FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 249646. November 11, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. XXX,1accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated November 11, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 249646 (People of the Philippines v. XXX). — Before Us is an appeal seeking the reversal of the Court of Appeals' (CA) Decision 2 dated July 22, 2019 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01968-MIN, which affirmed with modification the Decision 3 dated April 18, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 24 of __________, Cotabato, finding accused-appellant XXX guilty of Rape under Article 266-A, 1 (a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), in relation to the provisions provided under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610, otherwise known as the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act.
The Antecedents
The instant case stemmed from an Information charging XXX with the crime of Rape under Article 266-A No. 1 (a) in relation to Article 266-B, 1st paragraph and Section 10 of R.A. No. 7610. The accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about January 4, 2011, in the ______________________, Province of Cotabato, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with lewd design, by means of force, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously succeeded in having carnal knowledge with [AAA], 4 a minor 12 years old, against her will, which act debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of [AAA] as a child but is also prejudicial to her growth and development.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
Upon arraignment on May 4, 2011, XXX pleaded not guilty 6 to the offense charged. Thereafter, pre-trial and thence, trial ensued.
As culled from the CA decision are the facts of the case.
The prosecution presented the following witnesses: (1) private complainant, (2) AAA's mother (BBB), (3) Dr. Somirado Macadato (Dr. Macadato), and (4) Senior Police Officer 1 Thelma Flauta (SPO1 Flauta).
According to AAA, who was 12 years old at the time of the incident, she was at her grandfather's old house doing her homework. After sometime, she asked permission from BBB to go to the well to take a half-bath. After taking a bath, she sat for a while and saw her uncle XXX approaching. XXX threatened AAA that he would kill AAA's father if she refuses to come with him. For this reason, AAA followed XXX, who brought her to her aunt's house nearby. When they were already inside the house, XXX kissed AAA and took off her clothes. He laid her on the bed and inserted his penis in her vagina. He again threatened her not to tell anyone about it. However, BBB suddenly came in and saw XXX having sexual intercourse with AAA. BBB got angry and not knowing what to do, called AAA's father to report the incident. When AAA's father arrived, XXX had already left the house. 7
The next morning, despite being ashamed of her ordeal, AAA went to school. However, during lunch time, BBB instructed AAA to come home and talk about the incident. They sought assistance from the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), from which a representative thereat accompanied them to the police station to file a report. Thereafter, they proceeded to the district hospital for examination. 8 ISHCcT
When asked by the court, AAA explained that the house where she was raped, was owned by her aunt who is already living abroad, and that XXX was its caretaker. AAA admitted that she did not fight back or shout because XXX threatened to kill her father. 9
In open court, AAA identified XXX as her rapist. 10
In her cross-examination, AAA narrated that it was around 6:40 p.m. when she went to the well, which was about 50 meters away from her grandfather's house. The place was well-lighted because it was a common well used by residents in that area. Although it was already dark, she still went to the well after BBB allowed her to go there. She explained that since her grandfather's house had no source of water, she had to take her bath at the well. She was alone when XXX, who was carrying a knife, approached her and that he was about three meters away from AAA when he made the threat. XXX then dragged AAA to her aunt's house, which was about 10 meters from the well. AAA did not shout for help or run away to escape. 11
After seeing AAA's slippers outside the house, BBB entered the living room and saw XXX having sexual intercourse with AAA. 12
BBB also took the witness stand and testified that on January 4, 2011, she and AAA were at the old house owned by her mother-in-law. At about 6:45 p.m., while she was cooking, AAA asked permission to go to the well, to which she consented. Later, her husband arrived and looked for AAA. She told him that AAA was at the well taking a bath, but her husband said that he did not see AAA there. Subsequently, she asked her husband to finish what she was cooking, so that she could check on AAA. When she arrived at the well, she noticed two pairs of slippers in the balcony of a nearby house. She recognized that one pair of slippers belongs to AAA, while the other pair belongs to XXX. The door was ajar so she entered the house and saw in the living room that XXX was on top of AAA. Both were naked on top of a foam and saw XXX raping her daughter, who was then resisting. She immediately called her husband, but when the latter arrived, XXX already fled. She scolded AAA for not shouting for help, but AAA explained that it was because XXX threatened her. 13
BBB's husband talked to his sibling, who was the wife of XXX, to report what happened. They first reported the incident to the DSWD, and then to the police. Thereat, they were advised to have AAA examined. 14 On the evening of January 5, 2011, AAA was examined at the district hospital, and on the next day, a medical certificate was issued. 15
BBB and her husband once again talked to AAA, and found out that XXX had been raping her for several times. Had BBB not caught them, she might not have known about the several rape incidents because AAA was frightened of XXX's threats to kill her. 16
BBB also identified XXX in open court.
Dr. Macadato testified that on January 5, 2011, at around 7:00 p.m., he made an examination on AAA. He recorded his findings in a medical certificate issued on January 6, 2011, with the following findings: 1) complete healed laceration at 8 o'clock in location; 2) complete healed hymenal laceration at 10 o'clock in location; 3) complete healed hymenal laceration at 2 o'clock in location; and 4) complete healed hymenal laceration at 3 o'clock in location. He also found AAA positive for spermatozoa per vaginal smear. He explained that based on the results, there was a certain organ or object that was forcibly entered into AAA's vagina, and since she was positive for spermatozoa, there was a penetration of penis into her vaginal canal. 17
In his cross-examination, Dr. Macadato narrated that for a hymenal laceration to completely heal, it will take probably one or two weeks, and even months. As far as a complete healing is concerned, it cannot be within 24 hours. In AAA's case, this would mean that she had previous sexual intercourse prior to the incident reported. As regards the spermatozoa found in her vaginal canal, this indicates that AAA recently had sexual intercourse before she was examined. 18 According to Dr. Macadato, a spermatozoa could remain in the vagina at the longest, 78 hours.
SPO1 Flauta testified that on January 5, 2011, she was at the police station assigned to the Women and Children Protection Desk when BBB and her husband came to report that AAA was molested by XXX. The incident was recorded in the police blotter and was reported to their Chief of Police who then formed an Alert team led by SPO1 Flauta. Thereafter, the team proceeded to the house of XXX, where he was apprehended. 19
In her cross-examination, SPO1 Flauta admitted that XXX voluntarily surrendered to the police. 20
On the part of the defense, XXX took the witness stand and interposed denial.
According to XXX, he knows AAA because the latter is his wife's niece. On January 4, 2011, at about 7:00 p.m., he was at his sister-in-law's house when he saw AAA near the well. Afterwards AAA approached the balcony and told XXX to go to their house as her father bought Tanduay for them to drink. Subsequently XXX went inside one of the rooms in the house of his sister-in-law to change his clothes. When he got out of the room, he saw AAA with her mother, BBB, in the living room. BBB was asking AAA why was she inside the house, to which AAA replied that she was changing her clothes. Thereafter, AAA and BBB went home. XXX also went home. The next day, at around 6:00 p.m., police officers arrested XXX for allegedly raping AAA. 21 CAacTH
In his cross-examination, XXX recalled that AAA was washing herself near the well when he saw her. The well was illuminated by a light coming from the nearby house and he saw that AAA was naked at the time. He sat at the house's balcony, but since he could see AAA bathing naked, he told her to wear some clothes. Afterwards, AAA went to the balcony to get her clothes. XXX then left AAA and went inside the house to change his clothes, which got wet from milling rice. He also iterated that he was invited to go to AAA's house for a drinking spree, but it was BBB who invited him at 5:00 p.m., while they were still planting corn. After he planted corn, he went to mill the rice, and then went to his sister-in-law's house to change his clothes. 22
On April 18, 2018, the RTC issued a Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, finding accused [XXX] GUILTY by proof beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape under Art. 266-A, No. 1(a), in relation to Art. 266-B, 1st par. of the RPC in relation to the provisions of R.A. [No.] 7610, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, without eligibility for parole and he is further ordered to pay the victim [P]75,000.00 as civil indemnity, [P]75,000.00 as moral damages, and [P]30,000.00, as exemplary damages, plus legal interest on all damages awarded at the legal rate of 6% from date of finality of this judgment. No costs.
The period of preventive imprisonment already served by the accused shall be credited in the service of his sentence pursuant to Article 29 of the Revised Penal code, as amended.
SO ORDERED. 23 (Emphasis in the original)
In convicting XXX of Rape, the RTC gave full weight and credit to AAA's positive and straightforward testimony. Her testimony was also corroborated by BBB's testimony, with the latter having witnessed AAA's resistance to the painful ordeal of being raped by XXX. The testimonies of AAA and BBB were bolstered by the medical findings of the doctor who testified on such findings before the RTC. The medical findings show that when AAA was examined, there were healed lacerations in her vagina. Spermatozoa was also found in the vaginal smear, which concludes that there was a recent penetration of a penis into AAA's vagina. 24
The RTC also found that XXX perpetrated the crime of rape by the use of force, threat and intimidation. XXX threatened AAA that he would kill her father if she will not accede to his desire to have sexual intercourse with him. 25
According to the RTC, since AAA was only 12 years old at the time that she was raped, the crime committed against her falls within the ambit of R.A. No. 7610, which punishes persons who take advantage of a child, by sexually abusing her, not only by means of prostitution, but also when the child is being coerced, intimidated and forced to have sexual intercourse with the abuser. 26
XXX thereafter filed his appeal with the CA, which rendered a Decision dated July 22, 2019. The dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The April 18, 2018 Judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 24, 12th Judicial Region, __________, Cotabato, in Criminal Case No. 11-015 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION increasing the award of exemplary damages to [P]75,000.00.
SO ORDERED. 27
The CA held that the prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt, all the elements of rape: (1) AAA categorically and positively identified XXX as her rapist; and (2) AAA's categorical and positive testimony that XXX had sexual intercourse with her. 28
The CA found no reason to doubt the veracity of the prosecution witnesses' testimonies, in the absence of any allegation and proof that AAA and her family had ill motives against XXX when they filed a case of rape against accused-appellant. 29
AAA's failure to shout for help while XXX was raping her, does not negate the crime of rape. According to the CA, there is no clear-cut behavior to be expected of a person being raped or has been raped. 30 Unless the victim's acts clearly belie her claims, there is no reason to discount her testimonies merely on her comportment after the incident. 31
Aggrieved XXX filed his Notice of Appeal 32 before the CA. When this appeal was instituted before this Court, the parties made their Manifestations 33 that they will adopt their respective Appellant's and Appellee's Briefs, in lieu of their Supplemental Briefs.
Issue
Whether the CA erred in convicting accused-appellant of rape despite the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Our Ruling
The appeal has no merit. Nevertheless, We modify the CA's findings on the crime committed by accused-appellant and the penalty to be imposed on him.
AAA's testimony must
As to whether AAA's testimony should be given due weight and credence, the Women's Honor doctrine is usually taken into consideration. However, the doctrine that recognizes the "well-known fact that women, especially Filipinos, would not admit that they have been abused unless that abuse had actually happened, because it is their natural instinct to protect their honor," 34 borders on the fallacy of non-sequitur, to wit: IAETDc
[W]hile the factual setting back then would have been appropriate to say it is natural for a woman to be reluctant in disclosing a sexual assault; today we simply cannot be stuck to the Maria Clara stereotype of a demure and reserved Filipino woman. We, should stay away from such mindset and accept the realities of a woman's dynamic role in society today; she who has over the years transformed into a strong and confidently intelligent and beautiful person, willing to fight for her rights. 35
Thus, this Court must evaluate the weight and credibility of a private complainant of rape without gender bias or cultural misconception. 36
As a rule, rape may be proven by the sole and uncorroborated testimony of the offended party, provided that her testimony is clear, positive and probable. 37 Jurisprudence has provided the following guidelines in addressing the credibility of witnesses:
First, the credibility of witnesses is best addressed by the trial court, considering that it is in a unique position to directly observe the demeanor of a witness on the stand. The trial judge's evaluation of the testimonies of the witnesses, is given the highest respect, on appeal. Second, where there is no substantial reason to justify the reversal of the RTC's assessments and conclusions, the reviewing court is generally bound by the lower court's finding; in particular, when no significant facts and circumstances, affecting the outcome of the case are shown to have been disregarded. Third, the rule is more strictly applied if the CA concurred with the RTC. 38
In this case, accused-appellant avers the following inconsistencies in AAA's testimony: (1) even when it was already dark at night, AAA did not bring with her a lamp, or any means of light when she went to the well; (2) while she mentioned in her testimony that she saw accused-appellant brought a knife with him, she stated in her Affidavit that the knife was tucked in accused-appellant's waist. 39
Accused-appellant also argues that it is highly improbable for a rape victim to muster the courage to present herself in public, following her alleged rape. Here, AAA went to school the morning after her alleged rape. 40
Lastly, accused-appellant points out that it was improbable for him to rape AAA on January 4, 2011. Had he previously raped AAA, as alleged in her Affidavit, she should not have gone to the well alone during nighttime to allow herself to be raped. 41
This Court finds the enumerated inconsistences as trivial and cannot be the bases of acquittal, as these do not hinge on any of the essential elements of the crime of rape. 42
This Court finds AAA's testimony credible despite accused-appellant's insistence that the former did not behave normally before, during and right after she was raped.
This Court has repeatedly declared that the "failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance does not make voluntary the victim's submission to the perpetrator's lust." 43 In addition, physical resistance is not an element of rape. 44 Oftentimes, a rape victim is controlled by fear rather than reason. Here, accused-appellant's threat to kill AAA's father if she will shout, and the fact that AAA saw him with a knife 45 constitute sufficient intimidation and threat to cause AAA to fearfully submit to accused-appellant's lust.
Similar arguments of failure to resist and to shout for help during the rape incident were raised in People v. Lolos, 46 to wit:
The fact that the accused never threatened or forced AAA on that particular night and that she was still able to go out of the house and buy something from a store cannot exculpate him. Even if she did not resist him or even gave her consent, his having carnal knowledge of her is still considered rape considering that she was only eight (8) years old at that time. It must be remembered that the accused is an uncle of the victim and has moral ascendancy over her. Her behavior can be explained by the fear she had of the accused, who had repeatedly beaten her for various reasons. His moral ascendancy over her, combined with memories of previous beatings, was more than enough to intimidate her and render her helpless and submissive while she was being brutalized. 47 (Emphasis supplied)
In the same case, this Court ruled:
x x x. The behavior and reaction of every person cannot be predicted with accuracy. It is an accepted maxim that different people react differently to a given situation or type of situation, and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling experience. Not every rape victim can be expected to act conformably to the usual expectations of everyone. Some may shout; some may faint; and some be shocked into insensibility, while others may openly welcome the intrusion. Behavioral psychology teaches us that people react to similar situations dissimilarly. There is no standard form of behavior when one is confronted by a shocking incident. The workings of the human mind when placed under emotional stress are unpredictable. This is true specially in this case where the victim is a child of tender age under the moral ascendancy of the perpetrator of the crime. 48 (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, it is immaterial that AAA went to the well alone despite her allegations that she was previously raped by accused-appellant. This Court stresses that there is no standard form of behavior of a rape victim before, during and after the incident; more so for a minor such as AAA who was only 12 years old when her uncle raped her.
XXX is guilty of the
To warrant a conviction of rape through sexual intercourse under Article 266-A (1) (a), the prosecution must prove the following elements beyond reasonable doubt: (a) the man had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (b) he accomplished this act through force, threat or intimidation. 49
In this case, the prosecution was able to establish through AAA's positive and categorical testimony: (1) accused-appellant's identity as AAA's rapist; and (2) that accused-appellant had sexual intercourse with AAA through threat and intimidation.
During AAA's direct examination, narrated her ordeal as follows: DcHSEa
PROS. LUMACAD:
Q Kindly tell us where were you in the evening of January 4, 2011?
A I was residing at the house of my grandfather sir. My grandfather has two houses, the old and the new one. I was staying at the old house. At that time, while doing my assignment, I asked permission from my mother to go to the well[,] sir.
Q After you asked permission from your mother to go to the well, what next happened (sic)?
A After reaching the well, I cleaned myself and [had] a half bath.
Q After having half bath, what next happened (sic)?
A At that time, while doing my half bath, I sat for a while and saw my uncle, XXX not far distance from where I am having my half bath. Suddenly he went nearer to me and then told me that my father was in the other house. He threatened me that if I will not go with him, he will kill my father.
Q After that what next happened (sic)?
A So I followed all his instructions and then he brought me inside the house of my aunt sir.
Q When he brought you inside the house of your aunt, what next happened (sic)?
A While we were already inside the house, he kissed me and then took off my clothes and laid me on the bed and inserted his penis inside my vagina sir. He threatened me not to tell to anyone of what he did to me, sir. 50 (Emphasis supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
[COURT]
Q So when he brought you to inside the house, what did he first do to you?
A He kissed me Your Honor and then undressed me and laid on the bed. Then he also got undressed and then inserted his penis to(sic)my vagina.
Q Did you not fight back or shout for help?
A No, Your Honor.
Q Why?
A I did not shout Your Honor, because he threatened me, that if I will shout, he will go to the other house, where my father is, and then he will kill my father.51 (Emphasis supplied)
AAA narrated that accused-appellant succeeded in inserting his penis into her vagina. Further, AAA testified that accused-appellant employed intimidation and threat in facilitating the crime of rape. Prior to succumbing to accused-appellant's lust, AAA was threatened that should she resist or shout, accused-appellant will kill AAA's father.
The Court gives
BBB testified that she saw XXX having sexual intercourse with AAA, against her will, as follows:
PROS. LUMACAD:
Q I want to put on record, Your Honor, that the witness is crying while testifying.
A I entered the house which door was slightly opened with the [use] of my flashlight and I saw my daughter and the accused were on top of the foam in the sala they were both naked. The accused was raping my daughter and my daughter was resisting and that's the time I called for my husband and when my husband arrived[,] the accused fled. 52 (Emphasis supplied)
Dr. Macadato also testified on his medical findings on AAA's examination; thus: SCaITA
PROS. LUMACAD:
Q As you have stated will you kindly tell us what is the significance or what is the indication of this findings of yours in connection to this rape case?
A This means that there was a certain organ or object that was forcibly entered into the vagina of AAA and there is also a positive for spermatozoa per vaginal smear. It means to say that in this case there was a penetration of penis into the vaginal canal. 53
xxx xxx xxx
ATTY. BUENDIA:
Q In the medical certificate which you identified earlier there appears under the physical examination findings complete healed hyminal (sic) lacerations at different location, can you tell us how long will these lacerations be considered completely healed from the time these lacerations were sustained?
A It took probably one week, two weeks, and months.
Q It could not be twenty-four (24) hours?
A No sir[,] as far as the complete healed is concern[ed].
xxx xxx xxx
COURT
Q Does this mean Doctor that there was a previous rape prior to this incident of Rape again?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q But then because of the existence of that spermatozoa when you examined her, it means to say that she was just raped recently before the examination?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q For how long the spermatozoa remained in the vagina in order to be detected?
A It depends upon the spermatozoa or the sperm. There are sperm that can exist alive within the vaginal canal of two hours, 24 hours and 48 hours, Your Honor.
Q So the longest if 48 hours?
A So far, Your Honor, as far as the history I can remember there was a spermatozoa still alive after 78 hours.
Q So the longest is 78 hours?
A Yes, Your Honor. 54 (Emphasis supplied)
Dr. Macadato's findings confirm AAA's story that not only was she raped on January 4, 2011, but also several times, prior to that date. Dr. Macadato explained that the healed hymenal lacerations showed that there was penetration weeks or months before January 4, 2011. His findings also reveal that since there was spermatozoa in AAA's vaginal canal at the time she was examined, AAA could have sexual intercourse within 78 hours prior thereto. This proves that a man recently had carnal knowledge of AAA.
Accused-appellant's arguments that he could not have raped AAA on January 4, 2011 because of the healed hymenal lacerations and because there was no indication of physical trauma on AAA's body, do not exonerate him from the crime of rape. This Court has consistently held that the absence of external signs or physical injuries on the victim's body does not necessarily negate the commission of rape because hymenal lacerations and physical injuries are not elements of the crime of rape. 55
Accused-appellant also avers that it was not proven that he raped AAA because the spermatozoa found in AAA's vaginal canal was not proven to belong to him.
His argument will not hold water. This Court finds that AAA and BBB's testimonies are sufficient to establish that it was accused-appellant who raped AAA.
Jurisprudence has settled that where there is no evidence that the witnesses of the prosecution were actuated by ill motive, it is presumed that they were not so actuated and their testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. 56 In this case, there was no showing of improper motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses to falsely impute against accused-appellant, the heinous crime of rape. There was nothing to gain on the part of AAA and BBB should they have fabricated the ordeal that AAA suffered in the hands of accused-appellant. Rather, when the prosecution witnesses testified before the RTC, they exposed themselves to the humiliation and hurt in relieving the horrendous ordeal that AAA suffered.
This Court emphasizes that when a rape victim's account is straightforward and candid, and is corroborated by other evidence such as the medical findings of the examining physician, the same is sufficient to support a conviction for rape. 57 Notably, against AAA's straightforward and candid testimony, corroborated by BBB's testimony and the findings in the medico-legal report, all accused-appellant could offer is bare denial. The Court has consistently held that denial cannot prevail of the positive and categorical testimony and identification of the complainant. 58 In the absence of any evidence to corroborate accused-appellant's defense, We reject the same in the face of the minor's positive and categorical identification. aTHCSE
In any case, this Court has previously ruled that a medical examination and a medico-legal report are corroborative evidence in proving the commission of rape, but are not indispensable to a successful prosecution of rape. 59
Non-flight following
We also cannot subscribe to accused-appellant's theory that his non-flight following the rape incident negates his guilt. Jurisprudence has settled that non-flight does not necessarily connote innocence:
Flight is indicative of guilt, but its converse is not necessarily true. Culprits behave differently and even erratically in externalizing and manifesting their guilt. Some may escape or flee — a circumstance strongly illustrative of guilt — while others may remain in the same vicinity so as to create a semblance of regularity, thereby avoiding suspicion from other members of the community. 60
In this case, the prosecution's witnesses have proven beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA who was then 12 years old, through intimidation and threats.
The crime of simple
In the absence of the circumstances provided under Article 266-B of the RPC, accused-appellant must be held guilty of committing simple rape through sexual intercourse, wherein the penalty to be imposed is reclusion perpetua pursuant to Article 266-B 61 of the RPC, as amended. This is in accordance with the ruling in People v. Tulagan, 62 where rape through sexual intercourse was committed against a victim who is at least 12 years old, but less than 18 years old, is punishable by reclusion perpetua.
Anent the award of damage, We sustain the civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages awarded by the RTC and the CA. Civil indemnity is awarded upon the finding of rape. 63 Moral damages are also awarded to rape complainants without need of pleading or proof of the basis of the said damages, as the law assumes that a rape complainant actually suffered moral injuries thus entitling her to the award. 64 On the other hand, exemplary damages are awarded in rape cases to serve as deterrent against the commission of this heinous crime. 65
In accordance with the ruling in People v. Jugueta, 66 the amount of damages to be awarded to AAA was properly determined to be P75,000.00 each for civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages. A six percent (6%) legal interest per annum shall also be imposed on all damages awarded to be reckoned from the date of the finality of this judgment until fully paid. 67
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated July 22, 2019 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01968-MIN is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant XXX is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Simple Rape by Sexual Intercourse under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is ordered to pay AAA the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. These monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the time of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. The identity of the victims or any information which could establish or compromise their identities, as well as those of their immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. 7610, titled "An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, and for Other Purposes," approved on June 17, 1992; R.A. No. 9262, titled "An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, and for Other Purposes," approved on March 8, 2004; and Section 40 of Administrative Matter No. 04-10-11-SC, otherwise known as the "Rule on Violence against Women and Their Children" (November 15, 2004). (See footnote 4 in People v. Cadano, Jr., 729 Phil. 576, 578 (2014), citing People v. Lomaque, 710 Phil. 338, 342 (2013). See also Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015, titled "Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders Using Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances," dated September 5, 2017; and People v. XXX, et al., 835 Phil. 1083 (2018).
2. Penned by Associate Justice Loida S. Posadas-Kahulugan, with Associate Justices Oscar V. Badelles and Florencio M. Mamauag, Jr. concurring; rollo, pp. 5-23.
3. Rendered by Presiding Judge Lily Lydia A. Laquindanum; CA rollo, pp. 39-47.
4. The real name of the victim, her personal circumstances which tend establish or compromise their identities, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall not be disclosed to protect her privacy, and fictitious initial shall, instead, be used, in accordance with People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 (2006), and Amended Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017.
5. Records, p. 1.
6.Id. at 36.
7.Id. at 6-7.
8.Id. at 7.
9.Id.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 7-8.
12.Id. at 8.
13.Id.
14.Id.
15.Id. at 9.
16.Id.
17.Id. at 10.
18.Id.
19.Id.
20.Id. at 11.
21.Id.
22.Id.
23. CA rollo, p. 47.
24.Id. at 44.
25.Id. at 46.
26.Id.
27.Rollo, p. 22.
28.Id. at 15.
29.Id. at 18.
30.Id. at 20.
31.Id.
32.Id. at 24-25.
33.Id. at 32-33; 36-37.
34.People of the Philippines v. Tuyor, G.R. No. 241780, October 12, 2020.
35.People v. Amarela, 823 Phil. 1188, 1199 (2018).
36.Id.
37.People of the Philippines v. Seguisabal, G.R. No. 250330, March 18, 2021.
38.Id.
39. CA rollo, pp. 32-33.
40.Id.
41.Id.
42.Id.
43.People v. Napoles, 814 Phil. 865, 870 (2017).
44.Id.
45. TSN, October 23, 2012, p. 9.
46. 641 Phil. 624 (2010).
47.Id. at 633-634.
48.Id.
49.Supra note 46, at 634.
50. TSN, October 23, 2012, pp. 3-4.
51.Id. at 9.
52. TSN, February 19, 2013, p. 6.
53 TSN, March 13, 2013, p. 5.
54.Id. at 6-7.
55.People v. ZZZ, G.R. No. 229862, June 19, 2019, 905 SCRA 377, 394.
56.People of the Philippines v. Lira, Barnobal and Tedranes, G.R. No. 235991, March 18, 2021.
57.People v. Gabriel, 807 Phil. 516, 522 (2017).
58.People v. XXX, G.R. No. 232158, June 23, 2021.
59.People of the Philippines v. XXX, G.R. No. 225793, August 14, 2019, 913 SCRA 620, 632.
60.People v. Mores, 712 Phil. 480, 495 (2013).
61. An Act Revising the Penal Code and Other Penal Laws [REVISED PENAL CODE], Act No. 3815, Art. 2 (1932).
62. G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019, 896 SCRA 307, 372.
63.People v. AAA, G.R. No. 247007, March 18, 2021.
64.Id.
65.Id.
66.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 849 (2016).
67.Id. at 856.