SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 257275. March 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 dated14 March 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 257275(People of the Philippines v. XXX). — The Court NOTES the Manifestation and Motion dated December 3, 2021 of the Office of the Solicitor General, in compliance with the Resolution 2 dated September 27, 2021, praying that it be excused from filing the supplemental brief since the Appellee's Brief dated June 26, 2020 fully addressed the issues raised by XXX.
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal 3 for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in affirming the conviction of XXX for four (4) counts of the crime of Simple Rape, defined and penalized under Article 266-A (1) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act No. (RA) 8353. 4
'For a charge of Rape by sexual intercourse under Article 266-A (1) of the RPC, as amended by RA 8353, to prosper, the prosecution must prove that: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) he accomplished this act under the circumstances mentioned in the provision, e.g., through force, threat or intimidation. The gravamen of Rape is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will.' 5 It is also settled that inconsistencies regarding minor matters which are irrelevant to the elements of rape cannot be considered as grounds for acquittal. 6 Rape victims are not expected to make an errorless recollection of the incident so humiliating and painful that they might be trying to obliterate it from their memory. A few inconsistent remarks in rape cases will not necessarily impair the testimony of the offended party. 7 Lastly, minor inconsistencies in the testimony of AAA serve as badges of truth indicating she was not a rehearsed witness. 8
In this case, the Court agrees with the findings of the courts a quo that the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that XXX, in four (4) separate instances, had carnal knowledge of AAA, then a 13-year old minor, through force, threat, and intimidation. Verily, the Court finds no reason to overturn the findings of the court a quo, as affirmed by the CA, as there was no showing that they overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case. 9
WHEREFORE, the Court ADOPTS the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Decision 10 dated December 9, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03361 and AFFIRMS said Decision finding XXX GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of four (4) counts of the crime of Rape, defined and penalized under Article 266-A (1) of RPC, as amended by RA 8353. Accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of reclusion perpetua for each count, and ordered to pay AAA the amounts of: (a) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) P75,000.00 as moral damages; and (c) P75,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count. In addition, all monetary awards shall earn a legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until full payment. CAIHTE
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. 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 RA 7610, entitled 'AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,' approved on June 17, 1992; RA 9262, entitled 'AN ACT DEFINING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN, PROVIDING FOR PROTECTIVE MEASURES FOR VICTIMS, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES THEREFORE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,' approved on March 8, 2004; and Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, otherwise known as the 'Rule on Violence against Women and Their Children' (November 15, 2004). (See footnote 4 in People v. Cadano, Jr., 729 Phil. 576, 578 [2014], citing People v. Lomaque, 710 Phil. 338, 342 [2013]. See also Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015, 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,' dated September 5, 2017.)
2.Rollo, pp. 41-42.
3.Id. at 5.
4. Entitled 'AN ACT EXPANDING THE DEFINITION OF THE CRIME OF RAPE, RECLASSIFYING THE SAME AS A CRIME AGAINST PERSONS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ACT NO. 3815, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,' approved on September 30, 1997.
5.People v. Ejercito, G.R. No. 229861, 834 Phil. 837, 844 (2018).
6.People v. BBB, G.R. No. 248023 (Notice), June 17, 2020.
7.People v. Linsie, G.R. No. 199494, 722 Phil. 374, 384 (2003).
8.People v. David, G.R. Nos. 121731-33, 461 Phil. 364, 384-385 (2003).
9.People v. Estonilo, G.R. No. 248694, October 14, 2020, citing People v. Naciongayo, G.R. No. 243897, June 8, 2020.
10.Rollo, pp. 10-24. Penned by Associate Justice Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga, with Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Lorenza R. Bordios, concurring.