People v. XXX

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 254199. October 19, 2022.]

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

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 19, 2022, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 254199 (People of the Philippines v. XXX). — This is an appeal 2 under Rule 124 3 of the Rules of Court challenging the June 21, 2019 Decision 4 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11101, which affirmed the April 11, 2018 Judgment 5 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 43 of _______________ in Criminal Case No. 5740 finding accused-appellant XXX guilty of Rape.

Version of the prosecution

The private complainant, AAA 6 alleged that one morning in April 2015, she was watching television inside their house with her 6-year old sister, BBB who was asleep, and her uncle ("__________"), the accused-appellant. At the time, AAA's parents were not home. When she turned the television off, AAA got startled as XXX went straight to her and forced her down the floor. He removed her shorts and undergarments, then took off his shorts and brief. XXX forcibly inserted his penis inside her vagina. Since he covered her mouth with his hands, she could not scream. XXX warned her not to tell her parents about the incident otherwise he will kill her family members. AAA's ordeal lasted for around 10 to 20 minutes. After satisfying his lust, XXX left the house. 7

AAA eventually disclosed the incident to her friend, CCC, another one of XXX's alleged victims. AAA demonstrated how XXX covered her mouth and twisted her hands to prevent her from resisting. She did not immediately report the crime as she feared for her parents' safety. Moreover, she revealed that the April 2015 incident was the third time that XXX sexually abused her. She recalled that XXX first raped her when they went fishing while the second incident happened in a place called "__________" when she fetched her mother. Unfortunately, AAA could not recall the exact dates of the consummation of the felonies. 8

AAA also informed her mother, DDD, about what happened, who in turn immediately brought her to the municipal police station for investigation. Afterwards, AAA was escorted to the Municipal Social Welfare and Development Office for medical examination. 9 Dr. Elva M. Joson physically examined the victim. The Medico-Legal Certificate 10 dated September 28, 2015 indicated that: (1) there is a healed laceration with rounded non-coaptible borders and retraction of the edges at 5, 7 & 9 o'clock positions; and (2) diminution of the sharpness of the victim's rugosities. 11

The birth certificate 12 of AAA specified that she was born on January 15, 1998. Hence, she was only 17 years old when the felony allegedly transpired. Significantly, a social worker, Geraldine Templonuevo, prepared a Social Case Study Report 13 which described AAA's family background and her mental condition ("isip-bata").

Version of the Defense

XXX denied the charge and countered that from September to October 2015, he and his family stayed in ______________, _____________at the house of YYY. He supposedly stayed there because he stripped abaca as payment for his indebtedness to the store owned by YYY's employer. He claimed that the last time he was in the same barangay as the victim was probably in August 2015. Supposedly, the victim's barangay was far from the barangay where he stayed at. However, he admitted that in April 2015, he and his family still resided in the same barangay where AAA lived. 14

The proceedings

In an Information 15 dated December 15, 2015, XXX was charged with Rape under Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), the accusatory portion of which reads:

That sometime in the morning of April at the residence of the victim AAA at ________________________, __________________, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being the paternal uncle of the victim and having moral ascendancy and influence over her, and with lewd design, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have carnal knowledge with the victim, AAA, a seventeen (17)-year old girl, against her will and consent. To her damage and prejudice.

That the crime was committed with the aggravating circumstance that the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offended is the relative by consanguinity within the third civil degree.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 16

During his arraignment, XXX entered a plea of "not guilty." 17 Afterwards, the prosecutor filed an Amended Information 18 dated February 19, 2016 to indicate the year of the commission of the crime, specifically in 2015. XXX again pled "not guilty." 19

At the pre-trial, the parties stipulated on the following:

1. That the private complainant was 17 years old at the time of the alleged incident [since she was born in] January [1998];

2. Existence and due execution of the Certificate of Live Birth;

3. Existence and due execution of the medico-legal certificate;

4. That the accused and the private complainant are residing in the same barangay, __________________, ______________;

5. That the accused is the uncle of the private complainant, being the brother of her father; [and]

6. That the accused, [XXX], is also known as "_____." 20

Unfortunately, pending trial, the private complainant passed away. 21

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

In a Judgment 22 dated April 11, 2018, the RTC ruled that based on the credible and positive testimony of the victim, the accused-appellant is guilty of Rape. 23 It likewise considered the qualifying circumstances of AAA's minority and her relationship with her uncle, XXX. 24 The dispositive portion of the RTC's Judgment reads:

WHEREFORE, this Court finds [XXX] GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and to pay the heirs of AAA, the amounts of SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (Php75,000.00), as civil indemnity, SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (Php75,000.00), as moral damages and THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php30,000.00), as exemplary damages, for each count, which shall be subject to legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid.

SO ORDERED. 25

Aggrieved, XXX appealed 26 before the CA and assigned this sole error:

I

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED BASED SOLELY ON THE UNRELIABLE TESTIMONY OF AAA. 27

XXX argued that AAA did not categorically state that he inserted his penis inside her vagina, but only gave affirmative answers to the public prosecutor's leading questions. 28 He added that AAA did not immediately ask for help after the first two alleged rape incidents, casting doubt on the truthfulness of her testimony. 29

On the other hand, the People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, contended that the law does not impose upon the victim the burden of proving resistance, given that her uncle exercised moral influence over her and even threatened her. 30 Likewise, the physician's findings corroborated the victim's positive and credible testimony. 31 It averred that the accused-appellant's denial and alibi cannot overcome the victim's unqualified declaration. 32

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The CA, in its assailed June 21, 2019 Decision, 33 affirmed the RTC's ruling. 34 It held that the date or time of the commission of the felony does not need to be stated with absolute accuracy. 35 It dismissed XXX's contention that AAA did not categorically state that he inserted his penis inside her vagina, as the records showed that he had carnal knowledge of the victim through force, threat and intimidation. 36 Furthermore, it ruled that delay in the reporting of the two previous rape incidents did not amount to the falsity of AAA's entire rape story, especially since she was threatened by XXX. 37 It rejected XXX's denial and alibi, as he testified on his location after the incident and failed to account for his whereabouts in April 2015. 38 The CA then modified 39 the amounts for the award of damages in view of People v. Jugueta. 40 The fallo of the CA's Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the present appeal is DENIED. The April 11, 2018 Judgment of the Regional Trial Court of ______________, Branch 43, in Criminal Case No. 5740 is hereby AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:

1. The award of civil indemnity is increased from P75,000.00 to P100,000.00;

2. The award of moral damages is also increased from P75,000.00 to P100,000.00;

3. The award of exemplary damages is increased from P30,000.00 to P100,000.00; and

4. Accused-appellant is ORDERED to pay private complainant interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum on all the amounts of damages awarded, commencing from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.41

Discontented, XXX appealed 42 his case before this Court.

Issue

The main issue is whether the accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of committing Qualified Rape.

Our Ruling

The appeal has no merit.

At the outset, this Court stresses that the exact date and time are not essential elements of the crime of rape because the gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge of a woman. Hence, the time of commission in rape cases need not be precisely stated. 43 "Any discrepancies in details which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime are not grounds for acquittal." 44 Thus, the Amended Information indicating that the felony was committed in April 2015 is sufficient to apprise the accused-appellant of the charge against him.

Rape is defined by Art. 266-A, par. (1) of the RPC as follows:

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. 45 (Underscoring supplied)

According to Art. 266-B of the RPC, Rape under par. 1 of Art. 266-A shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. In this case, since the Rape was committed by the uncle of the minor victim (or her relative by consanguinity within the third civil degree), the Rape is qualified under par. 1, Art. 266-B of the same Code. 46

The elements of Qualified Rape are: "(1) sexual congress; (2) with a woman; (3) done by force, threat, or intimidation without consent; (4) the victim is under eighteen years of age at the time of the rape; and (5) the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree of the victim, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim." 47

Hence, in order to appreciate the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship in the crime of Rape, they must be alleged in the information and proven during trial. 48 The victim's minority and his/her relationship with the perpetrator should both be alleged in the Information then proven beyond reasonable doubt during trial. In the case at bench, the evidence showed that the minority of the victim and relationship with the offender were alleged and proven.

Based on the records, XXX himself admitted in open court that AAA is his niece. Undoubtedly, the admission of relationship in open court is sufficient for the attending circumstance of relationship to be appreciated. 49 Besides, the parties stipulated that the accused-appellant is the victim's uncle.

Similarly, the minority and gender of AAA were proven through her birth certificate and the testimonies during trial. At the pre-trial, the parties also stipulated on her minority (17 years old) when the crimes were committed. To reiterate, in consonance with the allegations in the Information, the evidence demonstrated that the victim is the accused-appellant's relative by consanguinity within the third civil degree and that she was a minor when the felonies were committed against her. Additionally, XXX had carnal knowledge of AAA without her consent. Withal, the elements of Qualified Rape are extant in this case.

Furthermore, since XXX exercised moral ascendancy over AAA, he successfully pressured AAA to succumb to his sexual perversion by threatening to kill her family. AAA had a mental condition 50 which XXX most likely took advantage of as well. Indeed, "the moral ascendancy of an accused over the victim renders it unnecessary to show physical force and intimidation since, in rape committed by a close kin, such as the victim's father, stepfather, uncle, or the common-law spouse of her mother, moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence or intimidation." 51 These circumstances certainly qualified the rape charge. Although the RTC and the CA declared that the felony committed was Rape, the allegations in the Information and those proven during the trial point to XXX's culpability for Qualified Rape.

Such conclusion is supported by this Court's finding that AAA's testimony was credible and convincing, notwithstanding her mental condition. "Testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit, for when a woman or a girl-child says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity." 52 "A young girl's revelation that she had been raped, coupled with her voluntary submission to [a] medical examination and willingness to undergo public trial where she could be compelled to give out the details of an assault on her dignity, cannot be so easily dismissed as [a] mere concoction." 53 In the same way, "when the testimony of a rape victim is consistent with medical findings, there is sufficient basis to conclude that there has been carnal knowledge." 54

Also, AAA's delay in reporting the crimes should not be taken to mean that she fabricated the charge. Delay in reporting a rape incident neither diminishes complainant's credibility nor undermines the charges of rape where the delay can be attributed to the pattern of fear instilled by the threats of bodily harm, specially by one who exercised moral ascendancy over the victims. 55 Due to XXX's physical dominance and his relationship with AAA, the victim was at a great disadvantage. As she was restrained and her mouth was covered, AAA was not able to call for help. This is apart from the fact that she was being threatened with serious physical harm during the ordeal. 56

Similarly, out of fear that XXX will push through with his threats, AAA did not scream or immediately seek help. Even after the rapes, she kept the harrowing experiences to herself. Nonetheless, "although the conduct of the victim immediately following the alleged sexual assault is of utmost importance in establishing the truth or falsity of the charge, it is not correct to expect a typical reaction or norm of behavior from rape victims." 57 The victims of rape cannot be expected to act conformably with the usual expectation of mankind. 58 "There is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience. 59 Each situation is different and dependent on circumstances prevailing in each case." Even though AAA did not shout for help or seek assistance following the incident, it does not negate the crime of rape nor imply that her experience was not real or that she consented to the criminal acts." 60

It is important to note that, CCC, AAA's friend and also a victim 61 of XXX, reported that they were both raped by XXX. CCC stated that AAA confided in her that XXX raped her (AAA) thrice and even described the circumstances surrounding the rapes. 62 This revelation prompted DDD to confirm the truth with AAA. 63 Relevantly, CCC's testimony corroborated AAA's story which the RTC correctly considered. To stress, the trial court judge's evaluation because of his opportunity to observe the witness on the stand, coupled by the appellate court's affirmation is binding on this Court unless facts and circumstances have been overlooked or misinterpreted which, if considered, would affect the disposition of the case." 64 The defense did not provide any convincing reason to deviate from the factual findings of both the RTC and the CA that XXX raped his minor niece.

XXX primarily relied on his defenses of denial and alibi. Yet, "both denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime. Thus, as between a categorical testimony which has a ring of truth on one hand, and a mere denial and alibi on the other, the former is generally held to prevail. 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." 65 Based on XXX's testimony, he confirmed that he lived in a house with his family which is located in the same barangay as the victim's house. 66 More importantly, he admitted that before August 9, 2015, he lived in the same barangay67 as the private complainant. That meant that in April 2015, he had the opportunity, access, and the means to commit the crime. He likewise admitted that he often went to the house of AAA's family even if his own house was supposed to be quite a distance away. 68

To conclude, accused-appellant is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for Qualified Rape and not simply "Rape" as reflected in the fallo of the RTC's Judgment, and should therefore face the death penalty. However, since Republic Act No. 9346 69 prohibited the imposition of the death penalty, he should instead be meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. 70 Furthermore, the CA correctly increased the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to P100,000.00 each. Similarly, the imposition of the legal interest rate of six percent (6%) per annum on the said monetary awards from the finality of the judgment until full payment is affirmed. 71

Withal, even if the private complainant already passed away, it is still important to acknowledge what she had to go through and deliver justice where it is needed. By affirming the accused-appellant's conviction, one can only hope that she can finally rest and move on peacefully, free from the troubles of her mortal life.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed June 21, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11101 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that accused-appellant XXX is found guilty of committing Qualified Rape defined and penalized under Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code and that the monetary awards be paid to the legal heirs of AAA.

SO ORDERED."Lazaro-Javier, J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated October 10, 2022 vice Zalameda, J., who recused due to prior participation in the CA.

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Initials were used to identify the accused-appellant pursuant to the Supreme Court Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 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. 15-16.

3. As amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC.

4. Rollo, pp. 4-14. Penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon and concurred in by Associate Justices Rodil V. Zalameda (now a Member of this Court) and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi.

5. CA rollo, pp. 38-49. Penned by Presiding Judge Lelu P. Contreras.

6. "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]).

7. Rollo, pp. 5-6; records, pp. 8-9; TSN, April 11, 2016, pp. 9-12.

8. Rollo, p. 6; TSN, April 11, 2016, pp. 7-12.

9. Rollo, p. 6; records, p. 10; TSN, April 11, 2016, pp. 13-14; May 11, 2016, p. 6.

10. Records, p. 12.

11. TSN, August 1, 2016, pp. 6-8.

12. Records, p. 13.

13. Id. at 78-84.

14. Rollo, p. 6; CA rollo, p. 28; TSN, January 23, 2017, pp. 3-5.

15. Records, pp. 1-2.

16. Id. at 1.

17. Id. at 25, 28.

18. Id. at 37-38.

19. Id. at 42, 45.

20. Id. at 65-66.

21. Id. at 127.

22. CA rollo, pp. 38-49.

23. Id. at 47.

24. Id. at 47-48.

25. Id. at 49.

26. Id. at 10-11.

27. Id. at 25.

28. Id. at 30-32.

29. Id. at 33.

30. Id. at 67-68.

31. Id. at 68.

32. Id. at 69.

33. Rollo, pp. 4-14.

34. Id. at 8-9.

35. Id. at 9.

36. Id. at 9-10.

37. Id. at 11.

38. Id. at 12.

39. Id. at 13.

40. 783 Phil. 806 (2016); CA rollo, p. 52.

41. Rollo, pp. 13-14.

42. Id. at 17-19, 21.

43. People v. ___________, G.R. No. 229836, July 17, 2019.

44. People v. Quiapo, 838 Phil. 260, 271 (2018), citing People v. Arpon, 678 Phil. 752, 773 (2011).

45. REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 266-A, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 (1997).

46. REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 266-B, par. 1.

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[.]

47. People v. Palanay, 805 Phil. 116, 13 (2017).

48. People v. Padin, G.R. No. 250418, December 9, 2020. Citations omitted.

49. People v. ZZZ, G.R. No. 224584, September 4, 2019.

50. Records, pp. 80, 82.

51. People v. Belen, 803 Phil. 751, 767 (2017). Citation omitted.

52. People v. Deliola, 794 Phil. 194, 208 (2016), citing People v. Suarez, 750 Phil. 858, 869 (2015).

53. People v. Tuballas, 811 Phil. 201, 217 (2017), citing People v. Cadano, Jr., 729 Phil. 576, 585 (2014).

54. People v. Manaligod, 831 Phil. 204, 212-213 (2018), citing People v. Mercado, 664 Phil. 747, 751 (2011).

55. People v. DDD, G.R. No. 243583, September 3, 2020.

56. TSN, April 11, 2016, pp. 16-17, 23.

57. People v. Tamano, G.R. No. 227866, July 8, 2020.

58. People v. Zafra, 712 Phil. 559, 572 (2013).

59. People v. Ampo, G.R. No. 229938, February 27, 2019.

60. People v. Olpindo, G.R. No. 252861, February 15, 2022.

61. TSN, June 8, 2016, p. 8.

62. Id. at 4-6.

63. TSN, May 11, 2016, pp. 13-15.

64. People v. Lumikid, G.R. No. 242695, June 23, 2020.

65. People v. Villegas, Jr., G.R. No. 218210, October 9, 2019, citing People v. Batalla, G.R. No. 234323, January 7, 2019.

66. TSN, January 23, 2017, p. 5.

67. TSN, January 30, 2017, pp. 3-4.

68. TSN, April 11, 2016, p. 30.

69. Entitled "AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES." Approved: June 24, 2006.

70. People v. XXX, G.R. No. 236562, September 22, 2020.

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