People v. XXX

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 244610. September 15, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. XXX, 1accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 15 September 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 244610 (People of the Philippines v. XXX). — This is an appeal by accused-appellant XXX on the August 28, 2018 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02132, which affirmed with modifications the August 26, 2015 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of __________, Branch 29, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended.

Antecedents:

The facts, as summarized by the appellate court, follows:

On January 14, 2010, an Information was filed against accused-appellant and co-accused [YYY] charging them with rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a), of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by R.A. No. 8353, in relation to Section 5, Article III, of R.A. No. 7610, where the accusatory portion reads:

That on or about 22 March 2009, at around 9:30 o'clock in the evening, more or less, in ____________________, 4 Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping each other and by means of threat and intimidation[,] did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with one [AAA], 5 a fifteen-year-old, female child, against her will.

That the unlawful acts of the accused demean, degrade, [and] debase the intrinsic worth and dignity of the sixteen-year-old private complainant as a human being.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Following the plea of accused-appellant's innocence, trial of the case ensued.

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution's version was presented through the testimonies of AAA, the victim herself, and Dr. Hermes L. Labrador, Jr., the medical officer who conducted the physical examination of AAA. Their testimonies tended to establish that:

In the evening of May 6 22, 2009, while AAA, who was then fifteen (15) years of age, and her two (2) female companions were at a videoke bar situated in ____________________, accused-appellant and co-accused [YYY] invited them to go to a disco place in _______________. The three (3) girls accepted the invitation. They left the vicinity and rode in two different motorcycles. AAA boarded the motorcycle which was driven by accused-appellant while her companions rode at the back of co-accused [YYY's] motorcycle.

Upon arriving in __________, accused-appellant and co-accused [YYY] suddenly stopped their motorcycles in a dark and quiet area. Thereafter, her two (2) companions immediately ran away. On the other hand, AAA attempted to run, but accused-appellant and co-accused were able to get hold of her hands. Accused-appellant and co-accused [YYY] brought her to the bushes where accused-appellant removed her pants and panties while co-accused[] continued to hold her hands which practically immobilized the latter. They told her not to make any noise. Accused-appellant then inserted his penis into AAA's vagina which caused her pain. AAA could not shout since the accused covered her mouth.

With lust satisfied, accused-appellant and co-accused [YYY] boarded their motorcycles and left the place. AAA proceeded to the barangay hall of ________, to report the incident. She then disclosed her harrowing experience to her relative who, in turn, relayed the information to her (AAA) brother. Upon learning this, AAA's brother accompanied her to Dr. Labrador, Jr. who conducted a medical examination on AAA on March 24, 2009. The doctor found fresh lacerations in AAA's hymen on the following positions: 3:00 o'clock, 6:00 o'clock and 9:00 o'clock. Dr. Labrador, Jr. explained that a male sexual organ inserted into the victim's vagina is the best possible cause of the lacerations.

During the turn of the defense to present its evidence, accused-appellant's counsel manifested that accused-appellant was not willing to testify, and, therefore, he was not presenting any evidence. Accordingly, the court a quo issued an Order dated May 08, 2015 declaring the case submitted for decision sans evidence for accused-appellant. 7 (Citations omitted)

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:

The trial court found accused-appellant guilty of the crime charged. 8 It anchored its ruling on the positive identification of AAA and the corroborative medical findings of Dr. Labrador. 9 From these two witnesses' testimonies, the RTC concluded that both elements of Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (a) were present: (1) accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA; and (2) it was accomplished through the use of force or intimidation, as the latter was held down and overcome by two men when the act was committed. 10

For co-accused YYY who remained at large, the case was archived. 11

The fallo of the trial court's Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused [XXX] "guilty" beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and he is not eligible for parole.

He is also ordered to pay private offended party "AAA" the amount of Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) by way of civil indemnity and another Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) by way of moral damages both with interest at six percent (6%) per annum computed from the finality of this Decision until fully paid.

The preventive imprisonment undergone by accused is fully credited in his favor.

The case with respect to accused [YYY] is ordered archived. Issue Alias Warrant of Arrest against said accused.

SO ORDERED. 12

Thus, accused-appellant's appeal before the CA, with the following assignment of error:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT [XXX] OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.13

Plaintiff-appellee likewise filed its Brief, raising the argument below:

Appellant's guilt for the crime of rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the trial court did not err in convicting him therefor. 14

Ruling of the Court of Appeals:

The appellate court affirmed accused-appellant's conviction with modifications to the damages awarded. 15 It sustained the RTC's finding that both elements of Rape were present, 16 and noted that while AAA's testimony alone would have sufficed to convict accused-appellant, it was nevertheless strengthened by the corroborating testimony of Dr. Labrador. 17

The fallo of the assailed Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated August 26[,] 2015 of Branch 29, Regional Trial Court of __________, 7th Judicial Region, in Criminal Case No. TCS-6695, convicting accused-appellant of the crime of Rape, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that exemplary damages in the amount of Php75,000.00 is also awarded to AAA.

The rest of the monetary awards are affirmed. All damages awarded shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Decision.

SO ORDERED. 18

Thus, this appeal.

Our Ruling

The appeal has no merit. This Court finds no convincing reason to reverse the appellate court's ruling.

All the elements of Rape are present.

Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (a) of the RPC, as amended, is committed by a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat, or intimidation. 19 It has two elements: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) that such act was accomplished through force, threat, or intimidation. 20

Both elements are present here.

First, accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA. This was testified to by the victim herself who categorically stated that accused-appellant inserted his penis into her vagina:

Q While [YYY] was holding your hands, what did this [XXX] do to you?

A He removed my pants and panty and raped me.

Q How did he rape you?

A I was sexually molested by him.

Q When you said sexually molested, what did he insert to you[r] vagina, if there was any?

A His penis, sir. 21

AAA's claim of being raped was further corroborated by Dr. Labrador, who attested to the presence of fresh lacerations in AAA's hymen, and who opined that such lacerations were probably caused by the insertion of a male sexual organ. 22

It is well-settled that when the testimony of a rape victim is consistent with medical findings, there is sufficient basis to conclude that there has been carnal knowledge. 23 Here, AAA's testimony, coupled with Dr. Labrador's medical findings, sufficiently establishes the first element of Rape.

Second, the penetration was accomplished through force. As recalled by AAA, she was tightly held by YYY and accused-appellant during the act which prevented her from struggling. 24

The testimony of a single

In accused-appellant's Brief, the Public Attorney's Office (representing accused-appellant) makes an issue as to the non-presentation of the two female companions of AAA, which supposedly casts doubt on the guilt of accused-appellant. 25 But it is well-settled that the testimony of a single witness, when credible — as in here — is sufficient to convict. 26 Thus, the testimonies of AAA's companions were not indispensable for the conviction of accused-appellant.

Penalty and damages.

With regard to the penalty to be imposed on accused-appellant, the appellate court correctly meted reclusion perpetua, albeit for an incorrect reason. Relying on the second paragraph of Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended, which applies when the act is committed "with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons," 27 the CA held that the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua to death but is reduced to reclusion perpetua by virtue of RA 9346. 28 However, it was not established that the act was committed "with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons." Thus, it is the first paragraph of Article 266-B, which generally punishes Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 with reclusion perpetua, that should be applied and imposed in the absence of any mitigating and aggravating circumstance. In addition, the qualification of "without eligibility for parole" should be deleted in the assailed Decision since the circumstances do not warrant the imposition of death penalty. 29

As to the damages, the appellate court correctly modified the same consistent with People v. Jugueta. 30

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The August 28, 2018 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02132 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the phrase "without eligibility for parole" in the Decision is DELETED. All monetary awards shall earn interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.

SO ORDERED." (J. Rosario designated as additional Member per Special Order No. 2835 dated July 15, 2021.)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Initials were used to identify accused-appellant pursuant to Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-15 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. 5-17; penned by Associate Justice Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos (now a retired Member of this Court) and Edward B. Contreras.

3. CA rollo, pp. 29-35; penned by Presiding Judge Ruben F. Altubar.

4. Geographical location was blotted out per Supreme Court Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015, supra.

5. Initials were used for the name of minor victim per Supreme Court Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015, supra note 1.

6. This appears to be a typographical error as the records show that the incident happened in March (See CA rollo, pp. 29-30; TSN, August 22, 2013, p. 7).

7.Rollo, pp. 6-9.

8. CA rollo, p. 34.

9.Id. at 33.

10.Id.

11.Id. at 35.

12.Id. at 34-35.

13.Id. at 22.

14.Id. at 51.

15.Rollo, p. 16.

16.Id. at 11.

17.Id. at 14.

18.Id. at 16-17.

19. Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (a) reads:

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[.]

20.People v. Atadero, 648 Phil. 538, 547-548 (2010).

21. TSN, August 22, 2013, p. 11.

22. TSN, October 10, 2013, p. 5.

23.People v. Manaligod, 831 Phil. 204, 212-213 (2018), citing People v. Mercado, 664 Phil. 747, 751 (2011).

24. TSN, August 22, 2013, pp. 11, 24.

25. CA rollo, pp. 24-25.

26.Villarba v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 227777, June 15, 2020, citing People v. Ponsaran, 426 Phil. 836, 847 (2002).

27. Article 266-B partly reads:

Article 266-B. Penalties. — Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.

28.Rollo, pp. 16-17.

29. Administrative Matter No. 15-08-02-SC, or the Guidelines for the Proper Use of the Phrase "Without Eligibility for Parole" in Indivisible Penalties (August 4, 2015).

30. 783 Phil. 806, 849 (2016).