People v. XXX

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 254612. February 14, 2022.]

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

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 14 February 2022 which reads as follows: HTcADC

"G.R. No. 254612 (People of the Philippines v. XXX). — This appeal 2 seeks the reversal of the June 10, 2020 Decision 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10800, which affirmed with modification the December 1, 2017 4 Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 8, ____________, 5 in Criminal Case Nos. FC-14-1416 and FC-14-1417, finding accused-appellant XXX (accused-appellant) guilty of the crimes of Rape by carnal knowledge, and Rape by sexual assault, respectively.

Two Informations 6 were filed against accused-appellant as follows:

Criminal Case No. FC-14-1416:

That on or about 12:00 noon of January 11, 2014 at _______________, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, an adult, through coercion and with lewd and unchaste designs, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously indulge in sexual intercourse with [AAA], 7 a seven-year-old minor, against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.

ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW. 8

Criminal Case No. FC-14-1417:

That on or about 12:00 noon of January 11, 2014 at _______________, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, an adult, through coercion and with lewd and unchaste designs, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously inserted his finger into the genitals of [AAA], a seven-year-old minor, against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.

ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW. 9

Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges upon arraignment. 10 Trial thereafter ensued.

Version of the Prosecution:

On January 11, 2014, at about 11:00 a.m., AAA, then seven years old, and her siblings BBB, and CCC, who are also minors, were at their house while their mother, DDD, went to the market. 11 Their father was working in another city as a waiter. At about noontime, AAA went to their grandmother's house, about six to eight meters away from their own home. Accused-appellant's house is about five meters from AAA's house.

Upon seeing AAA, accused-appellant invited AAA to his house. Accused-appellant then asked AAA to sit on his lap. When AAA sat on his lap, accused-appellant inserted his finger into AAA's vagina. Then, accused-appellant instructed AAA to hold his penis, which she did. 12 Afterwards, accused-appellant ordered AAA to go inside a room where he removed his shorts and asked AAA to lie on the bed. Accused-appellant mounted AAA and inserted his penis into her vagina. 13

After performing these acts, AAA went to her grandmother's house. After a while, DDD arrived and asked AAA why she was crying. AAA could not answer. AAA and DDD then went home where the latter offered her food. AAA still kept on crying until she finally revealed to DDD what accused-appellant did to her. DDD immediately confronted accused-appellant about it, but the latter denied the accusations.

Thereafter, AAA and DDD went to the Police Station to lodge a complaint against accused-appellant.

Accused-appellant was later arrested and brought to the municipal police station for investigation. 14 In the meantime, AAA was brought to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for physical examination. 15 The attending physician, Dr. James M. Belgira (Dr. Belgira), found that the "posterior third of both labia and the posterior fourchette in the genital of AAA were markedly erythematous," meaning AAA's genitals were swollen, red and congested. Dr. Belgira concluded that such findings show definite signs of recent vaginal penetrating trauma caused by the insertion of a blunt object like a finger or a penis. 16

Version of the Defense:

For his defense, accused-appellant testified that on January 11, 2014, at about 11:00 a.m., he was at the porch of his house making a table. AAA approached him and asked if she could play a computer game in the computer shop accused-appellant was overseeing. Accused-appellant did not allow AAA to play as she was not accompanied by an adult, and instead told AAA to just spend the money on food. AAA then left.

A short while after, DDD came rushing to his house, accusing him of raping AAA, which he vehemently denied. To prove his innocence, he even tried to convince AAA to subject herself to a physical examination.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:

In a Joint Decision 17 dated December 1, 2017, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Rape through carnal knowledge and Rape through sexual assault. The RTC found AAA's testimony to be unequivocal, clear and convincing, and likewise corroborated by the medical findings of Dr. Belgira. The dispositive portion of the RTC Joint Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the joint judgment in these cases is hereby rendered as follows:

1.) In Crim. Case No. FC-14-1416:

Finding him GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape, defined and penalized under Art. 266-A, par. 1 (d), in relation to Art. 266-B, 1st par. of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in relation to Sec. 5, par. (b) of R.A. No. 7610, otherwise known as "The Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act," the Court hereby sentences accused [XXX] to suffer imprisonment of reclusion perpetua, and to indemnify the minor victim "AAA," as follows:

1.) P50,000.00 — as civil indemnity;

2.) P50,000.00 — as moral damages; and

3.) P30,000.00 — as exemplary damages.

Costs against the accused.

SO ORDERED.

2.) In Crim. Case No. FC-14-1417:

Finding him GUITLY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape, defined and penalized under Art. 266-A, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in relation to Sec. 5, par. b of R.A. No. 7610, otherwise known as "The Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act," and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court hereby sentences the accused to suffer the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years, ten (10) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to indemnify the minor victim "AAA," as follows:

1.) P30,000.00 — as civil indemnity;

2.) P30,000.00 — as moral damages; and

3.) P30,000.00 — as exemplary damages.

Costs against the accused.

SO ORDERED. 18

Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed 19 before the CA, claiming that the RTC erred in giving undue credence to AAA's grossly incredible testimony.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals:

In its June 10, 2020 Decision, 20 the CA affirmed with modification the RTC Joint Decision, to wit:

FOR THE STATED REASONS, the December 1, 2017 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of ___________, Branch 8 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. Appellant [XXX] is GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Rape by Carnal Knowledge under Article 266-A (1) in relation to Article 266-B of the RPC and Rape by Sexual Assault under Article 266-A (2) of the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA No. 7610.

For Rape by Carnal Knowledge under Article 266-A (1) in relation to Art. 266-B of the RPC, in further relation to Section 5 (b) of RA No. 7610, he is sentenced to the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay AAA the following: moral damages of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) and exemplary damages of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) and civil indemnity in the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00).

For Rape by Sexual Assault under Article 266-A (2) of the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA No. 7610, he is sentenced to the penalty of twelve (12) years, ten (10) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and ordered to pay AAA the increased amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages. XXX is likewise directed to pay AAA the amount of P50,000.00 as exemplary damages to set a public example and to deter elders who abuse and corrupt the youth.

All monetary awards for damages shall earn interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.

SO ORDERED. 21

Discontented, accused-appellant appealed 22 this case before the Court.

Issue

The main issue is whether accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Rape by carnal knowledge and Rape by sexual assault.

Accused-appellant argues that AAA's testimony is grossly inconsistent with human knowledge, observation, and experience 23 since she would have already protested the first time he allegedly toucher her vagina. 24 Also, AAA would not have willingly gone inside accused-appellant's room if he forced, threatened or hurt AAA. Furthermore, if he indeed raped AAA, she could have easily escaped or shouted for help as their houses were just adjacent to each other. 25

In addition, accused-appellant contends that Dr. Belgira's medico-legal report is not conclusive to support the findings of rape by the RTC. The report did not conclusively prove that accused-appellant was the perpetrator of the injuries indicated thereon. 26

Lastly, accused-appellant's defenses of denial and alibi, though generally looked upon as weak, should be given credence since "there are occasions when the explanation of the accused as to his whereabouts at the time of the commission of the offense is the plain and simple truth." 27

The prosecution counters that the RTC correctly gave credence and credibility to AAA's testimony. 28 The highest degree of respect must be afforded to the findings of the RTC especially if it finds the testimony of the victim to be categorical, straightforward, frank, and convincing. 29

As to accused-appellant's defenses of denial and alibi, the prosecution argues that these defenses must fall. Compared to AAA's straightforward and convincing testimony, accused-appellant's defenses were unsubstantiated, thus, cannot stand. 30

Hence, this appeal. 31

Our Ruling

The Court dismisses the appeal for lack of merit.

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act No. (RA) 8353, 32 otherwise known as The Anti-Rape Law of 1997, defines 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.

2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person. (Emphasis supplied)

After a judicious perusal and review of the records of the case, this Court finds no reason to deviate from the findings of the RTC and the CA. AAA's testimony was categorical, straightforward, and unrehearsed, successfully proving that accused-appellant committed Rape by carnal knowledge and Rape by sexual assault as described in the provision above.

The gravamen of Rape by carnal knowledge is carnal knowledge of a woman against her will. 33 In the instant case, however, accused-appellant argues that AAA did not protest or call for help when he touched her, thus, the gravamen of the crime is absent.

The Court disagrees. DETACa

At this juncture, it must be clarified that the proper nomenclature of the crime committed in Criminal Case No. FC-14-1416 is Statutory Rape since the victim AAA was below 12. "Statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below twelve (12) years of age regardless of her consent, or the lack of it, to the sexual act. Basic in the prosecution of statutory rape is that there must be concurrence of the following elements: (1) the victim is a female under 12 years of age or is demented; and (2) the offender has carnal knowledge of the victim. Thus, to successfully convict an accused for said crime, it is imperative for the prosecution to prove that the age of the victim is under 12 years and that carnal knowledge took place." 34

Sexual congress with a girl under 12 years old is always rape 35 and is otherwise known as Statutory Rape. What only needs to be established in Statutory Rape is that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim who was under 12 years old. 36

In the present case, the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, found that the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA who was only seven years old at the time of the incident. AAA positively identified accused-appellant and candidly testified that he led her to a room, removed her pants and his own shorts, made her lie down, and inserted his penis into her vagina. 37 AAA's testimony was substantiated by Dr. Belgira, who, after conducting the medical examination right after the incident, reported that AAA's genitalia was "swollen, red, and congested." 38 Lastly, AAA's age at the time of the incident was clearly established through her Birth Certificate. 39 Thus, accused-appellant's assertion that AAA's failure to shout or resist is immaterial at this point. To emphasize, AAA's consent is immaterial in the prosecution of Statutory Rape.

On the other hand, the gravamen of Rape by sexual assault is the insertion of the penis of a person into another's mouth or anal orifice, or the insertion of any instrument or object into another's genital or anal orifice. 40

Similarly, no cogent reason exists for this Court to overturn the findings of the RTC as affirmed by the CA. AAA was unequivocal and convincing when she was asked questions by the prosecution regarding the harrowing incident, to wit:

q What were you doing at the time at noontime?

a At first, I [drank] water then I went out to go to my grandmother's house when Kuya XXX called me.

xxx xxx xxx

q What did you do when Kuya XXX called you?

a I came near him and [approached] him.

q Where was Kuya XXX when he called you?

a At their house.

xxx xxx xxx

q What happened next after you were called by Kuya XXX?

a He asked me to go inside the sala.

q Did you get inside the sala?

a Yes, ma'am.

q What happened at the sala?

a I was asked to sit down.

q Where were you asked to sit down?

a I was asked by Kuya XXX to sit on his lap?

q When you were asked by Kuya XXX to sit on his lap what happened next?

a He inserted his hands inside my pants.

q When he inserted his hands inside your pants, what did he do?

a After that he asked me to go inside the room.

q [AAA], before you went to the room, when your Kuya XXX inserted his hands into your pants, what did Kuya XXX do?

a He asked me to hold his penis.

q But when Kuya XXX inserted his hand inside your pants did you feel anything in your private parts?

a I felt pain.

q Why did you feel pain?

a He inserted his hands inside my vagina with his finger. 41

In a long line of cases, the Court has accorded the factual findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses, and its conclusions based on its findings, as generally binding and conclusive upon this Court, especially so when affirmed by the appellate court. 42 With more reason shall this principle apply in testimonies given by child witnesses, considering that their youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. 43 A young girl would not usually concoct a tale of defloration; publicly admit having been ravished and her honor tainted: allow the examination of her private parts; and undergo all the trouble and inconvenience, not to mention the trauma and scandal of a public trial, had she not in fact been raped and been truly moved to protect and preserve her honor, and motivated by the desire to obtain justice for the wicked acts committed against her. 44 While there are recognized exceptions to this rule, the Court finds no substantial reason to overturn the congruent conclusions of both the RTC and the CA on the matter of AAA's credibility regarding the crime of Rape by Sexual Assault.

However, pursuant to People v. Tulagan, 45 the proper nomenclature of the crime committed in Criminal Case No. FC-14-1417 is Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC, in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610.

We hold that the CA correctly imposed on accused-appellant the penalties of reclusion perpetua for the crime of Statutory Rape, and reclusion temporal in its minimum to maximum periods for the crime of Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC, in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610. As for the award of damages, the CA likewise correctly imposed the following in accordance with People v. Tulagan: 46

1. For Statutory Rape, XXX shall pay the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages; and

2. For Sexual Assault under Article 266-A (2) of the RPC, as amended by RA 8353, 47 in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610, 48 XXX shall pay the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. Accused-appellant XXX is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Statutory Rape in Criminal Case No. FC-14-1416, and Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610 in Criminal Case No. FC-14-1417.

In Criminal Case No. FC-14-1416, accused-appellant XXX is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay AAA the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages.

In Criminal Case No. FC-14-1417, accused-appellant XXX is sentenced to suffer the penalty of 12 years, 10 months and 20 days of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to 15 years, 6 months and 20 days of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and ordered to pay AAA the amounts P50,000.00 as moral damages, P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.

All monetary awards shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid. aScITE

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division 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 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. 19-20.

3.Id. at 4-18. Penned by Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Florencio Mallanao Mamauag, Jr.

4. CA rollo, pp. 61-71. Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Edgar L. Armes.

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

6. Records, p. 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 Therefore, 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. Records (Crim. Case No. FC-14-1416), p. 2.

9. Records (Crim. Case No. FC-14-1417), p. 1.

10. Records (Crim. Case No. FC-14-1416), p. 38; Records (Crim. Case No. FC-14-1417), p. 43.

11. TSN, October 21, 2014, pp. 4-5.

12.Id. at 6.

13.Id. at 7.

14. TSN, June 30, 2015, p. 6.

15. TSN, April 7, 2015, p. 4.

16.Id. at 7.

17. CA rollo, pp. 61-71.

18.Id. at 70-71.

19.Id. at 48-59.

20.Rollo, pp. 4-18.

21.Id. at 17-18.

22.Id. at 19.

23. CA rollo, p. 54.

24.Id. at 56.

25.Id.

26.Id.

27.Id. at 57.

28.Id. at 95-96.

29.Id. at 96.

30.Id. at 102.

31.Rollo, pp. 19-20.

32. Entitled "AN ACT EXPANDING THE DEFINITION OF THE CRIME OF RAPE, RECLASSIFYING THE SAME AS A CRIME AGAINST PERSONS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ACT 3815, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED PENAL CODE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." Approved September 30, 1997.

33.People v. XXX, G.R. No. 225781, November 16, 2020, citing People v. Buca, 770 Phil. 318, 330 (2015).

34.People v. AAA, G.R. No. 247007, March 18, 2021.

35.People v. Lolos, 641 Phil. 624, 632 (2010). Citation omitted.

36.Id.

37. TSN, October 21, 2014, pp. 6-7.

38.Rollo, p. 6.

39. Records, p. 14.

40.Ricalde v. People, 751 Phil. 793, 804 (2015). Citation omitted.

41. TSN, October 21, 2014, pp. 5-6.

42.People v. Ordaneza, G.R. No. 250640, May 5, 2021.

43.Id.

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

45. G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019.

46.Id.

47. The Anti-Rape Law of 1997.

48. Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as the "Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act," states:

Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. — Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.

The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:

(a) x x x;

(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period; and

(c) x x x.