FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 251754. December 2, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.XXX251754, 1accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 2, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 251754 (People of the Philippines v. XXX251754) — The conviction of accused-appellant XXX251754 for the crime of rape under Article 266-A (1) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) is the subject of review in this appeal 2 of the October 14, 2019 Decision 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10384, which affirmed with modification the December 14, 2017 Judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Lucena, Branch 53, in Criminal Case No. 2016-189. 4
Antecedents
XXX251754 was charged with rape under the following Information:
That between the period of January 13, 2016 and January 14, 2016, in the ____________________________________, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one [AAA251754], 5 against her will, to her damage and prejudice.
[AAA251754], the private offended party, is suffering from mental disability at the time of the commission of the offense.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
When arraigned, XXX251754 entered a plea of not guilty. Trial then ensued. 7 The prosecution presented AAA251754 the victim, and Dr. Ramon P. Baldovino (Dr. Baldovino), the examining physician. It was established that XXX251754 is AAA251754's brother-in-law, who lived in the same house, at ______________, ______________________, _____________________ with AAA251754's family. On January 13, 2016, around 11:00 p.m., AAA251754 was sleeping in her room — adjacent to her mother's room and separated only by curtains — when XXX251754 suddenly entered and forced himself on AAA251754. He kissed AAA251754 on her neck, removed her bra and panty then inserted his penis into her vagina. Afterwards, XXX251754 warned AAA251754 not to tell anyone; otherwise, he would kill her. 8
The next day, AAA251754 noticed blood stains on her underwear and asked her mother, BBB251754 for a sanitary napkin. BBB251754 questioned AAA251754 since she just finished her monthly period. AAA251754 then told BBB251754 that she was raped by XXX251754 stating, "Ma, ako'y ginalaw ni Jabrica." BBB251754 immediately reported the sexual abuse to the barangay captain and the police, who later arrested XXX251754. Thereafter, AAA251754 was brought to the hospital where she was examined by Dr. Baldovino. A Medical Certificate, dated January 15, 2016, was issued stating Dr. Baldovino's findings of the presence of hematoma at 7 o'clock position of AAA251754's hymen. 9 AcICHD
In addition, the prosecution claimed that, at the time of the incident, AAA251754 was suffering from a mental disability as shown by her Person with Disability (PWD) identification card and her Philippine Registry Form for PWDs. 10
For his part, XXX251754 denied the charge against him, and claimed that, at around 7:00 p.m. of January 13, 2016, he was invited by his former employer to have drinks near the house of his parents-in-law. At 10:00 p.m., he went home to the house of his parents-in-law and slept beside his daughter. He woke up at 5:30 a.m. the following day, and ate breakfast with his daughter. Thereafter, XXX251754 went to his house located a few blocks away, and was surprised that, around 8:00 a.m., several police officers knocked on his door, interrogated him, and arrested him. Finally, XXX251754 alleged that he was implicated in the crime because he did not have a good relationship with his parents-in-law. 11
In a Judgment dated December 14, 2017, 12 the RTC convicted XXX251754 for the crime of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (a) of the RPC and sentenced him as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, [XXX251754] is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and is also ordered to pay the complainant the amount of P75,000 as civil indemnity plus the cost of suit.
SO ORDERED. 13
The RTC rejected XXX251754's defense of denial and alibi for being weak and unsubstantiated. On the other hand, AAA251754, who personally knew XXX251754 as her sister's husband, gave a straightforward, credible and truthful testimony. While her testimony had minor inconsistencies — initially testifying that XXX251754 touched her, or in her words "Ako po ay hinipuan"14 — this was due to her difficulty in expressing her thoughts orally, but did not impair or diminish AAA251754's credibility nor disprove that XXX251754 committed the crime of rape. The prosecution was able to substantiate that XXX251754 employed intimidation that frightened AAA251754 into submission. After all, AAA251754 was more susceptible to fear because of her mental disability.
On appeal, XXX251754's conviction was affirmed by the CA, with modification in the award of damages. 15 The CA confirmed that the prosecution satisfactorily established the elements of simple rape. AAA251754 convincingly narrated how XXX251754 had carnal knowledge of her against her will, coupled with threat and intimidation. XXX251754, who was then 29 years of age and AAA251754's brother-in-law, possessed physical superiority and moral ascendancy over AAA251754, who, despite being then 21 years old, was a person with disability and more vulnerable to easily cower to XXX251754's lustful designs. Although the prosecution failed to prove the extent of AAA251754's intellectual disability, her PWD registration form and identification card were enough to establish that she was suffering from a certain disability, which bolstered the superiority and moral ascendancy of XXX251754 over AAA251754 that made it easier for XXX251754 to intimidate her.
Hence, this appeal. In their Manifestations, 16 the parties recused from filing their supplemental briefs, and adopted the Appellant's Brief 17 and Appellee's Brief 18 filed with the CA as their respective supplemental brief.
Ruling
The appeal lacks merit.
The pertinent portions of Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, 19 reads:
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 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 are present.
Article 266-B. Penalty. — Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished with reclusion perpetua.
For a charge of rape by sexual intercourse under Article 266-A of the RPC 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. The gravamen of rape is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will. 20 The prosecution must prove that force or intimidation was actually employed by the accused upon his victim to achieve his end. The failure to do so is fatal to its cause. 21
In Nacario v. People, 22 this Court held that the element of force and intimidation is present when it renders the victim defenseless, such that the elements of voluntariness is absolutely lacking. Force need not be irresistible, but it must be sufficient to consummate the accused's purpose. Similarly, intimidation need not be in a particular form or gravity; it is enough that it produces fear on the part of the victim that something bad would happen to her if she does not yield to the demands of the accused.
In this case, the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the presence of all the elements of rape by sexual intercourse through force, threat or intimidation. AAA251754 recounted her ordeal in open court. As found by both the RTC and the CA, AAA251754 gave a straightforward and credible testimony. She positively identified XXX251754, her own brother-in-law, as her molester. The relevant portions of her testimony state:
xxx xxx xxx
A: Ako po ay hinipuan, sir.
COURT
Q: What do you mean by hinipuan?
A: Sabi po ay huwag magsusumbong, sir.
PROS. MONTALBO
Q: When you said that you were "hinipuan," who did this to you?
A: XXX251754, sir. TAIaHE
xxx xxx xxx
A: Witness pointed to a person inside the chamber who when asked of his name gave his name as XXX251754.
Q: When you said that you were "hinipuan" by this XXX251754 what did he exactly do to you?
A: Kinun ay po un kanyang ari sa akin, sir.
Q: What is kunin ay?
A: Sinuot po sa ari, sir.
Q: When you said isunot sa ari, what do you mean by ari?
A: Titi po, sir.
COURT
Q: When did this happen?
A: Evening of 13, Your Honor.
Q: At around what time?
A: About 11 p.m., Your Honor.
Q: Where did this happen?
A: In our house, Your Honor.
PROS. MONTALBO
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Why do you know this XXX251754?
A: Because he is the husband of [CCC], sir.
Q: How are you related to this [CCC] you were referring to?
A: My sister, sir.
Q: Am I correct to say that the accused is your brother-in-law?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And you lived in the same house?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: When you said earlier that pinasok ang kanyang titi sa iyo what part of your body did he insert his penis?
A: Sa baba, sir.
Q: When you said sa baba, what do you mean?
A: Pipi po (vagina), sir.
Q: After the accused inserted his penis to your vagina, what was your reaction?
A: I felt pain (masakit), sir.
Q: What happened next after XXX251754 inserted his penis to your vagina?
A: Pinag hipo hipuan na po ako nyan, sir.
Q: After that incident, what transpired next, if there is any?
A: He told me not to tell, sir.
Q: Who told you that?
A: XXX251754, sir.
Q: After he threatened you not to tell anyone, what happened next?
A: He said he will kill me, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Were you afraid when he threatened you?
A: Yes, sir. 23
Undoubtedly, AAA251754's testimony was categorical and positive in declaring that XXX251754 perpetrated the crime, through force, threat and intimidation, by forcing himself and inserting his penis into her vagina, against her will and without her consent. In a prosecution for rape, the accused may be convicted solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim that is credible, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things, 24 as in this case.
In resolving rape cases, primordial consideration is given to the credibility of the victim's testimony. The settled rule is that the trial court's conclusions on the credibility of witnesses are generally accorded weight and respect, and at times, even finality. 25 Trial judges have the advantage to observe the witness' deportment and manner of testifying that can reflect his honesty and sincerity. As they are in an ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies, they can better resolve if the witness is telling the truth. This rule finds more stringent application when the trial court's findings are sustained by the appellate court. 26 Here, both the RTC and the CA found AAA251754's testimony clear, categorical and direct in pointing to XXX251754 as the perpetrator of the rape committed against her. Thus, we find no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA.
XXX251754's allegation that force or intimidation was lacking since he was not armed or that AAA251754 had the opportunity to ask help from her mother on the other side of the curtain, deserves scant consideration. It is settled that the force contemplated by law in the commission of rape is relative, depending on the age, size and strength of the parties. It is not necessary that the force and intimidation employed in accomplishing it be so great and of such character as could not be resisted; it is only necessary that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind. 27 Likewise, we have invariably held that the victim's failure to shout for help does not rule out the commission of rape. 28 The workings of the human mind under emotional stress are unpredictable, such that people react differently to startling situations.
In a further attempt to exonerate himself, XXX251754 raises the lack of lacerations on AAA251754's vagina. It must be noted, however, that the absence of hymenal lacerations or abrasions around the genital area does not negate the commission of rape. 29 Mere touching, no matter slight of the labia or lips of the female organ by the male genital even without rupture or laceration of the hymen is sufficient to consummate rape. 30 At any rate, the CA correctly observed that the most important element to prove that there was carnal knowledge would be the testimony of the victim and not the findings of the medico-legal officer. A medical examination of the victim, as well as the medical certificate, is merely corroborative in character and is not an indispensable element in rape. 31 cDHAES
Considering the positive and categorical identification of AAA251754 that XXX251754 perpetrated the rape against her, XXX251754's defense of denial and alibi was rightly rejected by the RTC and the CA. Denial being self-serving negative evidence, cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration of a credible witness. 32 Differently stated, denial is essentially the weakest form of defense and can never overcome an affirmative testimony especially when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness. 33 It is likewise correct for the CA not to consider AAA251754's mental disability, considered as a qualifying circumstance, since the Information failed to allege and it was not proven that XXX251754 knew of her disability at the time of the rape incident. In People v. Magabo, 34 we held that knowledge by the offender of the mental disability of the victim at the time rape was committed must be alleged in the information to warrant the imposition of the death penalty. A contrary ruling would result to a denial of the right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him, and hence a denial of due process.
From the foregoing, the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the RTC and the CA is proper. Likewise, the award of damages — P75,000.00 civil indemnity, P75,000.00 moral damages, and P75,000.00 exemplary damages, with legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of the decision until full satisfaction — as modified by the CA is consistent with prevailing jurisprudence. 35
FOR THESE REASONS, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated October 14, 2019, in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10384 — finding accused-appellant XXX251754 GUILTY of the crime of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (a) of the Revised Penal Code, and imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua, as well as ordering the payment of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, plus legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid to AAA251754 — is AFFIRMED.
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. In compliance with SC Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017, the personal circumstances or other information which tend to establish or compromise, directly or indirectly, the identities of the women and children victims, such as, but not limited to, their date of birth, complete address, complete names of parents, relatives, or other household members are blotted out to maintain the confidentiality of the victim's identity.
2. Rollo, pp. 17-18.
3. Id. at 3-14. Penned by Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob, with Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Gabriel T. Robeniol, concurring.
4. Rendered in Criminal Case No. 2016-189.
5. In compliance with SC Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017, the name of the women and children victims is replaced with fictitious initials to maintain the confidentiality of their identity.
6. Rollo, p. 4.
7. Id.
8. Id. at 5.
9. Id.
10. Id.
11. Id. at 5-6.
12. Id. at 52-59.
13. Id. at 59.
14. Id. at 54.
15. Id. at 3-14. The dispositive portion of the CA's October 14, 2019 Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED.
Accordingly, the assailed Judgment dated 14 December 2017 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 53, Lucena City, in Criminal Case No. 2016-189 is hereby AFFIRMED subject to the following MODIFICATIONS:
1) Appellant [XXX251754] is ORDERED to pay additionally [AAA251754] the following amounts: Php75,000 as moral damages and Php75,000 as exemplary damages; and
2) Appellant [XXX251754] is ORDERED to pay interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Decision until fully paid, to be imposed on the civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages awarded to the offended party.
The rest of the assailed DecisionSTANDS.
SO ORDERED.
16. Rollo, pp. 27-28.
17. Id. at 40-49.
18. Id. at 81-95.
19. 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.
20. People v. Ejercito, 834 Phil. 837, 844 (2018).
21. People v. Tionloc, 805 Phil. 907, 915 (2017).
22. G.R. No. 222387, June 8, 2020.
23. Rollo, pp. 54-55.
24. People v. XXX, G.R. No. 235562, July 25, 2019, citing People v. Manjares, 677 Phil. 242 (2011).
25. Supra.
26. People v. Descartin, Jr., 810 Phil. 881-895 (2017).
27. People v. Benamira, G.R. No. 230906, September 18, 2019; People v. Galido, 470 Phil. 345 (2004).
28. People v. Licaros, G.R. No. 238622, December 7, 2020; People v. XXX, G.R. No. 222492, June 3, 2019; People v. Arraz, 591 Phil. 128 (2008); People v. Alberio, 477 Phil. 556 (2004); and People v. Emilio, 445 Phil. 15 (2003).
29. People v. Balbarona, 472 Phil. 73 (2004), citing People v. Ombreso, 423 Phil. 966 (2001).
30. People v. Medina, 452 Phil. 308 (2003), citing People v. Oliva, 347 Phil. 146 (1997).
31. People v. Baltazar, 385 Phil. 1023 (2000).
32. People v. Gerola, 813 Phil. 1055-1069 (2017).
33. People v. Dulay, 695 Phil. 742-761 (2012).
34. 402 Phil. 977 (2001).
35. People v. Tulagan, G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019.