People v. XXX

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 253323. November 11, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.XXX, 1accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 11, 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC

"G.R. No. 253323 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, v. XXX, accused-appellant).

After a review of the records, this Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its December 19, 2019 Decision, 2 affirming the conviction of XXX (accused-appellant) for Qualified Rape under Article 266-A in relation to 266-B of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610.

Accused-appellant was charged with three (3) counts of qualified rape under Art. 266-A of the RPC and two (2) counts of lascivious conduct under R.A. No. 7610 in five (5) separate Informations 3 dated July 1, 2003, which read:

Criminal Case No. C-68768

That on or about the 12th day of September 2002, in x x x 4 and [within] the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being the father of AAA, 14 years old, a minor, by means [of] violence, force, and intimidation[,] did then and there willfully, unlawfully have carnal knowledge of the [victim], against her will.

[CONTRARY TO LAW.]

Criminal Case No. C-68769

That sometime on July 2002, in x x x and [within] the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being then the father of [the victim], 14 years old, a minor, by means of violence, force, and intimidation[,] did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and with lewd design, commits an act of lasciviousness to the [victim], by forcing her to hold his penis while inserting his finger into the victim's vagina.

[CONTRARY TO LAW.]

Criminal Case No. C-68770

That on or about the 25th day of October 2002, in x x x and [within] the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being then the father of [the victim], 14 years old, a minor, by means [of] violence, force, and intimidation[,] did then and there willfully, unlawfully have carnal knowledge of the [victim], against her will.

[CONTRARY TO LAW.]

Criminal Case No. C-68771

That on or about the 3rd day of October 2002, in x x x and [within] the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being the father of [the victim], 14 years old, a minor, by means [of] violence, force, and intimidation[,] did then and there willfully, unlawfully have carnal knowledge of the [victim], against her will.

[CONTRARY TO LAW.]

Criminal Case No. C-68772

That on or about the 26th [day] of December 2002, in x x x and [within] the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being then the father of [the victim], 14 years old, a minor, by means [of] violence, force, and intimidation[,] did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and with lewd design, commit an act of lasciviousness to the [victim], by fondling her breast and kissing her, against the latter's will.

[CONTRARY TO LAW.] 5

We do not find any reason to reverse the findings of the courts a quo, as they both found the victim's testimony to be clear, consistent, and straightforward. During her direct examination, the victim narrated how accused-appellant raped her on three separate incidents and how he also touched her private parts and mashed her breasts on two separate occasions, the latter having been witnessed by the victim's mother, BBB. 6 The inconsistencies mentioned by accused-appellant regarding the time of commission of the crimes were correctly disregarded by the CA since these refer only to minor matters that do not even form part of the essential elements of the crimes committed by accused-appellant. Moreover, it is well-settled that discordance in the testimonies of witnesses on minor matters heightens their credibility and shows that their testimonies were not coached or rehearsed, especially where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the assailant. 7

The CA also correctly modified accused-appellant's conviction for simple rape. Under Art. 266-B of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, the crime committed is qualified rape when the victim is below 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.

In here, the victim was fourteen (14) years old when she was raped by her own father, accused-appellant. The defense likewise admitted the victim's minority and her relationship to accused-appellant during pre-trial.

Thus, in Criminal Case Nos. C-68768, C-68770, and C-68771, accused-appellant committed the crime of qualified rape punishable by reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, pursuant to A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC and in lieu of the imposition of death penalty under R.A. No. 9346. The damages awarded by the CA were in conformity with the guidelines in People v. Jugueta. 8

As for Criminal Case Nos. C-68769 and C-68772, the crime committed by accused-appellant is lascivious conduct under Sec. 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610. The victim testified that, sometime in July 2002, accused-appellant inserted his finger in her vagina. On December 26, 2002, accused-appellant touched and mashed her breasts even with BBB lying down beside accused-appellant. Evidently, accused-appellant's acts fall under the definition of lascivious conduct in the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 7610, to wit:

SECTION 2. Definition of Terms. — As used in these Rules, unless the context requires otherwise —

h) "Lascivious conduct" means the intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person[.]

In People v. Tulagan9 citing People v. Caoili, 10 this Court already clarified that when the victim of lascivious conduct is more than twelve (12) but below eighteen (18) years of age, as in this case, the crime should be designated as lascivious conduct under Sec. 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610. Hence, the CA was correct in modifying the nomenclature of the crime committed by accused-appellant in Criminal Case Nos. C-68769 and C-68772, and in finding him guilty of lascivious conduct under Sec. 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610, which is punishable by reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. 11 The victim's relationship with accused-appellant was properly considered by the CA as an aggravating circumstance in imposing the maximum period of the prescribed penalty. Likewise, the fine of P15,000.00 pursuant to Sec. 31 (f) of R.A. No. 7610, 12 and the damages awarded by the CA in view of the Court's ruling in People v. Jugueta, 13 were also properly imposed. Finally, the CA also correctly imposed legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum on the fine, civil indemnity, and damages awarded.

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the December 19, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. CR-HC No. 07856, finding accused-appellant XXX GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of QUALIFIED RAPE under Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, and two (2) counts of LASCIVIOUS CONDUCT under Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610.

In Criminal Case Nos. C-68768, C-68770, and C-68771, accused-appellant XXX is hereby SENTENCED to serve the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, and to PAY the victim P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count.

In Criminal Case Nos. C-68769 and C-68772, accused-appellant XXX is SENTENCED to serve the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to PAY a FINE of P15,000.00 for each count pursuant to Section 31 (f) of Republic Act No. 7610. He is further ORDERED to PAY the victim P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count.

The civil indemnity, and damages awarded herein shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum computed from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

by:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. The identity of the victim or any information to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to Section 40 of Administrative Matter No. 04-10-11-SC ("Rule on Violence against Women and Their Children") and Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 (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. 3-18; penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez with Associate Justices Pedro B. Corales and Perpetua Susan T. Atal-Paño, concurring

3.Id. at 4-5, Records, pp. 1-5.

4. The city where the crime was committed is withheld to protect the identity of the rape victim pursuant to Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 issued on September 5, 2017.

5.Rollo, pp. 4-5.

6.Id. at 6.

7.People v. Crisostomo, 354 Phil. 867, 876 (1998).

8. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).

9. G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019, 896 SCRA 307.

10. 815 Phil. 839 (2017).

11.People v. Tulagan, supra at 442.

12. See People v. VVV, G.R. No. 230222, June 20, 2020, and People v. BBB, G.R. No. 232071, July 10, 2019.

13.Supra note 8.