SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 249148. October 4, 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 04 October 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 249148 (People of the Philippines v. XXX). — This is an appeal 2 filed by accused-appellant XXX (accused-appellant/XXX) from the October 24, 2018 Decision 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09922 modifying the September 15, 2017 Judgment 4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calamba City, Branch 37 in Criminal Case No. 20554-2013-C by convicting accused-appellant of Qualified Rape instead of Simple Rape.
The Factual Antecedents:
Accused-appellant was initially charged with Qualified Rape under the following Information:
That sometime in February 2006, in ____________________, 5 within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, by means of force, threat or intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had sexual intercourse with his niece, [AAA] 6 who was a minor sixteen (16) years of age at that time, and a relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, by then and there inserting his penis in her vagina, against her will, thereby causing damage and prejudice to [AAA].
That at the time of the commission of the offense, the qualifying circumstance of the victim being under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 7
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. Thereafter, the pre-trial conference was conducted and subsequently trial ensued. 8
During the trial, the prosecution presented as witnesses AAA, the private complainant, and Dr. Roy Camarillo (Dr. Camarillo), a Medico-Legal Officer of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory. On the other hand, the defense presented accused-appellant as its lone witness. 9
Version of the Prosecution:
Private complainant was born on September 19, 1990. When she was about 16 years old, she started to reside with her uncle, accused-appellant herein, and the latter's wife, YYY, who is the sister of private complainant's mother, BBB. 10
Sometime in the morning of February 2006, accused-appellant called private complainant inside his bedroom. During this time, accused-appellant's wife was not in the house while he instructed his youngest son to play outside. When private complainant was inside accused-appellant's bedroom, he threatened her with death if she will leave the room. Inside the bedroom, accused-appellant suddenly undressed himself and ordered private complainant to undress too. When the minor refused to undress and started crying, accused-appellant went near her and forcefully removed her shorts and underwear, pulled her to the bed, and started kissing her neck and chest. Accused-appellant then tried to insert his penis into private complainant's mouth but she resisted. Subsequently, he inserted his penis into private complainant's vagina. The latter felt pain but she could not resist and shout because of fear that accused-appellant might kill her. Thereafter, accused-appellant put on his clothes and told private complainant to dress up since her aunt will arrive any time soon. Thus, she put on her clothes and went inside another room crying. Because of fear, private complainant did not tell anyone about the incident. Afterwards, she asked permission from her aunt to go home to her family who were residing in _____________. 11
After the foregoing rape incident, accused-appellant sexually assaulted private complainant again on March 6, 2010 at around nine o'clock in the morning when he visited private complainant's family at the latter's residence. On said day, private complainant was then sweeping their yard when accused-appellant called her to fix the hose inside the comfort room. While private complainant was fixing the hose, accused-appellant went inside the comfort room, held her hands and her waist from the back, turned her around and forcefully removed her shorts and panty. Accused-appellant, in that very instance, threatened to kill private complainant if she will not follow his instruction. Accused-appellant then showed her his penis and forcefully placed her hand on it. Accused-appellant also tried to grasp private complainant's breast but failed due to her resistance. Subsequently, accused-appellant moved his body closer to private complainant's body and rubbed his penis against her vagina. Thereafter, accused-appellant washed up, got dressed and went out of the comfort room leaving private complainant crying. Afterwards, private complainant narrated the incident to her friend, who was then in their house. Subsequently, private complainant informed her aunt, CCC, another sister of her mother regarding both ordeals she encountered with accused-appellant. Said aunt then informed her mother about both incidents and accompanied her to file a complaint at the police station. 12
Dr. Camarillo corroborated the testimony of private complainant that she was sexually abused. He testified that when he examined private complainant, he found deep healed lacerations on her private part at six and nine o'clock positions. His findings were reduced into writing in his Medico-Legal Report No. M-0214-10 dated March 9, 2010. 13
During the trial, the parties stipulated on the testimony of private complainant's mother, to wit: (i) she is the mother of private complainant; (ii) at the time of the incidents, she was in Oman, Jordan; (iii) accused-appellant is her brother-in-law, being the husband of her sister, YYY; (iv) while in Oman, Jordan, she received a call from her other sister, CCC, about both incidents that are subject of this case; and (v) said sister accompanied private complainant to report both incidents to the barangay authorities. 14
Version of the Defense:
Accused-appellant vehemently denied the accusation against him. He testified that the only incident wherein he and private complainant had a confrontation was when the latter asked for money that will be used for her needs in school. He was not able to provide the money she needed but he reassured private complainant that he will do something about it and further advised her to borrow money for the meantime and he will repay her. However, private complainant turned her back from him. He further claimed that he and private complainant had a normal relationship as uncle and niece. He asserted that private complainant filed the instant case against him because he was not able to lend her money when she borrowed some funds to pay for the electric bills. He averred that private complainant is now asking for an apology. He also asserted that when he asked private complainant why she did not tell the truth to her mother, she replied that she was just obeying her mother's orders. 15
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
In its September 15, 2017 Judgment, the trial court convicted accused-appellant of Simple Rape for failure of the prosecution to present sufficient evidence to prove that accused-appellant is related to private complainant within the third civil degree of affinity. The RTC disposed of the case in this wise:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court finds the accused, [XXX], GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of RAPE, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is also ordered to pay [AAA] the amounts of Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php25,000.00 as moral damages, and Php50,000.00 as exemplary damages, plus legal interest in the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of Judgment until the amounts due are fully paid.
SO ORDERED.16 (Emphasis in the original).
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
Aggrieved with the trial court's findings, accused-appellant filed an appeal with the CA. However, in its October 24, 2018 Decision, the appellate court modified the conviction of accused-appellant for Qualified Rape instead of Simple Rape. Moreover, the appellate court increased the amounts of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to P100,000.00 each in line with the prevailing jurisprudence. 17 The fallo of the appellate court's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the assailed Judgment dated September 15, 2017 of the court a quo finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of simple rape is hereby MODIFIED as follows:
(1) Accused-appellant is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified rape;
(2) He shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole;
(3) The awards of civil indemnity and exemplary damages are both increased from P50,000.00 to P100,000.00;
(4) The award of moral damages is increased from P25,000.00 to P100,000.00.
SO ORDERED.18 (Emphasis in the original).
Not in agreement with the appellate court's findings, accused-appellant filed the instant appeal.
Issue
The pivotal issue in the instant case is whether or not accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Qualified Rape.
Our Ruling
The appeal is without merit. We affirm accused-appellant's conviction for Qualified Rape.
Accused-appellant is guilty
This Court finds that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of Qualified Rape. Rape under paragraph 1, Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended by Republic Act No. (RA) 8353 19 is committed as follows:
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;
b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious;
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
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. (Emphasis supplied)
If committed by a relative within the third civil degree, such as an uncle, like accused-appellant, against his niece under 18 years of age, the rape is qualified under paragraph 1, Article 266-B, as amended of the same Code, viz.:
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.
xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied)
The elements therefore of Qualified Rape are: (1) sexual congress; (2) with a woman; (3) done through force, threat or intimidation, among others, and without the consent of the victim; (4) the victim is under 18 years of age at the time of the rape; (5) 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. 20
In the instant case, the element of carnal knowledge was proven by private complainant's testimony. She narrated that accused-appellant called her into his room. Once inside, he threatened to kill her if she will go out of the room. 21 He then forcefully removed her shorts and underwear, pulled her to the bed, and started kissing her neck and chest. Accused-appellant then inserted his penis into private complainant's vagina. The latter felt pain but she could not resist and shout because of fear that accused-appellant might kill her. 22 Furthermore, her minority was established by the presentation of her Certificate of Live Birth showing that she was born on September 19, 1990. She was only 15 years and five months old when the rape occurred in February 2006. 23
Anent the proof of relationship between accused-appellant and private complainant as relatives by affinity within the third civil degree, We find that the prosecution duly established the same. Notably, accused-appellant himself admitted in open court that he is the uncle of private complainant since the latter's mother is the sister of his wife. 24 We have previously held, and as correctly underscored by the appellate court, an open court admission of relationship is sufficient for the attending circumstance of relationship to be appreciated. 25
Accused-appellant asserts that he was deprived of his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. He points out that the Information only indicates that the alleged rape incident occurred "sometime in February 2006," which allegedly does not satisfy the requirement provided under Section 11, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. He argues that said provision "requires that the time of the commission of the offense must be alleged as near to the actual date as the information or complaint will permit." 26
Accused-appellant's submission deserves scant consideration. Time and again, We have ruled that the date is not an essential element of the crime of rape because the gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge of a woman. As such, the time of commission in rape cases need not be accurately stated. 27 We underscore that any "discrepancies in details which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime are not grounds for acquittal." 28
All told, the evidence on record established that private complainant was a minor, being then just 15 years and five months old when accused-appellant, her own uncle, had carnal knowledge of her. Clearly, all the elements of Qualified Rape are present.
Private complainant's testimony
We find no reason to depart from the factual findings of the appellate court. Private complainant's testimony on her harrowing experience in the hands of accused-appellant was found by the lower courts to be positive, straightforward, categorical and steadfast. Private complainant's narration of her ordeal was clear and consistent, thus:
Atty. Barut (Q):
So, what happened when you were staying in the house of [accused-appellant]?
Witness (A):
He raped me, ma'am. "Pinagsamantalahan po niya ako."
Q: What do you mean by "pinagsamantalahan"?
A: On February 2006, I cannot remember the exact date, he asked his child to go out to play and he called me, ma'am.
Q: Where did he call you?
A: In the room, ma'am. 29
xxx xxx xxx
Q: What happened when you went into the room?
A: He threatened me that he will kill me if I am going out of the room, ma'am.
Q: What did he do after he threatened you?
A: I could not go out, ma'am.
Q: What did the [accused-appellant] do?
A: He undressed, "naghubad na po siya, ma'am."
Q: When you say, "naghubad," what clothing did he remove?
A: His short and his brief, ma'am.
Q: And after he undressed, what did he do?
A: He ordered me to undress also [. . . .]
Q: Did you undress as ordered to you by your uncle?
A: No, ma'am. I just cried.
Q: What did your uncle do when you cried?
A: He approached me and he undressed me, ma'am.
Q: What clothes did the [accused-appellant] remove from you?
A: Boxer short and panty, ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: What happened next after your uncle undresses you?
A: He pulled me to the bed and kissed me on the neck, ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: After kissing you, what did he do next?
A: He showed his penis and he wanted it to put on my mouth, ma'am.
Q: Did you do the instruction given by the [accused-appellant]?
A: No, ma'am. 30
Q: What did the [accused-appellant] do after you refused to do what he wanted you to do?
A: While I [was] crying, he inserted his penis on my vagina, ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: And you said he was able to insert his penis on your vagina?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: Tell us what did you feel?
A: It was painful, ma'am. 31
xxx xxx xxx
Given the foregoing, this Court affirms the assessment of the RTC and appellate court on private complainant's credibility as a witness. We have repeatedly held that the evaluation of the trial court judge, due to his opportunity to observe the witness on the stand, coupled by the appellate court's affirmation of the trial court's findings, is binding on this Court unless it can be shown that facts and circumstances have been overlooked or misinterpreted which, if considered, would affect the disposition of the case in a different manner. 32 We find none in this case.
Moreover, it is noteworthy that private complainant was a minor at the time she was raped. The Court has been consistent in giving credence to testimonies of child-victims especially in sensitive cases of rape. In People v. Ragasa, 33 We underscored that "testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl, particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has in fact been committed." Thus, in People v. Tulagan, 34 this Court reiterated that:
When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. 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. 35
The Court thus upholds the credibility of private complainant and accords credence to her testimony.
Accused-appellant's claims of
Accused-appellant denies the rape charges against him and imputes improper motive upon private complainant. He claims that the latter filed the case because he failed to provide the money she needed to pay for the bills. 36
Accused-appellant's contention fails to persuade Us.
We reiterate that a young girl's revelation that she had been raped cannot be easily labeled as a mere concoction. We have repeatedly held that no woman, especially a minor, would fabricate a story of rape, have her private parts examined, subject herself to the indignity of a public trial if she was not motivated solely by the desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished. 37 Indeed, "it is highly improbable for an innocent girl of tender years like the victim, who is very naive to the things of this world, to fabricate a charge so humiliating not only to herself but also to her family." 38
Moreover, the defenses of denial and improper motive can only prosper when substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. 39 There being no such evidence in this case, the said defenses are no more than self-serving assertions that deserve no weight in law. Certainly, they cannot prevail over private complainant's positive and categorical testimony. 40 Thus, accused-appellant's defenses of denial and imputation of improper motive fail to convince Us.
Private complainant's conduct
Accused-appellant insists that private complainant's conduct after the alleged rape belies her claim that she was sexually molested. He maintains that private complainant's act of remaining silent after the February 2006 alleged rape was not the natural reaction of a rape victim. In addition, accused-appellant concludes that the delay in reporting the rape charge casts serious doubt on the truthfulness thereof. 41
These contentions deserve scant consideration. It has been settled that while the conduct of the victim immediately following the alleged sexual assault is of utmost importance as it tends to establish the truth or falsity of the charge of rape, it is not accurate to say that there is a typical reaction or norm of behavior among rape victims. 42 Not every victim can be expected to act conformably with the usual expectation of mankind. 43 There is no standard behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling experience, each situation being different and dependent on possibly several attending circumstances prevailing in each case. 44
Private complainant was able to satisfactorily explain her silence despite the occurrence of the first rape incident in February 2006. Firstly, she testified that she did not report her ordeal to anyone "[b]ecause of the fear." 45 Secondly, private complainant initially kept the incident to herself but decided to report the same when accused-appellant repeated the sexual abuse to her. This was aptly mentioned by the appellate court in its assailed Decision, viz.:
ATTY. BARUT
(Q): When did you file this complaint against accused?
A: March 2010, ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: What prompted you to finally filed (sic) this complaint against the accused?
A: When he repeated the acts again, ma'am.
Q: When did this happen?
A: At the comfort room in our house, ma'am. 46
Furthermore, it cannot be reasonably expected that private complainant would immediately report the rape to her parents, to other close relatives or friends or to the authorities considering that accused-appellant threatened to kill her should she divulge the incident. Private complainant was justified in thinking that accused-appellant would make good his threat considering that he seriously said the same. Besides, the victim's mother was abroad. In any case, accused-appellant's moral ascendancy and influence over her as his niece who lives in his house constitutes as sufficient intimidation and fear on the part of private complainant as to desist from immediately reporting the sexual abuse. We have consistently ruled that the failure to immediately disclose the rape does not warrant the conclusion that the victim was not raped especially in this case where a minor was threatened to be killed. 47
All told, the Court affirms the appellate court's conviction of accused-appellant for the crime of Qualified Rape.
The penalty and the awards of
Under Article 266-B of the RPC, the death penalty shall be imposed when the victim of rape is below 18 years of age and the offender is a relative by affinity within the third civil degree. The death penalty cannot, however, be imposed in view of RA 9346. In lieu of the death penalty, the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole shall be imposed. Hence, the Court finds proper the penalty imposed by the appellate court upon accused-appellant which is reclusion perpetua without eligibility of parole in the crime of Qualified Rape.
Moreover, We find that the appellate court properly modified the amount of damages in view of the prevailing jurisprudence. 48 Thus, as correctly held by the CA, private complainant is entitled to P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, for the crime of Qualified Rape. 49
Finally, We likewise uphold the appellate court's directive that all damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this judgment until fully paid. 50
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The October 24, 2018 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09922 finding accused-appellant XXX guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Rape, defined and penalized under Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, and ordering him to pay the amounts of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, with interest on all damages awarded at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this judgment until fully paid, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Initials were used to identify the accused-appellant pursuant to Supreme Court 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. 19-21.
3. CA rollo, pp. 97-112; penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla (now a retired Member of the Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi.
4.Id. at 51-61; penned by Presiding Judge Caesar C. Buenagua.
5. Geographical location is blotted out pursuant to Supreme Court Amended Circular No. 83-2015, supra.
6. "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]).
7.Records, p. 1.
8. CA rollo, p. 70.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 52-53, 71, and 98.
11.Id. at 71-72.
12.Id. at 52, 72, and 99.
13.Id. at 72-73.
14.Id. at 99-100.
15.Id. at 100.
16.Id. at 61.
17.Id. at 110.
18.Id. at 111.
19. The Anti-Rape Law of 1997.
20.People v. CCC, G.R. No. 228822, June 19, 2019.
21. CA rollo, p. 56.
22.Id. at 71-72.
23.Id. at 71 and 98.
24.Id. at 109.
25.People v. ZZZ, G.R. No. 224584, September 4, 2019.
26. CA rollo, p. 39.
27.People v. _________, G.R. No. 229836, July 17, 2019.
28.People v. Quiapo, G.R. No. 218804, August 6, 2018.
29. CA rollo, p. 55.
30.Id. at 56.
31.Id. at 57.
32.Villarba v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 227777, June 15, 2020.
33. 886 Phil. 468, 482 (2018).
34. G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019.
35.Id.
36. CA rollo, p. 100.
37.People v. XYZ, G.R. No. 244255, August 26, 2020.
38.Id.
39.People v. XXX, G.R. No. 246194, November 4, 2020.
40.Id.
41. CA rollo, p. 43.
42.People v. Tamano, G.R. No. 227866, July 8, 2020.
43.People v. Villaros y Caranto, G.R. No. 228779, October 8, 2018.
44.People v. Ampo, G.R. No. 229938, February 27, 2019.
45. CA rollo, p. 57.
46.Id. at 106-107.
47.People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 239892, June 10, 2020.
48.People v. XXX, G.R. No. 236562, September 22, 2020.
49. CA rollo, p. 111.
50.Id. at 110.