SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 256214. October 4, 2021.]
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 04 October 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 256214 (People of the Philippines v. XXX). — When there is no showing of any improper motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses to testify falsely against the accused, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists and that their positive and categorical testimonies and declarations on the witness stand under the solemnity of an oath are worthy of full faith and credence. 2
Before this Court is an appeal from the February 24, 2020 Decision 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12651, which affirmed the December 27, 2018 Judgment 4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 73 of ________ 5 City finding XXX guilty of the crime of Rape.
The Antecedents:
XXX was charged with Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), in relation to Republic Act No. 7610. The accusatory portion of the Information 6 reads:
That on or about the 5th day of February 2009, at about 11:00 in the evening, in ____________________, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with lewd design, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had carnal knowledge and sexual intercourse with said AAA, 7 a 17-year old minor, against her will and consent, to the damage and prejudice of the said AAA.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 8
When arraigned, XXX entered the plea of "not guilty" to the charge against him. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution:
To substantiate its charges against XXX, the prosecution presented the minor victim, AAA, BBB, AAA's cousin, and CCC, BBB's brother. Their combined testimonies tend to show that AAA, 17 years of age, attended a birthday celebration at _______________________________. 9 The accused-appellant, who was CCC's cousin's companion at a training center, was also one of the attendees. 10 During the party, 11 BBB noticed the accused-appellant was staring (titig na titig) at AAA. She told her brother CCC about it who in turn told the accused-appellant ''pre, pinsan ko yan, walang talo-talo." The witnesses also recounted that accused-appellant was frequently giving AAA drinks as if "nilalasing" or intentionally getting AAA drunk. 12 AAA finished drinking by 11:00 o'clock in the evening and wanted to go home already. 13
AAA walked up to the corner of the street to wait for a tricycle to take her home. 14 Suddenly, somebody grabbed AAA, covered her mouth and dragged her towards the talahiban (grassy area). AAA recognized the person who grabbed her as accused-appellant. XXX then proceeded to undress AAA. It was at this time when AAA felt too dizzy and lost consciousness. 15
At about the same time, BBB stopped drinking and looked for her cousin AAA, after observing that she had been missing from the venue of the party. A tricycle driver passing by then shouted "may nag-aanuhan doon," which initially made them laugh. However, they were alarmed when they recalled that AAA was missing. 16 BBB, accompanied by a friend, then searched the area and saw her cousin AAA lying naked on the ground with XXX on top of her. 17 Accused-appellant was naked from the waist up and his short pulled down to his feet. BBB then ran towards CCC, while her friend immediately went to AAA and help her get dressed. 18
BBB narrated what she saw to CCC and asked for his help. CCC then rushed to the site where they saw accused-appellant fixing his shorts. Thereafter, a commotion ensued. A barangay tanod arrived and stopped CCC, accused-appellant, and some other guests from wrestling each other. 19
Version of the Defense:
The defense presented a different recollection of the events that transpired on the night of February 5, 2009. 20 According to the accused-appellant, he attended the opening of the beerhouse of his friend DDD located at ___________________. Accused-appellant stayed thereat from 2:00 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. It was at around 4:30 p.m. when accused-appellant and his companions started drinking. 21
By 11:00 p.m., accused-appellant started feeling dizzy and sleepy due to excessive drinking, thus, he called his sister to fetch him. 22 After a few minutes, his sister arrived.
On February 8, 2009, accused-appellant went back to Manila to work. A few days after, on February 20, 2009, he received a call from his mother notifying him that police authorities have been looking for him due to a complaint for rape filed against him. Accused-appellant then immediately returned to _______ to clear up his name. However, the police arrested and detained him. 23
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
On December 27, 2018, the RTC rendered a Judgment finding XXX guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape. 24
The trial court held that as between bare alibi and denials offered by accused-appellant and the straightforward testimonies of the victim and the rest of the prosecution's witnesses, the latter should be given full faith and credit as they bear the badges of truth and are replete with details. According to the RTC, accused-appellant did not provide any reason why AAA and all the other witnesses testified in the manner they did and pointed to him as the offender. 25 Denial and alibi cannot prevail over the clear and categorical testimony of witnesses who gave positive assertions. Further, the trial court stated:
The court could not also rely on the supposed corroboration provided by the accused-appellant's sister. While the accused-appellant averred that he was fetched by his sister at 11:45 in the evening, his sister claimed that at around 11:15 they arrived at the place and left the place after boarding a supposedly very drunk accused to the tricycle. The witness also said that her brother was working then at _____. On the other hand, however, accused in his Judicial Affidavit, insinuated that he was working in Manila which was why on 8 February 2009, he returned to Manila to work. The defense of denial like alibi must be supported by credible corroboration, preferably from disinterested witnesses who will swear that the accused did not do what he is being accused of. This is absolutely absent in the present case. 26
The dispositive portion of the Judgment reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered and with the prosecution having been able to establish the guilt of accused [XXX] beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape defined and punishable under Article 266-A, par. (1) b of the Revised Penal Code, he is hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Furthermore, to conform with existing jurisprudence, he is ordered to pay AAA P75,000.00 as civil indemnity ex-delicto and P75,000.00 as moral damages, all with interest of 6% per annum from finality of this Judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 27
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
In his appeal, accused-appellant maintained that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He argued that the trial court gravely erred in convicting him despite the prosecution's failure to prove the identity of the perpetrator. He claimed that a circumspect examination of the victim's testimony would reveal that it was highly improbable for her to have positively identified her alleged perpetrator, viz.: 28
Q: When you said that you were lying down on the grassy area and the accused was on top of you what was your position in relation to the road where the tricycle passed by?
A: The road is to our feet while I was lying down.
Q: So how far is the road from your feet when you were lying down?
*The witness pointed that it was approximately three (3) meters.*
Q: And where did the tricycle come from? Where did the tricycle come from, from your right or from your left?
A: Right ma'am.
Q: So, at what part of the body of the accused did the light hit?
A: His face ma'am.
Q: Right face or left face?
A: His whole face ma'am. 29
Further, the accused-appellant averred that the trial court gravely erred in convicting him despite the inconsistent and improbable testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. He likewise posited that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of the crime charged. 30
In its Decision dated February 24, 2020, the CA denied the appeal and affirmed the RTC ruling. The appellate court ruled that all the elements of the crime charged were proven. It held that the victim, BBB, and CCC categorically identified accused-appellant in open court as the person who had carnal knowledge of the victim. 31 Further, the appellate court held that although the victim had lost consciousness while the accused-appellant was removing her pants, the fact of carnal knowledge was established by the testimonies of BBB and CCC. 32 The CA held that, as aptly found by the RTC, these pieces of evidence, taken all together, are more than sufficient not only to convincingly establish accused-appellant's identity beyond reasonable doubt, but also his culpability for rape. 33
The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The Judgment dated 27 December 2018 of the Regional Trial Court of ________ City, Branch 73 in Crim. Case No. 115-2009FC, finding accused-appellant [XXX] guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape as defined under Article 266-A, par. 1(b) and penalized under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended; sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; and ordering him to pay the victim AAA civil indemnity in the amount of Php75,000.00 and moral damages in the amount of Php75,000.00, plus interest of 6% per annum from finality of the said Judgment until fully paid is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that accused-appellant [XXX] is also ordered to pay the victim AAA exemplary damages in the amount of Php75,000.00.
SO ORDERED. 34
Issue
The sole issue for this Court's resolution is whether the appellate court erred in affirming the accused-appellant's conviction considering that the prosecution failed to clearly identify the alleged perpetrator and establish clearly the elements of the crime charged.
Our Ruling
Identity of the perpetrator of the
We agree with the accused-appellant that in every criminal case, the task of the prosecution is always two-fold, that is, (1) to prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime charged; and (2) to establish with the same quantum of proof the identity of the person or persons responsible therefor, because, even if the commission of the crime is a given, there can be no conviction without the identity of the malefactor being likewise ascertained. 35
The accused-appellant contends that the identity of the perpetrator of the crime has not been clearly established by the prosecution. He theorizes that due to the distance and position of the parties as narrated by AAA during her open testimony, it is highly improbable for her to positively identify XXX as the person who raped her. The accused-appellant banks on the inconsistencies in AAA's testimony to cast reasonable doubt as to the identity of the perpetrator of the crime. 36
We are not convinced.
Direct evidence to prove that a crime has been carried out by a particular individual is not the only basis on which a court draws its finding of guilt. 37 The rules of evidence allow a trial court to rely on circumstantial evidence to establish the commission of a crime, the identity of the perpetrator, and the finding of guilt. 38 Circumstantial evidence is that evidence "which indirectly proves a fact in issue through an inference which the fact-finder draws from the evidence established." 39
Under Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, circumstantial evidence would be sufficient to convict the offender "if i) there is more than one circumstance; ii) the facts from which the inference is derived are proven; and iii) the combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt." The determination of whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to support a finding of guilt is a qualitative test and not a quantitative one. 40 The proven circumstances must be "consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time consistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt." 41
Further, it is a hornbook doctrine that the findings of fact of the trial court, including the judgment with respect to the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed except for strong and valid reasons, because the trial court is in a better position to examine the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying. 42
All of the prosecution's witnesses positively identified XXX as the perpetrator of the crime.
Excerpts from the testimony of victim AAA:
Q: And what happened next Madam while you were waiting for a tricycle to take you home?
A: I walked up to the corner where there was a light and when I was in an area where there was a big tree and it was dark, somebody suddenly grabbed me.
Q: And did you recognize at that time who this person was who had dragged you or pulled you?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: And who was this person who had suddenly dragged you at that area?
A: [XXX], ma'am.
Q: The accused in this case?
A: Yes, ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: What happened when you heard that tricycle passing by even as you have already fallen down on the ground?
A: When the tricycle passed by and maybe be heard me shouting and at that time he was able to remove my pants, the driver slowed down and the light illuminated into his face and then that was the time I recognized his face. 43
The alleged inconsistency in the testimony of the victim regarding the moment when she allegedly identified the person who assaulted her, i.e., while she was still waiting for the tricycle or after the tricycle passed by and illumined the face of XXX, is immaterial. As correctly observed by the CA, it is an accepted rule that the credibility of a rape victim is not impaired by some inconsistencies in her testimony. Minor inconsistencies tend to bolster, rather than weaken, the rape victim's credibility since one could hardly doubt that her testimony was not contrived and the court cannot expect a rape victim to remember every ugly detail of the appalling outrage. A rape victim cannot be expected to mechanically keep and then give an accurate account of the traumatic and horrifying experience she had undergone. 44
We entertain no doubt that the victim and the prosecution witnesses positively identified accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crime.
The prosecution was able to
The accused-appellant forwards the theory that the trial court and the appellate court erred when they anchored his conviction on "the Medico-Legal Report issued by [Dr. Jude Doble] (Dr. Doble), x x x ____________________, [which] existence was stipulated upon and indicated the existence of a 'fleshy shallow healed laceration at 6 o'clock on AAA" as to constitute sufficient basis that carnal knowledge occurred. 45 Accused-appellant opines that, considering the victim's admission that "she did not know what happened to her," then there was no sufficient evidence to prove that the laceration was indeed caused by accused-appellant. XXX further adds that the prosecution miserably failed to prove that there was penetration of the female organ. He insists that there was doubt as to whether or not an inter-genital contact was at all achieved because there was no proof or testimony to show that accused-appellant commenced the act of inserting his sexual organ into the genital of the victim. 46
The elements of rape under Section 266-A of the RPC are: "(1) the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) such act was accomplished through force or intimidation; or when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or when the victim is under twelve years of age."
The prosecution has satisfactorily established all the elements of rape in this case. We agree with the pronouncement of the CA that accused-appellant's claim that no rape was committed because the prosecution failed to establish that his sexual organ penetrated that of the victim holds no water. The record clearly shows that BBB narrated in open court that she saw the victim lying naked on the ground and the accused-appellant, who was naked from the waist up and his shorts pulled down to his feet, was on top of her, doing a pumping motion. 47 The mere touching of the labia or the lips of the female organ, no matter how slight, by the male genital is sufficient to consummate the crime of rape. 48
The fact of carnal knowledge was likewise corroborated by the medical certificate issued by Dr. Doble, which found that there was a "fleshy shallow healed laceration at 6 o'clock on AAA."
Accused-appellant merely interposed the defenses of denial and alibi. These defenses fail to persuade. Alibi and denial are weak and inferior defenses compared to the positive identification of the accused-appellant as the perpetrator. Alibi and denial, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. 49 As correctly held by the CA, there was no reason for AAA and the prosecution witnesses to charge accused-appellant with a serious crime. They similarly testified that it was only on the day of the incident that they first met accused-appellant. 50 We also note the aptness of the RTC in substantiating its findings that the defense of alibi should be corroborated by disinterested witnesses, otherwise it shall fail. 51 Here, accused-appellant's sister was presented to corroborate his defense. However, the testimony does not squarely corroborate the defense that the accused-appellant interposes.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The February 24, 2020 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12651 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." (J. Rosario designated as additional Member per Raffle dated September 22, 2021 vice J. Gaerlan who recused due to prior action in the Court of Appeals.)
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.People v. Quita, 804 Phil. 399, 404-405 (2017).
3.Rollo, pp. 4-27. Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and concurred in by Associate Justices Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon.
4. CA rollo, pp. 57-70. Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Ma. Cristina J. Mendoza-Pizarro.
5. Geographical location is blotted out pursuant to Supreme Court Amended Circular No. 83-15.
6. Records, p. 1.
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.Rollo, p. 5.
9.Id. at 2-3.
10. TSN, February 8, 2018, p. 8.
11.Id.
12. TSN, September 14, 2017, pp. 5-8.
13. TSN, February 19, 2019, pp. 1-28.
14.Id.
15.Id.
16. TSN, September 14, 2017, p. 9.
17.Id.
18.Id.
19. TSN, February 8, 2018, pp. 1-18.
20. TSN, August 16, 2018, pp. 7-10.
21. CA rollo, pp. 196-197.
22.Id.
23.Id.
24.Id. at 264-277.
25.Id.
26.Id. at 70.
27.Id.
28. CA rollo, pp. 41-42; see also TSN, September 2, 2016, pp. 22-26.
29.Id.
30.Rollo, p. 51.
31.Id. at 16.
32.Id.
33.Id.
34.Id. at 24.
35.People v. De Guzman, 690 Phil. 701, 704 (2012), citing People v. Bacalso, 395 Phil. 192, 199 (2000).
36.Rollo, pp. 42-44.
37.Espineli v. People, 735 Phil. 530, 539 (2014), citing People v. Manchu, 588 Phil. 398, 406 (2008).
38.Id., citing People v. Osianas, 588 Phil. 615, 627 (2008).
39.People v. Osianas, supra.
40.Bacerra v. People, 812 Phil. 25, 36 (2017), citing People v. Ludday, 61 Phil. 216, 221 (1935).
41.Id. at 36-37.
42.Tayco v. Heirs of Concepcion Tayco-Flores, 652 Phil. 291, 301 (2010), citing Arangote v. Maglunob, 579 SCRA 620, 632 (2009).
43. TSN, February 19, 2016, pp. 13-14, 17.
44.Rollo, p. 21.
45. CA rollo, p. 51.
46.Id. at 52-53.
47.Id. at 21-22.
48.People v. Bay-od, G.R. No. 238176, January 14, 2019, citing People v. Quiñanola, 366 Phil. 390, 410 (1999).
49.People v. Pentecostes, 820 Phil. 843 (2017).
50.Rollo, p. 23.
51.Id.