FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 257678. February 1, 2023.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.XXX, 1accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 1, 2023which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 257678 (People of the Philippines v. XXX). — A father who rapes his own daughter, whom he is supposed to protect, descends to a level lower than the lowly animal that yields only to biological impulses and is unfettered by social inhibitions when it mates with its own kin. The father, by giving in to his incestuous lust, forfeits all respect as a human being and is justly spurned by all, not least of all by the fruit of his own loins whose progeny he has forever stained with his shameful and shameless lechery.
Such a "father" deserves no place in Philippine society, whose fundamental law considers the family as a basic autonomous social institution and the foundation of the nation, recognizes the sanctity of family life, and cloaks with special protection the right of children against all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to their development. 2
Factual Antecedents
Accused-appellant was charged with Rape as defined and penalized under paragraph (1), Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), in relation to Republic Act No. (RA) 7610 3 in two separate Informations, the accusatory portions of which read as follows:
Criminal Case No. RTC 2017-105-CR
That on August 13, 2014 at 8:00 o'clock in the evening or thereabout, in the municipality of _______________ 4 and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design and taking advantage of the minority of the victim and of his moral ascendancy as a father, and with manifest cruelty, and through force and intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously had sexual intercourse with [AAA], 5 his own biological daughter, who was then only 14 years old, without the latter's consent and against her will, to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6 cHaCAS
Criminal Case No. RTC 2017-106-CR
That on October 14, 2016 at about 7:00 o'clock in the evening or thereabout, in the municipality of _______________ and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design and taking advantage of the minority of the victim and of his moral ascendancy as a father, and with manifest cruelty and through force and intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously had sexual intercourse with [AAA], his own biological daughter, who was then only 16 years old, without the latter's consent and against her will, to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 7
Accused-appellant entered "not guilty" pleas upon arraignment, 8 thus trial ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
AAA's parents separated when she was still young. Her father, accused-appellant, got incarcerated when she was 5 years old. While accused-appellant was serving his sentence, AAA's mother started a new family. 9 According to AAA she was staying with her aunt, until accused-appellant was released from prison. When AAA was around 13 years old, 10 accused-appellant took custody of AAA and lived in one house. 11
AAA testified that she was raped by accused-appellant many times and could specifically recall two particular instances when she was raped. 12 AAA narrated that on August 13, 2014, at about 8:00 p.m., accused-appellant arrived home drunk and immediately went to her room. Accused-appellant took AAA's blanket, held her hands and ordered AAA to lie down. 13 AAA struggled as she tried to escape from her father's hands, but accused-appellant poked her neck with a short-bladed weapon, known as a pisao. 14 Accused-appellant threatened to kill AAA if she tells anyone. Thereafter, accused-appellant positioned himself on top of AAA, inserted his penis into her vagina, and made pumping motions. 15 Upon satisfying himself, accused-appellant dismounted from AAA, dressed himself, and thereafter left the room. 16
AAA recounted that on October 14, 2016, she was again raped by accused-appellant. 17 She narrated that on that day, she was alone in their house when accused-appellant entered her room holding a knife. Her father then grabbed her and ordered her to lie down on her bed. Accused-appellant told AAA that as long as he is alive, no one else can use her but himself, and that only when he is dead, can AAA do as she pleases. 18 Thereafter, accused-appellant undressed AAA, took off his own clothes, positioned himself on top of AAA and inserted his penis into her vagina. After a while, accused-appellant dismounted from AAA, wore his clothes and left. 19
After the last incident on October 14, 2016, AAA told her neighbor, BBB, whom she fondly calls "Ate BBB," about the rape incidents. BBB then took it upon herself to act as AAA's guardian and helped AAA report the incidents to the police. 20
AAA's narration was corroborated by Dr. Samantha Manalo-Salinas (Dr. Manalo-Salinas), who testified that she conducted a medical examination on AAA on December 15, 2016, and found complete lacerations at 3, 6, and 9 o'clock positions, and redness in AAA's hymen. Dr. Manalo-Salinas explained that hymenal lacerations imply that there was a blunt or penetrating trauma, like insertion of a penis, finger or any object, to the victim's vagina. 21
The prosecution also called BBB, who testified that AAA, on several occasions, confided in her about how accused-appellant abused and raped her. 22 BBB also testified that she would hear AAA and accused-appellant fight, and that there was one instance when she heard the accused-appellant threaten to kill AAA if she tells anybody. 23 DACcIH
Before the prosecution rested its case, it presented Police Officer 3 Judith C. Samillano (PO3 Samillano), the investigator assigned in this case. PO3 Samillano testified that a fellow police officer received a phone call from a concerned citizen regarding the physical abuse done to AAA. PO3 Samillano was the one who acted on the report, went to the house of accused-appellant, where she saw AAA crying after she was allegedly mauled by accused-appellant. She brought AAA to the Rural Health Unit and eventually arrested accused-appellant. 24
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellant was the sole witness for the defense. He denied all accusations against him and alleged that AAA instituted the case against him because she was mad at him for preventing her from gallivanting. 25 Accused-appellant further testified how he does not understand the reasons BBB have for forcing his daughter to file the criminal cases against him. 26
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On May 16, 2019, the trial court rendered a Joint Judgment 27 finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Incestuous Rape. The dispositive portion of the judgment reads:
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, a joint judgment is hereby rendered:
1) Finding the accused [XXX] guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of incestuous rape defined and penalized under Art. 266-A(1) in relation to Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended by RA 8353 and Republic Act No. 7610 in Criminal Case No. RTC-2017-105-CR and imposes upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. He is also ordered to indemnify [AAA] civil indemnity in the amount of P100,000.00; moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00; and exemplary damages in the amount of P100,000.00; and
2) Finding the accused [XXX] guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of incestuous rape defined and penalized under Art. 266-A(1) in relation to Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended by RA 8353 and Republic Act No. 7610 in Criminal Case No. RTC-2017-106-CR and imposes upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. He is also ordered to indemnify [AAA] civil indemnity in the amount of P100,000.00; moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00; and exemplary damages in the amount of P100,000.00 and
These amounts shall carry an interest of six percent (6%) per annum reckoned from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED. 28
The RTC found AAA's testimony credible and worthy of belief. Further, the RTC held that the findings of the physician, that AAA suffered multiple hymenal lacerations, and signs of sexual abuse in her female genitalia consistent with the findings of penile penetration of the female organ, corroborated AAA's narration. The trial court was convinced that accused-appellant raped AAA through threats and intimidation by poking a knife at her, which resulted to AAA submitting to accused-appellant's evil desires. 29
The trial court further declared that between self-serving denials of the accused-appellant and the positive account of the incident made by the victim, it is the version of the latter that inspires and deserves belief. Indeed, as held in a number of cases, it would be incredible for a girl to falsely impute to his own father the commission of the crime of rape against her. 30
Accused-appellant elevated his case before the Court of Appeals (CA) alleging that the trial court erred in convicting him of the crime charged despite the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 31 EHaASD
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Accused-appellant posited that a careful perusal of AAA's testimony reveals glaring improbabilities. 32 First, AAA attempted to make the court believe that accused-appellant went home drunk on August 13, 2014, but at the same time testified that he held her down to prevent her from escaping. According to accused-appellant, considering that he was "drunk," he could not have had the energy and strength to do all those things. 33 Accused-appellant further averred that AAA's behavior after the alleged rape incidents is questionable; AAA carried on like nothing happened. 34
In a Decision 35 dated December 10, 2020, the CA denied accused-appellant's appeal finding that the trial court properly found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt two counts of incestuous rape. 36 Under paragraph 1 (a) of Art. 266-A of the RPC, the elements of Rape are: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that such act was accomplished through force, threat, or intimidation. The CA emphasized however, that when the offender is the victim's father, as in this case, actual force, threat, or intimidation is not necessary because when a father commits the odious crime of rape against his own daughter, who, in this case, was a minor at the time of the alleged incidents, his moral ascendency or influence over the latter substitutes for violence and intimidation. 37
AAA's testimony clearly established how her own father succeeded in forcibly having carnal knowledge of her. AAA even testified that accused-appellant wielded a weapon and threatened her life. The appellate court held that there is no standard form of behavior when one is confronted by a startling event, thus whatever behavior was displayed by AAA cannot be considered questionable or against human experience. 38
The fallo of the CA decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Joint Judgment dated May 16, 2019 rendered by the Regional Trial Court of _____________________, Branch 36, in Criminal Case Nos. RTC 2017-105-CR and RTC 2017-106-CR, is AFFIRMEDin toto.
SO ORDERED. 39
Aggrieved, accused-appellant now comes before this Court.
Issue
The sole issue for this Court's resolution is whether the CA erred in affirming the judgment of the RTC finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape.
Our Ruling
We find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of both the appellate and trial courts.
It is settled that when a woman says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed, and that if her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof. 40 The testimony of a rape victim is credible where she has no motive to testify against the accused. 41
For a conviction for Qualified or Incestuous Rape under Art. 266-A and Art. 266-B of the RPC to hold, the prosecution must categorically prove the following elements:
(1) Accused had carnal knowledge of a woman;
(2) Such act was accomplished through force, threat or intimidation;
(3) The victim is under 18 years of age at the time of the rape; and
(4) The offender is a parent of the victim. 42
The Court affirms the finding of the courts below that the prosecution successfully established all the elements of Qualified Rape. SICDAa
The first and second elements were proven through the testimony of the victim herself. The positive testimony of AAA narrating her harrowing experience was given credence by the lower courts which the Court herein sustains. The RTC and the CA also found that accused-appellant's moral ascendency and threats to kill the victim facilitated the consummation of the crimes.
The prosecution presented the birth certificate of AAA to prove her age and her relationship with the accused-appellant, thus, successfully establishing the last two elements of the crime.
The defenses of alibi and denial of the accused-appellant cannot prevail. His alibi was unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence.
Based on the foregoing, the Court upholds the ruling of the appellate court finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of Qualified Rape in view of the concurrence of the qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The December 10, 2020 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03414 finding accused-appellant XXX guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of Qualified Rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, ordering him to pay AAA civil indemnity in the amount of P100,000; moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00, and exemplary damages in the amount of P100,000.00, all with interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid, for each count, is AFFIRMED.
The Office of the Solicitor General's Manifestation (in lieu of supplemental brief, pursuant to the Resolution dated February 8, 2022; and the Letter dated April 21, 2022 of CSO4 Cesar T. Grecia, Chief, Inmate Documents and Processing Division, New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City, also in compliance with the Resolution dated February 28, 2022, are both NOTED.
SO ORDERED."
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. People v. Lao, 319 Phil. 232, 234 (1995).
3. Entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION, PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR ITS VIOLATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." Approved: June 17, 1992.
4. Geographical location is blotted out pursuant to Supreme Court Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015.
5. "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]).
6. Records, Crim. Case No. RTC-2017-105-CR, p. 1.
7. Records, Crim. Case No. RTC-2017-106-CR, p. 1.
8. Records, Certificate of Arraignment, p. 28.
9. TSN, July 4, 2018, pp. 13-17.
10. Id.
11. Judicial Affidavit of AAA dated February 6, 2017, Exhibits Folder, pp. 9-10.
12. Id. at 6.
13. Id. at 7.
14. Id.
15. TSN, July 4, 2018, p. 8.
16. Id. at 9.
17. Id.
18. Id. at 11.
19. Id. at 12.
20. Rollo, p. 12.
21. TSN, July 2, 2018, pp. 5-6.
22. TSN, July 18, 2018, pp. 4-5.
23. Id.
24. Rollo, p. 13.
25. Id. at 14.
26. CA rollo, p. 50.
27. Id. at 46-63. Penned by Judge Lauro A. P. Castillo, Jr.
28. Id. at 63.
29. Rollo, p. 36.
30. Id.
31. CA rollo, p. 28.
32. Id. at 36.
33. Id.
34. Id. at 39.
35. Rollo, pp. 9-28. Penned by Associate Justice Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga and concurred in by Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Lorenza R. Bordios.
36. Id. at 9-27.
37. Id. at 16, citing People v. Bentayo, 810 Phil. 263, 269 (2017).
38. Id. at 22.
39. Id. at 27.
40. People v. Cabilao, 285 Phil. 815, 825 (1992).
41. Id.
42. People v. DDD, G.R. No. 243583, September 30, 2020.