THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 253184. September 29, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.XXX, 1accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 29, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 253184 (People of the Philippines v. XXX). — Accused-appellant assails the Decision 2 dated February 19, 2020 issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11539, which modified the Decision 3 dated July 11, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Quezon City, Branch 107, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape under paragraph 1 (a), Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-15-03866-CR.
Facts of the Case
Prosecution's Version
AAA, private complainant in this case, is a thirteen-year-old girl who, prior to running away from home and staying with various persons, resided with her grandfather, BBB, 4 at No. 32 Akle Street, Quezon City. 5 Accused-appellant is AAA's neighbor who resided at No. 33 Aguho Street, Barangay Claro, Quezon City, 6 which was located behind BBB's house. 7
On April 14, 2015, at around 2:00 p.m., AAA 8 went to accused-appellant's house to attend a birthday celebration. 9 CCC, 10 AAA's neighbor whom she was living with at the time, was also at the celebration. AAA, CCC and their companions were smoking and singing videoke in front of accused-appellant's house. After some time, AAA asked DDD, 11 accused-appellant's wife, if she could have some water. 12 DDD told AAA that she could get water inside their house. 13
While inside the house, accused-appellant pulled AAA to his room and hit her with a .22-caliber firearm on her cheek. Accused-appellant then covered AAA's mouth and removed her shorts and underwear. Afterwards, he used his right hand to hold AAA's hands over her head and used his left hand to cover her mouth. Next, he inserted his penis into AAA's vagina which caused the latter to cry due to the pain. Accused-appellant commenced a push and pull motion which lasted for about 10 minutes until a white substance came out of his penis. 14 Then, accused-appellant told AAA that he would shoot her with the .22-caliber firearm if she tells anyone about what transpired. After the incident, AAA went out of accused-appellant's room, returned to her companions, sat in the corner and cried. Eventually, AAA left accused-appellant's house and went to the house of EEE, 15 her former guardian, in Marikina. 16 AHDacC
At around 9:00 p.m. of April 17, 2015, AAA returned to accused-appellant's house to fetch CCC. 17 While waiting, accused-appellant's neighbors waved at AAA and invited her to join their drinking session and offered her liquor to drink. 18 AAA obliged and drank five 3-inch glasses of Emperador Light, which made her dizzy. Thereafter, accused-appellant approached AAA and brought her upstairs to his bedroom. 19 The latter was unable to resist as she was drunk and very dizzy. 20
Accused-appellant removed AAA's shorts and touched her breast and vagina. 21 She could not resist him because he used his left hand to poke her with a .22-caliber firearm. At the same time, accused-appellant held both of AAA's hands with his right hand. 22 Then, he inserted his penis into her vagina and made a push and pull movement. AAA cried due to tremendous pain. 23 Eventually, a white substance came out of accused-appellant's penis. 24
When AAA was about to leave, accused-appellant shouted at her and said "[p]utang ina mo huwag kang aalis sa poder ko akin ka lang," to which she answered back saying, "[p]agmamay-ari mo ba ako?" and hurriedly left. 25
AAA immediately told CCC that she was raped by accused-appellant. 26 The two then went to BBB to tell him what happened. 27 Afterwards, the three went to Barangay Claro to report the incident and proceeded to Quezon City Police District-Police Station 9 28 to file a complaint against accused-appellant. There, AAA executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay detailing both the April 14 and April 17, 2015 incidents. 29
Police Senior Inspector Dr. Michael Nick Sarmiento (Dr. Sarmiento), Medico-Legal Officer of the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory-Camp Crame, Quezon City 30 testified that during AAA's genital examination, he found deep-healed lacerations at the 3 and 9 o'clock positions of her hymen. He also noted an abrasion on AAA's posterior fourchette. Ultimately, he concluded that AAA was sexually abused. 31
Accordingly, the State filed an Information 32 charging accused-appellant with a violation of Article 266-A of the RPC:
That on or about the 17th day of April, 2015, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one _________________________________, 13 years old, a minor, against her will and without her consent, to her damage and prejudice of the said minor. 33
Accused-appellant's Version
Accused-appellant denies AAA's allegations. In particular, he claims that at around 9:00 p.m. of April 17, 2015, he was home watching television with his children. While he admits that AAA went to his house, he avers that it was her who invited him to drink. 34 He also maintains that he refused AAA's invitation because his wife, DDD, was jealous of AAA 35 and that AAA left after he refused her invitation. 36
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
The trial court found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape under Article 266-A of the RPC as the prosecution was able to establish all the elements therefor. 37 The trial court also lent credence to AAA's testimony because she clearly described how accused-appellant forcibly had carnal knowledge of her. 38
Moreover, the trial court found accused-appellant's denial to be "contradicting and very weak" 39 because he was unable to definitively establish his whereabouts during the time of the incident. Specifically, when asked where he was at 9:00 p.m. of April 17, 2015, accused-appellant claimed that he was watching television with his family. However, when asked a second time, he stated that he was plying his route as a tricycle driver. 40
Consequently, accused-appellant was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay AAA P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. 41
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The CA affirmed the trial court's decision because the prosecution established all the elements of the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt 42 and because it found no cogent reason to reverse the trial court's evaluation of AAA's credibility. The CA also found accused-appellant's denial to be weak and inconsistent. Furthermore, the CA considered accused-appellant's admission that AAA had no ill-motive to testify against him. 43
Pursuant to People v. Jugueta, 44 the CA increased the amount of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to P75,000.00 each. The CA also imposed legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum for all monetary awards from the finality of its Decision until full payment. 45
Proceedings before the Court
In the Court's Resolution 46 dated January 12, 2021, the parties were directed to file their supplemental briefs. HCaDIS
The Public Attorney's Office filed a Manifestation in Lieu of a Supplemental Brief 47 dated March 24, 2021 stating that accused-appellant has exhaustively discussed his arguments in his Brief for the Accused-Appellant 48 dated February 19, 2018, filed with the CA. Likewise, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation (In Lieu of Supplemental Brief) 49 dated March 29, 2021, declaring that the position of the People of the Philippines has been argued extensively in the Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee 50 dated June 28, 2019.
The Ruling of the Court
The appeal is unmeritorious.
After a painstaking review of the records, We find that the trial court and the CA correctly found accused-appellant guilty of rape. Rape is committed when: (a) an offender has carnal knowledge of the victim; and (b) such act was accomplished through force or intimidation; or when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or when the victim is under twelve years of age. 51
AAA's testimony revealed that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of her on April 17, 2015 after he threatened her with a .22-caliber firearm.
Direct examination of AAA conducted by Prosecutor Liezel Aquiatan
Q: Now, when [accused-appellant] pulled you upstairs, what did you do?
A: I cannot resist anymore because I was very dizzy that time, ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: And after he pulled you upstairs, where did he bring you?
A: He brought me inside the room.
Q: And while inside the room, Miss Witness, could you tell us what happened?
A: He removed my shorts and then he touched my breast and my vagina.
Q: While he was doing those things[. . .], what did you do?
A: I cannot resist, ma'am.
Q: Why did you not resist, Miss Witness?
A: He poked his .22 at me.
Q: How did he poke a gun at you?
A: He was holding the gun with his left hand and he poked it at me.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: After he removed your shorts and touched your breast and vagina, what did he do next?
A: He inserted his private part into my private part.
Q: And when he inserted his penis inside your vagina, what did you feel?
A: It was very painful and I cried.
Q: And while inserting his penis inside your vagina, what else did you notice, if any?
A: Nilabasan po siya ulit.
Q: What do you mean by "nilabasan po siya ulit"?
A: A white substance came out from his penis.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Prior to the white substance that came out from his penis, [c]ould you recall what [he was doing]?
A: The pushing and pulling movement that he was doing.
Q: How did he do that push and pull movement, Miss Witness, could you describe to us?
A: My legs were spread wide and then he was on top of me and that was [the] time he was doing the push and pull movement, ma'am.
Q: And while doing the push and pull movement, what were you doing?
A: I just cried ma'am. 52
In this case, both the trial court and the CA lent credence to AAA's foregoing testimony over the denial interposed by accused-appellant. 53 It has been long-established that:
When the question is raised as to whether to believe the version of the prosecution or that of the defense, the trial court's choice is generally viewed as correct and entitled to the highest respect because it is more competent to conclude so, having had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment on the witness stand and the manner in which they gave their testimonies, and therefore could better discern if such witnesses were telling the truth. 54
The rule is more stringently applied when the appellate court concurred with the trial court, 55 as in this case. 56
Like the CA, We concur with the trial court's assessment of AAA's credibility and truthfulness, as her testimony was sufficiently consistent, candid, and straightforward. 57 She identified accused-appellant in open court and steadfastly maintained that it was he who had sexual intercourse with her. 58
Settled is the rule that the testimony of a child-victim is given full weight and credit, since when a girl, particularly a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed. 59 Thus, the testimony of AAA, a thirteen-year-old girl, is sufficient basis to convict accused-appellant, in the absence of any proof of improper motive on her part. This is especially true in this case as accused-appellant himself admitted that AAA had no reason to fabricate charges against him. 60 Furthermore, AAA's credibility is not affected by the fact that she lived as a stowaway, moving from one place to another and staying with various friends and acquaintances because she never wavered in her declaration that accused-appellant sexually violated her despite the cross-examination conducted by defense counsel. 61 cHaCAS
In a bid to exonerate himself, accused-appellant avers that AAA's testimony regarding the alleged rape is improbable because she failed to call for help even though her mouth was not covered and several neighbors were nearby. 62 Accused-appellant also highlights AAA's willingness to return to his house, despite the latter's claim that he had sexually assaulted her there on April 14, 2015. 63 Additionally, he opines that AAA's failure to immediately report the April 14, 2015 sexual assault is "unbelievable," considering the gravity of her accusations. 64
We are not convinced. In People v. Mendoza, 65 We held that:
No clear-cut behavior can be expected of a person being raped or has been raped. It is a settled rule that failure of the victim to shout or seek help do not negate rape. Behavioral psychology teaches that people react to similar situations dissimilarly. The range of emotions shown by rape victims is yet to be captured even by calculus. It is, thus, unrealistic to expect uniform reactions from rape victims. Indeed, we have not laid down any rule on how a rape victim should behave immediately after she has been abused. This experience is relative and may be dealt with in any way by the victim depending on the circumstances, but her credibility should not be tainted with any modicum of doubt. Different people act differently to a given stimulus or type of situation, and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling or frightful experience. 66
Moreover, AAA consistently declared that accused-appellant threatened her with a .22-caliber firearm. 67 This may have crippled AAA and forced her into silence 68 resulting in her failure to immediately report the April 14, 2015 sexual assault.
Finally, accused-appellant alleges that the findings in the Medico-Legal Report dated April 18, 2015 69 do not corroborate AAA's claim of sexual abuse. 70 He claims that the existence of deep healed hymenal lacerations belies AAA's claim that he had sexual intercourse with her the day before i.e., April 17, 2015. 71
Accused-appellant's position deserves scant consideration. A finding of healed and not fresh lacerations does not negate the commission of rape. 72 In fact, the presence of healed or fresh hymenal lacerations is not an element of rape. 73 The testimony of the victim — which, We find to be credible in this case — is the most important element to prove that rape was indeed committed. 74
In view of the foregoing, the CA correctly found accused-appellant guilty of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The CA also appropriately increased the amount of civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages to P75,000.00 respectively, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence. 75 All awards shall be subject to 6% legal interest counted from the finality of this Resolution.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated February 19, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11539 is AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant XXX is found GUILTY of rape and is sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
He is further ORDERED to pay AAA P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. All monetary awards are subject to six percent (6%) interest per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED." (Leonen, J., on official leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Pursuant to Supreme Court Amended Circular No. 83-2015, the personal circumstances and other information which tend to establish or compromise the identity of the victim including the names of her family members of relatives are withheld. The names of the victim and her family members or relatives are replaced with fictitious initials. Likewise, the real name of the accused-appellant is replaced with fictitious initials by reason of his relationship with the victim.
2. Penned by Justice Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas, with the concurrence of Justices Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez and Pedro B. Corales; rollo, pp. 3-11.
3. Records, pp. 117-122.
4.Supra note 1.
5.Id. at 6.
6.Id.
7. TSN dated July 12, 2016, p. 24.
8.Supra note 1.
9. TSN dated July 12, 2016, p. 6.
10.Supra note 1.
11.Supra note 1.
12. TSN dated July 12, 2016, p. 6.
13.Id. at 7.
14.Id. at 8-14.
15.Supra note 1.
16. Records, pp. 6-7.
17. TSN dated July 12, 2016, pp. 14-15.
18.Id. at 15-16.
19.Id.
20.Id. at 16-17.
21.Id. at 19.
22.Id. at 19-20.
23.Id. at 20.
24.Id. at 20-21.
25.Id. at 22.
26.Id.
27.Id. at 23.
28. Records, p. 8.
29.Id. at 6.
30. TSN dated November 8, 2016, p. 4.
31.Id. at 14.
32. Records, p. 1.
33.Id.
34. CA rollo, p. 41.
35. TSN dated December 4, 2017, p. 18.
36. CA Rollo, p. 41.
37. Records, p. 121.
38.Id. at 119-120.
39.Id. at 121.
40.Id. at 120-121.
41. Records, p. 121.
42.Rollo, p. 7.
43.Id. at 9.
44. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
45.Rollo, p. 10.
46.Id. at 18-19.
47.Id. at 20-21.
48. CA rollo, pp. 36-47.
49.Rollo, pp. 31-32.
50. CA rollo, pp. 65-84.
51.People v. Tubillo, 811 Phil. 525 (2017).
52. TSN dated July 12, 2016, pp. 18-21.
53.Rollo, pp. 8-9; records, pp. 119-121.
54.People v. Lolos, 641 Phil. 624, 632-633 (2014).
55.People v. Dominguez, 650 Phil. 492 (2010).
56.Rollo, p. 9.
57.Supra note 48.
58. TSN dated July 12, 2016, pp. 15-26.
59.People v. Brioso, 788 Phil. 292 (2016).
60. TSN dated December 4, 2017, p. 27.
61.People v. Rivera, 372 Phil. 663 (1999).
62. CA rollo, p. 43.
63.Id.
64. CA rollo, p. 44.
65. G.R. No. 239892, June 10, 2020.
66.Id.
67. TSN dated July 12, 2016, pp. 8-10, 19-22.
68. See People v. Alias, G.R. No. 251582, February 3, 2021, citing People v. Abarientos, G.R. No. 243580, November 13, 2019.
69. Records, pp. 86-87.
70. CA rollo, p. 44.
71.Id.
72.People v. Roaquin, 775 Phil. 502 (2015).
73.People v. Bauit, 286 Phil. 166, citing People v. Rubio, 683 Phil. 714 (2012).
74.Id., citing People v. Espino, 577 Phil. 546 (2008).
75.People v. Jugueta, supra note 38.