FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 254478. October 5, 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 5, 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 254478 (People of the Philippines v. XXX). — Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments presented, the Court resolves to DENY the appeal for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its assailed Decision 2 dated 10 January 2020 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12248. The CA affirmed with modification the Joint Decision 3 dated 19 November 2018 of Branch 65, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of _____________ 4 in Criminal Case No. 2014-127-I and Criminal Case No. 2014-108-I, finding accused-appellant XXX (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape under Article 266-A (1) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and violation of Section 10 (a) of Republic Act No. (RA) 7610, 5 respectively.
As to Criminal Case No. 2014-127-I, the RTC and the CA correctly found that all the elements of rape under Article 266-A (1) of the RPC are present: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) such act was accomplished through force, threat, or intimidation. 6 The trial court's factual findings, including its assessment of the credibility of witnesses, are accorded great weight and respect, particularly when affirmed by the CA. 7 We find no reason to disturb the uniform factual findings of the RTC and the CA.
Through the candid and categorical testimony of private complainant AAA, 8 it was established that accused-appellant succeeded in having sexual intercourse with AAA by poking a knife at her then threatening to kill her. As correctly emphasized by the courts a quo, youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. 9 No young girl would usually concoct a tale of defloration and undergo all the travails of trial had she not in fact been raped. 10
The RTC and the CA also correctly ruled that AAA's failure to scream for help does not impair her credibility. There is no specific behavior expected of a person being raped, and her failure to shout or seek help does not negate rape. 11 Moreover, lack of proof as to the presence of blood in AAA's genitalia is immaterial. Mere penetration of the penis, even without rupture of the hymen, is enough for a rape conviction. 12
As aptly pointed out by the CA, accused-appellant failed to adduce evidence supporting his alleged relationship with AAA, such as mementos, photographs, and the like. The sweetheart theory is an affirmative defense to establish the absence of force or intimidation. 13 Thus, it shifts the burden of proof to the accused to prove the existence of the relationship and the victim's consent to the sexual act. 14 Accused-appellant failed to discharge this burden. CAIHTE
All told, accused-appellant's guilt for the crime of rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed, and the award of exemplary damages was correctly increased to P75,000.00 pursuant to People v. Jugueta. 15 Nonetheless, the judgment award must be modified to include legal interest, which was mentioned in the body of the CA Decision but not in the fallo. Thus, all monetary awards shall earn interest at six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid. 16
As to Criminal Case No. 2014-108-I, the Court finds no reason to overturn accused-appellant's conviction for violating Section 10 (a), Article VI of RA 7610.
Section 10 (a), Article VI of RA 7610 is a "catch-all" provision punishing child abuse not specifically addressed by the law. 17 Section 3 (b), Article I of the same law defines child abuse as "the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the child," and expressly encompasses psychological abuse. 18 In turn, psychological injury means harm to a child's psychological or intellectual functioning, which may be exhibited by severe anxiety. 19
The RTC and the CA correctly found that accused-appellant's threat to kill AAA, then 14 years old, amounts to child abuse. The death threat caused such overwhelming fear and anxiety that AAA was pushed to disclose the threat to her mother. The severity of her anxiety also led her to divulge the rape incident, which, at that point, she had been concealing for almost two weeks. Clearly, accused-appellant's threat instilled severe distress upon AAA, whose actions are consistent with someone with a genuine fear for her life. As against AAA's positive and categorical testimony, accused-appellant's bare denial must fail because it is an inherently weak defense. 20
Thus, the CA correctly affirmed accused-appellant's conviction in Criminal Case No. 2014-108-I. Nonetheless, there is a need to modify the term of the indeterminate penalty. The imposable penalty for a violation of Section 10 (a), Article VI of RA 7610 is prision mayor in its minimum period, and not prision mayor as held by the CA. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, 21 the minimum of the indeterminate sentence should be within the range of prision correccional in its maximum period, or four years, two months, and one day to six years. Meanwhile, the maximum term, in the absence of any mitigating and aggravating circumstances, shall be within the medium period of the imposable penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period, or six years, eight months, and one day to seven years and four months. Thus, accused-appellant is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six years of prision correccional, as minimum, to seven years and four months of prision mayor, as maximum.
Moreover, in line with prevailing jurisprudence, and considering the psychological injury suffered by AAA, the Court awards moral damages in the amount of P10,000.00 and imposes a fine of P15,000.00 pursuant to Section 31 (f), Article XII of RA 7610. 22 All monetary awards shall earn interest at six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid. 23
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 10 January 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12248 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION as follows:
(1) In Criminal Case No. 2014-127-I, accused-appellant XXX is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of rape under Article 266-A (1), in relation to Article 266-B, of the Revised Penal Code. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Accused-appellant is ordered to pay the private complainant P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. All monetary awards shall earn legal interest at six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid; and
(2) In Criminal Case No. 2014-108-I, accused-appellant XXX is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Child Abuse under Section 10 (a), Article VI of Republic Act No. 7610. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for the indeterminate period of six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to seven (7) years and four (4) months of prision mayor, as maximum. Accused-appellant is ordered to pay the private complainant P10,000.00 as moral damages, with legal interest at six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until full payment. He is further ordered to pay a fine in the amount of P15,000.00 pursuant to Section 31 (f), Article XIII of Republic Act No. 7610.
SO ORDERED." Marquez, J., on official leave.
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 accused-appellant pursuant to Supreme Court Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated 5 September 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. 4-16. Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla and concurred in by Associate Justices Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla and Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin.
3. CA rollo, pp. 52-67. Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Agripino R. Bravo.
4. Geographical locations are blotted out pursuant to Supreme Court Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015.
5. Entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." Approved: 17 June 1992.
6. People v. XYZ, G.R. No. 246975, 23 March 2022.
7. People v. Gulion, 402 Phil. 653, 665 (2001).
8. The identity and personal circumstances of the victim are withheld pursuant to Supreme Court Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015.
9. People v. Gulion, supra.
10. People v. YYY, G.R. No. 252865, 04 August 2021.
11. People v. Pareja, 724 Phil. 759, 778 (2014).
12. People v. Rejano, 307 Phil. 646, 662 (1994).
13. People v. Fruelda, G.R. No. 242690, 03 September 2020.
14. Id.
15. 783 Phil. 806, 849 (2016).
16. See Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013).
17. Talocod v. People, G.R. No. 250671, 7 October 2020. Sec. 10 of RA 7610 reads:
SECTION 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and Other Conditions Prejudicial to the Child's Development. —
(a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child's development including those covered by Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, but not covered by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period.
18. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7610, Sec. 3 (b) (1).
19. RULES AND REGULATIONS ON THE REPORTING AND INVESTIGATION OF CHILD ABUSE CASES, Sec. 2 (e).
20. People v. XXX, G.R. No. 248815, 23 March 2022.
21. ACT 4103. Entitled "AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR AN INDETERMINATE SENTENCE AND PAROLE FOR ALL PERSONS CONVICTED OF CERTAIN CRIMES BY THE COURTS OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS; TO CREATE A BOARD OF INDETERMINATE SENTENCE AND TO PROVIDE FUNDS THEREFOR; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." Approved: 19 June 1965.
22. People v. XXX, G.R. No. 252351, 07 July 2021.
23. SeeNacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267, 281-283 (2013).