuses she suffered from accused-appellant cannot be taken against her.
As regards the penalty imposed, the trial court correctly sentenced accused-appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusionperpetua pursuant to Article 266-B of the RPC. However, as to the award of damages, exemplary damages in the amount of P75,000.00 should be included, in addition to civil indemnity and moral damages, following prevailing jurisprudence. 12
Criminal Case No.
The Court also finds no reason to reverse the concurring findings of the courts a quo that accused-appellant, in Criminal Case No. 33497-R, is guilty of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC.
To sustain a conviction for Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC, the prosecution is burdened to prove the confluence of the following elements: (1) that the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; and (2) that it is done under any of the following circumstances: (a) by using force or intimidation; (b) when the offended woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or (c) when the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age. 13 In Sombilon, Jr. v. People, 14 the Court expounded on what constitutes lewd design or lascivious conduct, to wit:
The term "lewd" is commonly defined as something indecent or obscene; it is characterized by or intended to excite crude sexual desire. That an accused is entertaining a lewd or unchaste design is necessarily a mental process the existence of which can be inferred by overt acts carrying out such intention, i.e., by conduct that can only be interpreted as lewd or lascivious. The presence or absence of lewd designs is inferred from the nature of the acts themselves and the environmental circumstances. x x x 15
In this case, the Court agrees with the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, that the prosecution was able to establish the presence of the aforementioned elements. Undoubtedly, accused-appellant committed acts which fall within the above-described lascivious conduct. AAA convincingly narrated that on December 24, 2011, accused-appellant dragged her to the bedroom and forced her to lie on the bed. AAA tried to cover herself with a blanket but accused-appellant was able to pull the blanket away and kissed AAA on the different parts of her body and squeezed and mashed her breasts. 16 Clearly, accused-appellant's overt acts were done against AAA's will and consent and were committed to satisfy accused-appellant's sexual desires.
The Court likewise affirms the penalty imposed upon accused-appellant. The indeterminate penalty of four (4) months of arrestomayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prisoncorreccional, as maximum falls within the penalty prescribed by law.
However, the Court finds it proper to award civil indemnity and damages. In the case of People v. Tulagan, 17 the Court held that for Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC, the amount of civil indemnity and moral damages shall be fixed at P20,000.00, while exemplary damages, if an aggravating circumstance is present, should also be fixed at P20,000.00. Thus, following prevailing jurisprudence, accused-appellant should indemnify AAA the amount of P20,000.00 as civil indemnity and P20,000.00 as moral damages. Further, all monetary awards shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) perannum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal 18 is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Decision dated April 20, 2018 of the Court of Appeals, Special Eighth Division in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07286 is hereby AFFIRMEDwithMODIFICATION. Accused-appellant XXX is hereby found:
1. In Criminal Case No. 32949-R, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusionperpetua. He is likewise ordered to pay the private complainant P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages.
2. In Criminal Case No. 33497-R, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code. He is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for four (4) months of arrestomayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prisioncorreccional, as maximum. He is likewise ordered to pay the private complainant P20,000.00 as civil indemnity and P20,000.00 as moral damages.
All monetary awards shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) perannum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED." Gaerlan, J., no part; Lopez, M., J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated May 12, 2021.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. The real name of the victim, her personal circumstances and other information which tend to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family, or household members, shall not be disclosed to protect her privacy, and fictitious initial shall, instead, be used, in accordance with People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 (2006), and Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017.
2.Rollo, pp. 2-22. Penned by Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob with Associate Justices Samuel H. Gaerlan and Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now Members of this Court), concurring.
3.Reyes, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127703, January 18, 2002, 374 SCRA 86, 92.
4.Supra note 1.
5.Rollo, pp. 14-15.
6.Id. at 15-16.
7.People v. Ferrer, G.R. No. 142662, August 14, 2001, 362 SCRA 778, 788.
8.People v. Nievera, G.R. No. 242830, August 28, 2019, p. 5.
9. See CA rollo, pp. 98, 101 and 106.
10.People v. ZZZ, G.R. No. 229209, February 12, 2020, p. 7.
11. See People v. Sinoro, G.R. Nos. 138650-58, April 22, 2003, 401 SCRA 371, 379-380.
12.People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331.
13.People v. Victor, G.R. No. 127904, December 5, 2002, 393 SCRA 472, 485.
14. G.R. No. 175528, September 30, 2009, 601 SCRA 405.
15.Id. at 414.
16. CA rollo, pp. 89-93.
17. G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019.
18.Rollo, pp. 23-24.