SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 248421. September 27, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.XXX, 1accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 27 September 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 248421 (People of the Philippines v. XXX). — This appeal 2 seeks the reversal of the March 27, 2019 Decision 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02562, which affirmed with modification the April 20, 2017 Decision 4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of ____________, Branch 3, in Criminal Case Nos. 2528 and 2529 finding accused-appellant XXX guilty beyond reasonable doubt for two counts of Rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act No. 8353. 5
The Factual Antecedents:
XXX was charged with two counts of Rape under separate Informations both dated October 10, 2012. The accusatory portions thereof read:
Criminal Case No. 2528:
That on May 10, 2012 at about 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon, (first count) at ______________________, 6 Philippines, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the afore-named accused with lewd design and by means of force and intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously did lie and succeed in having sexual intercourse with AAA, 7 14 years old without her consent and against her will.
Contrary to law. 8
Criminal Case No. 2529:
That on May 10, 2012 at about 10:00 o'clock in the evening, (second count) at ___________________, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the afore-named accused with lewd design and by means of force and intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously did lie and succeed in having sexual intercourse with AAA, 14 years old without her consent and against her will.
Contrary to law. 9
Upon his arraignment on December 13, 2012, accused-appellant entered a plea of "not guilty" to both charges. 10 After the termination of the preliminary conference and pre-trial, trial on the merits subsequently ensued.
Version of the Prosecution:
The prosecution presented the testimonies of private complainant AAA and Dr. Ma. Socorro Flores (Dr. Flores) to establish the following facts:
AAA testified that when she was only 14 years old, 11 she was raped twice by herein accused-appellant, her stepfather. 12 AAA recalled that, on May 10, 2012, at around two o'clock in the afternoon, she was resting and lying down in the bedroom when XXX, or "Papa," as she fondly called him, entered the room. 13 He then proceeded to undress her and himself. Afterwards, accused-appellant placed himself on top of AAA, held her breast, and told her not to tell anyone. He then inserted his penis into her vagina where she felt pain. She also felt something watery come out of his penis. 14 Thereafter, XXX told AAA to transfer to the living room, where he shortly followed. He instructed her to lie down and inserted his penis into her vagina. 15 Accused-appellant threatened her that he would castigate her if she did not do as she was told. 16 He let her go after satisfying his lust. She then went to her mother, who was at a nearby vulcanizing shop, but did not tell her what had just happened because she was afraid of XXX. 17
At around ten o'clock in the evening of the same day, XXX raped AAA for the second time. She was sleeping in the bedroom when accused-appellant, who was already naked, suddenly took off her short pants and started having sex with her. AAA again felt pain in her vagina. 18 After he had finished, XXX told AAA to put on her short pants. 19 Subsequently, he went to AAA's mother who was sleeping at that time. 20 CAIHTE
However, on cross-examination, AAA testified that she was not in the house of XXX on May 10, 2012. 21 According to AAA, on even date, she went to a barangay official, whom she referred to as "Kuya Ariel," to report the incident and file a complaint against XXX. Afterwards, AAA stayed at the office of a certain policewoman named "Rowena" and proceeded to go to the office of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). Thereafter, she went to the house of her grandfather. 22
On May 30, 2012, AAA, accompanied by her grandfather, went to the Municipal Health Office. There, she was subjected to a medical examination conducted by Dr. Ma. Socorro A. Flores (Dr. Flores). 23 Upon examination, Dr. Flores found the following: "(1) healed incomplete hymenal lacerations at 11 o'clock and [1] o'clock positions; (2) healed complete hymenal laceration at 7 o'clock position; and (3) scar, M/3, labia majora, left." 24 Dr. Flores testified that the presence of such lacerations could have been caused by a hard object such as an erect male organ. 25
After the presentation of the two witnesses, the prosecution formally offered the sworn statement of AAA and the Certification issued by Dr. Flores. Subsequently, the prosecution rested its case. 26
Version of the Defense:
Accused-appellant vehemently denied the charges against him. He claimed that he was being falsely accused by AAA and her grandfather out of revenge. According to XXX, AAA filed the cases against him after he and her mother kicked her out of their house for stealing his money. 27 He also argued that he could not have possibly raped AAA on the afternoon of May 10, 2012 because he was in his vulcanizing shop the whole day and only went home at around 5:30 in the afternoon. 28 With regard to the second charge of rape, XXX claimed that AAA was no longer staying at their house that evening after being told to move out; thus, he could not have committed the crime against her. 29 Additionally, XXX asserted that the victim's grandfather instigated the accusations against him because they were not in good terms. He narrated that sometime in 2010, AAA's grandfather wanted AAA to babysit one of his other grandchildren, but accused-appellant did not allow her. 30 Since then, AAA's grandfather resented XXX and told him that he will retaliate against him. 31
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
In a Decision dated April 20, 2017, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charges against him. 32 In giving full credence to the testimony of AAA, the trial court stated that, "[f]rom the victim's manner while she was in the witness stand, she appears to be a simple and innocent child devoid of any guile. The court believes that at her tender age, it is simply out of her league to concoct such a story. Besides, it is highly improbable that she would fabricate such a story which would subject herself and her family to humiliation and public ridicule." 33
Further, the trial court held that actual force or intimidation need not be employed or proven, considering that in rape cases committed by the common-law spouse of the victim's mother, moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence or intimidation. 34 It also ruled that it was not necessary to establish that AAA had resisted to the rape. 35 Additionally, the contradiction in AAA's testimony with regard to the date when the rape incidents occurred did not adversely affect her credibility, such inconsistency even bolstered her credibility as it erased any suspicion that her testimony was coached. In any case, the date is not an essential element of the crime. 36 However, anent AAA's age, the trial court found that the prosecution failed to sufficiently prove her minority since it did not present AAA's birth certificate or any other authentic document that would show the date of her birth. The RTC stated that the mere testimony of AAA that she was born on October 15, 1997 and was 14 years old at the time of the incident would not suffice to prove her age, in the absence of an express admission from the accused. 37 Moreover, the trial court also gave credence to the medical findings and testimony of Dr. Flores. 38
In sum, the RTC ruled that the weak defenses of denial and alibi proffered by XXX cannot stand against the strong evidence provided by the prosecution. His alibi that he was at the vulcanizing shop the entire time during which the rape incident occurred was not accepted by the trial court since the shop was only 15 meters away from the house where the crime took place. According to the trial court, it was not shown that it was physically impossible for accused-appellant to be present at the crime scene at the time of its commission. 39 Further, the RTC did not give credence to XXX's claims that he was being falsely accused of the crimes because he was not in good terms with AAA and her grandfather, and found such reasons to be flimsy and tenuous. 40 The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused [XXX] guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of Rape under Republic Act No. 8353 in Criminal Case Nos. 2528 and 2529. He is hereby SENTENCED to reclusion perpetua without eligibility of parole for each count and ORDERED to pay [AAA] the sum of Seventy-five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity for each count, Seventy-five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages for each count, and Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages for each count. With costs de officio.
SO ORDERED. 41
Dissatisfied with the ruling of the trial court, XXX elevated the case to the CA, raising the following lone assignment of error:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIMES CHARGED DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT FAILED TO MEET THE TEST OF CREDIBILITY. 42
In his appeal, XXX insisted that the testimony of AAA is incredible because: (a) she was not consistent as to the date of the rape; (b) she did not call out for help; (c) there were other people present in the house at the time of the incident; 43 and (d) the charges against him were merely fabricated by AAA and her grandfather as part of their retaliation against him. 44 XXX posited that these circumstances made AAA's testimony unworthy of belief and insufficient to establish his guilt with moral certainty. 45
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
On March 27, 2019, the CA promulgated its Decision denying accused-appellant's appeal. Similar to the RTC, the appellate court found AAA's testimony, as corroborated by medical evidence, to be credible and sufficient to prove that XXX committed two counts of Rape against AAA. 46
It ruled that AAA's inconsistent testimony regarding the date of rape is inconsequential, since neither the date nor the time of the commission of rape is a material ingredient of the crime. 47 Moreover, the CA held that the presence of other people in the place where the rape occurred did not make AAA's testimony implausible, as it has been repeatedly shown by experience that rape does not only happen in seclusion but can also transpire even in public circumstances. 48 Also, AAA's failure to shout for help did not negate the fact of rape. 49 Further, the CA was not convinced with accused-appellant's theory that the charges against him were filed due to AAA's desire to exact revenge on him, or that the accusation of rape was impelled by the ill motives of AAA's grandfather. 50 It also did not give credence to XXX's defense of alibi, since it was not physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. 51
Essentially, the appellate court found no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the trial court, which was in the best position to weigh the evidence during trial and ascertain the credibility of the witnesses who testified. 52 The CA agreed with the RTC that accused-appellant can only be found guilty of Simple Rape instead of Qualified Rape, since AAA's minority was not established during trial and because AAA's relationship with accused-appellant was not alleged in the Informations filed. 53 With regard to the damages awarded to private complainant, the CA modified the award of exemplary damages from P30,000.00 to P75,000.00 to conform to this Court's ruling in People v. Jugueta. 54 The CA thus ruled:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated April 20, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court, 8th Judicial Region, Branch 3, ____________________ in Criminal Case Nos. 2528 and 2529 is AFFIRMEDwithMODIFICATION. The exemplary damages awarded is increased to Seventy Five Thousand Pesos, and all damages awarded shall earn interest at six percent (6%) perannumfrom the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.55
Hence, this appeal.
In a Resolution dated September 25, 2019, the Court required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired. 56 Both XXX and the People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a Manifestation in lieu of Supplemental Brief, stating that they are adopting the briefs previously filed before the CA and would already dispense with the filing of a supplemental brief. 57
Issue
The sole issue to be resolved in the instant case is whether accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for two counts of Rape as defined and penalized under Article 266-A and Article 266-B of the RPC.
Our Ruling
The appeal is unmeritorious. The CA correctly affirmed the conviction of XXX for two counts of Simple Rape.
Article 266-A of the RPC provides:
ART. 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; x x x
The first element of carnal knowledge was adequately proven based on the categorical and straightforward testimony of AAA, viz.:
Q: And what did he do after he removed your clothes?
A: He [held] my breast.
Q: And what happened next after he held your breast?
A: He inserted his organ [into] my organ.
Q: Now what do you mean when you said your organ Madam witness?
A: His male organ on my female organ. 58 DETACa
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Now after he put himself on top of you Madam witness, what did he do next?
A: He directed me to insert his organ to my organ by using my hands.
Q: And did you comply with his order?
A: Yes.
Q: What did he say when he ordered you to insert his penis into your vagina?
A: He told me if you will not follow me I will castigate you. 59
xxx xxx xxx
Q: And what did he do after he removed your short pants?
A: He again had a carnal knowledge of me.
Q: How did he have a carnal knowledge [of] you?
A: By placing himself on top of me.
Q: Was he wearing anything when he placed his body on top of you?
A: None.
Q: And what happened after he placed himself on top of you?
A: He started making sex with me. 60
From, the foregoing, it is thus clear that XXX succeeded in having sexual intercourse with AAA. Notably, the RTC gave credence to AAA's testimony. Well-settled is the rule that factual findings of the trial court are accorded great weight and respect, given its unique ability to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses. This rule finds an even more stringent application when the said findings are affirmed by the CA, such as in this case. Consequently, in the absence of any clear showing that the trial court had overlooked, misunderstood, or misappreciated any fact or circumstance of weight and substance that would affect the outcome of the case, this Court has no reason to overturn the lower courts' findings and thus sustains the conviction of accused-appellant. 61
With regard to the second element of force, threat, or intimidation, the same may be said to have been present when accused-appellant told AAA that he would castigate her if she did not follow his instruction to put his penis into her vagina. Such words may already be considered threatening for a child of tender age like AAA. The fact that she did not tell her mother about the incident because she was afraid of XXX shows that she indeed felt threatened or intimidated by him. Even assuming arguendo that accused-appellant's words cannot be considered as a form of threat or intimidation, the RTC nonetheless correctly ruled that the same need not be proven. Jurisprudence provides that "the moral ascendancy of an accused over the victim renders it unnecessary to show physical force and intimidation since, in rape committed by a close kin, such as the victim's father, stepfather, uncle, or the common-law spouse of her mother, moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence or intimidation." 62 In this case, the fact that the XXX is the common-law spouse of her mother, 63 who was exercising parental authority over her, and with whom she had been living with, sufficiently established his moral ascendancy over her. Simply put, accused-appellant's moral ascendancy substituted the element of force, threat, or intimidation.
However, it bears to note at this juncture that the Informations filed against accused-appellant did not specifically allege his relationship with AAA. Moreover, while it was alleged therein that AAA was a minor at the time of the incident, the same was not sufficiently proved during trial. This being the case, the Court agrees with the RTC and CA that XXX can only be found guilty of simple Rape instead of Qualified Rape. 64 This is in line with the doctrine that the two qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship must concur as provided in Article 266-B of the RPC and must be alleged in the Information and duly proven during trial by the quantum of proof required for conviction. 65
As to the purported inconsistency in the testimony of AAA pertaining to the exact date of when the rape incidents took place, this Court likewise agrees with the lower courts in holding that the same can hardly affect the credibility of AAA. In a catena of cases, the Court has repeatedly held that the date or time of the commission of rape is not a material ingredient of the crime and need not be stated with absolute accuracy. 66 This is because the gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge of a woman. 67 Further, it is settled in this jurisdiction that as long as the testimony of the witness is coherent and intrinsically believable as a whole, discrepancies in minor details and collateral matters do not affect the veracity, or detract from the essential credibility of the witness' declarations. 68 Verily, what is of paramount consideration is the witness' consistency in relating the principal elements of the crime and the positive and categorical identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of the same. 69 The testimony of AAA was successful in this regard.
Moreover, accused-appellant's argument that AAA's testimony is incredible because she did not shout or ask for help when there were other people present in the house deserves scant consideration. Time and again, this Court has recognized that there is no clear-cut behavior that can be expected of a person who has been raped. People react differently. When placed under emotional stress or a distressing situation, the workings of the human mind can be unpredictable. Some may shout or offer strong resistance, some may be too intimidated to do anything at all, others may faint or be shocked into insensibility, or there may also be those who openly welcome the intrusion. Nevertheless, none of these reactions impair the credibility of a rape victim. 70 Here, the fact that AAA did not shout or ask for help does not imply that her experience was not real or that she consented to the criminal acts of the accused-appellant.
This Court is likewise not persuaded by accused-appellant's reasoning that "it is highly impossible that accused-appellant would even dare to commit the alleged rape when there was a great possibility that he could be seen or heard by his wife or other children." 71 As correctly pointed out by the CA, there is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion. In People v. Descartin, this Court held:
It is well-settled that close proximity of other relatives at the scene of the rape does not negate the commission of the crime. Rape can be committed even 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. It is not impossible or incredible for the members of the victim's family to be in deep slumber and not to be awakened while a sexual assault is being committed. Lust is no respecter of time and place; neither is it deterred by age nor relationship. 72
Here, the presence of other people during the time of the incident does not negate the fact that XXX had sexually abused AAA.
Lastly, this Court rejects accused-appellant's contention that the cases against him were filed on account of revenge and retaliation. Such ascription of ill motive cannot be used to diminish or taint AAA's credibility. This Court has already ruled in several cases that, "motives such as resentment, hatred, or revenge have never swayed this Court from giving full credence to the testimony of a minor rape victim." 73 We agree with the lower courts' observation that it is simply unthinkable that AAA would concoct a story of defloration, allow the examination of her private parts, and subject herself to public trial all because of a petty grudge that she and her grandfather supposedly have against XXX.
All told, accused-appellant's defenses of denial and alibi must fail in light of the clear, consistent, and credible testimony of AAA. It is an established doctrine that denial is an inherently weak defense and constitutes self-serving negative evidence, which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration by a credible witness. Stated otherwise, mere denial, without any strong evidence to support it, cannot overcome the positive declaration by the child-victim regarding the identity of the accused as well as his involvement in the crime attributed to him. 74 The same is true with XXX's claim of alibi. As correctly observed by both the RTC and CA, he failed to prove his physical impossibility to be at the crime scene during the time of its commission.
Anent the penalty and award of damages, the courts below properly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua in conformity with Article 266-B of the RPC. However, the phrase "without eligibility for parole" must be deleted as the same is appended only when the imposable penalty is death. 75 Further, the CA correctly increased the award of exemplary damages to P75,000.00, which is in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.76
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02562 dated March 27, 2019 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-Appellant XXX is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for two counts of Rape under Article 266-A and Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. He is thus sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Further, accused-appellant is ORDERED to PAY the victim, AAA, the following amounts: (1) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; (2) P75,000.00 as moral damages; and (3) P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. All amounts are subject to the legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division 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.
2.Rollo, pp. 22-24.
3.Id. at 5-21; penned by Associate Justice Emily R. Aliño-Geluz and concurred in by Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga.
4. CA rollo, pp. 31-47; penned by Presiding Judge Rolando M. Lacdo-o.
5. Otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997.
6. Geographical location is blotted out pursuant to Supreme Court Amended Circular No. 83-2015, supra note 1.
7. "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 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]).
8. Records, Criminal Case No. 2528, p. 1; the barangay where the crimes were committed and the name of the victim are kept confidential pursuant to Supreme Court Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-15 or 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.
9. Records, Criminal Case No. 2529, p. 1.
10.Id. at 13.
11. TSN, March 14, 2013, p. 14.
12.Id. at 3.
13. TSN, March 14, 2013, pp. 4-5.
14.Id. at 5-9.
15.Id. at 9-10.
16.Id. at 10.
17.Id. at 10-11.
18.Id. at 11-13.
19.Id. at 14.
20.Id.
21. TSN, April 25, 2013, p. 23.
22.Id. at 20-22.
23. TSN, June 20, 2013, pp. 31-32.
24. Exhibits, p. 3.
25. TSN, June 20, 2013, p. 36.
26. Records, p. 56.
27. TSN, August 18, 2016, pp. 57-58.
28.Id. at 59-60.
29.Id. at 61-62.
30.Id. at 62.
31.Id. at 63.
32. CA rollo, p. 35.
33.Id. at 43.
34.Id. at 44.
35.Id.
36.Id.
37.Id. at 45.
38.Id.
39.Id. at 46.
40.Id.
41.Id. at 47.
42.Id. at 12.
43.Id. at 18.
44.Id. at 19.
45.Id. at 26.
46.Rollo, p. 15.
47.Id.
48.Id. at 17.
49.Id. at 18.
50.Id. at 19.
51.Id. at 20.
52.Id. at 16-17.
53.Id. at 20.
54.Id. at 21.
55.Id.
56.Id. at 28.
57.Id. at 31-32 and 39-41.
58. TSN dated March 14, 2013, p. 6.
59.Id. at 9-10.
60.Id. at 12-13.
61.People v. Tulagan, G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019.
62.People v. Belen, 803 Phil. 751, 767 (2017).
63. CA rollo, p. 32.
64.Rollo, p. 20.
65.Id., citing People v. Garcia, 722 Phil. 60, 73 (2013).
66.People v. Gerola, 813 Phil. 1055, 1066 (2017).
67.People v. Quiapo, G.R. No. 218804, August 6, 2018.
68.People v. Amoc, 810 Phil. 253, 261 (2017).
69.People v. Gerola, supra note 66.
70.People v. XXX, G.R. No. 235662, July 24, 2019.
71. CA rollo, p. 18.
72.People v. Descartin, 810 Phil. 881, 892 (2017).
73.People v. Quiapo, supra note 67.
74.Id.
75. A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC entitled "Guidelines for the Proper Use of the Phrase 'Without Eligibility for Parole' in Indivisible Penalties" dated August 4, 2015.
76.People v. Tulagan, supra note 61, citing People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 849 (2016).