FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 246464. July 6, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.XXX, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 6, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 246464 — (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, v. XXX, accused-appellant). — This is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated July 20, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09228 which affirmed with modifications the Joint Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela City, Branch 270 in Criminal Case Nos. 882-V-16, 1163-V-16 and 1164-V-16 finding XXX 3 (accused-appellant) guilty of two counts of qualified rape under Article 266-A, in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and lascivious conduct under Section 5 (b) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610.
The Facts
Herein accused-appellant was charged with two counts of qualified rape in the following Informations:
Criminal Case No. 1163-V-16
That sometime in April 2016 in Valenzuela City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused, being the stepfather of the victim, by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously remove the shorts and underwear of the victim [AAA], 14 years of age (DOB: February 27, 2002), and have sexual intercourse with her, against her will and without her consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Criminal Case No. 1164-V-16
On or about June 16, 2016 in Valenzuela City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused, being the stepfather of the victim, by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously remove the shorts and underwear of the victim [AAA], 14 years of age (DOB: February 27, 2002), and have sexual intercourse with her, against her will and without her consent. IAETDc
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
He was likewise charged with acts of lasciviousness in relation to R.A. No. 7610 in an Information which reads:
Criminal Case No. 882-V-16
On or about June 29, 2016 in Valenzuela City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, being the stepfather of the victim and taking advantage of his moral ascendancy, with lewd design, by means of force and coercion on victim [AAA], 14 years old (DOB: February 27, 2002), did then and there willfully, unlawfully caressed the victim's breasts, against her will and without her consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
During arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to all charges against him. After the pre-trial conference, trial on the merits ensued. 6
Version of the prosecution
AAA was born on February 27, 2003. Her parents separated and her father and siblings stayed in Davao. AAA lived with her mother, BBB, in Valenzuela City, who had a live-in partner, the accused-appellant. 7
Accused-appellant was a tricycle driver. Every morning, he went out to work and came home around lunch time. 8 At around 11:00 in the morning in April 2016, while AAA was in their house watching television, accused-appellant arrived. 9 He instructed AAA to enter her room and remove her shorts. AAA did as told. 10 Accused-appellant inserted his hands under AAA's shirt and fondled her breasts. 11 He asked AAA to lie down and told her to spread her legs and place them on his on shoulders. 12
AAA, despite feeling pain, did not resist as she was afraid of accused-appellant who might hurt her. AAA said that while accused-appellant was inserting his penis into her vagina, she covered her eyes with a blanket because she did not want to see what he was doing to her. Later, accused-appellant told AAA not to tell anyone or he would hurt her. 13
On June 16, 2016, just like the first instance, AAA was home and accused-appellant arrived from work. While AAA was into her cellphone, accused-appellant told her to enter her room. AAA did not run away as she was afraid that accused-appellant would run after her. AAA alleged that accused-appellant made her lie down, started touching her breasts and private parts, and he removed his shorts and repeated what he did to her in April. 14 She said that it was painful and defendant only stopped after some liquid came out of his penis. She also narrated that she did not actually see the liquid coming out because she was too disgusted, but she felt the liquid on her stomach. 15
On June 29, 2016, accused-appellant arrived from work at around 10:00 in the morning, like before, he instructed AAA to go inside her room and thereat started to fondle her breasts. AAA was afraid that accused-appellant will do it again. She exclaimed "Wag nyo po akong galawin." Accused-appellant stopped touching her and left. 16
After the incident, AAA told her friend CCC what happened. CCC informed the barangay officials. Later, the barangay officials fetched BBB from work and informed her of what happened. 17
In the afternoon of the same day, accused-appellant was arrested. Meanwhile, AAA was brought to the City Hall and was interviewed by a social worker. She also underwent medical examination which resulted to a finding of "clear evidence of blunt penetrating trauma to the hymen." 18 DcHSEa
Version of the defense
Accused-appellant denied all allegations against him and in defense alleged that AAA had a boyfriend who was always hanging out at their house and two others with their respective boyfriends. Accused-appellant said that he often told them not to stay inside AAA's room but they just ignored him. 19 He also stated that AAA was always out of their house. To support his claim, he said that on June 27, 2016, a blotter report was filed in the barangay because AAA has not come home and it was late at night. He claimed that the criminal charges were filed because he once reprimanded AAA and her friends and they were angry at him. 20
RTC Ruling
On February 10, 2017, the RTC promulgated its Joint Decision on the criminal cases. The RTC held that all the elements of qualified rape are present in the case. 21 As to the charge for acts of lasciviousness, the RTC ruled that his act of caressing the breasts of AAA is well within the ambit of lascivious conduct as contemplated under Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610. 22 The dispositive portion of the Joint Decision states:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
In Criminal Case No. 882-V-16, finding [accused-appellant] guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period.
In Criminal Case No.s/ [sic] 1163-V-16 to 1164-V-16, finding [accused-appellant] guilty beyond reasonable doubt for two (2) counts of RAPE under Article 266-A par 1 (a) of the Revised Penal Code and he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
The accused is further directed to indemnify AAA the amoun[t] of Php75,000.00 as moral damages and Php75,000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED. 23
CA Ruling
The CA partially granted the appeal and modified the ruling of the RTC. It found accused-appellant guilty of lascivious conduct under R.A. No. 7610 and one count of qualified rape. It ruled that the rape committed on June 16, 2016 was not sufficiently proven as there was no clear allegation of penetration, thus, he was acquitted. 24 Hence, the dispositive portion of the Decision states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Valenzuela City, Branch 270, is MODIFIED, as follows:
"WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
In Criminal Case No. 882-V-16, finding [accused-appellant] guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum.
In Criminal Case No. 1163-V-16, finding [accused-appellant] guilty beyond reasonable doubt of RAPE under Article 266-A par 1 (a) of the Revised Penal Code and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
In Criminal Case No. 1164-V-16, finding [accused-appellant] not guilty for failure to prove the crime beyond reasonable doubt.
The accused is further directed to indemnify AAA the amount of Php75,000.00 as moral damages and Php75,000.00 as exemplary damages, with an interest of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of judgment until fully paid."
SO ORDERED."
SO ORDERED. 25
Hence, this appeal.
Both the Office of the Solicitor General and the accused-appellant manifested that they would no longer file their respective supplemental briefs. 26
Issues
1. Is accused-appellant guilty of Qualified Rape notwithstanding insufficiency of prosecution's evidence? 27
2. Is accused-appellant guilty of Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b), R.A. No. 7610? 28
3. Did the RTC err in giving weight and credence to the prosecution witness' dubious and incredible testimony? 29
4. Did RTC err in disregarding accused-appellant's defense of denial? 30
The Ruling of this Court
The appeal has no merit.
Article 266-A of the RPC 31 defines the crime of rape. It expressly states:
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: cHECAS
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.
2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.
Verily, the elements of rape are: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) such act was accomplished through force or intimidation; or when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or when the victim is under twelve years of age. 32
In the present case, AAA testified, in a detailed manner, how accused-appellant sexually abused her. She narrated that in April 2016, accused-appellant instructed her to enter her room and remove her shorts; after removing her shorts, accused-appellant inserted his hands under her shirt and started caressing her breasts; and accused-appellant told her to lie down and spread her legs and place them on top of his shoulders, to which she complied; accused-appellant then inserted his penis in her vagina. 33 Clearly, the first element of rape was present.
The second element — the act was accomplished through force or intimidation — was also present despite no offer of resistance of refusal. It is noteworthy at this juncture that even absent actual force or intimidation, rape can still be committed if the offender has moral ascendancy over the victim. 34 Moral ascendancy substituting for force and intimidation.
In People v. Barcela, 35 it was explained how moral ascendancy can replace force or intimidation, to wit:
Being regarded as the "tatay," Barcela had gained such moral ascendancy over AAA and BBB that any resistance normally expected from girls their age could not have been put up by them. His moral ascendancy and influence over them substituted for actual physical violence and intimidation as an element of rape. This made them easy prey for his sexual advances. Barcela's moral and physical dominion of AAA and BBB are sufficient to cow them into submission to his beastly desires. No further proof is needed to show lack of consent of the victims to their own defilement. x x x. 36
AAA's failure to resist does not necessarily amount to consent to accused-appellant's criminal acts. It is not necessary that actual force or intimidation be employed; as moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence or intimidation. 37 Considering that accused-appellant was the common-law spouse of AAA's mother, as such, he clearly had moral ascendancy over AAA.
Although accused-appellant admitted that he is the common-law spouse of AAA's mother, the trial court is correct in not considering the same as a qualifying circumstance as it will be violative of his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. 38 Hence, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. AHDacC
Article 266-B. Penalty. — Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
xxx xxx xxx
Corollarily, to conform to prevailing jurisprudence, the award for damages to AAA shall be modified. In People v. Jugueta, 39 part of the guidelines in damages set by this Court indicated that:
II. For Simple Rape/Qualified Rape:
xxx xxx xxx
2.1 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, other than the above-mentioned:
a. Civil indemnity — P75,000.00
b. Moral damages — P75,000.00
c. Exemplary damages — P75,000.00[.] 40
Verily, accused-appellant now should pay AAA P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Moving on, accused-appellant was convicted of lascivious conduct under Section 5, Article III of R.A. No. 7610. He argued that there is no basis for his conviction as AAA admitted that he did not inflict any harm which would cause her to fear him. 41
This Court is not convinced.
Under Section 5, Article III of R.A. No. 7610, 42 a child is deemed subjected to other sexual abuse when he or she indulges in lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult. 43
Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610 states:
Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. — Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.
xxx xxx xxx
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period; x x x
x x x [T]he following elements of sexual abuse under Section 5, Article III of R.A. No. 7610 must be established:
1. The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct.
2. The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse.
3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age. 44 IDSEAH
Lascivious conduct as defined by the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 7610 is:
[T]he intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person. 45
In the case, AAA testified that on June 29, 2016, accused-appellant arrived from work at around 10:00 in the morning, he instructed AAA to go inside her room and thereat started to fondle her breasts. 46 All the elements of lascivious conduct under Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610 have been adequately established — accused-appellant committed lascivious or lewd conduct against AAA by fondling her breasts; he was the common-law spouse of AAA's mother, a person who exercised moral ascendancy and influence upon her; and AAA's minority, as she was only 14 years old at the time of the incident, had been sufficiently established with the presentation of her Certificate of Live Birth.
In Orsos v. People, 47 this Court corrected the imposed penalty for lascivious conduct committed by Orsos and sentenced him to suffer:
Under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610, the prescribed penalty for lascivious conduct is reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. In the absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the maximum term of the sentence shall be taken from the medium period thereof. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term shall be taken within the range of the penalty next lower in degree, which is prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period. Accordingly, petitioner is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from a period of [ten] (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Likewise, and conformably with prevailing jurisprudence, he is directed to pay AAA the amounts of P20,000.00 as civil indemnity, P15,000.00 as moral damages, P15,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P15,000.00 as fine, all of which shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until full payment. 48 (Citations omitted)
The crime committed being Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b), R.A. No. 7610 and there being no mitigating and aggravating circumstances to consider, the accused-appellant is now sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from a period of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. 49 He shall also pay AAA, in conformity to recent jurisprudence, the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, all of which shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until full payment. 50
There is no reason for this Court to reverse the findings of the CA and the RTC. A careful perusal of the records revealed that the factual findings of the RTC and the CA in this one count of qualified rape and one count of lascivious conduct are supported by evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
Accused-appellant argued that the RTC erred in giving credence to the testimony of AAA. He claimed that AAA admitted that she has a boyfriend and that when he called them out, they got angry and filed the criminal cases against him. 51
This Court is not convinced.
The CA is correct in ruling that the contentions of accused-appellant on the credibility of AAA refer only to peripheral and trivial matters; they do not touch on the issue of whether or not the crime of rape was in fact committed. 52 The moral character of a victim is immaterial in prosecutions for rape. 53 Besides, the medico-legal report, corroborated the testimony of AAA. 54
In People v. Dagsa, 55 this Court has yet again explained that —
x x x. It is settled that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses is within the province of the trial court. All questions bearing on the credibility of witnesses are best addressed by the trial court by virtue of its unique position to observe the crucial and often incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment while testifying, something which is denied to the appellate court because of the nature and function of its office. The trial judge has the unique advantage of actually examining the real and testimonial evidence, particularly the demeanor of the witnesses. Hence, the trial judge's assessment of the witnesses' testimonies and findings of fact are accorded great respect on appeal. In the absence of any substantial reason to justify the reversal of the trial court's assessment and conclusion, like when no significant facts and circumstances are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded, the reviewing court is generally bound by the former's findings. 56 (Citations omitted)
Here, there is no showing that the RTC overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted some facts or circumstances of weight and substance in convicting accused-appellant. Accused-appellant's denial cannot prevail over AAA's direct positive and categorical assertion that rings with truth. 57 Denial is inherently a weak defense which cannot outweigh positive testimony. 58
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated July 20, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09228 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS:
1. In Criminal Case No. 882-V-16, accused-appellant XXX is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from a period of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum and to pay AAA, conformably with prevailing jurisprudence, the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, all of which shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until full payment. AHCETa
2. In Criminal Case No. 1163-V-16, accused-appellant XXX is ORDERED to pay AAA P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. Legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum is likewise imposed on all damages awarded from the date of 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.Rollo, pp. 3-17; penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo with Associate Justices Danton Q. Bueser and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a Member of this Court), concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 53-59; penned by Presiding Judge Evangeline M. Francisco.
3. Pursuant to Supreme Court Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015, the personal circumstances and other information which tend to establish or compromise the identity of the victim, including the names of her family members or relatives, and the barangay and town where the incidents occurred, are withheld. The names of the victim and her family members or relatives are replaced with fictitious initials. Likewise, the real name of the accused-appellant is replaced with fictitious initials by reason of his relationship to the minor victim.
4.Rollo, p. 4.
5.Id. at 4-5.
6.Id. at 5.
7.Id.
8Id.
9.Id.
10.Id.
11.Id.
12.Id.
13.Id.
14.Id.
15.Id. at 5-6.
16.Id. at 6.
17.Id.
18.Id.
19.Id.
20.Id.
21. CA rollo, p. 58.
22.Id.
23.Id. at 59.
24.Rollo, p. 14.
25.Id. at 16.
26.Id. at 25-26, 30-33.
27. CA rollo, p. 29.
28.Id. at 28.
29.Id.
30.Id. at 29.
31. As amended by R.A. No. 8353 otherwise known as "The Anti-Rape Law of 1997."
32.People v. Tubillo, 811 Phil. 525, 532 (2017).
33.Rollo, p. 5.
34.People v. Amoc, 810 Phil. 253, 260 (2017).
35. 734 Phil. 332 (2014).
36.Id. at 348.
37.People v. Amoc, supra at 260.
38. See People v. Arcillas, 692 Phil. 40, 48 (2012).
39. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
40.Id. at 849.
41. CA rollo, p. 43.
42. Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act (1992).
43.People v. Tulagan, G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019.
44.People v. Aycardo, 810 Phil. 309, 325 (2017).
45.Orsos v. People, 820 Phil. 1015, 1026 (2017) citing Quimvel v. People, 808 Phil. 889, 947 (2017).
46.Rollo, p. 4.
47.Supra.
48.Id. at 1029-1030.
49.Id. at 1030.
50.People v. Tulagan, supra note 43.
51. CA rollo, p. 34.
52.People v. Penilla, 707 Phil. 130, 138 (2013).
53.People v. Felan, 656 Phil. 464, 470 (2011).
54. CA rollo, p. 128.
55. 824 Phil. 704 (2018).
56.Id. at 718-719.
57.People v. Gabriel, 807 Phil. 516, 528 (2017).
58.Id.