People v. XXX

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 251744. June 16, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. XXX, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 16 June 2021 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 251744 (People of the Philippines v. XXX). — This appeal seeks to reverse the Court of Appeals' (CA) Decision 1 dated August 15, 2019, in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10255, affirming the trial court's verdict of conviction against XXX (accused-appellant) for Qualified Rape under Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

ANTECEDENTS

Accused-appellant was charged with Qualified Rape committed against his daughter YYY, 2 a 16-year-old minor, in an information which reads:

That on or about January 13, 2014, in ______________. Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, by means of force and intimidation, did and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously succeed in having sexual intercourse with his minor daughter YYY, 16 years old, against her will and consent, thereby subjecting her to sexual abuse, to her damage and prejudice.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 3

Upon a plea of not guilty, the case proceeded to trial on the merits.

YYY testified that on January 13, 2014, around 9:00 p.m., she was about to sleep when she felt her father, who was already naked, lie beside her and cover himself with a blanket. Accused-appellant started touching YYY's body. YYY crossed her legs to prevent accused-appellant from removing her undergarments, but he prevailed. Accused-appellant told YYY to give in to his sexual desires as they have already done it in the past. YYY begged her father not to molest her again, but accused-appellant forced his lust by licking YYY's vagina and inserting his finger into hers. After a while, accused-appellant went on top of YYY and pushed his penis into YYY's vagina. After satisfying himself for about 30 minutes, accused-appellant gave YYY something she can use to wipe her vagina, smoked a cigarette, and then slept. 4

The next day, YYY recounted her ordeal to her classmates and teacher. They escorted YYY to Filipina D. Tungol, an officer of the Municipal Social Welfare and Development of Mariveles, Bataan. They accompanied YYY to the police authorities to report the incident. On January 15, 2014, Dr. Jennifer L. Caudilla (Dr. Caudilla) conducted a medical examination on YYY, and issued a medical certificate noting the presence of shallow healed laceration on the 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock positions, and abrasions in YYY's vulva. 5

Accused-appellant denied the charges against him. He testified that he was at his friend's house on the day of the alleged commission of the crime and was having a drinking session. He went home at around 10:00 p.m. and proceeded to their comfort room to vomit. He fell asleep beside their comfort room. The following morning, he headed to the sea to catch fish. He did not even know the whereabouts of YYY at that time. He went home around 9:00 p.m., but the police officers arrested him before reaching his house. Accused-appellant asserted that he did not rape his daughter, and that YYY was only motivated by her hatred of him because he scolded her for having a boyfriend. 6

On October 27, 2017, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Rape under Article 266-A of the RPC. 7 In its Judgment, 8 the RTC explained that YYY's positive and straightforward testimony against her father was sufficient to sustain his conviction, and the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of the crime charged, thus:

WHEREFORE, this Court finds accused XXX guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape under Article 266-A paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code and there being an aggravating/qualifying circumstance, the victim being under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is [the] father of the victim without presence of any mitigating circumstance to offset the same, the Court hereby sentences said accused XXX to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.

In addition, accused XXX is hereby ordered to pay the victim [YYY] the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity. Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages and the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages.

Furnish the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, Atty. Francis Mandocdoc and the private complainant a copy of this Decision.

SO ORDERED. 9

Accused-appellant appealed. However, the CA affirmed the RTC's finding of conviction with modification as to the amount of damages awarded and the imposition of interest:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. Accordingly, the Judgement dated October 27, 2017 by RTC, Branch 4, _______________, in Criminal Case No. ML-4605 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in that the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages are hereby increased to P100,000.00, each. All monetary awards shall earn the interest of 6% per annum from date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.

SOORDERED. 10

In this appeal, accused-appellant faults the CA for rendering a decision contrary to facts, law, and applicable jurisprudence. He claims that YYY's testimony has several inconsistencies: First, YYY stated in her SinumpaangSalaysay that only her niece slept beside her when accused-appellant molested her. On her cross-examination, however, YYY averred that her siblings and niece slept around her. Second, YYY testified that accused-appellant carried a knife with him when he raped her, but this statement was not included in her SinumpaangSalaysay. Third, accused-appellant stressed a discrepancy in YYY's testimony on whether YYY tried to call for her siblings' help. Lastly, there was disparity as to whom YYY first reported the rape incident. 11

THE COURT'S RULING

The appeal is unmeritorious.

The discrepancies raised by accused-appellant are insufficient to overturn his conviction since these are minor details and collateral matters that do not affect the substance, truth, or weight of the victim's testimonies. 12 The alleged inconsistencies in YYY's testimony are not among the elements of the crime of Rape. Indeed, as ruled by the CA, there is no need to discuss the materiality of these inconsistencies as they do not, in any way, affect accused-appellant's conviction. A few discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details, and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime, do not impair the credibility of the witnesses. In fact, such inconsistencies strengthen the credibility of the witness as these discounts the possibility of being rehearsed. 13 More so when the CA affirmed the RTC's assessment on the credibility of the prosecution witness. Jurisprudence provides that when it comes to the credibility of witnesses, the trial court's assessment is given the highest degree of respect, 14 especially when, as in this case, there is no fact or circumstance of weight or substance that was overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied, which could affect the result of the case. 15 The reason is simple. The trial court had the best opportunity to determine the credibility of the prosecution witness, having evaluated her emotional state, reactions, and overall demeanor in open court. Here, YYY vividly recalled how her father, accused-appellant, raped her on the night of January 13, 2014, to wit:

Q Ano pa ang sumunod na pangyayari?

A Na nagulat ako na biglang tumabi sa akin si tatay at nagkulubong ng kumot at maya maya po naramdaman ko na hinahawakan at pilit niyang binababa ang suot kong short at doon ay naramdaman ko na wala na siyang suot na damit.

Q Ano pa ang sumunod na pangyayari?

A Na, pilit ko pong iniipit ng hita ko ang aking short para hindi po niya maibaba at mahubad iyon ngunit sapilitan niya pong binaba at pati ang panty ko ay hinubad niya.

Q Ano pa ang sumunod na pangyayari?

A Na nagpumiglas po ako at umiiyak ngunit sa laki po ng katawan niya ay hindi ko po siya [kinayang] itulak at sinabi niya po sa akin ay "IBIGAY MO NA NAGAWA NAMAN NA NATIN ITO."

Q Ano pa ang sumunod na nangyari?

A Na pagkasabi po niya ng mga salitang iyon ay sinabi ko naman na "TAY HUWAG PO KASI AYAW KO NA," ngunit tuloy pa din po siya sa kanyang ginagawa at naramdaman ko po na dinidilaan niya po ang ari ko at naramdaman ko po na pinapasok niya po yung daliri niya doon at matapos po noon ay pumatong siya sa akin at pilit niyang pinasok ang ari nya na tumagal po ng humigit kumulang 30 minutes.

Q Ano pa ang sumunod na pangyayari?

A Na matapos po noon ay naramdaman ko na tinanggal niya ang ari niya at binigyan niya po ako ng pamunas at matapos noon ay naupo siya at nanigarilyo at matapos niyang manigarilyo ay humiga na siya malayo po sa akin at natulog na siya. 16

YYY's narration was corroborated by the medical findings of Dr. Caudilla on the presence of healed laceration on the 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock positions, as well as abrasions in YYY's vulva. In Pendoy v. Court of Appeals, 17 this Court ruled that when the testimony of a rape victim is consistent with the medical findings, sufficient basis exists to warrant a conclusion that the essential requisite of carnal knowledge has been established. Similarly, in People v. Tormis, 18 this Court emphasized that the primordial consideration in a determination concerning the crime of Rape is the credibility of the complainant's testimony. Whenever the testimony of a rape victim is straightforward and credible and consistent with the medical findings, there is convincing and sufficient proof of the rape. In this case, Dr. Caudilla's medical findings strengthen YYY's claim of rape against accused-appellant. Thus, YYY's positive testimony coupled with the medical report is sufficient proof of rape.

Verily, accused-appellant's mere denial of the charges against him cannot prevail over the positive declaration of YYY. This negative defense is self-serving and undeserving of weight in law, absent clear and convincing proof. 19 Also, accused-appellant's insinuation of ill motives on the part of YYY remained unsubstantiated. Besides, jurisprudence 20 provides that a young woman is not likely to accuse her own father of a grave crime such as incestuous rape if it was not the plain truth or if her motive was not purely to bring the offender to justice. Thus, we sustain the appellate and lower courts' finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court, however, corrects the nomenclature to be used in designating the crime, which is "qualified rape," considering that the minority of the victim and her relationship with accused-appellant were sufficiently alleged in the information and proved during trial. 21 The prosecution established that accused-appellant is the victim's father, and that the victim was then 16 years old through YYY's judicial affidavit and birth certificate.

Under Article 266-B of the RPC, when the victim of rape is under 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, the penalty is death. 22 However, with the advent of Republic Act No. 9346, 23 which suspended the death penalty, the trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, following A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC. 24

Finally, consistent with applicable jurisprudence, 25 we sustain the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages of P100,000.00 each, as well as the imposition of legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum on all the damages awarded from the date of the finality of this Resolution until fully paid.

FOR THESE REASONS, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated August 15, 2019, in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10255, is AFFIRMEDwithMODIFICATIONS in that accused-appellant XXX is found guilty of Qualified Rape and is meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. The civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages of P100,000.00 each, as well as the imposition of legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum on all the damages awarded from the date of the finality of this Resolution until fully paid, are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED." (Lopez, J.Y., J., designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021.)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 3-13. Penned by Associate Justice Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr.

2. Pursuant to Supreme Court Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 entitled "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, in relation to Republic Act (RA) No. 7610, RA No. 8568, RA No. 9208, RA No. 9262, and RA No. 9344. Fictitious initials are instead used to represent the victims. Likewise, the personal circumstances or other information tending to establish or compromise their identities, as well as those of their immediate family or household members shall not be disclosed. The name of the accused-appellant is also blotted out as it tends to establish or compromise the victims identities.

3.Id. at 3-4.

4.Id. at 4.

5.Id. at 5.

6.Id. at 5-6.

7. CA rollo, p. 56. Penned by Presiding Judge Emmanuel A. Silva.

8.Id. at 49-56.

9.Id. at 56.

10.Rollo, p. 12.

11. CA rollo, pp. 37-40. See also rollo, pp. 22-24; and pp. 27-29. The parties filed their manifestations, informing this Court that they will no longer file supplemental briefs, and instead, they will adopt their Appellant and Appellee's Briefs filed before the Court of Appeals as their respective Supplemental Briefs.

12.People v. Rupal, 834 Phil. 594, 610 (2008).

13.People v. Cabilida, Jr., 834 Phil. 144 (2018).

14.People v. Matignas, 428 Phil. 834, 869 (2002), citing People v. Basquez, 418 Phil. 426 (2001); People v. Jaberto, 366 Phil. 556, 566 (1999); People v. Deleverio, 352 Phil. 382, 401 (1998).

15.People v. Orosco, 757 Phil. 299, 310 (2015), citing People v. De Leon, 608 Phil. 701, 721 (2009).

16. CA rollo, pp. 53-54, citing Judicial Affidavit of YYY.

17. G.R. No. 228223, June 10, 2019.

18. 595 Phil. 589, 601 (2008).

19.People v. Togahan, 551 Phil. 997, 1013-1014 (2007).

20. See People v. Mangila, 382 Phil. 473, 485 (2000); and People v. Dogaojo, 422 Phil. 658, 668 (2001).

21.People v. XXX, G.R. No. 246947 (Notice) September 8, 2020; People v. XXX, G.R. No. 225793, August 14, 2019.

22. As amended by Republic Act No. 8353, entitled "AN ACT EXPANDING THE DEFINITION OF THE CRIME OF RAPE, RECLASSIFYING THE SAME AS A CRIME AGAINST PERSONS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ACT NO. 3815, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on September 30, 1997.

23. Entitled "AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES," approved on June 24, 2006.

24. Guidelines for the Proper Use of the Phrase "Without Eligibility for Parole" in Indivisible Penalties, August 4, 2015 — When circumstances are present warranting the imposition of the death penalty, but this penalty is not imposed because of RA 9346, the qualification of "without eligibility for parole" shall be used to qualify reclusion perpetua in order to emphasize that the accused should have been sentenced to suffer the death penalty had it not been for RA No. 9346.

25.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 848 (2016).