FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 247975. October 13, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.XXX, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 13, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 247975 (People of the Philippines v. XXX). — This is an Appeal 1 from the Decision 2 dated July 12, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08531, affirming the conviction of accused-appellant XXX for Statutory Rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
To sustain a conviction for rape, the prosecution has to establish the following elements: (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 (12) years of age. 3
When the offended party is under 12 years of age, the crime committed is statutory rape. As the law presumes the absence of free consent when the victim is below the age of 12, it is not necessary to prove force, intimidation, or consent as they are not elements of statutory rape. 4 Thus, the elements of statutory rape are: (1) the age of the complainant; (2) the identity of the accused; and (3) the sexual intercourse between accused and complainant. 5 ICHDca
In the present case, all the foregoing elements were successfully established by the prosecution.
The fact that AAA 6 was below 12 years old at the time of the commission of the crime is not disputed. Her Certificate of Live Birth, 7 duly presented and offered in evidence, shows that she was born on August 20, 2002 and was, thus, only 8 years old when the incident took place on November 4, 2010.
Moreover, AAA categorically and positively identified XXX as the one who abused her, thus:
FISCAL PENA:
Q Do you know that person who abused you, [AAA]?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q What is his name?
A [XXX], ma'am.
Q So you know this person?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q Why do you know him?
A He is my stepfather, ma'am. 8
AAA also narrated with particularity the events before, during, and after she was raped by XXX on the night of November 4, 2010. She testified:
Q You said that this happened on November 4, 2010. What time was this?
A At 10:00 in the evening, ma'am.
Q Tell us where did this happen?
A In _____________, Makati, ma'am.
Q What is this _____________, Makati; is this your house?
A No, ma'am. It's the house we are renting, ma'am.
Q At 10:00 in the evening you were inside the house. What were you doing then inside your house, [AAA]?
A We were already sleeping, ma'am.
Q You said we. Who are these we that you are referring to?
A Mama and [K]uya [CCC], ma'am.
Q Only the three (3) of you?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q Where was [XXX] at that time?
A He was beside me, ma'am.
Q So there were four (4) of you?
Q Yes, ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx
Q Could you tell us how were you then lying? Who was then on your left or who was then on your right at the time that you were then lying in bed?
A On my right is [XXX] and on my left is mama. TCAScE
Q What about the other person that you referred to a while ago?
A Beside mama at her other side.
Q Who is that person again, [AAA]?
A [CCC], ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx
Q When you were lying what happened, [AAA]?
A My stepfather send my mama outside. So she went outside.
Q So what happened after your mama went outside?
A [XXX] lifted my shorts, ma'am. (Itinaas ni [XXX] 'yong shorts ko.)
Q Lifted? Could you tell us what you were wearing then at that time, [AAA]?
A I was wearing a loose shorts, ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx
Q When you say itinaas, what do you mean?
A Ibinuka niya po. (He spread.)
xxx xxx xxx
Q So after he spread and lifted your shorts what happened then?
A He inserted his organ, ma'am.
Q Could you clarify what did he actually insert?
A His sex organ, ma'am.
Q Where?
A Inside my sex organ, ma'am.
Q When he did that, what did you do?
A I cried, ma'am.
Q Why?
A Because it's painful, ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx
Q Where was [CCC] at that time?
A He was beside [XXX] but [XXX] asked him to turn his back from us.
Q Did he not notice what was happening at that time, [AAA]?
A He noticed it, ma'am, but he was afraid.
Q He did not do anything?
A None, ma'am, because he was scared at that time.
xxx xxx xxx
Q What did you do after that?
A I reported the incident to my mama.
Q What did you tell your mother?
A I told her what [XXX] did to me.
Q What did your mother say?
A To just don't mind it.
Q How did you feel about it that she said that you (sic)?
A I got angry, ma'am. 9 ITAaHc
In rape cases, the credibility of the victim is almost always the single most important issue. If the testimony of the victim passes the test of credibility, which means it is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things, the accused may be convicted solely on that basis. 10
Here, the trial court found that AAA testified in a clear, categorical, and straightforward manner. 11 This was affirmed by the CA, which also ruled that AAA's testimony more than suffices to prove XXX's guilt for statutory rape. 12 Questions on the credibility of witnesses should be best addressed to the trial court because of its unique position to observe that elusive and incommunicable evidence of witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying which is denied the appellate courts. The rule is even more stringently applied if the appellate court has concurred with the trial court, as in this case. 13 It is only when the trial court has overlooked or misapprehended some facts or circumstances of weight and influence that these matters are re-opened for independent examination and review by appellate courts. 14 Unfortunately for XXX, the Court finds nothing in the record that can support a reversal of the findings of the trial court and the CA.
Insisting on his innocence, XXX argues that his guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt. He contends that AAA's claim that she was raped in the presence of her brother in the same room is highly improbable. 15 He claims that contrary to the statement of AAA, she was actually sleeping in the other room with her sisters on the night of November 4, 2010. Thus, he could not have raped her because the persons sleeping beside her would have been awakened and she could have very well shouted for help. 16
XXX's assertions do not persuade. First, AAA categorically testified that her brother indeed witnessed what XXX was doing to her, but he was told by XXX to turn his back on them. The brother obliged out of fear, a reaction which is not surprising, but even expected, considering that XXX has a history of beating and mauling him. 17
In any case, the Court has ruled, time and again, that lust is no respecter of time and place. 18 Likewise, there is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion. 19 Rape has been shown to have been committed in places where people congregate, in parks, along the roadside, within school premises, inside a house where there are other occupants, and even in the same room where other members of the family are also sleeping. 20 In People v. Traigo, 21 the Court said that it was not impossible or incredible for the victim's sisters "to be in deep slumber and not to be awakened" while their sister is being sexually assaulted. 22
XXX also relies heavily on the Medical Legal Report 23 dated December 17, 2010, which states that no lacerations or specific genital findings were found when AAA was examined. 24 A freshly broken hymen, however, is not an element of rape. Even if the hymen of the victim was still intact, the possibility of rape cannot be ruled out. 25 The medical examination of the victim or the presentation of the medical certificate is not essential to prove the commission of rape, as the testimony of the victim alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict the accused of the crime. The medical examination of the victim as well as the medical certificate are merely corroborative in character. 26
In an attempt to discredit AAA's testimony, XXX claims that in filing the present case against him, AAA was motivated by a desire for her parents to get back together. He insists that AAA was convinced by her grandmother and mother to file the case so they can get rid of him. 27 The Court is not persuaded. Alleged motive of family feud, resentment, or revenge is not an uncommon defense, as the same has never swayed the Court from lending full credence to the testimony of complainant who remained steadfast throughout her direct and cross-examination, as in this case. 28
It is clear that, as against AAA's direct, positive, and categorical assertions, XXX can only interpose the defense of denial. Denial, however, is "an intrinsically weak defense which must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility." 29 Here, XXX failed to provide any corroborative evidence that could prove his defense. CHTAIc
All told, the Court sustains the conviction of XXX for statutory rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code. The trial court and the CA correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua in accordance with Article 266-B of the RPC. Moreover, the CA correctly awarded civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00, moral damages in the amount of P75,000.00, and exemplary damages in the amount of P75,000.00, in line with People v. Jugueta. 30
However, the Court, deems it proper to clarify the trial court's use of the phrase "without eligibility for parole." In its Decision 31 dated July 18, 2016, the trial court disposed of the case as follows:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. Finding the accused [XXX] GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of statutory rape defined and penalized under of (sic) Article 266-A paragraph 1(a) of Republic Act No. 8353. Consequently, the court hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole pursuant to R.A. 9346.
xxx xxx xxx 32
As provided in A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC issued by the Court En Banc on August 4, 2015, there is no need to use the phrase "without eligibility for parole" to qualify the penalty of reclusion perpetua for cases where the death penalty is not warranted, it being understood that convicted persons penalized with an indivisible penalty are not eligible for parole.
As a final point, while the records establish that XXX is the common-law husband of AAA's mother, this qualifying circumstance cannot be appreciated to elevate the crime to Qualified Rape under Article 266-B (1) 33 of the RPC, considering that the same was not alleged in the Information. 34 To consider said circumstance as qualifying would constitute a denial of the right of the accused to due process and to be informed of the charges against him.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated July 12, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08531, finding accused-appellant XXX guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Statutory Rape, is AFFIRMED. Accordingly, accused-appellant XXX is ORDERED to PAY the victim AAA (a) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) P75,000.00 as moral damages; and (c) P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. All damages shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum computed from the date of finality of this Resolution until their full satisfaction.
SO ORDERED." Lopez, M., J., on official leave.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 20-21.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta (Chairperson), with Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes concurring; id. at 3-19.
3.People v. Court of Appeals, 21st Division, Mindanao Station, 755 Phil. 80, 103 (2015), citing People v. Padigos, 700 Phil. 368, 377 (2012).
4.People v. Bernabe, G.R. No. 214882, October 16, 2019, citing People v. Roy, 836 Phil. 920, 928 (2018).
5.People v. Ramirez, 827 Phil. 203, 211 (2018).
6. The identity of the victim or any information to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. 7610, "An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, and for Other Purposes"; Republic Act No. 9262, "An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, and for Other Purposes"; Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the "Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children," effective November 15, 2004; People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 (2006); and Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017, Subject: Protocols and Procedures in the promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders Using Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances.
7. Records, p. 124.
8. TSN, May 28, 2015, p. 5.
9.Id. at 6-11.
10.People v. Gaa, 810 Phil. 860, 868 (2017), citing People v. Ceballos, Jr., 559 Phil. 892, 906 (2007).
11. CA rollo, p. 43.
12.Rollo, p. 14.
13.People v. Baguion, 835 Phil. 704, 715 (2018), citing People v. Barcela, 734 Phil. 332, 342-343 (2014).
14.People v. Bautista, 474 Phil. 531, 542 (2004).
15. CA rollo, p. 34.
16. TSN, February 9, 2016, p. 9.
17. TSN, May 28, 2015, p. 21.
18. See People v. Suwalat, G.R. No. 227749, September 22, 2020; People v. Descartin, 810 Phil. 881 (2017); People v. Agaton, 693 Phil. 580 (2012); People v. Villar, 379 Phil. 417 (2000); People v. Nogar, 395 Phil. 400 (2000); People v. Pecayo, Jr., 401 Phil. 239 (2000).
19.People v. Delos Reyes, 423 Phil. 75, 82 (2001), citing People v. Bataan, 317 SCRA 545 (1999).
20.People v. Quiros, 639 Phil. 118, 131 (2010), citing People v. Pacheco, 632 Phil. 624 (2010).
21. 734 Phil. 726 (2014).
22.Id. at 730.
23. Exhibit "E," records, p. 196.
24. CA rollo, p. 35.
25.People v. Dela Paz, 569 Phil. 684, 702 (2008).
26.People v. Manaligod, 831 Phil. 204, 213 (2018), citing People v. Ferrer, 415 Phil. 188, 199 (2001).
27. TSN, February 9, 2016, pp. 9, 15.
28. See People v. XXX, G.R. No. 229836, July 17, 2019.
29.People v. Deliola, 794 Phil. 194, 209 (2016). See also People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 242276, February 18, 2020; People v. Baguion, supra note 13; People v. Ganaba, 829 Phil. 306 (2018); People v. Ronquillo, 818 Phil. 541 (2017); People v. Regaspi, 768 Phil. 593 (2015).
30. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
31. Penned by Presiding Judge Cristina F. Javalera-Sulit; CA rollo, pp. 39-49.
32.Id. at 48-49. (Italics in the original)
33. Article 266-B. Penalty. — x x x.
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; x x x.
34. See People v. Begino, 601 Phil. 182 (2009).