THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252850. March 30, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.XXX, 1accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 30, 2022, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252850 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee v. XXX, accused-appellant). — The Court resolves to NOTE the Office of the Solicitor General's Manifestation (in Lieu of Supplemental Brief) dated May 4, 2021, stating that it adopts its appellee's brief and dispenses with the filing of a supplemental brief to expedite the disposition of this case and to avoid repetition of arguments.
The Case
This appeal assails the Decision 2 dated December 11, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09933 entitled "People of the Philippines v. XXX" affirming appellant's conviction for three (3) counts of Statutory Rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
The Proceedings Before the Regional Trial Court
The Charges
Appellant XXX was charged with two (2) counts of Statutory Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of the RPC and one (1) count of Statutory Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 of the RPC, thus:
Criminal Case No. 11-7105
That on or about the 4th day of March, 2009, in the City of Angeles, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused being the common law husband of the mother of the then 9 year old minor-victim AAA, with lewd design and taking advantage of the innocence and tender age of the said minor-victim, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit sexual assault upon said AAA, by inserting his penis into the anal orifice of the said minor victim by means of intimidation and against her will and consent, thereby degrading and debasing the girl[']s intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being and endangering her normal development. CAIHTE
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
Criminal Case No. 11-7106
That on or about the 4th day of March, 2009, in the City of Angeles, Philippines[,] and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being the common law husband of the mother of the then 9-year old minor-victim BBB, with lewd design and taking advantage of the innocence and tender age of the said minor-victim, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit sexual assault upon said BBB, by inserting his penis into the anal orifice of the said minor-victim by means of intimidation and against her will and consent, thereby degrading and debasing the girl[']s intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being and endangering her normal development.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
Criminal Case No. 11-7107
That sometime in the month of November, 2008, in the City of Angeles, Philippines[,] and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused[,] being the common law husband of the mother of the then 9-year old minor-victim BBB, with lewd design and taking advantage of the innocence and tender age of the said minor-victim, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with said BBB, by inserting his penis into the girl's vagina by means of intimidation and against her will and consent, thereby degrading and debasing the girl[']s intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being and endangering her normal development.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
The cases were raffled to the Regional Trial Court (RTC)-Angeles City, Branch 59. On arraignment appellant pleaded not guilty to all the charges. 6
During the trial, victims AAA 7 and BBB, their mother CCC, medico-legal officer Dr. Irene Alacar Flores (Flores), Social Welfare Officer (SWO) II Milissa B. Hilario (Hilario), and Alma B. Silverio (Silverio) testified for the prosecution. 8 The defense, on the other hand, presented appellant himself, his son GGG, his daughter HHH, Danilo C. Laxamana, and Nicanor L. Calica. 9
Version of the Prosecution
Twin sisters AAA and BBB were both born on November 16, 1999. Their father DDD passed away on August 24, 2001. 10 On November 6, 2002, their mother CCC and appellant started living together as husband and wife in appellant's house in Angeles City. AAA and BBB knew him as their "uncle." 11 CCC and XXX bore two (2) children, EEE and FFF. 12
BBB testified that sometime in November 2008, she was left alone with appellant as her class was still in the afternoon. She was getting ready for school when he called for her. Thinking he would send her for an errand, she went to his room and found him sitting on the bed. Without a word, he immediately laid her on top of his lap, removed his briefs and shorts and her panty, and inserted his penis in her vagina. She cried but did not shout for help as she knew that all her housemates were in school. When she asked him to stop, the latter put her down. He gave her five pesos (Php5.00) and she went to school. She did not tell her mother about the incident because he threatened to kill her if she did. 13
BBB further testified that in the morning of March 4, 2009, she and appellant were left alone in the house because her mother went to work as a manicurist. She was then nine (9) years old. While she was watching television in the living room, appellant called and instructed her to go to his room. There, he took a plastic chair, sat down, laid her on top of his lap, unzipped his shorts, and pulled down her shorts and panty. He raised her up and inserted his penis in her anus, making her cry in pain. She begged him to stop but he ignored her. His penis stayed in her anus for around 10 minutes. He only stopped when EEE and FFF arrived. 14 He told her not to report the incident to her mother. 15 DETACa
BBB added that this was not the first rape incident. Appellant sexually abused her around five (5) times before. But she could not recall when it all started. 16
On the other hand, AAA testified that on March 4, 2009, around 1 o'clock in the afternoon, she was left alone in the house with appellant. While she was watching television, appellant called her. When she approached him, he unzipped his shorts, laid her on his lap, and removed her shorts and panty. She shouted, struggled with appellant, and called for her siblings but they were not around. She was facing the cabinet when appellant, then seated, suddenly inserted his penis in her anus, held her, and moved her up and down his lap for one (1) minute. When he stopped, she ran outside wanting to tell CCC about the incident but the latter was not there. 17 She kept her horrible experience to herself as appellant threatened her that something bad will happen to CCC if she reported the incident. She only divulged it to CCC when her twin sister BBB was brought to the hospital. 18
CCC testified that on March 5, 2009, while she was buying food, she noticed something bulging in BBB's buttocks. When they returned home, she undressed BBB and found a blood-stained face towel which BBB used as a pad to cover the bottom of her private part. When she asked BBB about the towel, the latter disclosed that appellant touched her breasts and inserted his penis in her vagina and anus. She immediately brought BBB to the hospital for medical examination. Thereafter, they proceeded to the barangay to report the incident. 19
The following day, she found a panty with blood stains. When BBB told her that the panty belonged to AAA, she also brought AAA to the hospital for medical examination. 20
Dr. Flores examined BBB's genitalia on March 5, 2009 and found slight erythema in the inner labia minora. She also found multiple healed lacerations at 5, 7, and 9 o'clock positions and an incomplete laceration at 2 o'clock position which could have been caused by any blunt instrument. 21 She again examined BBB on April 16, 2009 and found positive superficial laceration at 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock positions in BBB's rectal area, which could be caused by blunt penetration in the anus, with minimal bleeding in tactating finger, 22 thus, supporting BBB's claim that appellant inserted his penis in her vagina and anus. She reduced her findings in the Medical Certificate dated March 6, 2009 and the ONA medical logbook. 23
SWO II Hilario testified that CCC went to the City Social Welfare and Development Office (CSWDO) of Angeles City to have AAA and BBB examined after what happened to them. She, thus, conducted a case study on the twins through a series of interviews and home visits. 24
Silverio testified that as a Records Officer at the Ospital ng Angeles (ONA), she safekeeps the medical certificates issued by ONA doctors. This includes AAA's medical certificate which she produced in court. 25
Version of the Defense
Appellant vehemently denied the accusations against him. He testified that he and CCC started living together in November 2001 until February 25, 2011. He left CCC when the latter threatened to kill him or disturb his family if he left her. CCC and her daughters only concocted the charges against him out of CCC's extreme jealousy and revenge since he already left her. He could not have raped BBB because their house only has two (2) rooms and the same have no doors or blanket covers. More, the front door of their house faces the road. If he indeed inserted his penis in BBB's anus, BBB would have been traumatized and would have no longer been able to stand up and run anymore. 26
The Ruling of the Trial Court
By Decision 27 dated September 20, 2017, the trial court convicted appellant of two (2) counts of Statutory Rape under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 (RA 8353) 28 and one (1) count of Statutory Rape under paragraph 1, Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended. It found the categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and candid testimonies of AAA and BBB credible and convincing. It gave greater weight to the victims' positive testimonies over appellant's self-serving denial, thus: ATICcS
WHEREFORE premises considered, the court finds:
1. Accused ___________________________ GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT in Criminal Case No. 11-7105 of the crime of Statutory Rape under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353 embodied in the Information dated December 28, 2010.
Accordingly, accused ___________________________ is hereby SENTENCED to suffer an indeterminate penalty of nine (9) years of prision mayor, as the minimum term[,] to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months[,] and one (1) day of reclusion temporal [,] as the maximum term.
Furthermore, accused ___________________________ is hereby ordered to PAY private complainant AAA: (1) civil indemnity in the amount of Thirty [Thousand Pesos] (P30,000.00); (2) moral damages in the amount of Thirty [Thousand Pesos] (P30,000.00); and (3) exemplary damages in the amount of Thirty [Thousand Pesos] (P30,000.00).
2. Accused ___________________________, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT in Criminal Case No. 11-7106 of the crime of Statutory Rape under paragraph 2[,] Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code[,] as amended by R.A. No. 8353 embodied in the Information dated December 28, 2010. ETHIDa
Accordingly, [the] accused ___________________________ is hereby SENTENCED to suffer an indeterminate penalty of nine (9) years of prision mayor, as the minimum term[,] to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months[,] and one (1) day of reclusion temporal[,] as the maximum term.
Furthermore, accused ___________________________ is hereby ordered to PAY private complainant BBB: (1) civil indemnity in the amount of Thirty [Thousand Pesos] (P30,000.00); (2) moral damages in the amount of Thirty [Thousand Pesos] (P30,000.00); and (3) exemplary damages in the amount of Thirty [Thousand Pesos] (P30,000.00).
3. Accused ___________________________, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT in Criminal Case No. 11-7107 of the crime of Statutory Rape under paragraph 1, Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code[,] as amended by R.A. No. 8353[,] as embodied in the Information dated December 28, 2010.
Accordingly, [the] accused ___________________________ is hereby SENTENCED to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility of (sic) parole.
Furthermore, accused ___________________________ is hereby ordered to PAY private complainant BBB: (1) civil indemnity in the amount of One [Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos] (P150,000.00); (2) moral damages in the amount of One [Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos] (P150,000.00); and (3) exemplary damages in the amount of One [Hundred Thousand Pesos] (P100,000.00).
The charges for the offense of Violation of Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610 embodied in the three (3) Informations dated December 28, 2010 against accused [___________________________] in Criminal Cases Nos. 11-7105 to 11-7107 are hereby DISMISSED.
No costs.
SO ORDERED. 29
The Proceedings before the Court of Appeals
On appeal, 30 appellant faulted the trial court for convicting him of three (3) counts of statutory rape despite the prosecution's alleged failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He essentially argued that the testimonies of AAA and BBB were incredible and inconsistent with the medico legal certificates which showed that AAA's anus did not sustain any laceration while BBB's vagina showed only "slight erythema, inner labia minora." BBB's visits to him in jail casts doubt on her story of rape. He also presented a handwritten letter from BBB agreeing to retract the case and execute an affidavit of desistance in his favor. 31
On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) 32 defended the verdict of conviction and maintained that the prosecution was able to prove the elements of statutory rape. It riposted that in rape cases, it is not just the results of the medical examination and other extraneous evidence, such as the mindset of the victims' mother that are considered. The rape victims' straightforward and consistent testimonies under grueling examination deserves full faith and credit. 33
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
By Decision 34 dated December 11, 2019, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification. In both Criminal Case Nos. 11-7105 and 11-7106, it increased the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to Php75,000.00 each. It echoed the trial court's conclusion that the prosecution was able to sufficiently establish the elements of statutory rape in all the crimes charged. It found no cogent reason to reverse the trial court's findings on the credibility of the testimonies of AAA and BBB and the weakness of appellant's defenses.
The Present Appeal
Appellant now seeks affirmative relief from the Court and prays anew for his acquittal. 35 Appellant 36 and the State, 37 through the OSG, manifested that in lieu of supplemental briefs, they were adopting their respective briefs before the Court of Appeals. AIDSTE
Ruling
We affirm.
Appellant is guilty of Qualified Sexual
Under Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 (RA 8353), the crime of rape may be committed by either carnal knowledge or sexual assault, viz.:
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. (Emphases supplied.) SDAaTC
Rape by sexual assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended, requires the following elements: (1) the offender commits an act of sexual assault; (2) the act of sexual assault is committed by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or by inserting any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person; and (3) the act of sexual assault is accomplished under any of the following circumstances: a) by using force and intimidation; b) when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; c) by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; or d) when the woman is under 12 years of age or demented. 38
Here, the prosecution had sufficiently established that on March 4, 2009, around 1 o'clock in the afternoon, appellant sexually assaulted then nine (9)-year old AAA. AAA vividly testified that she was watching television that afternoon when appellant called her to his room where he started unzipping his shorts, placed her on his lap, removed her shorts and panty, suddenly inserted his penis into her anus while she was facing the cabinet, then held and repeatedly moved her up and down his lap for one (1) minute, thus:
PROS. SALOMEO: (to witness AAA)
Q: Ms. Witness, it is stated in your sworn statement on March 4, 2009 you were watching television. Can you still recall the time?
A: Around 1:00 p.m.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: It is stated in your sworn statement that your Uncle __________ called you to go inside the room. Whose (sic) this __________ you are referring to?
A: Siya po iyong umano sa pagkababae ko.
Q: AAA, please point to the Uncle __________ in your sworn statement if he is present in court?
A: He is the one. (Witness pointing to accused __________)
COURT: (to the witness)
Q: You said "umano sa pagkababae ko." What do you mean by umano?
A: He raped me.
PROS. SALOMEO: (to witness AAA)
Q: AAA, on March 4, 2009 at around 1:00 p.m., you stated that you were watching television. Who was present in your house at that time?
A: None.
Q: It is stated in your sworn statement that your Uncle __________ called you. Can you still recall exactly what he told you when he called you?
A: No, not anymore.
Q: After your Uncle __________ called you, what did you do next?
A: I approached him.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: It is also stated in your sworn statement, AAA, "Bago po ako kinandong ni Uncle ay nabuksan [na po] niya ang kanyang zipper ng shorts niya." (sic) When you saw that your uncle opened the zipper of his shorts, what did you do?
A: None. I do not know what he was going to do.
Q: It is also stated in your sworn statement, AAA, "Pagkatapos ay kinandong na po ako ni Uncle at binaba niya ang aking shorts at panty." Now, when your uncle removed your shorts and shirt, what did you do?
A: I was shouting and fighting him. EcTCAD
Q: What were you shouting then, AAA?
A: I was calling my siblings then but they are not there. They are outside.
Q: While you are shouting, what about your Uncle __________, what did he do, if any?
A: He suddenly placed me on top of his lap.
Q: In what direction were you facing when your uncle placed you on his lap?
A: When he placed me on his lap, my face was facing the cabinet.
Q: With the use of male and female dolls, please show the position of the accused when he placed you on his lap.
A: He was seated then. He suddenly did this to me. (Witness demonstrating by placing the female doll on top of the male doll abruptly with her back in front of the male doll)
Q: AAA, it is stated in your sworn statement that "Pinasok na po niya ang kanyang butoytoy sa aking puwet." What is that butoytoy you are referring to?
A: The part of a boy on their lower part. (Witness pointing to her genital and demonstrating a penis by circling her right wrist and showing the shape of a penis by making an up and downward motion)
Q: How did you know that it is his butoytoy that was inserted in your anus?
A: Because when he was seated then his zipper was open already. It's big. It is like a stick like this. (Witness demonstrating 5-inch long and 1 1/2 in diameter)
Q: You saw your Uncle __________ insert his butoytoy to your anus?
A: Yes, madam.
Q: AAA, it is stated in your sworn statement "Itinaas-baba po niya ako hanggang napaiyak [na po] ako sa sakit." By the use of the male and female dolls, please show the Honorable Court how he moved you up and down?
A: He was holding me and he was doing this. (Witness demonstrating by placing the female doll on top of the male doll and making up and down movements)
Q: Do you know how long your uncle moved you up and down while you were on top of his lap?
A: About one minute only.
Q: After your Uncle __________ moved you [up] and down while you were on his lap, what else happened?
A: None.
Q: After that, AAA, what if any did you do?
A: I ran outside.
Q: Why did you run outside, AAA?
A: I was going to tell it to my mother but she was not there. 39 (Emphases supplied)
In rape cases, the accused may be convicted on the basis of the victim's sole testimony provided it is credible, consistent, and convincing. 40 Testimonies of child victims are generally given full weight and credit especially when it concerns the crime of rape, the details of which a child due to his or her tender age would not have normally known had he or she not actually experienced them. 41
Here, the alleged absence of lacerated wounds in the anus of AAA does not negate the commission of rape by sexual assault. For it is settled that proof of injuries and lacerations is not an essential element of the crime. 42 Too, expert testimonies are merely corroborative in character. Hence, appellant may still be convicted based on AAA's positive and credible testimony despite lack of signs of anal trauma or laceration. Ricalde v. People43 is apropos: HSAcaE
Second, petitioner's reliance on the medico-legal's finding of no recent trauma in XXX's anal orifice, or any trace of spermatozoa, lacks merit. The absence of spermatozoa in XXX's anal orifice does not negate the possibility of an erection and penetration. This result does not contradict the positive testimony of XXX that the lower courts found credible, natural, and consistent with human nature.
This court has explained the merely corroborative character of expert testimony and the possibility of convictions for rape based on the victim's credible lone testimony.
In any case, the medico-legal explained that his negative finding of trauma in the anal orifice does not remove the possibility of an insertion considering the flexibility of the sphincter: x x x (Emphases supplied)
In People v. Tulagan, 44 the Court reconciled the provisions on Sexual Assault, Acts of Lasciviousness, and Rape under the RPC, on one hand, and Sexual Intercourse and Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610, on the other. The Court decreed that when the acts constituting sexual assault were committed against a victim under 12 years of age, the accused should be held liable for Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b) 45 of RA 7610. Thus:
Article 226-A, paragraph 2 of the RPC, punishes inserting of the penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person if the victim did not consent either it was done through force, threat or intimidation; or when the victim is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious; or by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority as sexual assault as a form of rape. However, in instances where the lascivious conduct is covered by the definition under R.A. No. 7610, where the penalty is reclusion temporal medium, and the act is likewise covered by sexual assault under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of the RPC, which is punishable by prision mayor, the offender should be liable for violation of Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610, where the law provides for the higher penalty of reclusion temporal medium, if the offended party is a child victim. But if the victim is at least eighteen (18) years of age, the offender should be liable under Art. 266-A, par. 2 of the RPC and not R.A. No. 7610, unless the victim is at least eighteen (18) years and she is unable to fully take care of herself or protect herself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition, in which case, the offender may still be held liable for sexual abuse under R.A. No. 7610.
xxx xxx xxx
Considering the development of the crime of sexual assault from a mere "crime against chastity" in the form of acts of lasciviousness to a "crime against persons" akin to rape, as well as the rulings in Dimakuta and Caoili, We hold that if the acts constituting sexual assault are committed against a victim under 12 years of age or is demented, the nomenclature of the offense should now be "Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610" and no longer "Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610," because sexual assault as a form of acts of lasciviousness is no longer covered by Article 336 but by Article 266-A (2) of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 8353. Nevertheless, the imposable penalty is still reclusion temporal in its medium period, and not prision mayor. (Emphases supplied.)
Verily, appellant committed sexual assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 by inserting his penis in the anus of then nine (9)-year old AAA by means of intimidation, against her will and without her consent.
Notably, there is no dispute that both AAA and BBB were around nine (9) years old when they were sexually assaulted and raped by appellant. The prosecution presented in evidence the respective Certificates of Live Birth of twin sisters AAA and BBB showing they were born on November 16, 1999. Thus, they were only around nine (9) years old when the incidents happened in November 2008 and on March 4, 2009, respectively. 46 Too, it was specifically alleged in the Informations and proven during trial that appellant was then the common-law husband of the victims' mother CCC. HESIcT
Since the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship under Article 266-B (1) 47 of the RPC were properly alleged and duly established, the crime should be denominated as Qualified Sexual Assault.
Appellant is guilty of Qualified Sexual
Appellant is guilty of Qualified Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC, in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 and Article 266-B (1) of the RPC for inserting his penis in BBB's anus by means of intimidation and against her will and consent. The prosecution amply proved that in the morning of March 4, 2009, appellant sexually assaulted then nine (9)-year old BBB, daughter of his common-law wife. BBB candidly testified that on March 4, 2009, she was watching television alone in the living room when appellant instructed her to go to his room where he then sat on a plastic chair, laid her on top of his lap, unzipped his shorts, pulled down her shorts and panty, raised her up, then inserted his penis in her anus for 10 minutes. It caused her pain and made her cry, thus:
Q: BBB, in Tanong no. 4 of the said Sworn Statement you were asked, 'Anong ginawa sa'yo ni Uncle ____________ mo? And your answer was that your uncle inserted his penis on (sic) your anus. Before that incident happened, what were you doing?
A: I'm watching t.v. AcICHD
Q: Where were you watching t.v.?
A: In the sala.
Q: What about the accused, your uncle ____________, where was he before he called you up (sic)?
A: In his bedroom.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: So you mean [to] tell this Court that [only] you and your uncle ____________ were [in] the house at that time?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: When you were watching t.v., how did your uncle ____________ call you?
A: He called me up (sic), while he was standing in front of his room and he said '__________, come here.' I thought he will just talk to me. He then told me that I should go inside the room and I went inside the room.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: After you went inside the room, what happened?
A: He got a plastic chair and then he laid me on top of his lap (kinandong).
Q: After he laid you on top of his lap (sic) what happened next?
A: He opened the zipper of his short pants and then he raised me up and he inserted his penis.
Q: Where did he insert his penis?
A: In my anus.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Were you still wearing your shorts when he inserted his penis inside (sic) your anus?
A: No, he pulled down my short.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: So after your short pants and your panty had been pulled down by your uncle that is [the] time when he inserted his penis on your anus?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: When he inserted his penis into your anus, what happened? Were you crying or shouting for help?
A: I was crying.
Q: Why were you crying BBB?
A: Because it was painful.
Q: Did you say something to your uncle or did you tell your uncle that you were experiencing some pains [so he] would stop?
A: I told him, "Stop, uncle." But he did not stop. (Sabi ko po sa kanya, Uncle, tama na. Pero hindi po siya tumigil.)
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Did your uncle ________ tell you something after what he has done?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: What did he tell you?
A: He told me that I should not report it to my mother.
Q: After he told that to you, what else happened if any?
A: He gave me Five pesos (P5.00).
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Was that the first time that he sexually abused you?
A: No, ma'am.
Q: Can you still recall how many times were you sexually abused before the incident which happened inside the room?
A: Five.
Q: Can you still recall when did it start?
A: No, ma'am. 48 (Emphases supplied.)
By itself, BBB's credible, convincing, and consistent testimony about the fact of insertion of appellant's penis in her anus is sufficient to convict the latter of the crime. It was further corroborated by the testimony and medical findings of Dr. Flores who examined BBB's anus and found "superficial laceration at 9 o'clock with minimal bleeding in tactating finger." 49 TAIaHE
Appellant is guilty of Qualified
Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended, penalizes rape by carnal knowledge or sexual intercourse, viz.:
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. (Emphases supplied)
When the victim is under 12 years of age, it is termed Statutory Rape as it departs from the usual modes of committing rape. The law presumes that the victim does not and cannot have a will of her own on account of her tender years. Thus, force, intimidation, and physical evidence of injury are no longer relevant considerations. 50
Statutory Rape requires the following elements: (1) the offended party is under 12 years of age; and (2) the accused has carnal knowledge of the victim, regardless of whether there was force, threat or intimidation, whether the victim was deprived of reason or consciousness, or whether it was done through fraud or grave abuse of authority. 51 It can further be qualified by the circumstances under Article 266-B 52 of the RPC, as amended, among which is "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." 53
Here, appellant committed statutory rape by having carnal knowledge of BBB by means of intimidation and against BBB's will. The prosecution sufficiently established that sometime in November 2008, before BBB's birthday, appellant raped BBB who was then nine (9) years old. BBB candidly testified that while she was getting ready for school, appellant called her into his room where she found him sitting on the bed. He immediately removed his briefs and shorts and her panty, laid her on his lap, then inserted his penis in her vagina, thus:
Q: Was there ever a time wherein he inserted his penis on (sic) your vagina?
A: Yes, ma'am, before my birthday [in] November 2008.
Q: Can you please tell this Court what happened before you had your birthday last November 2008 wherein your uncle ________ inserted his penis into your vagina?
A: He was seated on the bed and then he laid [me] on top of his lap and then he inserted it.
Q: So you were also on top of his lap when he inserted his penis on (sic) your vagina?
A: Yes, ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: How did he insert his penis on (sic) your vagina while you were on top of his lap?
A: Yes, I was facing him then.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: When he inserted his penis on (sic) your vagina did you cry?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: And did you shout for help?
A: No, ma'am, because nobody was in our house thinking they were all in school. cDHAES
Q: So you were left alone with your uncle at the house?
A: Yes, because I go to school in the afternoon.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Did he heed your please for him to stop?
A: He immediately put me down.
Q: Do you still recall for [how] long did he insert his penis on (sic) your vagina?
A: No, ma'am.
Q: What happened after he put you down?
A: He gave me P5.00 and then I went to school already. 54
Q: About how many times did he insert his penis on (sic) your vagina?
A: May be three [3] times. 55 (Emphases supplied.)
BBB further testified that she did not tell her mother about the incident because of fear, since appellant threatened to kill her if she reported the incident.
BBB could not have fabricated the harrowing details of the rape incident had she not actually experienced them in appellant's hands. Even standing alone, the victim's testimony withstands scrutiny sufficient to sustain a verdict of conviction. It assumes even more probative weight when it is corroborated by physical evidence. 56
BBB's allegation of rape conforms with the physical evidence. Dr. Flores examined BBB's genitalia and found slight erythema in BBB's inner labia minora, multiple completely healed hymenal lacerations at 5, 7, and 9 o'clock positions and an incomplete laceration at 2 o'clock position. That BBB still had slight erythema in her vagina is not surprising since she suffered other molestations by appellant prior to being sodomized on March 4, 2009. More, Dr. Flores testified that the lacerations could have been caused by a blunt instrument. It is settled that hymenal lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best evidence of forcible defloration. The essential requisite of carnal knowledge is deemed to have been sufficiently established since BBB's testimony is consistent with medical findings. 57
Indeed, the testimonies of AAA and BBB were consistent, candid, and straightforward. They both identified appellant in open court and steadfastly maintained that it was him who sexually abused them on three (3) separate occasions. Their categorical and consistent positive identification, sans any proof of ill motive on their part, prevails over appellant's denial and unsubstantiated assertion that they only filed the charges against him due to their mother's jealousy. Such reason is self-serving and too flimsy for the minor victims to impute such serious crimes on appellant whom they treated as their father since they were three (3) years old. 58
Neither does BBB's post-crime behavior towards appellant, i.e., her alleged visits to him in jail and execution of a letter stating her willingness to retract the cases against him, undermine her credibility or prove that the charges were only fabricated due to CCC's jealousy. BBB's in-court testimony, which is more precise and elaborate, must prevail. 59 BBB was only nine (9) years old when the events transpired. At such tender age, she would have been easily influenced or morally coerced to visit appellant in jail or write such letter considering that he was still her "uncle." Besides, she never expressly disavowed the rape incidents or executed any affidavit of desistance.
The Court respects the trial court's factual assessment and conclusion that the testimonies of AAA and BBB were credible and convincing 60 since it had the opportunity to observe firsthand their conduct and demeanor while testifying. More so because such findings carry the full concurrence of the Court of Appeals. 61
Considering that the elements of BBB's minority and her relationship with appellant were duly alleged and proved, the proper designation of the crime is Qualified Statutory Rape under paragraph 1 (d), Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended by RA 8353.
Penalties and Damages
a. Criminal Case No. 11-7105
Under Article 266-B of the RPC, 62 rape by sexual assault shall be punished by prision mayor. Pursuant to Tulagan, when the acts constituting sexual assault are committed against a victim under 12 years old, the accused shall be held liable for Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b) 63 of RA 7610 which provides for the higher penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period. ASEcHI
Here, the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship were sufficiently established. A copy of AAA's Certificate of Live Birth proves that she was only nine (9) years old when appellant sexually assaulted her in the afternoon of March 4, 2009. It is also undisputed that appellant was her mother's common-law husband at the time of the incident. Verily, appellant is guilty of Qualified Sexual Assault. Applying the indeterminate sentence law, 64 appellant is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 13 years, nine (9) months, and 11 days of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to 16 years, five (5) months, and 10 days of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
Additionally, appellant is liable for P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages. 65 Hence, the monetary awards granted by the Court of Appeals is modified accordingly.
b. Criminal Case No. 11-7106
As discussed, sexual assault committed against a victim below 12 years old is punishable by reclusion temporal in its medium period. Since the qualifying circumstances of BBB's minority and appellant's common-law relationship to BBB's mother were established, appellant is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 13 years, nine (9) months, and 11 days of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to 16 years, five (5) months, and 10 days of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
As for damages, appellant is ordered to pay BBB P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages. 66 The monetary awards granted by the Court of Appeals are modified accordingly.
c. Criminal Case No. 11-7107
Under Section 266-B of the RPC, as amended, statutory rape should be punished by death when the victim is a minor and the accused is the common-law spouse of the victim's parent. 67 However, due to the enactment of RA 9346, 68 the death penalty is automatically reduced to reclusion perpetua which should be qualified by the phrase "without eligibility for parole" pursuant to the Court's Guidelines 69 in A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC. 70
In People v. Rabelas, 71 where the accused was also found guilty of Qualified Statutory Rape, the Court imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and ordered the accused to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages of P100,000.00 each, subject to six percent (6%) interest per annum.
Here, BBB's Certificate of Live Birth proved that she was only nine (9) years old at the time of the rape incident. Too, appellant himself admitted his common-law relationship with BBB's mother. Consequently, appellant is guilty of Qualified Statutory Rape under paragraph 1 (d), Article 266-A, in relation to Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended by RA 8353 for which the death penalty should have been imposed were it not for RA 9346. The Court of Appeals and the trial court, therefore, correctly sentenced appellant to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.
In addition, appellant is liable for P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages in conformity with prevailing jurisprudence. 72 The trial court and the Court of Appeals, thus, correctly granted exemplary damages of P100,000.00. The civil indemnity and moral damages, however, should be reduced from P150,000.00 to P100,000.00 each.
ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated December 11, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09933 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION:
1. In Criminal Case No. 11-7105, appellant _____________________ is found GUILTY OF QUALIFIED SEXUAL ASSAULT and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of thirteen (13) years, nine (9) months, and eleven (11) days of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to sixteen (16) years, five (5) months, and ten (10) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum. He is ORDERED to PAY AAA P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages; ITAaHc
2. In Criminal Case No. 11-7106, appellant _____________________ is found GUILTY OF QUALIFIED SEXUAL ASSAULT and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of thirteen (13) years, nine (9) months, and eleven (11) days of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to sixteen (16) years, five (5) months, and ten (10) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum. He is ORDERED to PAY BBB P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
3. In Criminal Case No. 11-7107, appellant _____________________ is found GUILTY OF QUALIFIED STATUTORY RAPE and sentenced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. He is ORDERED to PAY BBB P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages.
All the monetary awards shall earn six percent (6%) interest per annum73 from finality of this Resolution until fully paid. cSaATC
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. The real name of the victim, her personal circumstances and other information which tend to establish or compromise her identity, 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 Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol and concurred in by Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao (now a member of this Court) and Ramon A. Cruz, rollo, pp. 3-30.
3. Id. at 4.
4. Id.
5. Id. at 5.
6. Id.
7. The real name of the victim, her personal circumstances and other information which tend to establish or compromise her identity, 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 Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017.
8. CA rollo, p. 66.
9. Id. at 88-89.
10. Rollo, p. 5.
11. Id. at 6.
12. Id. at 7.
13. Id. at 6; CA rollo, p. 71.
14. Rollo, pp. 6-7.
15. CA rollo, p. 78.
16. Id. at 105.
17. Rollo, p. 7.
18. CA rollo, p. 72.
19. Rollo, pp. 7-8; Id. at 73.
20. CA rollo, p. 74.
21. Id. at 97.
22. Id. at 69-70, 107.
23. Id. at 74.
24. Id. at 75.
25. Id.
26. Rollo, pp. 9-10.
27. Penned by Presiding Judge Maria Angelica T. Paras-Quiambao, CA rollo, pp. 64-111.
28. The Anti-Rape Law of 1997. Approved, September 30, 1997.
29. Rollo, pp. 10-12.
30. CA rollo, pp. 46-61.
31. Rollo, p. 13.
32. Represented by Assistant Solicitor General Marissa Macaraig Guillen and Associate Solicitor Marlon P. Bosantog.
33. Rollo, p. 14.
34. Id. at 3-30.
35. CA rollo, pp. 182-184.
36. Rollo, pp. 39-41.
37. Id. at 45-47.
38. People v. Bagsic, 822 Phil. 784, 800 (2017).
39. CA rollo, pp. 102-103.
40. People v. XXX, G.R. No. 230904, January 8, 2020.
41. People v. XXX, G.R. No. 218277, November 9, 2020.
42. People v. Taguilid, 685 Phil. 571, 578 (2012).
43. 751 Phil. 793, 807 (2015).
44. G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019, 896 SCRA 307.
45. Sec. 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. — Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:
xxx xxx xxx
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period.
46. CA rollo, p. 101.
47. Article 266-B. Penalty. — 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
Rape under paragraph 2 of the next preceding article shall be punished by prision mayor.
xxx xxx xxx
Reclusion temporal shall be imposed if the rape is committed with any of the ten aggravating/qualifying circumstances mentioned in this article. (Emphases supplied)
48. CA rollo, pp. 104-105.
49. Id. at 69-70, 107.
50. See People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 242276, February 18, 2020.
51. People v. Rabelas, G.R. No. 253603 (Notice), June 14, 2021.
52. Article 266-B. Penalty. — 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;
2) When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities or any law enforcement or penal institution;
3) When the rape is committed in full view of the spouse, parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third civil degree of consanguinity;
4) When the victim is a religious engaged in legitimate religious vocation or calling and is personally known to be such by the offender before or at the time of the commission of the crime;
5) When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old;
6) When the offender knows that he is afflicted with the Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus (HIV)/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or any other sexually transmissible disease and the virus or disease is transmitted to the victim;
7) When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or para-military units thereof or the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency or penal institution, when the offender took advantage of his position to facilitate the commission of the crime;
8) When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation or disability;
9) When the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime; and
10) When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime.
53. People v. Rabelas, supra.
54. CA rollo, pp. 105-106.
55. Id.
56. People v. XXX, G.R. No. 230904, January 8, 2020.
57. Id.
58. See People v. Ortega, 680 Phil. 285, 299 (2012).
59. People v. XXX, G.R. No. 252294 (Notice), May 5, 2021.
60. See People v. Hirang, 803 Phil. 277, 290 (2017).
61. Castillano v. People, G.R. No. 222210 (Notice), June 20, 2016; People v. XXX, G.R. No. 252294 (Notice), May 5, 2021.
62. Article 266-B. Penalty. — Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
xxx xxx xxx
Rape under paragraph 2 of the next preceding article shall be punished by prision mayor.
63. Sec. 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. — Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:
xxx xxx xxx
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse: Provided, That when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period.
64. Section 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by acts of the Philippine Legislature, otherwise than by the Revised Penal Code, the court shall order the accused to be imprisoned for a minimum term, which shall not be less than the minimum term of imprisonment provided by law for the offense, and for a maximum term which shall not exceed the maximum fixed law; and where the offense is punished by the Revised Penal Code, or amendments thereto, the court shall sentence the accused to such maximum as may, in view of the attending circumstances, be properly imposed under the present rules of the said Code, and to a minimum which shall not be less than the minimum imprisonment period of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by said Code for the offense. Except as provided in section two hereof, any person who shall have been so convicted and sentenced and shall have served the minimum sentenced imposed hereunder, may be released on parole in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
65. People v. HHH, G.R. No. 248245, August 26, 2020.
66. Id.
67. 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:
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; x x x.
68. The Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines.
69. In these lights, the following guidelines shall be observed in the imposition of penalties and in the use of the phrase "without eligibility for parole":
(1) In cases where the death penalty is not warranted, there is no need to use the phrase "without eligibility for parole" to qualify the penalty of reclusion perpetua; it is understood that convicted persons penalized with an indivisible penalty are not eligible for parole; and
(2) When circumstances are present warranting the imposition of the death penalty, but this penalty is not imposed because of R.A. No. 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 R.A. No. 9346.
70. Guidelines for the Proper Use of the Phrase: Without Eligibility for Parole" in Indivisible Penalties, August 4, 2015.
71. G.R. No. 253603 (Notice), June 14, 2021.
72. People v. Rabelas y Buban, G.R. No. 253603 (Notice), June 14, 2021; People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 848 (2016):
xxx xxx xxx
II. For Simple Rape/Qualified Rape:
1.1 Where the penalty imposed is Death but reduced to reclusion perpetua because of RA 9346:
a. Civil indemnity — P100,000.00
b. Moral damages — P100,000.00
c. Exemplary damages — P100,000.00
73. Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013) [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].