FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 250647. July 6, 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 July 6, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 250647 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. XXX, Accused-Appellant.) — On appeal 2 is the Decision 3 dated 19 September 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02381, which affirmed the Decision 4 of Branch 30, Regional Trial Court (RTC), ____, Samar in Criminal Case No. 2004-03-3023, finding accused-appellant XXX guilty of Qualified Rape under Article 266-A, in relation to Article 266-B, of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). 5
Antecedents
XXX originally was charged with multiple counts of Rape in one Information docketed as Criminal Case No. 2004-03-3022. It was later amended because the Information charged more than one offense. Thus, ten (10) separate Informations for Rape were filed against XXX, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 2004-03-3023, 2009-11-3467, 2009-11-3468, 2009-11-3469, 2009-11-3470, 2009-11-3471, 2009-11-3472, 2009-11-3473, 2009-11-3474, and 2009-11-3475. Nevertheless, XXX was acquitted in nine (9) of the charges against him because the RTC found that AAA failed to provide specific details of the Rape incidents mentioned in the Informations. The present appeal stems from XXX's conviction in Criminal Case No. 2004-03-3023, the Information for which reads: 6
That on or about 20th day of July, 2003, at about 8:00 o'clock in the evening, at ____________, _____________________, Province of Samar, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, exercising moral ascendancy over the victim being her own father, with lewd design and by means of force, intimidation, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one AAA a fourteen (14) year old girl, without her consent and against her will.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 7
During his arraignment on 21 October 2010, XXX pleaded not guilty. Thus, trial on the merits ensued. 8 SDHTEC
The parties' version of the events were summarized by the CA in this wise:
Version of the Prosecution
Private complainant testified that appellant is her father. In 2003, she was living with appellant along with her two younger siblings and their aunt in a small house made of bamboo situated at ______________, ________, Samar. Private complainant recalled that sometime in the month of July 2003 when she was still fourteen (14) years old, she and appellant were alone inside the house. Appellant poked a knife at her and inserted his finger into her vagina. Thereafter, appellant started kissing her and inserted his penis into her vagina. Private complainant was unable to put up any resistance because appellant threatened to kill her. Appellant had supposedly molested her several times in the month of July 2003. According to private complainant, appellant had treated her as his wife since the time he had separated from her mother. Private complainant added that she could not pluck up the courage to tell anyone about her ordeal and leave their house because she had nowhere else to go to. On one particular day of that month, her younger sister, BBB, allegedly saw appellant naked and mounting private complainant. BBB then reported the incident to the Barangay. Private complainant then gained the courage to file the complaint against appellant, with the help of BBB, their neighbor, and the personnel from the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD).
BBB testified that she had known what appellant was doing to her sister since the latter was only seven (7) years old and she was only five (5) years old when they were still living in Payatas, Quezon City. When their parents separated, appellant transferred her, private complainant, and their brother to _________________, _________, Samar where they lived with their aunt. BBB affirmed that she saw appellant having carnal knowledge of her sister some time in July 2003. She recalled that before that, she was watching a noontime television show at their neighbor's house. She went home to get something and when she opened the door, she saw her father (appellant) on top of her sister, who was then crying. Appellant allegedly got mad and cursed BBB. Out of fear, BBB ran away.
Dr. Rusela C. Grapa, Municipal Health Officer of _________, Samar, testified that when she examined the genitalia of private complainant, she found the hymen perforated with healed lacerations at 6 o'clock and 9 o'clock positions. Dr. Grapa further testified that she prepared a Medico-Legal Report in connection with the said examination.
Version of the Defense
Appellant denied the accusations of rape. He claimed that private complainant and BBB, who were merely his step-daughters, were making up stories because he had seen them bringing men inside their house.
The defense presented appellant's sister, RRR, and the latter's son, NNN, who both attested that they had not seen anything unusual between appellant and his daughter, private complainant. RRR, in particular, declared that she was living with appellant and his children at the time the supposed incidents of rape transpired. According to her, it was improbable that appellant would commit the same without being seen by her since they all lived in the same house which had no partition. 9
The RTC rendered judgment finding XXX guilty as charged:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows: 1.) In criminal case no. 2004-03-3023 this court finds accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified rape by sexual intercourse and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with no eligibility for parole. Accused is likewise ordered to pay AAA the amount of Php100,000.00 by way of civil indemnity, Php100,000.00 by way of moral damages, Php100,000.00 by way of exemplary damages with interest at 6% per annum from the time of the finality of this decision until fully paid.
2.) In criminal case nos. 2009-11-3467, 2009-11-3468, 2009-11-3469, 2009-11-3470, 2009-11-3471, 2009-11-3472, 2009-11-3473, 2009-11-3474 and 2009-11-3475 for failure of the prosecution to prove these cases, accused is hereby ACQUITTED.
SO ORDERED. 10
XXX appealed his conviction to the CA. However, the CA denied his appeal and affirmed the RTC's ruling. The dispositive portion of the CA's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is DENIED. The 26 August 2016 Consolidated Decision of the Regional Trial Court, 8th Judicial Region, Branch 30, ________, Samar in Criminal Case No. 2004-03-3023 is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED. 11
The CA found no reason to reverse the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution, specifically that of AAA. The transcripts of stenographic notes of her testimony show that AAA gave a firm, consistent, and unwavering testimony that her own father had carnal knowledge of her. AAA was able to describe the circumstances surrounding the Rape incident. Further, BBB corroborated her sister's testimony, recalling when and how she saw XXX having carnal knowledge of her sister. 12
The appellate court also gave no credence to XXX's assertion that AAA's credibility is eroded by her failure to escape or to report the alleged rape committed against her, despite having several opportunities to do so. The CA explained that the failure of the victim to shout or seek help do not negate Rape. Finally, the CA held that the qualifying circumstances of minority during the commission of rape was proven by her Application for Registration with the Commission on Elections, which indicates that she was born on 06 September 1988. Meanwhile, relationship was proven by XXX's admission that he was legally married to AAA's mother, making him the latter's stepfather. 13 AScHCD
When notified by the Court that they may file their supplemental briefs, 14 the parties manifested that they are dispensing with the submission of the same. 15
In his Appellant's Brief16 before the CA, XXX raised the following arguments: (1) AAA's failure to escape despite having the opportunity to do so is contrary to human experience; (2) the healed lacerations found in AAA's hymen may have been caused by reasons other than sexual intercourse; and (3) BBB's testimony in support of her sister is biased. XXX asserts that considering the foregoing defects in the prosecution's evidence, his guilt was not sufficiently proved. 17
Ruling of the Court
In addressing challenges to the credibility of minor rape victims, the Court ruled in many instances that much respect, finality even, is given to the trial court's factual findings, considering its superior position to evaluate a witness's credibility on the stand. 18 We find no reason to deviate from this principle. The RTC found AAA's testimony firm, consistent, and unwavering, to which the CA agreed. The same is true for the testimony of AAA's sister, BBB. The Court accords the highest respect and finality to the factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA, as in this case. 19
Further, the Court finds that AAA's failure to escape despite having the opportunity to do so, does not erode her credibility. AAA is under no requirement to show that she had taken steps to stop XXX's advances. Our ruling in People v. Tejero20 is on point:
Equally unsuccessful is Tejero's attempt to destroy AAA's credibility by questioning the latter's failure to take precautionary measures to prevent the successive rapes. Again, AAA is a young girl who had been raped and threatened by someone she considers her stepfather and who lives with her and her family in the same house. The Court need not require AAA to prove that she fought back or protected herself in some way to stop the rape or to keep the rape from happening again. It is not accurate to say that there is a typical reaction or norm of behavior among rape victims, as not every victim can be expected to act conformably with the usual expectation of mankind and there is no standard behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling experience, each situation being different and dependent on the various circumstances prevailing in each case. 21 (Emphasis supplied)
Moreover, AAA's failure to resist the incident of rape may be attributed to the fact that XXX threatened to kill her with a knife. We have held that the act of holding a bladed instrument, by itself, is strongly suggestive of force or, at least, intimidation, and threatening the victim with the same is sufficient to bring her into submission. 22
Nevertheless, the Court finds that XXX should only be held guilty of simple Rape because of the prosecution's failure to prove the nature of AAA's and XXX's relationship as alleged in the Information. It must be pointed out that the Information states that XXX was AAA's "own father." However, during trial, it was shown by accused's own admission that AAA was only XXX's step-daughter, being legally married to the farmer's mother. The Court had held that qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the indictment, or else the right of the accused to be properly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him would be violated. 23 In People v. XYZ, 24 We explained:
Lastly, the Court cannot consider the allegation of "natural father" as to include step-father. It is a basic rule in statutory construction that penal statutes are construed against the State and in favor of the accused. The reason for this principle is the tenderness of the law for the rights of individuals and the object is to establish a certain rule by conformity to which mankind would be safe, and the discretion of the court limited. Also, the purpose of strict construction is not to enable a guilty person to escape punishment through a technicality but to provide a precise definition of forbidden acts. Moreover, the relationship was also expressly included in the enumeration in Article 266-B. Therefore, step-father cannot be implied from the term "father." 25
Consequently, the penalty imposed upon XXX and the amount of damages he is being made to pay must also be modified. Rape under Article 266-B of the RPC is punished by reclusion perpetua only. Thus, the phrase "without eligibility for parole" is deleted considering said phrase is only used to qualify reclusion perpetua when death is the imposable penalty where it not for Republic Act No. 9346. 26 Further, XXX should be held liable to pay Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php75,000.00 as moral damages, and Php75,000.00 as exemplary damages, plus interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the finality of judgment until fully paid, all in accordance with Our ruling in People v. Jugueta27 and Nacar v. Gallery Frames. 28
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Consolidated Decision of the Regional Trial Court in Criminal Case No. 2004-03-3023, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02381 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. We find accused-appellant XXX GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Accused-appellant is also ORDERED to PAY AAA the amounts of Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php75,000.00 as moral damages, and Php75,000.00 as exemplary damages. Legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum is imposed on all damages awarded from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid. AcICHD
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 victim or any information which could establish or compromise her identity, including the names of her immediate family or household members, and the barangay and town of the incident, are withheld pursuant to SC Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015. The real name of the accused-appellant is also replaced with fictitious initials by reason of his relationship to the minor victim.
2.Rollo, pp. 18-19; see Notice of Appeal dated 28 October 2019.
3.Rollo, pp. 5-17; penned by Associate Justice Emily R. Aliño-Geluz and concurred in by Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Carlito B. Calpatura of the Twentieth (20th) Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu.
4.CA Rollo, pp. 35-54; penned by Presiding Judge Tarcelo A. Sabarre, Jr.
5. Article 266-A. Rape: When and How Committed. — Rape is committed:
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.
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:
l) 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.
6.Rollo, p. 6.
7.Id. at 7.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 8-9.
10.Id. at 9-10.
11.Rollo, p. 17.
12.Id. at 11-14.
13.Id. at 14-16.
14.Id. at 23.
15.Id. at 28-38.
16. CA rollo, pp. 19-33.
17.Id. at 35-31.
18. See People v. Laguerta, 835 Phil. 1063 (2018), G.R. No. 233542, 09 July 2018 [Per J. Reyes, Jr.].
19.Soriano v. Bravo, 653 Phil. 72 (2010), G.R. No. 152086, 15 December 2010 [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro].
20. 688 Phil. 543 (2012), G.R. No. 187744, 20 June 2012 [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro].
21.Id.
22.People v. Tagle, G.R. No. 229348, 19 November 2018 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe], citing People v. Arguta, 78 Phil. 594, 602 (2015), G.R. No. 229348, 19 November 2018 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
23. See People v. XXX, G.R. No. 238405, 07 December 2020 [Per J. Hernando].
24. G.R. No. 244255, 26 August 2020 [Per J. Gesmundo].
25.Id.
26. Entitled "AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES," approved on 24 June 2006.
27. 783 Phil. 806 (2016), G.R. No. 202124, 05 April 2016 [Per J. Peralta].
28. 716 Phil. 267 (2013), G.R. No. 189871, 13 August 2013 [Per J. Peralta].