SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 245383. March 9, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. XXX, *accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated09 March 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 245383 (People of the Philippines v. XXX). — This instant appeal 1 seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision 2 dated 26 April 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 08148. The CA affirmed with modification the Decision 3 dated 26 October 2015 of Branch 18, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of _________________, __________ in Criminal Case No. 1904-M-2009, convicting herein accused-appellant XXX (accused-appellant) of the crime of Rape.
Antecedents
Accused-appellant was charged in an Information dated 18 June 2009 with the crime of raping 13-year old complainant AAA, 4 punishable under Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The Information reads as follows:
That on or about the 13th day of June, 2009, in the municipality of _____, province of Bulacan, 5 Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd designs, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of AAA, a minor of 13 years of age, against her will and consent thereby degrading the intrinsic worth and dignity of the latter as a human being.
Contrary to law. 6
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded "Not Guilty" to the accusation. 7
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented the testimonies of AAA and her mother. It was narrated that on 13 June 2009, AAA was alone in their house as her father went to a wake, and her mother and sibling were at work. At around 2:00 AM to 3:00 AM, AAA awoke and noticed the 28-year-old accused-appellant, her first cousin and neighbor, approaching her. When AAA asked accused-appellant where the wake was being held, the latter offered to accompany AAA to the place. 8
While on their way to the wake, accused-appellant pulled AAA towards, a grassy area. Armed with an ice pick, accused-appellant commanded AAA to remove her pajama, allegedly threatening her that she will be killed if she does not follow. Thus, AAA obeyed and pulled down her pajama. Subsequently, accused-appellant also allegedly ordered AAA to take off her underwear which he eventually managed to remove himself. 9 CAIHTE
Thereafter, accused-appellant took off his shorts and kissed AAA on the face. She tried to push him away but he still persisted. Eventually, accused-appellant went on top of AAA and inserted his penis into her vagina. AAA felt pain. She also felt something sticky on her thighs. After, satisfying his lust, accused-appellant sat beside AAA and warned her not to tell anyone, or else she would be killed. 10
Accused-appellant then accompanied AAA on her way home but left before she reached the house. Later, AAA saw her father arrive but did not tell him about the incident as she feared that accused-appellant might harm him with the ice pick. 11
The next day, AAA reported the incident to BBB, her trusted neighbor, who, in turn, informed AAA's father regarding the matter. AAA's father brought AAA to the police station and caused the incident to be recorded in the police blotter. AAA and her mother also executed their Sinumpaang Salaysay. Thereafter, AAA was brought to Camp Crame for a medical examination. 12
The Medico-Legal's Report 13 indicated the following findings:
Findings: Hymen: Congested, with Contusion (bruising), presence of deep healing laceration.
xxx xxx xxx
Remarks: Anogenital findings are diagnostic of blunt force or penetrating trauma. 14
Version of the Defense
The defense presented its lone witness in the person of accused-appellant, who denied the accusations against him. He asserted that on the day of the incident, he was sleeping at home with his sibling. He claimed that he started sleeping at 8:30 PM on 12 June 2009 and woke up at around 8:00 AM on 13 June 2009. 15
Accused-appellant stated that AAA is his first cousin. He also confirmed that they are neighbors per his declaration that "Our house is just next to each other, Sir." 16 He claimed that AAA's father sought his help in killing the paramour of AAA's mother. However, he cannot explain the quarrel which he supposedly had with AAA's mother. 17
Ruling of the RTC
On 26 October 2015, the RTC rendered its Decision convicting herein accused-appellant for the crime of Rape, viz.:
WHEREFORE, accused [XXX], having been found guilty for the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt, he is hereby sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua without eligibility of parole and to pay private minor complainant ABC 18 the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Accused [XXX] is liable to pay interest on all damages awarded at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 19
The RTC found that the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of the crime of rape. After a comparison with the version of accused-appellant, the RTC gave more weight to the testimony of AAA as it was straightforward and candid. It also did not give credit to the claim of accused-appellant that the case was filed against him due to a quarrel with AAA's mother, as he was not able to specify what the quarrel was about when he was asked to clarify. 20
In determining the imposable penalty, the RTC observed that the prosecution failed to present the respective certificates of live birth of the parents of AAA and the parents of accused-appellant. Hence, it disregarded the aggravating/qualifying circumstance of accused-appellant being a relative of AAA by consanguinity/affinity within the third civil degree. Also, although AAA narrated that accused-appellant was armed with a deadly weapon, this was not alleged in the Information. Thus, the RTC determined that the penalty should only be reclusion perpetua. 21
Aggrieved, accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal 22 with the RTC on 29 December 2015. Through its Order 23 dated 15 January 2016, the RTC noted accused-appellant's Notice of Appeal as it was timely filed.
Ruling of the CA
On 26 April 2018, the CA promulgated its assailed Decision modifying the 26 October 2015 Decision of the RTC, to wit:
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing premises, the instant APPEAL is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Nonetheless, to blend with recent case law, We MODIFY the Decision below by increasing the award of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to P75,000.00 for each item and AFFIRM the Decision in other aspects.
SO ORDERED. 24
Except for the amount of damages, the CA affirmed the Decision of the RTC in all other aspects. It did not give credence to the argument of accused-appellant that AAA's testimony is doubtful because she did not immediately report the incident to her father. The CA explained that no standard form of reaction or behavior can be expected from a rape victim. 25 It also disregarded accused-appellant's assertion that AAA's mother was incompetent to identify the Medico-Legal Report. The CA emphasized that a medical examination is not one of the elements of the crime of rape. 26
Regarding the claim of accused-appellant that there was ill motive on the part of AAA's mother, the CA held that this is not crucial; what is relevant is the credibility of complainant herself. Lastly, the CA did not find merit in accused-appellant's alibi as he admitted the physical proximity of his house to that of AAA's. 27
However, the CA increased the amounts of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to Php75,000.00 each because the crime charged and proven was simple rape under Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the RPC. 28
On 29 May 2018, accused-appellant filed his Notice of Appeal with the CA. 29 This was given due course by the CA through its Resolution dated 13 June 2018. 30 Thereafter, on 26 June 2019, this Court issued a Resolution requiring the parties to submit Supplemental Briefs, if they so desire. 31 Both parties filed their respective Manifestations 32 stating that they will no longer file Supplemental Briefs before this Court as they have extensively discussed their arguments in their respective briefs with the CA. DETACa
Issue
To resolve this present appeal, the essential issue for the resolution of this Court is whether the CA erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellant for the crime of rape.
Ruling of the Court
We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the CA and dismiss the appeal for being unmeritorious.
The elements of the crime of rape punishable under Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the RPC are as follows: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) such act was accomplished by using force, threat or intimidation; or when the victim was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when the victim was under twelve (12) years of age or was demented. 33
It is settled that factual findings of the RTC, especially when affirmed by the CA, shall be accorded the highest respect absent any substantial reason which would justify a reversal of its findings. 34 The reason behind this rule is that the RTC can accurately assess the truthfulness of the witnesses' statements as it has the advantage of directly observing their demeanor and behavior on the witness stand. 35
We affirm the lower courts and find that the prosecution was able to prove the presence of all the elements of the crime of rape, establishing the guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
As affirmed by the CA, the RTC found that the testimony of AAA satisfied the test of credibility as it was "straightforward and candid and unflawed by inconsistencies in its vital points despite the cross-examination done by the defense counsel." 36
The argument of accused-appellant that AAA's testimony is questionable due to her failure to immediately report to her father is without merit. It has been held that the initial delay in reporting a rape incident is not uncommon. 37 This Court has explained that no standard form of reaction can be expected from rape victims as they go through different circumstances, viz.:
Not every victim of rape can be expected to act with reason or in conformity with the usual expectations of everyone. The workings of a human mind placed under emotional stress are unpredictable; people react differently. Some may shout, some may faint, while others may be shocked into insensibility. And although the conduct of the victim immediately following the alleged sexual assault is of utmost importance as it tends to establish the truth or falsity of the charge of rape, it is not accurate to say that there is a typical reaction or norm of behavior among rape victims, as not every victim can be expected to act conformably with the usual expectation of mankind and there is no standard behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling experience, each situation being different and dependent on the various circumstances prevailing in each case. 38
Therefore, the attempt of accused-appellant to cast doubt on the testimony of AAA should fail.
Likewise, contrary to the assertions of accused-appellant, the alleged incompetence of AAA's mother to identify the Medico-Legal Report does not defeat the prosecution's case. It is established that the submission of a Medico-Legal Report is not a requisite in cases involving the crime of rape.
Jurisprudence provides that if found credible and consistent, the lone declaration of facts given by the complainant would be enough to sustain a conviction for the crime of rape. 39 A Medico-Legal Report or a Medical Certificate merely corroborates the testimony of the victim and is not necessary to prove the commission of rape. 40
Moreover, the alleged ill motive imputed by accused-appellant to AAA was unsupported. He merely stated that there is bad blood between him and AAA's mother due to a quarrel supposedly because of her separation with AAA's father. Apart from this self-serving statement, no other evidence was presented by accused-appellant to establish ill motive on the part of AAA.
In any case, it has been ruled that no woman, especially one of a young age, "would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subjected to a public trial if she was not motivated solely by the desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished." 41 We cannot presume the existence of ill motive on the part of the victim based on the mere suspicions of the accused. aDSIHc
Lastly, the defenses of accused-appellant consisting of alibi and denial cannot be given credence. Accused-appellant argues that he was just sleeping in his house when the incident happened. Considering that accused-appellant's house is just beside the house of AAA. He was not able to prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime during the time of the incident. 42
It is known that the defenses of denial and alibi are weak, especially when uncorroborated by other witnesses and unsupported by clear and convincing evidence. 43 Hence, the credible testimony of AAA and her positive identification of accused-appellant should prevail against the latter's denial and explanation. 44
Given the foregoing, there is no reason which would warrant a reversal of the findings of the RTC and the CA. The conviction of accused-appellant for the crime of rape must be affirmed as the prosecution was able to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated 26 April 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 08148 is AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant XXX is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE punishable under Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Moreover, accused-appellant is ordered to pay complainant AAA the amounts of Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php75,000.00 as moral damages, and Php75,000.00 as exemplary damages. 45 In line with current jurisprudence, interest at the rate of six (6) percent per annum should be imposed on all damages awarded from the date of the finality of this judgment until fully paid. 46
SO ORDERED." (Bernabe, SAJ, on official business; Rosario, J., no part due to prior action in the Court of Appeals; Gesmundo, C.J., Designated additional member per Raffle dated 02 March 2022.)
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Division Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADA
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* At the victim's instance or, if the victim is a minor, that of his or her guardian, the complete name of the accused may be replaced by fictitious initials and his or her personal circumstances blotted out from the decision, resolution, or order if the name and personal circumstances of the accused may tend to establish or compromise the victims' identities, in accordance with Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 (III [I][c]) dated 05 September 2017.
1. Rollo, pp. 12-16; See Notice of Appeal, 29 May 2018.
2. Id. at 3-11. Penned by Court of Appeals Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario (now a Member of this Court) and Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin of the Fourteenth (14th) Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3. CA rollo, pp. 63-70; Penned by Presiding Judge Victoria C. Fernandez-Bernardo.
4. 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) [Per J. Tinga], and the Supreme Court Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated 05 September 2017.
5. Records, p. 2.
6. Rollo, p. 4.
7. Id.
8. CA rollo, p. 11.
9. Id.
10. Id.
11. Id. at 11-12.
12. Id. at 12.
13. Records, p. 12.
14. Rollo, pp. 5-6.
15. CA rollo, pp. 12-13.
16. Rollo, p. 6.
17. CA rollo, p. 13.
18. The complainant was referred to as ABC in the RTC's Decision dated 26 October 2015.
19. CA rollo, p. 70.
20. Id. at 66-70.
21. Id.
22. Id. at 18.
23. Id. at 19.
24. Rollo, p. 10.
25. See People v. Bejim, 824 Phil. 10, 22 (2018), citing People v. Crespo, 586 Phil. 542, 566 (2008).
26. See People v. Bauit, 826 Phil. 166, 174 (2018), citing People v. Rubio, 683 Phil. 714, 726-727 (2012) and People v. Espino, Jr., 577 Phil. 546, 566 (2008).
27. Rollo, pp. 7-9.
28. Id. at 10.
29. Id. at 12-13.
30. Id. at 15.
31. Id. at 17.
32. Id. at 19-26.
33.People v. Hilarion, 722 Phil. 52, 55 (2013).
34. See People v. Abat, 731 Phil. 304, 311 (2014).
35. See People v. Banzuela, 723 Phil. 797, 814 (2013), citing Perez v. Court of Appeals, 431 Phil. 786, 792 (2002).
36. CA rollo, p. 14.
37. People v. Turco, Jr., 392 Phil. 498, 514 (2000), citing People v. Gallo, 348 Phil. 640, 667 (1998).
38. People v. Saludo, 662 Phil. 738, 758-759 (2011), citing People v. Suarez, 496 Phil. 231, 244 (2005) and People v. Atadero, 648 Phil. 538, 553-554 (2010).
39. People v. Gallo, supra at note 37, citing People v. Gapasan, 312 Phil. 964, 972 (1995) and People v. Bulaybulay, 318 Phil. 714, 722 (1995).
40. People v. Delovino, 317 Phil. 741, 756 (1995); People v. Gapasan, id. at 972-973.
41. People v. Turco, Jr., supra at note 37.
42. See People v. Aniñon, 242 Phil. 407, 418 (1998).
43.People v. Gapasan, supra at note 39.
44. See People v. Taneo, 348 Phil. 277, 297 (1998).
45. See People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 746 (2016).
46. See Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267, 282-283 (2013).