People v. XXX

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 253236. November 15, 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 15 November 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 253236 (People of the Philippines vs. XXX).1 — On appeal 2 is the February 21, 2020 Decision 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10114, affirming with modification the November 17, 2017 Decision 4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 207, _________________, 5 in Criminal Case No. 15-1063 that found accused-appellant XXX guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape.

Factual Antecedents:

The Information 6 dated July 7, 2015 charging XXX with the crime of Rape alleges, to wit:

On or about 23rdday of January 2015, in the City of _____________, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have carnal knowledge of complainant AAA, 7 a mental retardate, by inserting his penis into her vagina when she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious.

Contrary to law. 8

XXX was arrested and was committed to ____________________ Jail. 9 During his arraignment on February 24, 2016, he entered a plea of not guilty. 10 Proceedings ensued.

Version of the Prosecution:

The prosecution presented private complainant, AAA, who was born on April 29, 1991. 11 AAA testified that between 9:00 and 10:00 p.m. of January 23, 2015, she was alone waiting for her brother at the terrace of their house. 12 She alleged that she saw their neighbor, XXX, looking around their house. 13 Upon realizing that AAA was alone, XXX pulled AAA and brought her to the adjacent house that was still under construction. 14 AAA stated that XXX laid her on the floor and told her to keep quiet. 15 Thereafter, he removed her shorts and underwear; he also removed his shorts and underwear. 16 Then, XXX covered AAA's mouth, went on top of her, and inserted his penis into her vagina. 17 With permission from the trial court and without objections from the defense, AAA demonstrated the sexual act with the use of two dolls that she identified as a male and a female. 18 AAA was able to demonstrate XXX doing the following acts: laying her down on the floor; removing her underwear down to her knees; removing his own shorts and underwear; lying on top of her; and, inserting his penis into her vagina. 19

AAA stated that after the act, XXX told her to put her clothes back on. 20 XXX then gave her P20.00 and instructed her not to tell anyone about what had happened. 21 AAA further stated that after she went home, she cleaned herself and saw blood on her underwear. 22

AAA told her neighbors and her aunts about what had happened. 23 Her mother, BBB, 24 learned of the incident three months after the act, when she arrived from Dubai, United Arab Emirates. BBB accompanied AAA to the police station to execute a Sinumpaang Salaysay and to initiate the filing of the instant criminal case. 25

During her cross-examination, AAA admitted that there were times that she and XXX would randomly talk to each other during the intervening period before the filing of the case. 26 She also admitted that there may have been people outside the scene at that time who may have witnessed the crime; and that there were dogs in the area. 27 She further described the site as an unfinished house already cemented and with hollow blocks, but without a roof. 28 People outside might see and hear what is happening inside. 29

AAA thought that she was pregnant after that incident though she subsequently tested negative. 30 She stated that this was her only experience on sexual intercourse. 31

The prosecution offered as documentary evidence the initial medico-legal report dated March 18, 2015 issued by the crime laboratory office that showed evidence of blunt penetrating trauma to AAA's hymen. 32 The prosecution also offered the psychological evaluation report prepared by the Department of Rehabilitation Medicine of the Philippine General Hospital (PGH), showing that AAA has mild mental retardation. 33

Version of the Defense:

The defense presented XXX himself and his niece, YYY.

YYY stated that she lived in the same house with her uncle XXX. 34 At around 8:00 p.m. of January 23, 2015, XXX was in the house, watching television with them. 35 YYY stated that she had not noticed if XXX went outside at the time of the alleged rape. 36 She did not monitor who goes in and out of the house. 37

YYY then testified that the house where the alleged rape transpired is located near their house and was still under construction at that time. 38 It has stairs going to the front door, and has two open windows in front. 39 At night, the house is partially dark; light coming from nearby houses illuminated the place. 40 She stated, however, that the unfinished house already had cemented structures and corners where a person may hide and not be visible to those outside. 41

On another subject matter, YYY stated that it was not the first time that AAA had accused someone of raping her. Prior to the incident, AAA accused her (AAA's) cousin and two of their neighbors. 42 YYY then stated that AAA talked to her about the pregnancy scare and that the father is XXX. 43 YYY told XXX about the allegations, but he did not bother to confront AAA. 44 Subsequently, YYY's mother, who is XXX's sister-in-law, went to confront AAA and her mother about the allegation of rape against XXX. 45

XXX denied the allegations. He stated that he was already sleeping at the time when the alleged crime was committed. Upon arriving home from work that day, he stayed at the house to watch television and slept early. 46 After some time, YYY informed XXX that AAA was pregnant and that he was rumored to be the father, to which he responded that if he was indeed the father, he would have approached them and told them the truth. 47 Then, AAA herself also accused him to be the father of her child, but it turned out that she was not pregnant. 48 Subsequently, his sister-in-law (YYY's mother) went to AAA's house and had an argument with AAA's mother, BBB. He thought that this case was filed against him as revenge for his sister-in-law's actions against BBB. 49 XXX insisted that if he indeed raped AAA, he would have left and gone into hiding. 50

Both YYY and XXX testified that they knew of AAA's mental condition at the time of the commission of the crime, and that the latter's condition is widely known in their community. 51

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:

In its November 17, 2017 Decision, 52 the RTC convicted XXX for the crime of Rape. The trial court imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with no possibility of parole. The trial court also ordered XXX to pay civil indemnity and damages.

The trial court held that AAA is incapable of giving rational consent to a sexual act due to her mental condition, thus any sexual intercourse with her would be considered rape. 53 The trial court gave credence to AAA's narration of the events. Her mental condition did not diminish her credibility as she was able to narrate the events in a simple and natural manner. 54 Considering her mental retardation, it was highly improbable that she would fabricate the rape accusation; it was also unlikely that she was instructed into making the accusation given her limited intellect. 55 The traumatic experience left a lasting trauma, which made her able to recall and narrate the abuse. 56

The RTC also found that AAA's testimony was corroborated by medical findings that showed clear evidence of blunt penetrating trauma to the hymen. 57 AAA's testimony, together with this evidence of laceration, engendered to the mind of the trial court a moral certainty that XXX committed Rape. 58 Though there might be a long intervening period between the time of commission of the crime and the time when AAA was subjected to a medico-legal examination, there was no showing that AAA had sexual intercourse with any other man after the crime. 59

Further, the RTC found XXX's defenses of denial and alibi to be self-serving. XXX failed to prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene when the crime was committed. 60 YYY, in her testimony, was not able to fully observe the whereabouts and activities of XXX at that time when they were watching television. 61

On the defense's theory that the alleged rape cannot be committed as the place of commission was open to the view of neighbors and was illuminated by nearby houses, the RTC stated that lust is no respecter of time and place — there is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion. 62

The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court finds accused [XXX] guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(d) of the Revised Penal Code and is sentenced to reclusion perpetua with no possibility of parole. He is further ordered to pay civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00; moral damages in the amount of P75,000.00; and exemplary damages in the amount of P75,000.00.

The Jail Warden, ___________________ Jail is directed to immediately transfer the custody of accused XXX to the New Bilibid Prison for the service of his sentence.

SO ORDERED. 63

Aggrieved, XXX filed a notice of appeal. 64 The RTC gave due course and ordered the elevation of case records to the CA. 65 The appellate court subsequently ordered the parties to file their respective briefs. 66

XXX filed his appellant's brief. 67 He claimed that AAA's testimony was inconsistent and its details were contrary to human experience. 68 He argued that it was puzzling to imagine that he allegedly brought AAA to a place where a lot of people could see them when it would have been more logical for him to bring her to a more secluded area; or he could have done the act in her house, considering that she was alone at that time. 69 Moreover, there were inconsistencies in AAA's testimony, particularly on whether her underwear was removed completely or only pulled down to her knees. 70 XXX also pointed out that AAA's delay in reporting the crime affected her credibility. 71 XXX further argued that the RTC erred in disregarding his defenses of denial and alibi. 72 His whereabouts were sufficiently accounted by YYY. 73 Lastly, XXX asserted that the fact that he did not leave their community despite the accusations shows that he is innocent. 74

The prosecution, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed its appellee's brief. 75 It argued that all the elements of rape were present: AAA categorically identified XXX as the person who had carnal knowledge of her; this was also supported by the medico-legal report. Given AAA's mental condition, that was not contested by XXX, she is unable to give rational consent to a sexual act. 76 Minor consistencies also did not affect her credibility as these discount the possibility that her testimony was rehearsed. 77

The OSG pointed out that the unfinished house where the rape happened was not illuminated and whatever was happening inside would not be seen from the outside. 78 The OSG also reiterated that rape is no respecter of time or place. 79 Thus, XXX's argument that commission of rape in the unfinished house was improbable, does not persuade. 80

On AAA's delay in reporting the crime, the OSG argued that it does not affect her credibility; the victim may choose to keep quiet rather than expose the deed to public scrutiny. 81 Lastly, the OSG reiterated that the trial court did not err in disregarding XXX's defenses of denial and alibi. 82

Ruling of the Court of Appeals:

In its February 21, 2020 Decision, 83 the CA affirmed the RTC's finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The CA ruled that XXX's contention that rape was unlikely to be committed in the house under construction is untenable. 84 His witness, YYY, admitted that the structure already had cemented corners that blocks the inside from outside view. 85 Verily, it reiterated that lust is no respecter of time and there is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion. 86

The appellate court gave credence to AAA's testimony. Despite her mental condition, she was able to narrate her harrowing experience. 87 Minor inconsistencies do not affect the credibility of the witness. 88

On XXX's insinuation that AAA's mother filed this case to exact revenge on him because his sister-in-law spread rumors of AAA having sexual intercourse with different men, the CA stated that this insinuation of ill motive is too shallow and insignificant for AAA to concoct a story that she was raped. 89 The delay in reporting also did not affect AAA's credibility. In fact, she told her neighbors about the incident although they did not take her seriously for being known in the community as having a mental condition. 90

On XXX's defenses of denial and alibi, the CA ruled that these cannot prevail over AAA's positive identification and declaration. 91 The appellate court considered YYY's testimony as self-serving, biased, and inconclusive. 92 XXX also failed to show that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. 93

The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision dated 17 November 2017, [is] AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum is imposed on all damages awarded from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.

Still aggrieved, XXX filed a notice of appeal 94 once again, that was given due course by the CA. 95

Issue

The issue for the resolution of the Court is whether or not XXX is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape.

Our Ruling

The appeal lacks merit. The CA and the RTC did not err in finding XXX guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Rape.

Article 266-A, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code 96 (RPC) provides how Rape is committed:

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 is 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.

The elements of Rape are as follows: (1) the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) the said act was accomplished (a) through the use of force or intimidation, or (b) when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or (c) when the victim is under 12 years of age or is demented. 97

To stress, the trial court is in the best position to evaluate the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling examination. 98 The Court is therefore generally bound by the findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, in the absence of any misapprehension of facts that would warrant the reversal of the lower court's decision. 99

Here, the trial court is correct in finding AAA a credible witness. Even if there are minor inconsistencies in her testimony, there is no reason for this Court to deviate from the findings of the trial and appellate courts. AAA was able to positively identify XXX as her rapist. She was able to narrate what had transpired. And more importantly, she made it clear through the use of two dolls. The relevant portions of AAA's testimony are as follows:

Senior State Prosecutor Alejo (SSP Alejo)

xxx xxx xxx

Q: 1991. Kilala mo ba itong akusado? Kilala mo yung akusado dito?

Court

No, yung idinedemanda mo.

SSP Alejo

Yung dinedemanda mo.

Court

Yung ikinompleyn (complain) [sic] mo.

Witness

Opo.

Q: Anong pangalan niya?

A: [XXX] po.100

Q: Ha?

A: Sya po.

Q: Si [XXX]?

Court Interpreter

Siya po daw. Saan?

Q: Saan, turo mo nga kung sino yung si [XXX]? Turo mo nga kung sino si [XXX].

Court

Kaya mo bang makita sya?

SSP Alejo

Kaya mo ituro? O gusto mo salamin? 101

Witness

Sya po.

Q: Saan? Anong kulay ng suot?

A: Dilaw.

Court Interpreter

Witness pointed to a man wearing yellow shirt and, when asked, identified himself as [XXX].

Q: Bakit ang tawag mo sa kanya ay [XXX]?

A: [XXX] po siya. Kainuman po kasi siya ng tiyuhin ko po eh.

Q: Ah kainuman ng tiyuhin mo. Ang palayaw nya [XXX]?

A: Opo. 102

xxx xxx xxx

Court Interpreter

Fiscal ito.

SSP Alejo

O sige, diyan nalang sa manika kunwari ha. Manika.

Q: Itong mga manika na 'to, ano ito babae o lalake?

A: Babae po.

Q: Babae. Bakit mo nasabing babae itong manikang ito?

A: May ipit po siya eh.

Q: Ah may ipit. San ang ipit?

A: Dalawa.

Q: San ang ipit? Ayon. Ah ito, ipit dalawa. Okay. Ano pa bakit sya naging babae? Tingnan mo sya.

Court

Hawakan mo. Hawakan mo na. Pwede naman.

SSP Alejo

Hawakan mo.

Q: Bakit siya naging babae?

A: Ahm . . . maganda naman po siya.

Q: Ah maganda siya. O sige. Itong isang manika. Anong manika ito, babae siya o lalake?

A: Lalake po.

Q: Bakit mo naman nasabing lalake siya?

Court

Hawakan mo. Kung meron kang ano makikita. 103

Witness

Opo.

Q: Bakit siya naging lalake?

A: Kasi po ah yung pinakikita po sa kin.

Q: Pinakikita sa iyo ang alin?

A: Yung . . . ano po.

Q: O sige. Tutal sabi mo ito lalake, ito babae. Kunwari ikaw 'to. Di ba sabi mo hiniga dun sa hagdan di ba?

A: Opo.

Q: O, anong ginawa? Gawin mo dito sa manika. Anong ginawa sa manika?

A: Hiniga po ako no'n.

Q: O tapos?

A: Nakahiga. Nakahiga ito.

Q: O tapos?

A: Tapos ano itong lalake . . . (interrupted)

Q: Nakadamit ka no'n? May damit kang suot?

A: Opo.

Q: Tapos?

A: Bigla lang po siyang nakaganyan.

Q: O tapos?

A: Tapos inano, parang ano po.

Q: Hindi ka siya naghubad ng damit? 104[sic]

A: Hindi po. Yung short lang niya hinubad niya.

Q: Hinubad. O sige pakihubad mo. Itong babaeng doll, hindi hinubad yung panty niya?

A: Hindi po.

Q: Hindi hinubad ang panty?

A: Nakahubad po.

Q: Nakahubad ang alin?

A: Yung panty.

SSP Alejo

O sige nga, gawin mo dito. Sige gawin mo. Pakita mo sige. Sige gawin mo. Kunwari nga ikaw ito. Tapos ito yon, sige.

Witness

Nahubaran niya po.

Q: Sige, hanggang saan? Hanggang saan tinanggal?

A: Hanggang tuhod po.

SSP Alejo

Sige nga gawin mo nga. Sige tanggalin mo.

Witness

Hanggang tuhod lang po siya eh.

SSP Alejo

Sige, asan ba yung tuhod niya, [AAA]?

Court Interpreter

Nandito po. Yung may dimples.

SSP Alejo

Yung may dimples. 105

Court Interpreter

Ah hanggang tuhod.

Witness

Hanggang tuhod lang po.

Q: Tapos, ito naman. Kunyari ito siya, ano naman ang itsura niya? Nakadamit siya?

A: May damit tas nakahubad din yung short. [sic]

SSP Alejo

Sige nga, gawin mo.

Witness

Nakahubad po siya. Nakahubad siya no'n. Ayan po.

Q: Tapos, anong sumunod na nangyari? Nakahubad na sila.

A: Tapos parang pinatong niya yung ano niya.

Q: Yung?

A: Yung . . . (paused)

SSP Alejo

Sige, iha, wag ka mahiya.

Witness

Yung ari po niya sa ari ko.

Q: Pinatong o pinasok?

A: Pinasok po.

Q: Pinasok, san pinasok? Sa puwet? Saan?

A: Dito sa ano.

Court Interpreter

The witness pointed to the vagina of the doll.106

xxx xxx xxx

Court

Okay. Sandali lang muna. Lahat nung ginawa niya pwedeng ilagay sa record?

Court Interpreter

Opo.

Court

Okay.

Court Interpreter

When the witness was given the male and the female doll, she pulled down the panty . . . (Interrupted)

Court

Okay. Sandali lang muna. As an aid to the testimony of the private complainant, she was given two dolls which she identified as male and female. Then, sige.

Court Interpreter

She pulled down the underwear of the female doll107up to the knee and then she also pulled down the underwear of the male doll. . . (Interrupted)

Court

The pants and the underwear of the male doll.

Court Interpreter

The pants and the underwear of the male doll and then she placed on top of the female doll the male doll and then she said that the penis was inserted inside the vagina of the female doll.

Court

Okay. 108 (Emphasis supplied)

Thus, the testimony undoubtedly shows that AAA and XXX had sexual intercourse. AAA was able to narrate the essential facts that showed that rape was committed. Considering her mental condition, this Court agrees with the RTC that it is highly improbable for AAA to fabricate the rape charge against XXX. It is also unlikely that AAA was coached or instructed to make the accusation. This event had left a lasting impression on AAA's mind that she was able to recall and demonstrate what had happened when asked. 109 Further, AAA's testimony is strengthened by the medico-legal report, that showed evidence of blunt penetrating trauma to her hymen.

Moreover, the Court agrees that XXX's defenses of denial and alibi are weak. It is long accepted that denial and alibi are common defenses in rape cases. 110 As negative defenses, these cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the offended party. 111 For the defense of alibi to prosper, "it must be sufficiently convincing as to preclude any doubt on the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the locus criminis or its immediate vicinity at the time of the incident." 112 Here, it was undisputed that AAA's house and XXX's house are within the same vicinity. XXX only stated that he was already sleeping at the time of the commission of the crime. Nowhere in the records did he state that he was in a far place that would render him physically impossible to be at the scene at that time. Likewise, YYY's testimony corroborating the submission that XXX was in the house at that time does not hold water. YYY admitted that she does not monitor who goes in and out of the house at night. She had not noticed if XXX went outside at the time of the alleged rape. There is no assurance therefore that XXX was indeed sleeping in the house and did not go out that time to rape AAA.

Hence, AAA's positive identification of XXX, and her clear narration and demonstration of the events prevail over XXX's defenses of denial and alibi.

The defense also contended that the house where the alleged rape was committed was under construction, therefore, the act would have been seen and heard by passers-by outside. The Court, however, agrees with the trial court that there is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion. Moreover, YYY admitted that the unfinished house already had cemented structures and corners where a person may hide and not be visible to the outside.

On the defense's contentions that AAA's mother, BBB, filed this case to exact revenge on XXX, the Court sees no reason to deviate from the lower courts' findings. This Court agrees with the appellate court that XXX's insinuation of ill motive and revenge is too shallow and insignificant for AAA to falsely accuse him of rape. Moreover, the delay in reporting the incident to the authorities did not affect AAA's credibility as delay is not always construed as indication of a false accusation; in fact, she immediately told her neighbors although they did not take her seriously for being known in the community as having a mental condition.

As to the allegation that AAA was a mental retardate, we note that it has been proven by the prosecution that AAA was a mental retardate at the time of the commission of the crime. The prosecution offered in evidence the psychological evaluation report prepared by PGH, which showed that AAA has mild mental retardation. Further, defense witness YYY, and XXX himself, admitted during their testimonies that AAA indeed was suffering from a mental condition. 113

Moreover, it is settled that the rape of a person suffering from mental retardation falls under paragraph 1 (b) of Article 266-A: when the offended party is deprived of reason. 114 It does not fall under paragraph 1 (d) of the same provision, which is about statutory rape of a person below 12 years of age or rape of a demented person. 115 Further, it is not required for the victim to undergo a comprehensive medical examination to prove mental retardation; this can be proven by evidence other than medical/clinical evidence, such as the testimony of witnesses and even the observation by the trial court. 116 This fact, however, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. 117

Notwithstanding the foregoing, AAA's mental retardation at the time of the rape cannot be used as a qualifying circumstance to increase the penalty to death as further provided in Article 266-B 118 considering that it was not properly alleged in the Information that XXX knew of AAA's mental retardation at the time of the rape. The penalty is increased to death only when the qualifying circumstance of knowledge by the accused of the mental disability of the victim, among others, is alleged in the Information. 119

All told, this Court affirms XXX's conviction for the crime of Simple Rape.

As to the penalty, the trial court is correct in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua as provided in the first paragraph of Article 266-B 120 of the RPC. However, the statement that XXX is not eligible for parole must be deleted. 121

The Court affirms the RTC's and CA's award of civil indemnity, and moral and exemplary damages in the amount of P75,000.00 each pursuant to People v. Jugueta. 122 The Court likewise affirms the CA's imposition of legal interest on the damages awarded at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum although it should commence to run from the date of finality of this Resolution until full payment. 123

Lastly, the Court deems it necessary to modify the CA and RTC rulings to reflect the proper nomenclature of the crime committed as provided by law. 124 As discussed, the Simple Rape committed in the instant case falls under paragraph 1 (b) of Article 266-A: when the offended party is deprived of reason. The trial court, however, convicted XXX under paragraph 1 (d) of the same provision: when the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age. 125 Nonetheless, the penalty is not affected.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The February 21, 2020 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10114 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant XXX is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Simple Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Accused-appellant is ordered to PAY AAA civil indemnity of P75,000.00, moral damages of P75,000.00, and exemplary damages of P75,000.00. All monetary awards shall bear legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this Resolution until full payment.

The Court further resolves to:

1) NOTE the letter dated March 7, 2021 of CCInsp. Jeremy L. Argonza, Superintendent, New Bilibid Prison-East, Muntinlupa City, confirming the confinement of accused-appellant at the said institution since February 3, 2018.

2) NOTE the manifestation (in lieu of supplemental brief) dated March 20, 2021 of the Public Attorney's Office, adopting the appellant's brief filed before the Court of Appeals as the same had adequately discussed all the matters pertinent to his defense.

3) GRANT the motion (with attached manifestation [re: supplemental brief]) dated May 10, 2021 of the Office of the Solicitor General, stating, among others, that it was constrained to file and serve via e-filing the attached manifestation (re: supplemental brief) dated May 10, 2021 as the Office of the Solicitor General's office was placed under lockdown on March 12, 2021 until March 16, 2021 due to high number of COVID-19 cases in the office, which was eventually extended until May 14, 2021, and praying that the same be noted and admitted, with undertaking to submit to the Court the hard copy of the manifestation (re: supplemental brief) and serve the same via registered mail upon counsel for accused-appellant as soon as the lockdown of its premises is lifted.

4) NOTE the aforesaid manifestation (re: supplemental brief) dated May 10, 2021 of the Office of the Solicitor General, dispensing with the filing of supplemental brief since its brief filed before the Court of Appeals had sufficiently addressed the issues and arguments raised by accused-appellant; and

5) NOTE the compliance with manifestation (re: e-mail of this Court's Judicial Records Office dated May 11, 2021) dated May 18, 2021 of the Office of the Solicitor General, stating, among others, that the plaintiff-appellee's manifestation (re: supplemental brief) was served upon respondents via registered mail in compliance with its undertaking, and submitting the hard copy of the aforesaid manifestation with annexes.

SO ORDERED." (S.A.J. Perlas-Bernabe, on official leave; J. Hernando, Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2855 dated November 10, 2021.)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Initials were used to identify the accused-appellant pursuant to Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-15 dated September 5, 2017 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.

2.Rollo, pp. 12-13.

3.Id. at 3-11. Penned by Associate Justice Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin, and concurred in by Associate Justices Manuel M. Barrios and Walter S. Ong.

4. Records, pp. 139-148. Penned by Presiding Judge Philip A. Aguinaldo.

5. Geographical location is blotted out pursuant to Supreme Court Amended Circular No. 83-2015.

6.Id. at 1-2.

7. "The identity of the victim or any information which could establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. 7610, An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, Providing Penalties for its Violation, and for Other Purposes; Republic Act No. 9262, An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, and for Other Purposes; and Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the Rule on Violence against Women and their Children, effective November 15, 2004." (People v. Dumadag, 667 Phil. 664, 669 [2011]).

8.Id. at 1.

9.Id. at 46-47, 51-52, 57.

10.Id. at 59, 61.

11.Rollo, p. 4.

12.Id.

13.Id.

14.Id.

15.Id.

16.Id.

17.Id.

18. TSN, August 10, 2016, pp. 13-18.

19.Id.

20.Rollo, p. 4.

21.Id.

22.Id. at 4-5.

23.Id. at 5.

24. Records, p. 16.

25.Rollo, p. 5; records, p. 140.

26. Records, p. 140.

27.Id.

28. TSN, August 10, 2016, pp. 29-30.

29.Id.

30. Records, pp. 140-141.

31.Id. at 141.

32.Id. at 96, 141.

33.Id. at 97-103, 141.

34.Rollo, p. 5. TSN, March 22, 2017, p. 4.

35.Rollo, p. 5.

36. TSN, March 22, 2017, pp. 6, 12.

37.Id.

38. Records, p. 141.

39.Id.

40.Id.

41. TSN, March 22, 2017, pp. 13-14.

42. Records, p. 141.

43.Id. at 141-142.

44.Id. at 142.

45. TSN, March 22, 2017, pp. 7, 19-20.

46. Records, p. 141.

47. TSN, May 10, 2017, pp. 9-10.

48. Records, p. 141.

49.Id. TSN, May 10, 2017, pp. 7-8, 11-12, 15-18.

50. TSN, May 10, 2017, pp. 8, 11.

51. TSN, March 22, 2017, pp. 6-7, 10, 17-18; TSN, May 10, 2017, pp. 14, 16.

52. Records, pp. 139-148.

53.Id. at 142.

54.Id. at 143.

55.Id.

56.Id.

57.Id.

58.Id.

59.Id.

60.Id. at 145.

61.Id.

62.Id.

63.Id. at 148.

64. CA rollo, p. 12.

65.Id. at 13.

66.Id. at 15.

67.Id. at 27-45.

68.Id. at 32.

69.Id. at 34-35.

70.Id. at 35-36.

71.Id. at 36-39.

72.Id. at 39.

73.Id. at 39-40.

74.Id. at 40-41.

75.Id. at 65-79.

76.Id. at 71-74.

77.Id. at 75.

78.Id.

79.Id.

80.Id.

81.Id. at 76.

82.Id. at 76-77.

83.Rollo, pp. 3-11.

84.Id. at 7.

85.Id.

86.Id.

87.Id.

88.Id. at 7-8.

89.Id. at 8.

90.Id. at 8-9.

91.Id. at 9-10.

92.Id. at 10.

93.Id.

94.Id. at 12-13.

95. CA rollo, pp. 98-101

96. Act No. 3815, An Act Revising the Penal Code and Other Penal Laws [REVISED PENAL CODE] (1930), as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, 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 [THE ANTI-RAPE LAW OF 1997] (1997).

97.People v. Catig, G.R. No. 225729, March 11, 2020.

98.Id., citing People v. Abat, 731 Phil. 304, 312 (2014).

99.Id.

100. Alias name or nickname of accused XXX.

101. TSN, August 10, 2016, p. 8.

102.Id. at 9.

103.Id. at 13.

104.Id. at 14.

105.Id. at 15.

106.Id. at 16.

107.Id. at 17.

108.Id. at 18.

109. See People v. Baay, 810 Phil. 943, 951 (2017).

110.People v. Chingh, 661 Phil. 208, 219 (2011).

111.Id.

112.People v. Fetalco, G.R. No. 241249, July 28, 2020.

113.Supra note 48.

114.People v. Baay, supra note 107 at 954.

115.Id., citing People v. Dalan, 736 Phil. 298, 303-304 (2014).

116.People v. Catig, supra note 95.

117.Id.

118. Article 266-B. Penalties. — 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:

xxx xxx xxx

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.

xxx xxx xxx

119.People v. Baay, supra note 107 at 954-955.

120. Article 266-B. Penalties. — Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. x x x

121. A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC or the Guidelines for the Proper Use of the Phrase "Without Eligibility for Parole" in indivisible Penalties. Dated August 4, 2015.

122. 783 Phil. 806, 849 (2016).

123.Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267, 283 (2013).

124. See People v. Baay, supra note 107.

125. Records, pp. 139-148.