People v. XXX

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 247600. June 28, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.XXX AND ZZZ, 1accused-appellants.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 28, 2021, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 247600 (People of the Philippines v. XXX and ZZZ). — This is an appeal 2 under Rule 124 3 of the Rules of Court challenging the August 17, 2018 Decision 4 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08640, which affirmed the August 10, 2015 Decision 5 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City, Branch 194, in Criminal Case Nos. 09-0167, 09-0168 and 09-0169, finding accused-appellants XXX and ZZZ guilty of Rape.

The Facts:

In an Information 6 dated February 9, 2009 (Criminal Case No. 09-0167), XXX and his brother, YYY, were charged with rape, the accusatory portions of which read:

That on or about the 24th day of November, 2008, in _______________________ Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, who are uncles of the complainant, having moral ascendancy over the victim, by means of force, threat and intimidation, conspiring, confederating together and both of them mutually helping and aiding one another did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge [of] one [BBB], 85 years old, a minor, against her will and without her consent, and thereby committing sexual abuse against a minor, which is detrimental to her worth and dignity as a person.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 9

XXX was also individually charged in another Information 10 dated February 9, 2009 (Criminal Case No. 09-0168), to wit:

That on or about the 3rd day of October, 2005, in the City of Parañaque, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, who is the uncle of complainant, having moral ascendancy over the victim, by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one [AAA], 118 years old, a minor, against her will and without her consent, and thereby committing sexual abuse against a minor, which is detrimental to her worth and dignity as a person.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 12

Likewise, ZZZ was charged with rape in an Information 13 dated February 9, 2009 (Criminal Case No. 09-0169) which states the following: AIDSTE

That on or about the 3rd day of October, 2005, in the City of Parañaque, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one [AAA], 8 years old, a minor, against her will and without her consent, and thereby committing sexual abuse against a minor, which is detrimental to her worth and dignity as a person.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 14

During his arraignment, XXX entered a plea of "not guilty" 15 for both Criminal Case Nos. 09-0167 and 09-0168. Similarly, ZZZ entered a "not guilty'' 16 plea in Criminal Case No. 09-0169. However, YYY, XXX's co-accused in Criminal Case No. 09-0167, remained at large. 17

The parties stipulated on the identities of the accused and the private complainants, the age of the private complainants, and the jurisdiction of the trial court. 18

Eventually, the parties agreed to jointly conduct the hearings of all three cases. 19

Version of the prosecution:

On November 24, 2008, BBB, then five years old, 20 was staying at her grandmother's house in ____________. That night, one of BBB's uncles, YYY, asked her to stay inside his room in the third floor of the house. YYY instructed BBB to sleep so she closed her eyes. 21

Suddenly, BBB felt pain in her vagina. She then saw her other uncle, accused-appellant XXX, on top of her. XXX inserted his penis inside her vagina causing BBB extreme pain. After XXX consummated the dastardly deed, YYY followed by inserting his penis inside BBB's vagina. Afterwards, YYY instructed BBB to get dressed and threatened her that he will kill her if she tells anyone about what transpired. Fearing for her life, BBB kept to herself until a few weeks later. 22

On December 8, 2008, at around 7:00 P.M., BBB immediately embraced her aunt, EEE, 23 when she (EEE) arrived from work. BBB then tearfully asked EEE, "Auntie, ganun ba talaga yun na pinapasok yung titi ni Uncle [XXX] sa pepe ko." Shocked, EEE asked BBB for details. BBB revealed that every time she would go to the third floor of the house, her uncles XXX and YYY would rape her. 24

The next day, EEE brought BBB to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for a medico-legal examination but the personnel of the NBI advised them to proceed to the Philippine General Hospital (PGH) instead. However, EEE decided to go home first. 25

After arriving home, AAA, BBB's sister, informed EEE that she would join the trip to PGH as XXX also raped her (AAA). AAA then told EEE about the rape incident she had to endure years before, as well as the one involving CCC, the sister of BBB and AAA. After hearing AAA's story, EEE got upset that AAA did not tell anyone about what happened to her even if they previously filed a case against ZZZ when he took advantage of CCC. 26 EEE told AAA, "Bakit ngayon ka lang nagsabi? Ang tagal naming nagtatanong nung panahon na si Ate [CCC] 27ay muntik ma-rape. Bakit ngayon ka lang nagsabi, [AAA]?"28

Apparently, around 4:00 A.M. on October 3, 2005, AAA, who was a minor at the time, 29 was sleeping in one of the rooms at her grandmother's house. She claimed that her sister, CCC, and her brother, FFF, 30 slept in the same room with her. 31 She woke up and went downstairs to urinate. However, XXX saw her and ushered her to her grandmother's room. Inside, XXX pulled down AAA's shorts and panty to the middle portion of her lower legs. Immediately after, XXX removed his own clothes and underwear and subsequently brought AAA to the bed. XXX then inserted his penis inside AAA's vagina for almost half an hour, which caused AAA great pain. Thereafter, XXX ordered AAA to hold his penis but she refused. Undeterred, XXX kissed AAA's cheek then instructed her to get dressed and return to the room where she was sleeping. AAA obeyed and then slept. Unfortunately, shortly after, AAA still had to endure another harrowing ordeal. 32

Around 5:00 A.M. of the same morning, accused-appellant ZZZ entered the room where AAA was sleeping. ZZZ undressed AAA while he removed his own clothes. ZZZ then inserted his penis inside AAA's vagina for about a minute. Subsequently, ZZZ dressed AAA up but proceeded to sexually take advantage of AAA's older sister, CCC. Since CCC felt someone touching her chest, she opened her eyes and saw ZZZ. CCC then shouted for help and ran towards the window. Unfortunately, ZZZ went downstairs in haste and escaped with the assistance of XXX. 33 CCC mentioned that after the incident, she saw that AAA was "nakatalukbong" with a blanket. 34

Charges were filed against ZZZ for sexually assaulting CCC. However, out of fear, AAA remained quiet about her own experience until she found out that her other sister, BBB, was also raped. Only then did AAA decide to finally report what happened to her. 35

Both BBB 36 and AAA 37 submitted to a medical examination which was conducted by Dr. Merle Tan (Dr. Tan). Dr. Tan found that although there were no evident injuries in the private parts of both BBB and AAA, such findings did not preclude the possibility that they were sexually abused. 38

During trial, the parties stipulated on the testimony of DDD, 39 the mother of the private complainants, in that: (1) she assisted her children when they gave their statements to the police and when they went to PGH for the medical examination; (2) the victims relayed to her the incidents; and (3) AAA and BBB were eight and five years old, respectively, when the offenses were supposedly committed. 40

Version of the defense:

XXX denied the charges against him. He stated that on October 3, 2005, he resided with his wife in their family's gasoline station in ______________. He contended that the cases were filed against him since his sister, DDD, had a dispute with his wife. Apparently, XXX's wife was an Avon cosmetics agent and DDD usually ordered Avon items from her without paying. According to XXX, DDD did not take it well that he took the side of his wife. Moreover, XXX alleged that DDD did not appreciate him scolding her son at times. 41

GGG, the mother of XXX, DDD and EEE or the grandmother of the private complainants, asserted that she was surprised when she found out about the charges against her son. She testified that despite the filing of the cases, both BBB and AAA continued to reside at her house and that she did not notice any change in their behavior. 42

ZZZ also denied the charge. He affirmed that he worked for XXX as a water delivery boy from 2001 to 2003. He asserted that in the morning of October 3, 2005, then jobless, he was cooking at the house of his live-in partner, Jennifer, in ___________. He added that since 2001, he and Jennifer lived with their son. He maintained that he has never seen the house in ______________ where AAA was allegedly raped. 43

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:

In a Decision 44 dated August 10, 2015, the RTC ruled that while there were some inconsistencies and inaccuracies 45 in the testimonies of the complainants, these were still credible, candid and straightforward which proved the guilt of both XXX and ZZZ. 46 It noted that although there were no evident injuries on the private parts of the victims during the medical examination, the attending doctor did not exclude the possibility of sexual abuse. Besides, the absence of hymenal laceration does not negate the commission of rape. The delay in reporting the rape incidents should not be taken against the minor victims as they were overwhelmed by the threats on their lives. 47

The RTC held that in light of the testimony of AAA which coincided with that of CCC, the presence of ZZZ inside the house on October 3, 2005 cannot be doubted. 48 Similarly, the trial court rejected XXX and ZZZ's defenses of denial and alibi as they did not submit convincing evidence that there was a physical impossibility for them to be present at the locus criminis. 49 It ruled that XXX's claims that his wife and DDD had a misunderstanding and that she (DDD) did not appreciate XXX scolding her child were shallow defenses. A mother like DDD would not allow her children to be exposed to a public trial and to narrate the details of the rape for several years just to seek retribution for the wrong done to her. 50 Hence, the dispositive portion of the RTC's Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape under the following cases:

1. Accused [XXX] is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt underCriminal Case No. 09-0167 for the crime of Rape under Article 266-A, 1st paragraph as amended by RA 8353 in relation to RA 7610 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty or reclusion perpetua and to pay private complainant [BBB] the amount of P30,000.00 as moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.

2. Accused [XXX] is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt under Criminal Case No. 09-0168 for the crime of Rape under Article 266-A, 1st [paragraph] as amended by RA 8353 in relation to RA 7610 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay private complainant [AAA] the amount of P30,000.00 as moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.

3. Accused [ZZZ] is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt under Criminal Case No. 09-0169 for the crime of Rape under Article 266-A, 1st paragraph as amended by RA 8353 in relation to RA 7610 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay private complainant [AAA] the amount of P30,000.00 as moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.

As the accused are detention prisoners, the period of their detention shall be credited in the period of their sentence.

SO ORDERED. 51

Aggrieved, XXX asked for a reconsideration 52 of the RTC's Decision which the trial court denied in an Order 53 dated January 14, 2016. He then appealed 54 to the CA. Meanwhile, ZZZ also appealed to the CA. 55

ZZZ, for his part, assigned the following errors:

I.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT ON THE BASIS OF THE INCONSISTENT AND INCREDIBLE TESTIMONY OF AAA.

II.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT VILLAFUERTE NOTWITHSTANDING THE MEDICAL FINDINGS THAT CONTRADICT AAA'S TESTIMONY. 56

On the other hand, XXX raised the following errors:

I.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT JARAMILLO ON THE BASIS OF THE INCONSISTENT AND INCREDIBLE TESTIMONIES OF AAA AND BBB.

II.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT JARAMILLO NOTWITHSTANDING THE MEDICAL FINDINGS THAT CONTRADICT AAA'S AND BBB'S TESTIMONIES. 57

Ruling of the Court of Appeals:

The CA, in its assailed August 17, 2018 Decision, 58 held that the prosecution established all the elements of rape. 59 It found that the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the victims are trivial and have no relevance to the elements of the crime charged. 60 It additionally found that the absence of hymenal lacerations does not negate rape, especially when the attending doctor stated that although there was no evident injury at the time of medical examination, such cannot exclude sexual abuse. 61 The appellate court ruled that the defenses of denial and alibi must fail as these cannot stand against the positive identification and categorical testimonies of the rape victims. Furthermore, the accused-appellants did not prove that it was impossible for them to be at the place of the commission of the crime. 62

Moreover, the CA held that the allegation of relationship in the Information was not specific enough as to warrant the imposition upon XXX of death penalty. 63 The dispositive portion of the assailed CA Decision provides: EcTCAD

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 10 August 2015 of Branch 194, Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City in Criminal Case Nos. 09-0167, 09-0168 and 09-0169 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as follows:

1. In Criminal Case No. 09-0167, accused-appellant XXX is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. He is ORDERED to pay BBB as follows: P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. He is further ordered to pay interest on all damages awarded at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the time of finality of this decision until fully paid.

2. In Criminal Case No. 09-0168, accused-appellant XXX is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusionperpetua without eligibility for parole. He is ORDERED to pay AAA as follows: P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. He is further ordered to pay interest on all damages awarded at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the time of finality of this decision until fully paid.

3. In Criminal Case No. 09-0169, accused-appellant ZZZ is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. He is ORDERED to pay AAA as follows: P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. He is further ordered to pay interest on all damages awarded at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the time of finality of this decision until fully paid.

SO ORDERED. 64

Dissatisfied, the accused-appellants jointly appealed 65 before Us.

Issue

Whether or not XXX and ZZZ are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the felony of rape as alleged in the Informations.

Our Ruling

The appeal has no merit.

"The lower court's determination of witness credibility will seldom be disturbed on appeal, unless significant matters have been overlooked. Reversal of these findings becomes even more inappropriate when affirmed by the Court of Appeals." 66 The courts below aptly assessed the available evidence and applied the relevant laws and jurisprudence before arriving at the decision upholding the conviction of the accused-appellants. There is no need to belabor on this point as the Court's own determination yields the same conclusion that the accused-appellants are guilty of Statutory Rape.

Article 266-A, paragraph (1) of the RPC describes the felony of rape 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 is 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. 67 (Underscoring supplied)

In relation to this, the rape shall be qualified and the death penalty shall be imposed under Article 266-B, paragraph 1 of the RPC if: 1) the offender is a relative of the victim by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree; and 2) the victim is below eighteen (18) years old, viz.: HSAcaE

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

xxx xxx xxx

The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:

1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim; 68 x x x (Underscoring supplied)

In the case at bench, the minority of the victims was properly alleged and proven during trial. Although consent is immaterial considering the age of the victims, still the evidence showed that the accused-appellants threatened and intimidated the victims into engaging in sexual congress with them. Owing to AAA's tender age and innocence, ZZZ successfully overpowered her and imposed his will upon her. XXX undoubtedly employed his moral ascendancy over both BBB and AAA as he is their uncle. Thus, "in rape committed by a close kin, moral ascendancy takes the place of violence and intimidation. This is due to the fact that force, violence, or intimidation in rape is a relative term, depending not only on the age, size, and strength of the parties but also on their relationship with each other." 69 Based on these findings, there is no doubt that accused-appellants raped the minor victims.

As regards XXX, the only question now is whether he is guilty of qualified rape.

We rule in the negative. The prosecution failed to sufficiently prove XXX's relationship with BBB and AAA. The Information only indicated that he is their "uncle" without further clarification. Particularly, it did not allege that XXX is a relative of the victims by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree as stated in the first paragraph of Article 266-B. 70 Thus, the rape cannot be qualified as to XXX.

According to People v. Begino, 71 the "qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the indictment. If the same are not pleaded but proved, they shall be considered only as aggravating circumstances since the latter admit of proof even if not pleaded. It would be a denial of the right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him and consequently, a denial of due process, if he is charged with simple rape and be convicted of its qualified form, although the attendant circumstance qualifying the offense and resulting in the capital punishment was not alleged in the indictment on which he was arraigned." Since the qualifying circumstance of relationship was not properly pleaded in the Information, XXX should only be convicted of simple statutory rape under paragraph 1 of Article 266-A of the RPC.

To elaborate, "[s]tatutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below twelve (12) years of age regardless of her consent, or the lack of it, to the sexual act. Proof of force, intimidation or consent is unnecessary as they are not elements of statutory rape. For the absence of free consent is conclusively presumed when the victim is below the age of twelve (12). At that age, the law presumes that the victim does not possess discernment and is incapable of giving intelligent consent to the sexual act. Thus, to convict an accused of the crime of statutory rape, the prosecution carries the burden of proving: (a) the age of the complainant; (b) the identity of the accused; and (c) the sexual intercourse between the accused and the complainant." 72

As earlier stated, both BBB and AAA were below twelve years old when the crimes were committed against them, as verified by their birth certificates. Moreover, the identities of both XXX and ZZZ were proven since the minor victims positively identified them in open court. 73 Relevantly, the evidence confirmed that the accused-appellants forced the minor victims to have sexual intercourse with them through force, threat or intimidation.

Nevertheless, the accused-appellants insist that since there were inconsistencies in the testimonies of the private complainants, their conviction should be reversed. We disagree. It should be noted that the "'testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit, because when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.'" 74 In the case at bench, We cannot simply set aside the claims of the victims, especially when their testimonies corroborated each other on material points notwithstanding their tender age.

The accused-appellants point out that the victims did not accurately testify to the time in which the crimes were committed. Yet, "[i]n statutory rape, time is not an essential element except to prove that the victim was a minor below twelve years of age at the time of the commission of the offense." 75 Besides, what is material is the occurrence of rape and not the time of its commission. 76 It has already been established that rape was committed. The victims should no longer be required to specify the time of the commission of the crime down to the last minute as this would be an absurdity, given the nature of the felony.

The presence or absence of companions in the room where the rape was committed is likewise not an element of the felony. With regard to AAA's experience, it does not matter if she was sleeping in a papag or if the room's door was open or closed. 77 Besides, the papag was near the door so ZZZ or XXX could access it quickly in order to get inside the room and to later on escape. 78 All the same, it should be emphasized that "lust is no respecter of time or place; rape defies constraint of time and space. Rapists are not deterred from committing the odious act of sexual abuse by mere inconvenience or awkwardness of the situation or even by the presence of people or family members nearby. Rape is committed not exclusively in seclusion." 79 Nonetheless, AAA stated in her cross-examination that her grandmother was not around when the incident happened and that her mother, DDD, brought her brother, FFF, to school around 4 A.M., 80 so there could not have been other witnesses aside from AAA and CCC. HESIcT

Even matters such as the description of the clothes which the accused-appellants wore and the duration in which they raped the victims (how long the penis stayed inside the vagina) are details which would not repudiate the fact that rape was committed. Indeed, "'[s]uch inconsistencies on minor details [in the testimonies] are in fact badges of truth, candidness, and the fact that the witness is unrehearsed.'" 81

The accused-appellants also harp on the fact that the minor victims did not bleed after the rape and that there were no evident injuries on their private parts when they underwent medical examination. Indeed, AAA admitted that she did not bleed when XXX raped her but averred that she felt extreme pain. 82 Jurisprudence instructs that "the absence of hymenal lacerations or abrasions as well as seminal fluid, spermatozoa, or hematoma around the genital area does not negate the commission of rape." 83 Rather, "[i]t is settled that when a rape victim's account is straightforward and candid, and is corroborated by the medical findings of the examining physician, the testimony is sufficient to support a conviction." 84 Notably, Dr. Tan also stated that the absence of evident injury does not preclude the possibility that sexual assault occurred. In this sense, the medical evaluation still supported the claims of the private complainants.

XXX and ZZZ also question the behavior of BBB and AAA after the incidents as they supposedly did not behave differently as testified by GGG. "To begin with, there is no such thing as a typical reaction or norm of behavior among rape victims." 85 As they were minors under threat of physical harm, it is not sound to assume that they would react a certain way or similarly to other rape victims. 86 Additionally, "[n]ot every victim of a crime can be expected to act reasonably and conformably with the expectation of mankind. 87 There is no standard or typical reaction or norm of behavior that ensues forthwith or later from victims of rape." 88

Moreover, the Court notes that EEE described BBB and AAA as "napakatalinong bata, bibo at masayahin" and "masiyahing bata at matalino din," respectively, before the incidents occurred. However, after the harrowing experience, AAA appeared to have her "sariling mundo" and "lagi x x x tulala at hindi x x x masyadong nagku-kuwento."89 In the same way, the trial court observed that BBB was close to tears every time the rape would be mentioned, as her eyes would water and turn reddish during her testimony. 90 In particular, EEE asserted that whenever she asked the children if they can forgive their uncle XXX, they would always say no. 91

Moreover, accused-appellants maintain that the delay in reporting the crimes shows that the allegations were untrue. Again, this claim is a feeble attempt to escape liability. It is settled that "[d]elay in prosecuting the offense is not an indication of a fabricated charge, 92 and does not necessarily cast doubt on the credibility of the victim. 93 This especially holds true if the victim faces the threat of physical violence." 94 In this case, the accused-appellants threatened the private complainants that they would be killed if they reported the incidents to anybody. Surely, such grave threat to their lives was more than enough to cow them to submission and unwillingness to reveal their traumatic experiences to their mother or anyone else. This is in addition to the fact that AAA and BBB were always under the watchful eye of XXX as they stayed in the house of XXX's mother, GGG. As it turned out, ZZZ also knew about GGG's house, apart from the one in the gasoline station where XXX supposedly stayed.

During trial, the private complainants personally and positively identified the accused-appellants in open court as the perpetrators. Moreover, the accused-appellants failed to establish any ill will on the part of the minor victims. XXX stated that he had a dispute with DDD. 95 Yet, such imputation is too trivial when juxtaposed with the risks and embarrassment which the private complainants, minor ones at that, have to endure by pursuing the case. Without a doubt, "'a young girl's revelation that she had been raped, coupled with her voluntary submission to medical examination and willingness to undergo public trial where she could be compelled to give out the details of an assault on her dignity, cannot be so easily dismissed as mere concoction.'" 96

Lastly, both XXX and ZZZ failed to adduce proof to show that they could not have been present in the area where the crimes were committed. "[T]he continuing case law is that for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place when the crime was committed, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime or its immediate vicinity through clear and convincing evidence." 97 Based on their testimonies, 98 both XXX and ZZZ would not have a hard time reaching the house of GGG, especially when XXX himself can have access inside since he is GGG's son. Furthermore, ZZZ remained friends with XXX even after he (ZZZ) stopped working for him. 99 Thus, it is not farfetched that ZZZ would have access to the house as well.

Considering the totality of evidence, the accused-appellants' denial of the charges without corroborative proof is insufficient to reverse their convictions. 100

With regard to the penalties, we hold that the CA correctly affirmed the RTC's imposition of reclusion perpetua upon the accused-appellants for simple statutory rape. 101 Likewise, the appellate court's awards for civil indemnity, as well as moral and exemplary damages are in accord with recent jurisprudence. 102 Similarly, the imposition of legal interest on the monetary awards at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of the finality of this judgment until its full satisfaction is affirmed. 103 caITAC

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The assailed Decision dated August 17, 2018 rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08640 is hereby AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant XXX is found GUILTY of Statutory Rape in Criminal Case Nos. 09-0167 and 09-0168 committed against BBB and AAA, respectively, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each case, and to PAY each victim the sums of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. Accused-appellant ZZZ is found GUILTY of Statutory Rape in Criminal Case No. 09-0169 committed against AAA and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the victim P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. All damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this Resolution until full payment.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Initials were used to identify the accused-appellant pursuant to Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-15 dated September 5, 2017 Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders using Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances issued on September 5, 2017.

2.Rollo, p. 25.

3. As amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC.

4.Rollo, pp. 3-24; penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco and concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas-Peralta and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now a Member of this Court).

5. CA rollo, pp. 58-76; penned by Presiding Judge Marie Grace Javier Ibay.

6.Records. Vol. I (Crim. Case No. 09-0167), p. 2.

7.n Geographical location is blotted out pursuant to Supreme Court Amended Circular No. 83-2015, supra note 1.

8. "The identity of the victim or any information which could establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. 7610, An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, Providing Penalties for its Violation, and for Other Purposes; Republic Act No. 9262, An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, and for Other Purposes; and Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the Rule on Violence against Women and Their Children, effective November 15, 2004." (People v. Dumadag, 667 Phil. 664, 669 [2011]).

9.Id.

10. Records, Vol. II (Crim. Case No. 09-0168), p. 2.

11.Id.

12.Id.

13. Records, Vol. III (Crim. Case No. 09-0169), p. 2.

14.Id.

15. Records, Vol. I (Crim. Case No. 09-0167), p. 24; Vol. II (Crim. Case No. 09-0168), p. 21.

16. Records, Vol. III (Crim. Case No. 09-0169), p. 22.

17. Records, Vol. I (Crim. Case No. 09-0167), p. 24.

18.Id. at 44, 75, 241; Records, Vol. II (Crim. Case No 09-0168), pp. 40-41, 71-72; Records, Vol. III (Crim. Case No. 09-0169), pp. 45-46.

19. Records, Vol. II (Crim. Case No. 09-0168), pp. 247-248.

20. Birthdate is June 16, 2003; records, Vol. I (Crim. Case No. 09-0167), p. 9.

21. CA rollo, p. 111; TSN, February 28, 2012, p. 7.

22.Id. at 111-112; Sinumpaang Salaysay, records, Vol. I (Crim. Case No. 09-0167), p. 7; TSN, February 28, 2012, pp. 8-10.

23.Supra, note 7.

24. CA rollo, p. 112; TSN, April 17, 2012, pp. 6-7.

25.Id.; id. at 7-8.

26.Id. at 113; id. at 8-9.

27.Supra, note 7.

28. TSN, April 17, 2012, p. 9.

29. Birthdate is February 18, 2000; records, Vol. II (Crim. Case No. 09-0168), p. 10. Although it was indicated in the Information and was stipulated by the parties that AAA was eight years old at the time of the incident on October 3, 2005, she was actually just five years old then. Yet, AAA was eight years old on December 8, 2008, the alleged date when BBB was raped. Nonetheless, AAA was still a minor when both crimes were committed.

30.Supra, note 7.

31. TSN, November 19, 2010, pp. 8-9.

32. CA rollo, p. 113; records, Vol. II (Crim. Case No. 09-0168), p. 7; TSN, October 6, 2010, pp. 6-10, 13.

33.Id. at 113-114; id.; id. at 7-8, 13-14.

34. TSN, November 6, 2012, p. 16.

35. CA rollo, p. 114.

36. Records, Vol. I (Crim. Case No. 09-0167), pp. 8, 268.

37. Records, Vol. II (Crim. Case No. 09-0168), p. 9; Vol. III (Crim. Case No. 09-0169), pp. 9, 185.

38. Records, Vol. I (Crim. Case No. 09-0167), p. 167; the parties stipulated that Dr. Tan conducted the medical examination and that she reduced her findings in writing.

39.Supra, note 7.

40.Records, Vol. I (Crim. Case No. 09-0167), p. 152.

41. CA rollo, p. 159; TSN, August 13, 2013, pp. 5-8.

42.Id. at 8; TSN, April 4, 2013, p. 7; April 18, 2013, pp. 6-8.

43.Id. at 43; TSN, June 3, 2014, pp. 6-7; August 7, 2014, pp. 5-6; October 7, 2014, pp. 4-5, 9.

44.Id. at 58-76.

45.Id. at 74.

46.Id. at 72.

47.Id. at 73.

48.Id. at 73-74.

49.Id. at 74-75.

50.Id. at 75.

51.Id. at 75-76.

52. Records, Vol. I (Crim. Case No. 09-0167), pp. 460-463.

53.Id. at 477.

54. CA rollo, pp. 20-22.

55.Id. at 19, 23.

56.Id. at 39.

57.Id. at 154.

58.Rollo, pp. 3-24.

59.Id. at 11-18.

60.Id. at 18-19.

61.Id. at 20.

62.Id. at 20-21.

63.Id. at 22-23.

64.Id. at 23-24.

65.Id. at 25-26.

66.People v. ZZZ, G.R. No. 229209, February 12, 2020 citing People v. Diu, 708 Phil. 218, 232 (2013).

67. REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 266-A, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 (1997).

68. REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 266-B, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 (1997).

69.People v. BBB, G.R. No. 232071, July 10, 2019 citing People v. Ubiña, 554 Phil. 199, 209 (2007).

70.See;People v. XXX, G.R. No. 225339, July 10, 2019.

71.People v. Begino, 601 Phil. 182, 192 (2009) citing People v. Garcia, 346 Phil. 475, 504-505 (1997).

72.People v. ________, G.R. No. 229836, July 17, 2019 citing People v. Cadano, Jr., 729 Phil. 576, 584-585 (2014).

73. TSN, October 6, 2010, pp. 4-5; February 28, 2012, p. 14.

74.People v. Salaver, 878 Phil. 104, 118 (2018) citing People v. Vergara, 724 Phil. 702 (2014).

75.People v. XXX, G.R. No. 240441, December 4, 2019 citing People v. Teodoro, 622 Phil. 328, 344 (2009).

76.People v. Biala, 773 Phil. 464-489 (2015) citing People v. Espejon, 427 Phil. 672 (2002).

77. TSN, November 19, 2010, pp. 9-13.

78.Id.

79.People v. XXX, G.R. No. 225793, August 14, 2019 citing People v. Agudo, 810 Phil. 918, 928 (2017).

80. TSN, February 23, 2011, pp. 4-5.

81.People v. Salaver, supra note 73 citing People v. Descartin, 810 Phil. 881-895 (2017).

82. TSN, February 23, 2011, p. 7.

83.People v. Ombreso y Mutia, 423 Phil. 966-1007 (2001) citing People v. Domantay, 366 Phil. 459-484 (1999); People v. Dela Peña, 303 Phil. 595-607 (1994).

84.People v. Traigo, 734 Phil. 726-732 (2014).

85.People v. XXX, G.R. No. 240441, December 4, 2019.

86.People v. Allan Nievera, G.R. No. 242830, August 28, 2019 citing People v. Soriano, 560 Phil. 415, 420 (2007).

87.People v. Allan Nievera, G.R. No. 242830, August 28, 2019 citing People v. Gecomo, 324 Phil. 297, 313 (1996).

88.People v. Allan Nievera, G.R. No. 242830, August 28, 2019 citing People v. Deleverio, 352 Phil. 382, 400 (1998).

89. TSN, April 17, 2012, p. 11.

90. TSN, February 28, 2012, p. 14.

91. TSN, April 17, 2012, p. 24.

92.People v. XXX, G.R. No 240441, December 4, 2019 supra note 84 citing People v. Gersamio, 763 Phil. 523, 536-537 (2015).

93.Id., citing People v. Velasco, 722 Phil. 243, 253-254 (2013).

94.Id., citing People v. Velasco, 722 Phil. 243, 255 (2013).

95. TSN, September 24, 2013, pp. 7-9.

96.People v. Salaver, supra note 80, citing People v. Dalipe, 633 Phil. 428 (2010).

97.People v. Nievera, G.R. No. 242830, August 28, 2019 citing People v. Desalisa, 451 Phil. 869, 876 (2003).

98. TSN, December 3, 2013, p. 6; August 7, 2014, p. 4; October 7, 2014, p. 5.

99. TSN, October 7, 2014, pp. 4-5, 7.

100.People v. Alberca, 810 Phil. 896-911 (2017) citing People v. Barberan, 788 Phil. 103, 113 (2016).

101.People v. Tulagan, G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019.

102.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 849 (2016).

103.Nissan Gallery-Ortigas v. Felipe, 720 Phil. 828, 840 (2013) citing Nacar v. Gallery Frames and/or Felipe Barley, Jr., 716 Phil. 267, 281-283 (2013) citing BSP-MB Circular No. 799 dated May 16, 2013.

n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Missing Footnote Reference.