FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242687. October 19, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. XXX, 1accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 19, 2022, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242687 (People of the Philippines v. XXX). — This appeal seeks to reverse and set aside the February 7, 2018 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 08762, which affirmed with modification the September 14, 2016 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of _______________, Branch 52, in Criminal Case No. G-5691 finding accused-appellant XXX guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Rape.
The Factual Antecedents
XXX was charged with the crime of Rape in an Information, the accusatory portion of which states:
That on or about the 1st day of May 2000, in ___________________________________________ 4 * Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused [XXX], by means of force, threat and intimidation, pointed a knife at his daughter AAA, 5 12 years old, a minor after which said accused with lewd design, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with his said daughter by inserting his penis into her vagina against his daughter's will and consent.
Contrary to law. 6
* Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.
Upon his arraignment on February 8, 2002, XXX pleaded "not guilty." 7 During the pre-trial conference, the defense admitted that AAA is the daughter of accused-appellant. 8 Thereafter, trial on the merits subsequently ensued.
The pertinent facts, as narrated by the RTC and adopted by the CA, are as follows:
The prosecution's evidence show that accused and CCC got married on August 21, 1986; and that on May 4, 1987, their child AAA was born. On May 1, 2000, at about 10:00 in the evening, accused while smelling of liquor went inside their house at ________________________________ and ordered AAA and her siblings, BBB, DDD, and EEE to go lie down and sleep. They obeyed. However, it was not be a peaceful night. For, about thirty (30) minutes later, accused (a) went beside AAA; (b) removed his shirt, shorts, and briefs; (c) pressed a knife at the side of her body, and (d) said: "AAA, hubarin mo iyang salawal mo" ("AAA remove your panty.") AAA complied because she was afraid. Then, to her honor, he positioned his body on top of hers and inserted his penis inside her vagina. BBB who was then awake saw how he raped AAA. After about five (5) minutes, he removed his body on top of AAA and fell asleep. AAA felt pain in her vagina and could only cry. Afterwards, she wore her panty. The next day (May 2, 2000), at about 5:30 in the morning, accused told AAA (a) not to tell her mother what happened; and (b) that he would kill her if he found out that she reported the incident. Then, he left the house. She did not tell her mother what happened because she was afraid that accused would carry out said threat against her life. On October 16, 2001, AAA's aunt GGG asked AAA if she was raped by accused as reported to said aunt by BBB. It was then that AAA told said aunt how he raped her on May 1, 2000.
On October 18, 2001, at about 8:30 in the morning, Dr. Aurea P. Villena of the Medico-Legal Division, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), ________________ Regional Office, ________________________, medically examined AAA. Dr. Villena issued Living Case No. MG-01-017 of the same date with the following conclusion:
1. No evident sign of extragenital physical injuries noted on the body of the subject at the time of examination.
2. Hymen, intact but distensible and its orifice wide (2.5 cms. In diameter) as to allow complete penetration by an average-sized adult Filipino no [sic] male organ in full erection without producing any hymenal/genital injury. CAIHTE
Accused denies raping AAA on May 1, 2000. According to him, he was then at YYY's house at ___________________while his children AAA, BBB, DDD, and FFF were at his house at ____________________________. Accused had earlier a been contracted by [YYY] to clean his mango orchard at ________________________; and (b) thus, cleaned the orchard from morning up to 5:00 in the afternoon of said date (May 1, 2000). Thereafter, accused went to YYY's house and slept therein. When he came to know that he was being accused of raping AAA on May 1, 2000, accused found it unbelievable because (a) he was then not in his house; (b) AAA was with his other children the whole day and even slept at night with them; and (c) the neighbors living within the vicinity of their house would have been awakened upon hearing AAA's cry for help. Accused suspected that his wife CCC orchestrated the false charge against him because she (a) wanted to be with her lover [MMM]; and (b) was angry with accused for having repeatedly scolded her. He also concluded that AAA falsely charged him of said crime because he also scolded her for her wrong doings. 9
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
In a Decision dated September 14, 2016, the RTC found XXX guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charge against him. The trial court gave full credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and held that all the elements of Qualified Rape were sufficiently established. 10 The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, this court hereby finds accused [XXX] 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 AAA P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and a fine of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
AAA is 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.11
In his appeal before the CA, accused-appellant raised the following assignments of error:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL FAITH AND CREDENCE TO THE PROSECUTION'S WITNESSES' INCREDIBLE, AND INCONSISTENT TESTIMONY.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING UNDUE WEIGHT TO THE PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE AND DISMISSING THE DEFENSE OF DENIAL BY THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT. 12
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The CA, in its Decision dated February 7, 2018, denied XXX's appeal. It found no error on the part of the trial court which would justify nullifying its determination regarding the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. 13 Anent the award for damages, the CA deemed it proper to modify the amounts granted by the RTC in order to conform to prevailing jurisprudence. 14 The appellate court thus ruled:
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 52, ________________ in Criminal Case No. G-5691 finding appellant XXX guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Rape is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the amount of moral damages awarded is increased from P75,000.00 to P100,000.00, civil indemnity, from P75,000.00 to P100,000.00 and exemplary damages, from P30,000.00 to P100,000.00
The monetary damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of the judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.15
Hence, this appeal. DETACa
Issue
The sole issue to be resolved in the instant case is whether XXX is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Rape.
Our Ruling
The appeal is unmeritorious.
Article 266-A of the RPC provides:
ART. 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;
Meanwhile, Art. 266-B states:
ART. 266-B. Penalties. — x x x
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, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim;
Based on the foregoing, the elements of Qualified Rape are: (1) sexual congress; (2) with a woman; (3) done by force and without consent; (4) the victim is under 18 years of age at the time of the rape; (5) the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. 16
In the case at bar, all such elements were successfully established by the prosecution. As found by the trial court and upheld by the CA, XXX forced himself and had sexual intercourse with his very own daughter, AAA, who was then only 12 years old, by pointing a knife at her and threatening to kill her if she tells anyone about the incident. In arriving at such findings, the RTC gave full credence to the testimonies of AAA and BBB, who both clearly and convincingly recounted how the rape occurred. "Their respective accounts of how he raped AAA against her will were exhaustive, straightforward, detailed, consistent on all material points and convincing. They positively identified and pointed to accused as AAA's rapist, dispelling any doubt as to his proper identification." 17
Well-settled is the rule that factual findings of the trial court are accorded great weight and respect, given its unique ability to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses. This rule finds an even more stringent application when the said findings are affirmed by the CA, such as in this case. Consequently, in the absence of any clear showing that the trial court had overlooked, misunderstood, or mis-appreciated any fact or circumstance of weight and substance that would affect the outcome of the case, this Court has no cogent reason to overturn the lower courts' findings. 18
In his appeal, XXX insisted that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were riddled with material inconsistencies and contrary to human logic and experience. 19 Particularly, there were discrepancies with regard to: (a) what time he came home on the night of the incident; 20 (b) whether he laid down beside AAA or he asked her to lay down beside him; 21 (c) how long the rape took place; 22 and (d) whether he pointed a knife at her before she was raped, since AAA failed to mention such fact in her direct testimony but did so in Sinumpaang Salaysay. 23
Such contentions are untenable.
It has been repeatedly held that inconsistencies and discrepancies do not automatically weaken the witness' credibility. On the contrary, the presence of these inconsistencies tends to strengthen the credibility of the witness. 24 It is even expected for there to be minor inconsistencies when a child-victim narrates the details of a harrowing experience like rape. 25 Such inconsistencies on minor details are, in fact, badges of truth and candidness, and likewise show that the witness was not coached or rehearsed. These discrepancies as to minor matters thus cannot be considered as a ground to reverse a conviction. 26
Moreover, it is settled in this jurisdiction that as long as the testimony of the witness is coherent and intrinsically believable as a whole, discrepancies on minor details and collateral matters do not affect the veracity, or detract from the essential credibility of the witness' declarations. 27 Verily, what is of paramount consideration is the witness' consistency in relating the principal elements of the crime and the positive and categorical identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of the same. 28 Here, AAA and BBB were able to narrate all the relevant details of the sexual assault that AAA had suffered in her father's hands. Consequently, this Court finds that XXX's commission of the crime charged was sufficiently proved despite the presence of such minor inconsistencies.
This Court is likewise not persuaded by XXX's assertion that the medico-legal report presented by the prosecution does not support his conviction. 29 To recall, the report stated that, "[n]o evident sign of extragenital physical injuries noted on the body of the subject at the time of examination." 30
The absence of external signs of physical injuries does not negate the commission of the rape since the same is not an essential element of the crime. Neither does it make the victim a willing partner in the sexual intercourse. 31 Further, it bears noting that the medical report did not completely rule out the possibility of rape. It clearly stated that AAA's hymen, while intact, was "distensible and its orifice wide (2.5 cms. in diameter) as to allow complete penetration by an average-sized adult Filipino male organ in full erection without producing any hymenal/genital injury." 32 At any rate, a medical report is not even necessary to prove the commission of rape and is merely corroborative in character. 33
Additionally, XXX pointed out in his appeal that one year and five months had lapsed from the alleged commission of the crime until it was reported to the authorities. 34 Such fact is inconsequential and has no bearing on XXX's conviction. In People v. XXX, 35 this Court explained:
To begin with, the prosecution is under no burden to establish acceptable reasons or satisfactory explanation for the delay in reporting a rape. Settled is the rule that delay or hesitation in reporting a case of rape due to threats of the assailant is justified and must not be taken against the victim. Neither does such delay indicate deceit or a fabricated insinuation inasmuch as it is common that a rape victim prefers silence because of fear of her aggressor and the lack of courage to face the public stigma stemming from the abuse. With particular regard to incestuous rapes, since the perpetrator in these cases is a parent of the victim, he is able to pervert whatever moral ascendancy and influence he has over the victim in order to intimidate the latter. Hence, even in the absence of verbal threats against the victim's life, the parent molester's moral ascendancy and influence take the place of intimidation, especially so when they are living under the same roof. 36
Based on the foregoing, this Court upholds the finding of the lower courts that XXX is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Rape. His defense of denial is the weakest of all defenses. It easily falters in the face of AAA's positive identification of him as the perpetrator of the crime. aDSIHc
Finally, anent the penalty imposed, the Court finds that the RTC properly imposed upon XXX the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, in accordance with Republic Act No. 9436. 37 With respect to the award of damages, the CA, following prevailing jurisprudence, correctly awarded P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. Further, six percent (6%) interest per annum shall be imposed on all damages awarded to be reckoned from the date of the finality of this judgment until fully paid. 38
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 08762 dated February 7, 2018 is AFFIRMED. Accused-Appellant XXX is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified Rape and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility of parole. Further, he is ORDERED to PAY the victim, AAA, the following amounts: (1) P100,000.00 as civil indemnity; (2) P100,000.00 as moral damages; and (3) P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. All amounts are subject to the legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from 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. Initials were used to identify the accused-appellant pursuant to the Supreme Court Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017 entitled "Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders using Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances."
2. Rollo, pp. 2-12. Penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla (now a retired Member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi.
3. CA rollo, pp. 53-68. Penned by Judge Jonel S. Mercado.
4. Geographical location is blotted out pursuant to Supreme Court Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015.
5. "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]).
6. Records, p. 3.
7. Id. at 31.
8. Id. at 42.
9. CA rollo, pp. 53-54.
10. Id. at 56.
11. Id. at 68.
12. Id. at 35.
13. Rollo, p. 7.
14. Id. at 11-12.
15. Id. at 12.
16. People v. XXX, G.R. 235662, July 24, 2019.
17. CA rollo, p. 56,
18. People v. Tulagan, G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019.
19. CA rollo, p. 42.
20. Id. at 42-43.
21. Id. at 44.
22. Id. at 44-46.
23. Id. at 46-47.
24. People v. Tulagan, supra.
25. People v. Descartin, Jr., 810 Phil. 881, 893 (2017).
26. Id.
27. People v. Amoc, 810 Phil. 253, 261 (2017).
28. People v. Gerola, 813 Phil. 1055, 1066 (2017).
29. CA rollo, p. 48.
30. Id.
31. People v. Ramos, 838 Phil. 797, 810 (2018).
32. CA rollo, p. 48.
33. People v. XXX, G.R. No. 244288, March 4, 2020.
34. CA rollo, p. 41.
35. Supra note 14.
36. Id., People v. Lantano, 566 Phil. 628, 638-639 (2008).
37. Entitled "AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES." Approved: June 24, 2006.
38. People v. XXX, G.R. No. 242216, September 22, 2020.