People v. XYZ

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 246458. November 11, 2021.]

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

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated November 11, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 246458 (People of the Philippines v. XYZ). — For this Court's resolution is an appeal 1 filed by accused-appellant XYZ assailing the Decision 2 dated July 31, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the Consolidated Judgment 3 dated September 21, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, _____ City (RTC), in Criminal Case Nos. 32226-R to 32229-R, 32361-R, and 32362-R, convicting him of qualified statutory rape as defined under Paragraph 1, Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, acts of lasciviousness, and violation of Section 10 (a) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610. HTcADC

Six (6) Informations were filed against XYZ, viz.:

Criminal Case No. 32226-R

That sometime during the month of July 2006, in the City of ____, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the private complainant, a retardate, [AAA], 4 a 10[-]year[-]old minor at the time of the commission of the offense.

The offense is attended by the aggravating/qualifying circumstance that the victim is under (18) years of age and the offender is the common-law spouse of the mother of the victim.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 5

Criminal Case No. 32227-R

That sometime during the month of July 2006, in the City of ______, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the private complainant [AAA], a 10[-]year[-]old minor retardate at the time of the commission of the offense, by pointing a gun and a knife at her, all against her will and consent.

The offense is attended by the aggravating/qualifying circumstance that the victim is under (18) years of age and the offender is the common-law spouse of the mother of the victim.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 6

Criminal Case No. 32228-R

That sometime during the month of January 2008, in the City of ____, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the private complainant [AAA], an 11-year-old minor retardate at the time of the commission of the offense.

The offense is attended by the aggravating/qualifying circumstance that the victim is under (18) years of age and the offender is the common-law spouse of the mother of the victim.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 7

Criminal Case No. 32229-R

That sometime during the month of February 2009, in the City of _____, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the private complainant [AAA], an 11-year-old minor retardate at the time of the commission of the offense.

The offense is attended by the aggravating/qualifying circumstance that the victim is under (18) years of age and the offender is the common-law spouse of the mother of the victim.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 8

Criminal Case No. 32361-R

The on or about and sometime during the month of July 2011, in the City of _____, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-name accused, with lewd design to satisfy her (sic) lascivious desire, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously commit acts of lasciviousness upon private complainant, fifteen (15) year (sic) minor [AAA], a mental retardate with a mental age of six (6) years and six (6) months by calling the complainant inside the room and pulling her pants down, the minor-complainant being of tender age has no means to fully defend herself from said acts of child abuse, cruelty, or exploitation which acts degrade, debased (sic), and demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being, prejudicial to the normal growth and development of the child.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 9

Criminal Case No. 32362-R

The on or about and sometime during the month of July 2006, in the City of _____, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-name accused, without any justifiable cause whatsoever, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously commit acts of child abuse, cruelty, and exploitation upon ten (10) year old minor [AAA], a mental retardate with a mental age of six (6) years and six (6) months by forcing the minor-complainant to watch a video of adults having sexual intercourse, the minor-complainant being of tender age has no means to fully defend herself from said acts of child abuse, cruelty, or exploitation which acts degrade, debased (sic), and demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being, prejudicial to the normal growth and development of the child.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 10

Upon arraignment, XYZ pleaded "not guilty" to the charge. 11 Thereafter, joint trial ensued. aScITE

Testimonies from prosecution witnesses, private complainant AAA, Jocelyn Depalog (Jocelyn), and Dr. Rizza Alma Manao (Dr. Manao), a psychologist from the Philippine Mental Health Association (PMHA), proved the following version of the facts:

Private complainant AAA testified that she was born on March 31, 1996 as evidenced by her Certificate of Live Birth. 12 Sometime in July 2006, when AAA was about ten (10) years old, she was residing with XYZ, together with her mother, BBB, and her younger brother at _____, _____City. At the time of the incident, AAA was in first grade, studying at ____________________. One morning, while her mother was selling vegetables at ______, XYZ called her to the room he shares with BBB. Upon closing the door and the curtains, XYZ ordered her to lie down on the bed. XYZ then proceeded to undress her while he himself removed his clothes. After asking AAA to spread her legs, XYZ mounted her and inserted his penis into her vagina, during which AAA admitted to feeling pain. XYZ was also touching her breast during the ordeal. Thereafter, he warned AAA not to tell her mother about what he did to her. 13 It was also while residing in _____ that she was made to watch a pre-recorded pornographic movie by XYZ, telling her to watch it so that they could imitate it themselves. 14

AAA narrated that because the molestation continued for several times, she mustered the courage to confess to Jocelyn, their landlady, of the sexual abuse ("Gargarawen dak ni uncle ko"). 15 In turn, Jocelyn told BBB of what AAA had revealed to her, thus, prompting BBB to bring her to the doctor. After the check-up, BBB warned AAA that she should keep silent about the incident, or else she will spank her. 16

After a few days, AAA and her family, including XYZ, moved to another place in _________. Despite the move, AAA's suffering continued, as XYZ continued to molest her. On one occasion, while her mother was out selling vegetables, AAA recalled that accused-appellant called her into his room, after which he proceeded to remove her clothes. XYZ ordered her to lie down on the bed to which she initially refused. Her resistance provoked XYZ to forcefully push her to the bed, spread her legs, and insert his penis into her vagina. Again, AAA was warned that she should not tell her mother or else he would kill her. 17

Scared of her mother, she resorted to telling her maternal aunt, CCC, what XYZ was doing to her. Furious at AAA's harrowing situation, CCC took the latter to live with her. CCC also shouldered AAA's schooling, enrolling her in a school in _____. Meanwhile, XYZ, BBB, and her younger sibling moved for a third time to _____________. While living with her aunt, AAA encountered her mother in the city. Following the latter's instructions to visit her siblings in their new home, AAA obliged and stayed for the night. The next morning, after BBB left to sell vegetables, AAA was called into XYZ's room. Thinking that he had an errand for her, AAA acceded. Instead, XYZ ordered her to undress. When AAA refused, XYZ pulled down her pants and underwear himself, groped her vagina, and then asked her to leave. Fed up, she recounted her experiences to her teacher, ______________. She then went to the police, accompanied by her father DDD, and CCC. 18

On cross-examination, AAA revealed that whenever XYZ would abuse her, she was constrained not to make any noise because XYZ had a knife pointed at her. He would also cover her nose with a handkerchief considering a certain substance that would make her dizzy. 19

For her part, Jocelyn testified that AAA's family were her boarders for two to three months. For the duration of their stay, she recalled being able to interact with all the family members. One day, a playmate of AAA divulged that AAA was being raped by XYZ. She corroborated AAA's testimony that upon hearing the news, she immediately told the same to BBB. She also remembered that BBB called AAA to confirm if the news was true, to which AAA responded in silence. Jocelyn then suggested BBB to bring her daughter to the doctor. The next day, she learned from BBB that they had indeed visited the doctor, who found that AAA only had a mere infection. Two or three days after the encounter, AAA's family moved away. Jocelyn also added that AAA was quite childish for her age, describing her as ". . . hindi normal na pagkaisip ng bata." 20

Dr. Manao, a psychologist of the PMHA, testified that she conducted a psychological evaluation 21 on AAA last July 20, 2012 to assess her intellectual and emotional functioning in relation to her alleged sexual abuse case. Her report revealed that as to AAA's intellectual capacity, she possessed an IQ score of 56, which is considered to be within the mild retardation level of cognitive functioning. With regard to her social maturity, she garnered a score of 65, which indicates that her capacity to independently perform the tasks befitting of her age was significantly delayed. She also confirmed the existence of a previous report 22 conducted by Dr. Claire A. Baliaga (Dr. Baliaga), dated September 5, 2011, which yielded similar results as to AAA's intellectual disability. Aside from the conduct of such reports, she verified AAA's condition by retrieving her school report card and by interviewing the latter's relatives, who relayed that she was failing in school and that there were some things that she could not do independently. 23

For the defense, BBB and EEE, AAA's maternal grandmother, were presented as witnesses.

BBB testified that she is the mother of AAA and that XYZ has been her live-in partner since 2001. She likewise admitted that she remains married to AAA's father, DDD, alleging that she was merely forced into marriage after the latter raped her. Their union bore five (5) children, AAA being their fourth child. BBB left DDD in 2000 due to the latter's drinking and physical abuse, taking AAA and her youngest child, FFF, with her. Upon leaving DDD, AAA lived with her and her mother EEE, and she began working in a restaurant to support her children. While working therein, she met XYZ, who courted her. In July 2006, after one year of courtship, they decided to live together in _____, ______ City, as boarders in Jocelyn's compound. BBB also took AAA and FFF to live with them. During that time, XYZ was working in a privately-owned mine, while BBB sold vegetables at ______ marketplace. 24 HEITAD

In November 2007, BBB brought AAA to Dr. Mario Abuan (Dr. Abuan) at the suggestion of Jocelyn, who told her that XYZ raped AAA. Surprised, she immediately confronted XYZ, who seemed hurt by the accusation, and even urged that BBB accompany AAA to the check-up. Upon examination, Dr. Abuan revealed that nothing had happened to AAA. Relieved, BBB told Jocelyn and XYZ of the result. 25

After staying with Jocelyn, they moved to ______ in the house of her grandmother. Upon staying there for more than one (1) year, they transferred to __________. As to AAA, she did not stay with them anymore as she was taken by CCC who sent her to school. One time, AAA, along with a schoolmate, visited her in the marketplace. She convinced AAA to visit their new home in ____________, to which the latter acquiesced. XYZ was there when they arrived and she recalled AAA reacting normally to him. Having reached the house at 7 o'clock in the evening, AAA and her schoolmate decided to stay for the night, with BBB sleeping together with them. The next morning, BBB left early with XYZ to work, while AAA and her schoolmate remained. The following night, BBB slept with AAA and her schoolmate, and in the morning, they left the house together. The next time BBB saw her daughter was when the cases against XYZ were filed. During that time, she told her daughter to refrain from lying as AAA would sometimes have the habit of fabricating stories. She also admits to threatening AAA with spanking whenever she caught her lying. 26

EEE narrated that sometime in July 2011, her cousin invited her for coffee. When she arrived at the restaurant, she was startled to see her cousin, together with AAA, DDD and his sister GGG, there. Her cousin was insisting her to go to a lawyer to tell him that AAA was raped by XYZ. However, she quickly refused as she had not seen anything and that she would just be committing a sin. All throughout the conversation, AAA remained silent. Unconvinced by her cousin's prodding, EEE left them in the restaurant. On cross-examination, she admitted that AAA visited her at ______ market to disclose that she was being forced to testify on the filed cases. Despite this information, however, she did nothing about it, failing to accompany AAA to the police station or even confront DDD and his relatives regarding the latter. 27

The parties further stipulated the testimony of HHH, who, in 2008, was told by AAA that (1) she had just broken up with her boyfriend, (2) her classmate attempted to kiss and rape her; and (3) she saw her teacher being raped by the school janitor. 28

Likewise stipulated is the testimony of one Col. Lawrence Coop, who testified that he was with XYZ on July 18, 2011 from 7 o'clock in the morning up to 5 o'clock in the evening, attending a house blessing in _______________ and the testimony of III, XYZ's nephew, who narrated abuse of other people. 29

After trial, the RTC rendered a Consolidated Judgment 30 on September 21, 2015, finding XYZ guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of qualified statutory rape, one (1) count of acts of lasciviousness, and one (1) count of violation of Section 10 (a) of R.A. No. 7610. It disposed as follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, accused [XYZ,] is found:

1. In Criminal Case Nos. 32226-R and 32227-R: GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Statutory Rape as defined under Paragraph 1 of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code and penalized under Article 266-B of the same code. He is sentenced to suffer the sentence of (sic) reclusion perpetua in each case, without eligibility for parole.

Accused is directed to pay the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P75,000.00 as moral damages, without need of proof for each case or a total of P150,000 as civil indemnity and P150,000 as moral damages;

2. In Criminal Case Nos. 32228-R & 32229-R: NOT GUILTY of Statutory Rape due to insufficiency of evidence. Thus, he is hereby ACQUITTED in these cases;

3. In Criminal Case No. 32361-R: GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Acts of Lasciviousness. He is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate sentence of eight (8) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal in its minimum period, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years[,] four (4) months of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as maximum.

In line with prevailing jurisprudence, P20,000.00 as civil indemnity and P15,000.00 as moral damages;

4. In Criminal Case No. 32362-R: GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Sec. 10(a) of RA 7610. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correctional (sic) in its maximum period as minimum, to six (6) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor in its minimum period, as maximum.

An interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be imposed on all the damages awarded to AAA in all the four (4) cases to be computed from the date of finality of the judgment until fully paid. The payment of the docket fees as to the damages is considered a first lien on the judgment.

SO ORDERED. 31

Undeterred, XYZ appealed 32 the RTC judgment before the CA.

In a Decision 33 dated July 31, 2018, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling, convicting XYZ of two (2) counts of qualified statutory rape, one (1) count of acts of lasciviousness, and one (1) count of violation of Section 10 (a) of RA 7610, while modifying the penalties and damages imposed by the RTC. ATICcS

In finding the appeal devoid of merit, the CA was convinced of the truthfulness of the charges, considering that AAA had described in a straightforward manner how XYZ raped her, as well as how he had groped her vagina and compelled her to watch a pornographic film. The CA refused to give credence to the delay in reporting to the police to taint AAA's testimony; silence and delay in reporting the crime of rape have not always been construed as indications of a false accusation. At any rate, the delay was justified as XYZ threatened to kill AAA should she choose to utter a word to anyone. 34 The fallo of the Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed Consolidated Judgment dated September 21, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 4, ______ City, in Criminal Case Nos. 32226-R to 32229-R, 32361-R and 32362-R is MODIFIED as follows:

(1) In Criminal Case Nos. 32226-R and 32227-R, the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages are INCREASED to P100,000.00 EACH for each count of qualified statutory rape; further, the appellant is ORDERED to additionally PAY private complainant P100,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of qualified statutory rape;

(2) In Criminal Case No. 32361-R, the appellant is SENTENCED to suffer an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor maximum, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal maximum, as maximum. Appellant is ORDERED to additionally PAY AAA P15,000.00 as exemplary damages while the amount of P15,000.00 is IMPOSED as fine; and

(3) In Criminal Case No. 32362-R, the amount of P2,000.00 is IMPOSED as fine.

All damages shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of the Decision until fully paid.

SO ORDERED. 35

Hence, this appeal.

The essential issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged.

The instant appeal is partly meritorious.

This Court sustains the conviction

Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 (RA 8353), defines the crime of rape as follows:

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 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.

In view of the horrendous nature of rape as an affront to one's dignity and chastity, the law imposes a penalty of reclusion perpetua against the offender. 36

In rape cases, the prosecution has the burden to conclusively prove the two elements of the crime: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of the girl; and (2) that such act was accomplished through the use of force or intimidation. 37

In the same vein, statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below 12 years of age, regardless of her consent, or the lack of it, to the sexual act. What distinguishes it with other instances of rape is that proof of force, intimidation, or consent is unnecessary, considering that the absence of free consent is conclusively presumed when the victim is below the age of 12. 38 At that age, the law presumes that the victim does not possess discernment and is incapable of giving intelligent consent to the sexual act. 39 Thus, to convict an accused for statutory rape, the prosecution is further burdened to prove the following: (1) the age of the complainant; (2) the identity of the accused; and (3) the sexual intercourse between the accused and the complainant. 40

Here, the aforementioned elements of statutory rape are present. First, AAA's Certificate of Live Birth 41 showing that she was horn on March 31, 1996, is conclusive proof that she was below 12 years of age when the two (2) rape incidents happened sometime in July 2006. Inside the courtroom, AAA herself positively identified accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the rape. 42 As to the last element of carnal knowledge, this Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the RTC's assessment of AAA's credibility, which was affirmed by the CA. Her testimony declaring the bestial acts of accused-appellant on her person was candid and straightforward. TIADCc

In People v. Garcia, 43 this Court has reiterated the oft-repeated principle that testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl, particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has in fact been committed. When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true. After all, youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. 44

Here, AAA was steadfast in her testimony, thus:

Q When he removed all your clothing[,] what else did he do?

A He also removed his clothing.

Q All his clothing? Everything was removed or his under pants only?

A All of it, Ma'am.

Q Where was your younger sibling when he was removing your clothing?

A He was already asleep.

Q In the same room?

A Yes, Ma'am.

Q He slept on the same bed?

A Yes, Ma'am.

Q After he removed his clothing[,] what else did he do?

A He asked me to spread my legs.

Q When he said that you spread your legs[,] what did you do?

Did you spread your legs?

A Yes, Ma'am.

Q What did he do after that when you spread your legs?

A He inserted his penis.

Q Where did he insert his penis?

A In my vagina. 45

Similarly, the subsequent sexual congress between AAA and accused-appellant was clearly established by AAA's testimony, as she was able to vividly recount the sordid acts against her:

PROS. OPIANA

Q You said that when you transferred in ________, your uncle [XYZ] repeated what he did to you, what did he do to you?

A Yes, ma'am, he was calling me inside the room.

Q Was it many times or once only?

A I don't remember how many times.

Q You said earlier said (sic) that you could not remember how many times was that, but for that instance, which was covered by your complaint, do you remember what he did?

A He undressed me.

Q Do you remember what were you wearing at that time when he undressed you?

A Yes ma'am.

Q What were you wearing at that time?

A I was wearing t-shirt and shorts.

xxx xxx xxx

Q After he removed your clothes, what did he do next?

A He told me to lie on bed. (sic).

Q Did you do what he said?

A No ma'am.

Q When you did not do what he said, what did he do?

A He pushed me.

Q Where did he push you?

A At their bed.

Q Was he able to push you?

A Yes ma'am.

Q When he was able to push you in bed, what did he do next?

A He told me to open my legs.

Q What did you do after he told you to open your legs?

A I said I don't want to.

Q When you told him you don't like, what did he do?

A He forced me to open my legs. AIDSTE

PROS. OPIANA

Q What did he do next?

A He came near and he was trying to insert his penis.

Q Was he naked at that time?

A Yes ma'am.

Q When did he remove his clothes?

A When he let me enter the room, he was already naked.

Q Was (sic) his clothes already removed?

A It was only his t-shirt that was removed.

Q When did he remove his lower clothes?

A After he removed my clothes.

Q When you said that he tried to insert his penis, where did he insert it?

A In my vagina.

Q Was he able to insert his penis?

A Yes ma'am.

Q What did you feel when he inserted it?

A It is painful.

Q How did you know it was his penis that he inserted into your vagina not (sic) his finger or any object?

A I did not see it, but I felt it was his penis.

Q You said that it was his penis inserted into your vagina, could you see at that time where his hands were?

COURT

Q Did you see his penis before he inserted it in your vagina?

WITNESS

A Yes ma'am. 46

Indubitably, the observance of the witnesses' demeanor during an oral direct examination, cross-examination, and during the entire period that he or she is present during trial, is indispensable especially in rape cases, as it aids in establishing the moral conviction that an accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. 47 The assessment of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and of the complainant, in particular, is a duty firmly lodged on the trial court judge, owing to his unique position, being able to perceive and appreciate details in the case that an appellate reviewing court is realistically deprived of. 48 Absent any evidence that the trial court's assessment was tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of a fact of consequence or influence — especially so when affirmed by the CA — it is entitled to great weight, if not conclusive and binding on the Court. 49

Upon a scrupulous review of the records, this Court found nothing that would validly support a conclusion that the RTC and the CA overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied any fact or circumstance that would justify it not to accord weight and respect to these courts' findings.

Moreover, this Court agrees that AAA's mental condition, as corroborated by the medical reports and the testimonies of the prosecution, which remained undisputed by the defense, cannot denigrate her testimony.

To qualify as a witness, Sections 20 and 21, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence is clear:

Section 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. — Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make their known perception to others, may be witnesses.

Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be ground for disqualification. (18a)

Section 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity. — The following persons cannot be witnesses:

(a) Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for examination, is such that they are incapable of intelligently making known their perception to others;

(b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and of relating them truthfully. (19a)

As settled in People v. Corpuz, 50 an intellectually disabled person is not, solely by this reason, ineligible from testifying in court. He or she can be a witness, depending on his or her ability to relate what he or she knows. If an intellectually disabled victim's testimony is coherent, it is admissible in court. 51 Verily, notwithstanding AAA's intellectual disability, she is qualified to take the witness stand. A person with a low intelligence quotient may still perceive and is capable of making known his or her perception to others.

Given AAA's capability and consistency in narrating her experience, her credibility as a witness must be upheld. People v. Monticalvo52 is illuminating on this point:

Emphasis must be given to the fact that the competence and credibility of mentally deficient rape victims as witnesses have been upheld by this Court where it is shown that they can communicate their ordeal capably and consistently. Rather than undermine the gravity of the complainant's accusations, it even lends greater credence to her testimony, that, someone as feebleminded and guileless could speak so tenaciously and explicitly on the details of the rape if she has not in fact suffered such crime at the hands of the accused. Moreover, it has been jurisprudentially settled that when a woman says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that she has been raped and her testimony alone is sufficient if it satisfies the exacting standard of credibility needed to convict the accused. AaCTcI

It bears stressing that aside from being considered as credible witnesses in court, this Court's ruling in People v. Castillo et al., 53 echoing the earlier rulings in People v. Deniega54 and People v. Niebres, 55 has established that sexual intercourse with a mental retardate whose mental age is below 12 years old, as in this case, constitutes statutory rape. Such rulings cite People v. Quintos, 56 which has provided key distinctions between "deprived from reason," "demented," and "mental retardation," which are circumstances attendant to rape, pursuant to Article 266-A of the RPC, viz.:

The term, "deprived of reason," is associated with insanity or madness. A person deprived of reason has mental abnormalities that affect his or her reasoning and perception of reality and, therefore, his or her capacity to resist, make decisions, and give consent.

The term "demented," refers to a person who suffers from a mental condition called dementia. Dementia refers to the deterioration or loss of mental functions such as memory, learning, speaking, and social condition, which impairs one's independence in everyday activities.

We are aware that the terms, "mental retardation" or "intellectual disability," had been classified under "deprived of reason." The terms, "deprived of reason" and "demented," however, should be differentiated from the term, "mentally retarded" or "intellectually disabled." An intellectually disabled person is not necessarily deprived of reason or demented. This court had even ruled that they may be credible witnesses. However, his or her maturity is not there despite the physical age. He or she is deficient in general mental abilities and has an impaired conceptual, social, and practical functioning relative to his or her age, gender, and peers. Because of such impairment, he or she does not meet the "socio-cultural standards of personal independence and social responsibility."

Thus, a person with a chronological age of 7 years and a normal mental age is as capable of making decisions and giving consent as a person with a chronological age of 35 and a mental age of 7. Both are considered incapable of giving rational consent because both are not yet considered to have reached the level of maturity that gives them the capability to make rational decisions, especially on matters involving sexuality. Decision-making is a function of the mind. Hence, a person's capacity to decide whether to give consent or to express resistance to an adult activity is determined not by his or her chronological age but by his or her mental age. Therefore, in determining whether a person is "twelve (12) years of age" under Article 266-A(1)(d), the interpretation should be in accordance with either the chronological age of the child if he or she is not suffering from intellectual disability, or the mental age if intellectual disability is established. 57

In the present case, it has been established that AAA is intellectually disabled, with a mental age of about seven (7) years old at ten (10) years of chronological age and an IQ of 56 at the time of the incident. 58 Verily, it cannot be denied that her capacity to give consent is only that of a seven-year-old child and is incapable of giving any semblance of consent to a sexual act. Thus, following Quintos, when the victim is a mental retardate whose mental age is that of a person below 12 years old, the rape should be classified as statutory rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (d) of the RPC, as amended.

Further, accused-appellant cannot find succor in the medico-legal certificate proving that AAA's genitalia does not show any evident injury. Despite the given findings, the medico-legal certificate presented was clear that the medical evaluation "cannot exclude sexual abuse" and that the findings seen in the patient "are to be expected in a child who describes this type of molestation." 59 Basic in rape cases is the principle that a medical report is by no means controlling. A medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in the prosecution for rape, and no law requires a medical examination for the successful prosecution thereof. In fact, the medical examination of the victim or the presentation of the medical certificate is not essential to prove the commission of rape in the face of the credible testimony of the victim. 60

Neither is this Court swayed by accused-appellant's allegation of ill-motive, insisting that AAA was induced by her father and her relatives to file bogus charges as a way to take revenge on him. Such defenses are shallow and specious at best. While offenders in rape cases attribute charges brought against them to family feuds, resentment, or revenge, this Court has time and again decided that these alleged motives, cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimonies of complainants, who have remained steadfast throughout the trial. 61 At any rate, a young girl's revelation that she had been raped, coupled with her voluntary submission to medical examination and willingness to undergo public trial where she could be compelled to give out the details of an assault on her dignity, cannot be so easily dismissed as mere concoction. 62

Finally, as for the RTC and CA's characterization of the crimes as qualified statutory rape, the Court finds the same to be consistent with Article 266-B of the RPC, to wit:

Article 266-B. Penalty. — Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

xxx xxx xxx

The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:

1) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.63

To obtain a conviction of qualified rape, the minority of the victim and the relationship to the offender must be both alleged in the Information and proved with certainty. 64 The reason is that such circumstances alter the nature of the crime of rape and increase the penalty; hence, they are special qualifying circumstances. 65

Conformably, AAA's minority was alleged and proved, the same having been averred in each of the Informations and proven by a Certificate of Live Birth 66 which has been proffered and testified in open court. 67 Moreover, the fact that accused-appellant is the common-law spouse of BBB must be appreciated, having been similarly alleged in the Informations. During trial, BBB openly admitted that the accused-appellant was her "live-in partner," having co-habited with him without the benefit of marriage from 2001 to 2013. 68 AAA herself regarded accused-appellant as her father, being the "husband" of her mother. 69 To be sure, this Court, in People v. Domingo, 70 has laid down the rule that the established fact of being "live-in partners" of the parent of the victim and the accused could qualify the offense of rape. EcTCAD

This Court reverses the conviction

To recall, the accused-appellant was charged and convicted by the RTC, and later the CA, on appeal with acts of lasciviousness, in relation to Section 5 (b) of Article III of R.A. No. 7610. 71

Section 5 (b), Article III, of R.A. No. 7610 pertinently reads:

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:

xxx xxx xxx

(b) those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the victims 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 Penal 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; x x x.

The elements of this provision are as follows: (1) the accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) the said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and (3) the child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age. 72

As to the first element, paragraph (h), Section 2 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 7610 defines "lascivious conduct" as a crime committed through the "intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh or buttocks, with the intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, among others."

In the instant case, this Court cannot sustain the judgments of the RTC and the CA for the simple reason that the Information failed to allege the facts constituting the offense in order to convict the accused-appellant of the crime charged.

It is basic in criminal prosecutions that the accused must be apprised of the very nature of the accusation against him, being an indispensable part of the rights accorded to the accused, pursuant to no less than Section 14 (2), 73 Article III of the 1987 Constitution. Parenthetically, Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court echoes this directive, to wit:

Section 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information. — A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused, the designation of the offense by the statute, the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate time of the commission of the offense, and the place wherein the offense was committed. 74

In Quimvel v. Braga, 75 the Court has established that "the main purpose of requiring the elements of the crime to be set out in the Information is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense because he is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense." 76 In other words, the text of the rule requires that the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense must be stated "in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances." 77 Indeed, there can be no conviction unless the offense is charged in the complaint or Information. 78

Here, the Information in question reads:

Criminal Case No. 32361-R

The on or about and sometime during the month of July 2011, in the City of __________, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-name accused, with lewd design to satisfy her (sic) lascivious desire, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously commit acts of lasciviousness upon private complainant, fifteen (15) year (sic) minor [AAA], a mental retardate with a mental age of six (6) years and six (6) months by calling the complainant inside the room and pulling her pants down, the minor-complainant being of tender age has no means to fully defend herself from said acts of child abuse, cruelty, or exploitation which acts degrade, debased (sic), and demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being, prejudicial to the normal growth and development of the child. HSAcaE

CONTRARY TO LAW. 79

Noticeably, the Information herein for violating Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610 failed to make any factual averment to demonstrate that the accused-appellant deliberately perpetrated any sort of lascivious conduct on the person of AAA; instead, the Information only averred that accused-appellant, upon calling AAA into his room, pulled her pants down. This act, without more, cannot be considered as lascivious conduct as contemplated within the definition under paragraph (h), Section 2 of the IRR of R.A. No. 7610. Under scrutiny, nothing on the face of the Information may lead any court, much less the accused, to conclude that he had intentionally groped AAA's vagina, as testified by the latter in open court. 80 As pointed out in Andaya v. People: 81

No matter how conclusive and convincing the evidence of guilt may be, an accused cannot be convicted of any offense unless it is charged in the information on which he is tried or is necessarily included therein. To convict him of a ground not alleged while he is concentrating his defense against the ground alleged would plainly be unfair and underhanded. 82

Due to the fatally defective Information, this Court is behooved to reverse the judgment of the RTC and the CA in convicting the accused-appellant of violating Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610, in order to avoid any prejudice or violation to the latter's constitutionally protected rights.

This Court sustains the conviction of

Accused-appellant was convicted by the RTC and the CA for violation of Section 10 (a) of R.A. No. 7610, which provides:

Section 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and Other Conditions Prejudicial to the Child's Development. —

(a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of childabuse, cruelty or exploitation or to be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child's development including those covered by Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, but not covered by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period.

Parenthetically, "child abuse," as defined under Section 3 (b), refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the child which includes any of the following: (1) psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional maltreatment; (2) any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being; (3) unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for survival, such as food and shelter; or (4) failure to immediately give medical treatment to an injured child resulting in serious impairment of his growth and development or in his permanent incapacity or death.

Thus, a person who commits an act that debases, degrades, or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being, whether habitual or not, can be held liable for violation of R.A. No. 7610. 83Debasement is defined as the act of reducing the value, quality, or purity of something; degradation, on the other hand, is a lessening of a person's or thing's character or quality; while demean means to lower in status, condition, reputation, or character. 84

This Court finds no reason to stray from the findings of the courts a quo. The act of accused-appellant in forcing a 10-year-old minor to watch pornographic films while insisting that they imitate the adults having sexual intercourse on the screen is a deplorable act that unmistakably debases, degrades and demeans AAA's intrinsic worth and dignity. Such act, which is traumatizing for an impressionable girl her age, not only impairs her emotional and psychological development, but also infringes upon her right to grow up on a safe, wholesome, and harmonious home.

This Court modifies the penalties imposed.

In Criminal Case Nos. 32226-R and 32227-R, this Court concurs with the penalty and damages imposed by the CA. Under Article 266-B of the RPC, the death penalty shall be meted out to the accused when the victim of rape is below 18 years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. 85 The death penalty, however, cannot be imposed in view of R.A. No. 9346; resultantly, in lieu of the death penalty, the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole shall be imposed. 86 Notwithstanding the suspension of the death penalty, it must be emphasized that cases wherein offenders who are regarded as fathers by their victims should not be misinterpreted as reducing the depravity of such act.

In this case, both the RTC and the CA found that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship. This Court thus sees no reason to depart from their findings. Pursuant to People v. Gambao, 87 the CA was likewise correct in increasing the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages to P100,000.00 for each count of qualified statutory rape, and additionally imposing P100,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of qualified statutory rape. HESIcT

In Criminal Case No. 32361-R, the accused-appellant does not stand to suffer the penalties imposed by the RTC and the CA, in view of his acquittal.

In Criminal Case No. 32362-R, the penalty to be imposed for violation of Section 10 (a) of R.A. No. 7610 is prision mayor in its minimum period. Pursuant to the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum shall be taken within the range of prision correccional in its maximum period, or four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day, to six (6) years. There being no modifying circumstances, the maximum term shall be within the medium period of the imposable penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period, or six (6) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day to seven (7) years and four (4) months. Thus, the penalty imposed by the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, that is four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day of prisioncorrectional, as minimum, to six (6) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, is proper. By virtue of Sanchez v. People, 88 this Court is in agreement with the CA in additionally imposing a fine of P2,000.00.

Further, the monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated July 31, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07986 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS:

In Criminal Case Nos. 32226-R and 32227-R for qualified statutory rape, accused-appellant XYZ is SENTENCED to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in each case, without eligibility for parole. Accused-appellant is DIRECTED to PAY AAA the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as civil indemnity; One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as moral damages; and One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as exemplary damages for each count.

In Criminal Case No. 32361-R for lascivious conduct under Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610, accused-appellant XYZ is ACQUITTED for failure of the Information to allege the elements constituting the crime charged.

In Criminal Case No. 32362-R for child abuse under Section 10 (a) of Republic Act No. 7610, accused-appellant XYZ is SENTENCED to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum. Accused-appellant is DIRECTED to PAY AAA the amount of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) as fine.

Legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum is imposed on all damages awarded from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.

SO ORDERED."Lopez, M., J., no part; Dimaampao, J.,designated Additional Member per Raffle dated October 13, 2021.

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, p. 21.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, with Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez (now a member of this Court) and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy concurring; id. at 3-20.

3. Penned by Presiding Judge Mia Joy C. Oallares-Cawed; CA rollo, pp. 29-85.

4. The identity of the victim or any information to 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, 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"; 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. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 (2006); and Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017, Subject: Protocols and Procedures in the promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders Using Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances.

5. Records, Criminal Case No. 32226-R, p. 1.

6.Id. at 20.

7. Consolidated Judgment, CA rollo, p. 31.

8.Id.

9. Records, Criminal Case No. 32361-R, p. 1.

10. Records, Criminal Case No. 32362-R, p. 1.

11. Order dated February 28, 2013, id. at 41.

12. Certificate of Live Birth, id. at 216.

13. TSN, October 24, 2013, pp. 1-13.

14. TSN, January 23, 2014, pp. 20-22.

15. TSN, November 7, 2013, p. 3.

16.Id. at 5.

17.Id. at 7-10.

18. TSN, January 23, 2014, pp. 1-25.

19. TSN, May 26, 2014, pp. 21-25.

20. TSN, August 7, 2014, pp. 1-13.

21. Records, Criminal Case No. 32362-R, pp. 227-230.

22.Id. at 223-226.

23. TSN, October 2, 2014, pp. 1-17.

24. TSN, November 20, 2014, pp. 1-10.

25.Id. at 10-12.

26. TSN, November 27, 2014, pp. 1-12.

27. TSN, March 9, 2015, pp. 1-18.

28. TSN, March 16, 2015, p. 8.

29. CA Decision, rollo, pp. 7-8.

30. CA rollo, pp. 29-85.

31.Id. at 83-85. (Citations omitted)

32. Notice of Appeal dated November 13, 2015; Records, Criminal Case No. 32362-R, p. 41.

33.Rollo, pp. 3-20.

34.Id. at 13.

35.Id. at 19. (Emphases in the original)

36. REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 266-B, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, otherwise known as the "Anti-Rape Law of 1997."

37.People v. Soronio, 281 Phil. 820, 824 (1991).

38.People v. XXX, G.R. No. 226467, October 17, 2018, 884 SCRA 31, 49.

39.People v. Cadano, Jr., 729 Phil. 576, 584 (2014).

40.People v. Manaligod, 831 Phil. 204, 211 (2018).

41. Records, Criminal Case No. 32362-R, p. 216.

42. TSN, October 24, 2013, p. 11.

43. 695 Phil. 576 (2012).

44.People v. Garcia, supra, at 588-589.

45. TSN, October 24, 2013, pp. 8-9.

46. TSN, November 7, 2013, pp. 6-9.

47.People v. Quintos, 746 Phil. 809, 819-820 (2014).

48.People v. Mingming, 584 Phil. 170, 185 (2008).

49.People v. Cadano, Jr., supra note 39, at 585.

50. 812 Phil. 62 (2017).

51.Id. at 66.

52. 702 Phil. 643, 662 (2013).

53. G.R. No. 242276, February 18, 2020.

54. 811 Phil. 712, 721 (2017).

55. 822 Phil. 68, 76 (2017).

56.Supra note 47.

57.People v. Quintos, supra note 47, at 825-831. (Emphases ours; citations omitted)

58. Records, Crim. Case No. 32362-R, pp. 227-230.

59. Medico-legal Certificate, Criminal Case No. 32362-R, p. 222.

60.People v. Manaligod, supra note 40, at 213.

61.People v. Dalisay, 455 Phil. 810, 824 (2003).

62.People v. Agalot, 826 Phil. 541, 556 (2018).

63. Emphasis ours.

64.People v. Corpuz, 597 Phil. 459, 468 (2009).

65.People v. Arcillas, 692 Phil. 40, 52 (2012).

66. Records, Criminal Case No. 32362-R, p. 216.

67. TSN, October 24, 2013, pp. 4-5.

68. TSN, November 20, 2014, p. 3.

69. TSN, October 24, 2013, p. 5.

70. 579 Phil. 254, 269 (2008).

71. Also known as "SPECIAL PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AGAINST ABUSE, EXPLOITATION, AND DISCRIMINATION ACT."

72.People v. Dagsa, 824 Phil. 704, 721 (2018).

73. Section 14. x x x.

(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of the witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. (Emphasis ours)

74. Emphasis ours.

75. 808 Phil. 889 (2017).

76.Id. at 912.

77.People v. Dasmariñas, 819 Phil. 357, 373 (2017).

78.People v. Manalili, 355 Phil. 652, 657 (1998).

79. Records, Criminal Case No. 32361-R, p. 1. (Emphasis ours)

80. TSN, January 23, 2014, pp. 15-16.

81. 526 Phil. 480 (2006).

82.Id. at 497.

83.Torres v. People, 803 Phil. 480, 490 (2017).

84.Escolano v. People, G.R No. 226991, December 10, 2018, 889 SCRA 98, 11. (Citation omitted)

85.People v. Buclao, 736 Phil. 325, 336 (2014).

86.People v. Amar, 813 Phil. 369, 379 (2017).

87. 718 Phil. 507-531 (2013).

88. 606 Phil. 762, 770 (2009).