FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 244297. November 23, 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 dated November 23, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 244297 (People of the Philippines v. XXX). — Before Us is an ordinary appeal, seeking the reversal of the Decision 1 dated August 31, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09262, which affirmed the Decision 2 dated February 20, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 124, _______________ in Criminal (Crim.) Case Nos. C-81907 and C-81908, finding accused-appellant XXX guilty of one count of attempted rape and one count of consummated rape.
The instant case stemmed from two Informations filed against XXX, the accusatory portions of which respectively read:
Criminal Case No. C-81907
"That on or about March 30, 2008 in ________________, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design and by means of force, threats and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of minor child AAA, 3 against her will and consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW." 4
Criminal Case No. C-81908
"That on or about April 26, 2008 in ________________, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design and by means of force, threats and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of minor child BBB, against her will and consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW." 5
Upon arraignment on October 12, 2009, XXX pleaded not guilty to the offenses charged. On the same day, the RTC ordered the consolidation of Crim. Case Nos. C-81907 and C-81908 for joint trial. 6 Thereafter, pre-trial and trial ensued.
The facts, as established by the prosecution, and as culled from the CA decision are as follows:
The prosecution presented five witnesses, namely: private complainant AAA; private complainant BBB; Police Officer 1 Analiza Anog (PO1 Anog); Police Superintendent Ruby Grace Sabino-Diangson (P/Supt. Sabino-Diangson), officer of the Medico Legal Division, Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory; and Romulo C. Fulo (Fulo), a representative from Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA). 7
AAA and BBB are sisters who lived in a three-story house in ______________, together with their mother, CCC. Also staying with them, were their maternal uncle, their other siblings and relatives, and their cousin, XXX. 8
AAA revealed that on March 30, 2008, at around 10:00 p.m., she and her sister BBB were left in the house together with XXX. AAA was sleeping alone in her room located at the second floor of their house while BBB was sleeping at the ground floor. Suddenly, AAA was awakened from her sleep when she heard the squeaking sound of the door of her room being opened. She saw XXX enter her room and thereafter remove his clothes. XXX laid down beside her and told her that he was holding a knife. He also threatened her not to shout or else he would kill her. AAA feared for her life and just cried. Afterwards, XXX caressed AAA's breasts and removed her shorts and underwear. Thereafter, he positioned himself on top of AAA and tried to insert his penis into her vagina. AAA, however kicked XXX in his stomach and went out of her bedroom, screaming, to wake up BBB. 9 CAIHTE
In BBB's testimony, she stated that on April 26, 2008, at around 12:00 a.m., she was watching television on the ground floor of their house together with AAA, her three uncles, and XXX. One of her uncles, DDD, asked BBB to prepare coffee for him. BBB obliged by going to the kitchen located at the rooftop of their house. Thereat, XXX appeared behind BBB, pulled her arms to her back, and removed her shorts and panty. XXX then removed his shorts and brief and inserted his penis into BBB's vagina. Subsequently, XXX dragged BBB towards a chair and sat down while he positioned BBB on his lap. BBB tried to resist but she could not scream for help because XXX threatened her that he would kill her family if she would report the incident to anybody. Not long after, DDD came up the rooftop and saw what was happening. BBB immediately stood up and ran without her lower garments while DDD punched XXX. DDD then went down and told BBB's two other uncles what he saw. Eventually, they found XXX hiding inside CCC's room. DDD again boxed XXX while CCC, who at that time did not yet know what happened, prevented BBB's two other uncles from mauling XXX. CCC then sent XXX home to _______________________________. When XXX was already gone, DDD told CCC what he witnessed. Consequently, CCC, together with BBB, reported the incident to the barangay authorities of _________________ which led to the arrest of XXX. 10
P/Supt. Sabino-Diangson testified that she conducted a physical and genital examination on AAA and BBB on April 30, 2008. She found no laceration on AAA's hymen, meaning that she did not note any injury in that particular area. 11 Her Report, however, indicated a conclusion that "medical evaluation does not exclude sexual abuse." 12 She explained that the genital and physical examination noted no significant findings, but AAA made a disclosure of sexual abuse in the document entitled Sexual Crime Protocol. 13
The medical examination of BBB, on the other hand, revealed a deep healing laceration at 6 o'clock position and an abrasion at 7 o'clock position on BBB's hymen. In her Medico-Legal Certificate, P/Supt. Diangson concluded that BBB's medical evaluation shows clear evidence of a blunt penetrating trauma. When questioned at direct examination, P/Supt. Diangson stated that the laceration on BBB's hymen could have been caused by an erect penis. 14
PO1 Anog testified that she assisted AAA, BBB, and their mother in preparing their respective statements captioned Malaya at Kusang Loob na Salaysay (Salaysay), as well as the Request for Physical and Genital Examination. 15
XXX, the lone witness for the defense, interposed the defense of denial. He testified that he lived in ________________ beginning November 2007. CCC, however, sent him home after he had a verbal altercation with DDD. XXX insisted that he was already residing in ________________________________________, before the end of March 2008. 16
After due proceedings, the RTC issued its Decision on February 20, 2017 finding XXX guilty of attempted rape against AAA in Crim. Case No. C-81907 and of consummated rape against BBB in Crim. Case No. C-81908. The dispositive portion of the RTC decision reads:
1. Finding accused [XXX] GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of attempted rape in Criminal Case No. C-81907. Accordingly, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) years of prision correccional as minimum term to ten (10) years of prision mayor as maximum term. Further, the accused is hereby adjudged civilly liable to AAA. Accordingly, he is hereby ordered to pay to said private complainant the following: a) Php30,000.00 as civil indemnity; b) Php30,000.00 as moral damages; and Php30,000.00 as exemplary damages, with interest thereon at the rate of six (6%) per annum reckoned from the finality of this Decision until fully paid; and
2. Finding accused [XXX] GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of consummated rape in Criminal Case No. C-81908. Accordingly, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Further, the accused is hereby adjudged civilly liable to BBB. Accordingly, he is hereby ordered to pay the said private complainant the following: a) PhP50,000.00 as civil indemnity; b) Php50,000 as moral damages, and c) Php50,000.00 as exemplary damages, with interest thereon at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum reckoned from the finality of this Decision until fully paid.
With costs against the accused.
SO ORDERED. 17
XXX filed his appeal before the CA. Thereafter, XXX, AAA and BBB filed their respective Briefs. DETACa
On August 31, 2018, the CA affirmed with modification the ruling of the RTC. It found that the RTC failed to appreciate AAA's minority in imposing the proper penalty against XXX. Accordingly, the CA modified the penalty imposed upon XXX for attempted rape against AAA. The CA also modified the award of damages in favor of AAA and BBB in conformity with prevailing jurisprudence.
The dispositive portion of the CA decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 20 February 2018 of Branch 124 of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City in Criminal Case Nos. C-81907 and C-81908 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
In Criminal Case No. C-81907, the indeterminate sentence is modified to six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as maximum, and the award of damages is modified to (a) twenty-five thousand pesos (P25,000.00) as civil indemnity, (b) twenty-five thousand pesos (P25,000.00) as moral damages, and (c) twenty-five thousand pesos (P25,000.00) as exemplary damages.
In Criminal Case No. C-81908, the award of damages is modified to (a) seventy-five thousand pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity, (b) seventy-five thousand pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages, and (c) seventy-five thousand pesos (P75,000.00) as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED18
On March 1, 2017, XXX filed his Notice of Appeal, 19 which was given due course by the CA in a Resolution dated October 26, 2018. On March 25, 2019, the CA forwarded the records of the case to this Court. Thereafter, the parties made their Manifestations 20 that they will adopt their Appellant's and Appellee's Briefs, respectively, in lieu of Supplemental Briefs.
Issues
I.
Whether the CA gravely erred in convicting accused-appellant of rape and attempted rape despite the failure of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of crime.
II.
Whether the CA gravely erred in disregarding accused-appellant's defense of denial. 21
Our Ruling
The appeal is unmeritorious.
The crime of statutory rape is defined in Article 266-A of the RPC, as follows:
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. 22
Accused-appellant is guilty of
In this case, BBB was positive, straightforward, and unequivocal in her testimony that XXX had carnal knowledge of her. Her allegations were consistent as alleged in the Information, 23 as narrated in her statement in the document entitled Malaya at Kusang Loob na Salaysay ni BBB, 15 Taong Gulang (DOB — July 21, 1992) na Kinuha at Itinala ni PO1 Analiza P. Anog dito sa Loob ng Siyasatan ng Womens and Children Protection Center, Caloocan City Police Station sa Harap ng Kanyang Ina na si CCC, 24 and the Initial Medico-Legal Report 25 prepared by P/Supt. Sabino-Diangson.
It is not disputed in this case that BBB was a 15-year-old minor at the time of the incident, as evidenced by her Birth Certificate, 26 the stipulations in the Pre-Trial Order, 27 and supplementary records such as the Salaysay, 28 and the Initial Medico-Legal Report. 29
The Court often repeated that a young girl's revelation that she had been raped, coupled with her voluntary submission to medical examination and her willingness to undergo public trial where she could be compelled to give out details of an assault on her dignity, cannot easily be dismissed as mere concoction. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth. 30
In fact, due to the unique situation in alleged incidents, We have held that the lone testimony of the complainant is enough to sustain conviction, provided that such testimony meets the test of credibility. 31 This test of credibility means that if the testimony is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things, the accused may be convicted solely on that basis. 32
In this case, the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, correctly pointed out that:
It is well to note that the accused is the first cousin of AAA and BBB. Thus, it is against human nature and common experience for the two (2) victims to accuse a close relative of molesting them and render him vulnerable to criminal prosecution and expose themselves to embarrassment and humiliation by appearing in court and recounting the sordid details of their ordeals, unless what they claim is the truth.
xxx xxx xxx
It must be stressed also that the accused failed to attribute to the victims any ill-motive for them to concoct stories and fabricate charges against him. In fact, the accused himself admitted that he and the victims had a good relationship before the filing of these cases." 33
One of the elements provided in Article 266-A of the RPC is force and intimidation. The defense, in alleging that there was no force and intimidation, relied on the supposed lack of credibility of BBB's statement: aDSIHc
23. x x x BBB's recollection of events paints a somewhat absurd and awkward manner in which [XXX] tried to force himself unto her. To recall, BBB testified that while making coffee for DDD, the accused-appellant dragged her by her arms from behind and in that position tried to insert his penis into her vagina then later he sat on a chair and forced BBB to sit on him.
xxx xxx xxx
24. This is patently absurd. 34
As correctly appreciated by the CA, it is not physically impossible for accused-appellant to successfully insert his penis into BBB's vagina while standing and restraining the latter. 35
Moreover, when it comes to the issue of credibility of the victim or the prosecution witnesses, the findings of the trial courts carry great weight and respect and, generally, the appellate courts will not overturn the said findings unless the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which will alter the assailed decision or affect the result of the case. 36 As further elaborated by the Court in the case of People v. Gerola:
This is so because trial courts are in the best position to ascertain and measure the sincerity and spontaneity of witnesses through their actual observation of the witnesses' manner of testifying, their demeanor and behavior in court. Trial judges enjoy the advantage of observing the witness' deportment and manner of testifying, her "furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath" — all of which are useful aids for an accurate determination of a witness' honesty and sincerity. Trial judges, therefore, can better determine if such witnesses are telling the truth, being in the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies. Again, unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case, its assessment must be respected, for it had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying and detect if they were lying. The rule finds an even more stringent application where the said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals. 37
The Court has long written about force and intimidation in the context of rape cases and stated that the determination of its presence must be viewed in light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of rape, and not by any hard and fast rule. 38 Jurisprudence has provided that the test is whether the threat or intimidation produces a reasonable fear in the mind of the victim that if she resists or does not yield to the desires of the accused, the threat would be carried out. 39
In this case, BBB's testimony sufficiently illustrated reasonable fear in her mind of the risks if she did not yield to accused-appellant's demands. BBB's testimony reveals that she was threatened by the accused-appellant as he proceeded to force himself into her, thus:
(Re-direct examination by SACP Gravino)
Q: Now Madam Witness, you also mentioned that you failed to scream while still at the rooftop when the carnal knowledge was done on you by the accused in this case, please explain.
A: Because I was afraid ma'am.
Q: What frightened you?
A: He threatened me that if I report the matter he will kill my family, ma'am. 40
Despite the defense's attempt to cast doubt on the testimony of BBB, force was consistently established in BBB's testimony:
(Direct examination by Atty. Gatus)
Q: Let us go back to the situation in the rooftop, where you were already resisting, and when your underwear was already removed by the accused from behind, what else happened after that?
A: Nagalaw niya po ako, ma'am.
Q: What do you mean by that word, "nagalaw niya po ako?"
A: He inserted his penis into my vagina, ma'am.
Q: What was the position of the accused and you when the penis or private part was inserted into your vagina?
A: He was behind me, ma'am.
Q: And how was it Madam Witness, considering that you were standing at that time, how was the insertion perfected, Madam Witness?
A: Because there was a chair near the stairs, ma'am.
Q: And so?
A: He sat there and then he made me sit also, ma'am.
Q: And what were your reactions, how far is this chair to the place where you were dragged for the first time, from your location madam Witness, the distance?
FOR THE RECORD:
The witness is estimating about three (3) meters.
Q: And all those times you were dragged from behind by the accused Madam Witness is that what you are saying earlier?
A: Yes ma'am.
Q: And what were your reactions?
A: I was resisting, ma'am.
Q: And were you able to let go from the holds of the accused, Ma'am?
A: No ma'am, he was still holding me.
Q: What part of your body was being held by the accused, Madam?
A: He was still holding my hands behind my back, ma'am. 41
As the Court has previously ruled, it is not necessary that the victim should have resisted unto death or sustained physical injuries in the hands of the rapist. 42 Where resistance would be futile, offering none at all does not amount to consent to the sexual assault. It is enough if the intercourse takes place against her will or if she yields because of genuine apprehension of harm to her if she did not do so. Indeed, the law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance. 43
So it must be in this case. In criminal cases, "proof beyond reasonable doubt" does not mean such degree of proof, excluding possibility of error, that produces absolute certainty; only "moral certainty" is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. 44 Given the elements sufficiently proven by the prosecution, there is moral certainty in the mind of this Court that accused-appellant is guilty of consummated rape against BBB. ETHIDa
Accused-appellant is guilty of
The case of AAA is different, who stated that she felt the skin of accused-appellant's penis on her skin but did not testify that the penis slid into her vagina, no matter how slight. 45 She categorically and repeatedly declared that accused-appellant failed to insert his penis into her vagina because she kicked him, which enabled her to liberate herself from the evil desires of accused-appellant. Thus, the transgression committed by accused-appellant against AAA amounts to attempted rape and not consummated rape.
According to Article 6 of the RPC, there is an attempted felony when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
The Court, accepting that intent is a mental act, has held that this should be seen through overt acts directly connected with rape. 46 As stated in the case of People v. Dominguez, Jr., 47 the gauge in determining whether the crime of attempted rape had been committed in the commencement of the act of sexual intercourse is the commencement of the act of sexual intercourse before the interruption. 48
It is evident from the testimony of AAA that accused-appellant intended to have carnal knowledge with her, against her will and consent.
The testimonial account of AAA showed that accused-appellant had the intention to lie down with her. However, reasonable doubt exists as to whether there was touching of the vaginal wall, sufficient to consummate the crime of rape. While it has been held that even the slightest penetration of the female organ consummates rape, the prosecution must still present evidence showing the manner by which the slightest penetration occurred. Here, AAA was already lying in bed when accused-appellant entered her room, lied beside her, and undressed himself. He thereafter removed AAA's shorts and underwear, went on top of her, and tried to insert his penis into her vagina. 49 He did not succeed in inserting his penis in the vagina of AAA as the latter was able to kick him in his stomach. In People v. Pareja, 50 this Court laid down jurisprudence indicating that in the absence of concrete evidence showing penetration, the crime would only be attempted rape, thus:
A review of jurisprudence reveals that the Court has not hesitated to strike down convictions for consummated rape when the evidence failed to show that penetration, however slight, of the victim's vagina took place.
In People v. Bon, the Court found the appellant guilty of attempted rape only, as there was no indication that the appellant's penis even touched the labia of the pudendum of the victim. We further held that the appellant could not be convicted of consummated rape by presuming carnal knowledge out of pain.
The Court had a similar ruling in People v. Miranda, where the accused tried to insert his penis into the victim's private parts, but was unsuccessful, so he inserted his fingers instead. We convicted the accused of attempted rape only due to lack of evidence to establish that there was even a slight penile penetration. We noted, however, that the appellant's act of inserting his fingers would have constituted rape through sexual assault had the offense occurred after the effectivity of the Anti-Rape Law of 1997.
In People v. Alibuyog, the victim declared that the accused placed his penis on her vagina; and claimed that it touched her private parts. The Court set aside the accused's conviction for rape, and convicted him of attempted rape only, because we found the victim's testimony too ambiguous to prove the vital element of penile penetration. We added that the victim's testimony was "replete with repeated denial of penile insertion."
Similarly, in People v. Quarre, the evidence for the prosecution consisted only of the victim's testimony that the accused tried, but failed, to insert his penis into her vagina, and she felt pain in the process. No medico-legal examination report was presented in evidence. Accordingly, the Court reversed the accused's conviction for rape, and found him guilty of attempted rape only.
In People v. Ocomen, the Court also set aside the appellant's conviction for rape because no proof was adduced of even the slightest penetration of the female organ, aside from a general statement of the victim that she had been "raped."
People v. Monteron is another noteworthy case where the Court set aside the appellant's conviction for rape. In this case, the victim testified that the accused placed his penis on top of her vagina, and that she felt pain. In finding the accused guilty of attempted rape only, we held that there was no showing that the accused's penis entered the victim's vagina. We added that the pain that the victim felt might have been caused by the accused's failed attempts to insert his organ into her vagina.
In People v. Mariano, the accused tried to insert his penis into the victim's vagina, but failed to secure penetration. The Court set aside the accused's conviction for three (3) counts of rape and found him guilty of attempted rape only. We explained the necessity of carefully ascertaining whether the penis of the accused in reality entered the labial threshold of the female organ to accurately conclude that rape had been consummated.
In People v. Arce, Jr., the Court found the accused guilty of attempted rape only, because the victim did not declare that there was the slightest penetration, which was necessary to consummate rape. On the contrary, she categorically stated that the accused was not able to insert his penis into her private parts because she was moving her hips away. We further ruled that the victim's attempt to demonstrate what she meant by "idinidikit ang ari" was unavailing to prove that rape had been consummated.
In People v. Francisco, the victim testified that the accused "poked" her vagina. The Court set aside the accused's conviction for qualified rape, and convicted him instead only of attempted rape after failing to discern from the victim's testimony that the accused attained some degree of penile penetration, which was necessary to consummate rape.
In People v. Dimapilis, the Court refused to convict the accused for consummated rape on the basis of the victim's testimony that she felt the accused's penis pressed against her vagina as he tried to insert it. We explained that in order to constitute consummated rape, there must be entry into the vagina of the victim, even if only in the slightest degree.
Finally, in People v. Tolentino, the Court reversed the accused's conviction for rape and convicted him of attempted rape only, as there was paucity of evidence that the slightest penetration ever took place. We reasoned out that the victim's statements that the accused was "trying to force his sex organ into mine" and "binundol-undol ang kanyang ari" did not prove that the accused's penis reached the labia of the pudendum of the victim's vagina. 51
As accused-appellant was already lying beside AAA, both of them undressed, with their respective private organs exposed and with accused-appellant on top of AAA when he tried to insert his penis in AAA's vagina, it cannot be denied that there was already sufficient contact with each other's skin, preparatory to sexual intercourse. This already constitutes an overt act of the crime of rape. However, consummated rape requires proof of penetration of the labia of the vagina's pudendum. Absent such proof, accused-appellant must be convicted of attempted rape. AIDSTE
The defense argues that the testimony of AAA is inconsistent, given that she did not mention a knife in her Salaysay but brought this up during her testimony in open court. 52 In the same breath, however, the defense admits that four (4) years have lapsed from the day AAA's statement was taken up to the time when she testified in court on February 9, 2011. 53 This gap in time must be taken into consideration when scrutinizing the exact consistency in the details of AAA's testimony, especially if they do not affect the elements of the crime charged.
The Court has already stated that variance in minor details has the net effect of bolstering, instead of diminishing the witness' credibility because they discount the possibility of a rehearsed testimony. 54 As the CA aptly observed, the contrasting testimonies of AAA in her affidavit and before the RTC are immaterial so as to affect AAA's overall integrity. The failure to initially mention the presence of the knife at the time of the incident is irrelevant considering that accused-appellant threatened to kill AAA if she shouted for help. 55 We note AAA's testimony that there was no light in the room at the time of the incident, and she was only told by accused-appellant that he was holding a knife. 56 This makes it more believable that she would omit this detail in her initial Salaysay and remember it only during her testimony before the RTC, years later. As jurisprudence states, what remains paramount is the witness' consistency in relating the principal elements of the crime and the positive and categorical identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the same. 57
Having sufficiently proven the elements of attempted rape, the Court is constrained to uphold the conviction of accused-appellant.
Expert testimony is not
The defense likewise questions the weight of the medico legal certificate issued by P/Supt. Sabino-Diangson and her testimony because the prosecution failed to establish that she is an expert witness. We uphold the CA in holding that such contention deserves no consideration, given that a medical certificate is not necessary to prove the commission rape. 58
Expert testimony is merely corroborative in character and not essential to conviction. 59 An accused can still be convicted of rape on the basis of the sole testimony of the private complainant. 60
Mere denial that is
Amidst the gravity of the accusation thrown against him, accused-appellant could only interpose denial and alibi as defense. While denial is a legitimate defense in rape cases, bare assertions of not having committed the acts complained of are insufficient to overcome the positive, straightforward, unequivocal, and categorical testimonies of AAA and BBB. Mere denial that is unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence is inherently weak. 61
In this case, aside from focusing on the inconsistencies of the testimonies, the defense only cites bare denial and uncorroborated alibi. Despite stating that he lived in ______________ at the time of the incident, accused-appellant was not able to present any witness to support this.
Penalties
With respect to the consummated rape against BBB, Article 266-B of the RPC provides that rape, without the qualifying circumstances that would warrant the imposition of death penalty, shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
As regards the civil liabilities, pursuant to the cases of People v. Jugueta, 62 and People v. Tulagan, 63 the Court affirms the CA's awards for the consummated rape of BBB, namely, P75,000.00 for civil indemnity, P75,000.00 for moral damages and P75,000.00 for exemplary damages.
For the attempted rape of AAA, Article 51 of the RPC states that the penalty upon the principals of an attempted crime is the penalty lower by two (2) degrees of that prescribed by law for the consummated felony, which in this case, is prision mayor.
In rape cases, minority is a qualifying circumstance only when the victim is below seven (7) years old. Minority and relationship, i.e., relative within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity, may also qualify the crime of rape, which are absent in this case. Although AAA and BBB are minors, accused-appellant is a relative within the fourth degree of consanguinity. Hence, the crime of attempted rape cannot be qualified. Nevertheless, in a number of cases, 64 the Court held that when one of the qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority is omitted or lacking, that which is pleaded in the Information and proved by the evidence may be considered as an aggravating circumstance. Conformably with such ruling, AAA's minority may be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. Minority in such a case, shall be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance that would authorize the imposition of the maximum period of prision mayor. AaCTcI
In accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term of imprisonment shall be taken within the range of the penalty lower than prision mayor, which is prision correccional.
We thus affirm the penalty imposed by the CA, modifying the penalty imposed by the RTC. Accused-appellant is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) years of prision correccional as the minimum term to twelve (12) years of prision mayor as the maximum term of imprisonment for the attempted rape he committed against AAA.
As to accused-appellant's civil labilities against AAA, the Court affirms the award by the CA of P25,000.00 for civil indemnity, P25,000.00 for moral damages, and P25,000.00 for exemplary damages.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 31, 2018 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09262 is AFFIRMED.
In Criminal Case No. C-81908, XXX is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape against BBB and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is liable to pay BBB the amounts of P75,0000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages.
In Criminal Case No. C-81907, XXX is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of the attempted rape of AAA under Article 266-A and Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years of prision correccional as minimum to twelve (12) years of prision mayor as maximum. He is liable to pay AAA P25,000.00 as civil indemnity, P25,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
In line with current jurisprudence, interest at the rate of six percent (6%)per annum is hereby imposed on all damages awarded, from the date of the finality of this Resolution until fully paid. 65
SO ORDERED." Lopez, M., J., on official leave.
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. 3-12. Penned by Associate Justice Germano Francisco D. Legaspi, concurred in by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda (now a member of this Court) and Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz.
2. CA Rollo, pp. 67-87. Penned by Presiding Judge Glenda K. Cabello-Marin.
3. The identity of the victim or any information to 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, 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"; 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. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 (2006); and Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017, Subject: Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders Using Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances.
4. Records, p. 1.
5. Id. at 13.
6. Rollo, p. 4.
7. Id.
8. Id.
9. Id. at 4-5.
10. Id. at 5.
11. Id.
12. Records, p. 20.
13. TSN, October 18, 2010, p. 6.
14. TSN, June 7, 2010, p. 14.
15. TSN, March 2, 2010, pp. 3-5.
16. Rollo, p. 6.
17. CA Rollo, p. 87.
18. Rollo, pp. 11-12.
19. CA Rollo, p. 15.
20. Rollo, pp. 23; 30.
21. CA Rollo, p. 46.
22. R.A. 3815 as Amended, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code, as Amended by R.A. 8353.
23. Records, p. 13.
24. Id. at 16.
25. Id. at 17.
26. Id. at 22.
27. Id. at 64.
28. Supra note 24.
29. Supra note 25.
30. People v. Espinosa, 476 Phil. 42, 61 (2004).
31. Id. at 57.
32. People v. Descartin, 810 Phil. 881, 887 (2017).
33. CA Rollo, p. 85.
34. CA Rollo, p. 56.
35. Rollo, p. 10.
36. People v. Gerola, 813 Phil. 1055, 1064 (2017).
37. Id. (Emphases supplied).
38. Supra note 30 at 56.
39. Id.
40. TSN, September 24, 2013, pp. 23-24.
41. Id. at 8-9.
42. Supra note 30 at 57.
43. Id.
44. Supra note 36 at 1066.
45. TSN, February 9, 2011, p. 5.
46. Cruz v. People, 745 Phil. 54, 71 (2014).
47. 650 Phil. 492 (2010).
48. Id. at 517-518.
49. See Rollo, pp. 4-5.
50. 694 Phil. 338 (2012).
51. Id. at 349-352. Citations omitted.
52. CA Rollo, p. 55.
53. Id. at 55.
54. Supra note 36 at 1066.
55. Rollo, p. 10.
56. TSN, February 9, 2011, p. 13.
57. Supra note 36 at 1066.
58. Rollo, p. 10.
59. People v. Colorado, 698 Phil. 833, 845 (2012).
60. Id.
61. People v. Yoon Chang Wook, 618 Phil. 23, 37 (2009).
62. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
63. G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019.
64. See People v. Lomaque, 710 Phil. 338 (2013), People v. Bayya, 384 Phil. 519 (2000), People v. Esperanza, 453 Phil. 54 (2003), People v. Hermocilla, 554 Phil. 189 (2007), and People v. Soria, 728 Phil. 39 (2012).
65. People v. Lagman, 685 Phil. 733, 750 (2012).