People v. YYY

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 250333. November 11, 2021.]

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

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

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

"G.R. No. 250333 (People of the Philippines v. YYY). — For consideration is the appeal 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 2 dated August 29, 2019, which affirmed with modifications the Decision 3 dated August 5, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 31, ________________, finding accused-appellant YYY guilty of qualified statutory rape. The accusatory portion of the Information states:

Criminal Case No. 2011-20746

That at around 7:00 o'clock in the morning of September 23, 2011, at Sitio ____________, Barangay __________, Municipality of ___________, 4 Province of Negros Oriental, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein accused, did then and there willfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with one AAA, 5 a minor eleven (11) years of age.

The act is attended by the circumstance of relationship the herein accused being the uncle of the victim, a relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 6

Upon arraignment, YYY pleaded not guilty to the charge against him. Then, trial on the merits ensued.

The Antecedents

The facts, as established by the prosecution and as gathered from the CA Decision, are as follows:

10-year-old AAA, a resident of Sitio _______________, Barangay _______________, Municipality of _______________, Province of Negros Oriental, related that at around 6 o'clock in the morning of 23 September 2011, she was at home when her uncle, YYY, arrived. [YYY] is the older brother of BBB, AAA's father. [YYY] asked BBB if he could bring AAA to his farm. BBB consented.

AAA further narrated that when she and [YYY] reached the said farm, [YYY] removed his shorts and shirt and thereafter, removed AAA's shorts and dress. [YYY] made AAA lie down on dried coconut leaves, placed himself on top of AAA, and inserted his penis into her vagina. After [YYY] was through, he told AAA not to tell her mother, otherwise, he would kill her family. Shortly thereafter, AAA went home. Out of fear, AAA did not immediately tell her father that she had been raped by [YYY].

BBB, AAA's father, recalled that his older brother, [YYY], visited him in the morning of 23 September 2011. [YYY] wanted AAA to accompany him to his farm to get some cassava. BBB did not find anything unusual in the request considering that he had amicable relations with [YYY] at the time. BBB recalled further that when AAA returned home around 8 o'clock in the morning that day, AAA told him that her "Tiyo [YYY]" did something to her. BBB paid no mind to what AAA said, thinking that she was merely whipped or scolded by [YYY].

BBB further recalled that at around 4 o'clock in the afternoon on that day, two (2) Barangay Tanods came to their house to fetch AAA. BBB and his wife, CCC, accompanied AAA to the Barangay Hall of __________, _________. There, BBB saw his other daughter, DDD, who was then staying in ______ City as a working student. BBB learned that both DDD and AAA had been raped by [YYY].

DDD, AAA's sister, testified that at around 11 o'clock in the morning of 23 September 2011, she went to the _________ Police Station, Negros Oriental, accompanied by her employer. DDD reported that she had been sexually abused on several occasions by her uncle, [YYY]. DDD further revealed that her sister, AAA, suffered the same fate in the hands of [YYY]. Acting on this information, the Women and Children Protection Desk (WCPD) officer of the station, along with the Municipal Social Welfare and Development of ___________________, coordinated with the Barangay officials of _________________ to fetch AAA. Thus, at around 6:30 in the afternoon that same day, AAA arrived at the Barangay Hall with her family. There, narrated how she was molested that same day by her uncle, herein [YYY].

The following day, 24 September 2011, Dr. Mitylene Tan, Municipal Health Officer of __________ Negros Oriental, examined AAA. She issued a Medical Certificate indicating the following findings:

External Examination: No pertinent physical finding

Internal Examination:

a) Hymen not intact

b) No laceration

c) Insert one finger with resistance. 7

In turn, YYY interposed the defense of denial, which was summarized by the CA as follows:

[YYY], a resident of Sitio __________ Barangay __________ Municipality of __________, Province of Negros Oriental, narrated that on 23 September 2011, he left home at around 6 o'clock in the morning to tend his farm situated at neighboring Sitio of the same Barangay. [YYY] denied that AAA accompanied him that morning, claiming that when he passed by AAA's house, her entire family was still asleep. [YYY] further related that Roselyn Ramirez, Rodel Ramirez, and Emiliano Ramirez saw him going towards his farm. [YYY] stated as well that after he finished working on his farm, he went home straight around noon that day. [YYY] claimed that the reason behind the groundless accusations against him is that his brother, BBB, had been eyeing his farm since 2009. 8

The RTC found YYY guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified statutory rape. It held that AAA's clear, candid, and straightforward testimony prevails over YYY's unsubstantiated defenses of denial and alibi. 9

On appeal, YYY questioned AAA's credibility in view of alleged inconsistencies in her testimony. For one, while she recalled that YYY had instances in the past where he asked her father, BBB, to let her accompany him in the farm, BBB expressed that the present case was the first time YYY made such request. For another, the findings of the municipal health officer that there is no laceration found on AAA's vagina do not coincide with AAA's claims of rape. 10

The CA affirmed the findings of the RTC that the prosecution was able to prove the elements of the crime charged against YYY. It agreed with the trial court that AAA was able to narrate all the details of her ordeal in the hands of her uncle, YYY. Moreover, not only were the alleged inconsistencies trivial, there was no ill motive on the part of AAA to falsely indict YYY of the crime. On the contrary, variance in minor details bolster the witness' credibility as they discount the possibility of a rehearsed testimony. In the end, the appellate court declared that testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit in view of their relative vulnerability. Accordingly, the CA disposed of the case as follows:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed 5 August 2016 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, 7th Judicial Region, Branch 31, _______________, finding accused-appellant YYY guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified Statutory Rape for which he was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without the eligibility for parole is AFFIRMED with modification. Appellant is ordered to pay the victim, AAA, the amounts of One Hundred Thousand Pesos ([P]100,000.00) as civil indemnity, One Hundred Thousand Pesos ([P]100,000.00) as moral damages, One Hundred Thousand Pesos ([P]100,000.00) as exemplary damages, and the interest of six percent (6%) per annum on all damages awarded from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.11

Hence, this appeal.

YYY seeks affirmative relief from this Court and the reversal of his conviction. YYY and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) both manifested that they were no longer submitting Supplemental Brief; instead, they will be adopting the Briefs they submitted in the CA. 12 Thus, the case was deemed submitted for resolution.

Issue

Whether the CA erred in affirming the conviction of YYY.

Our Ruling

The appeal lacks merit.

To convict accused-appellant of the crime of statutory rape under paragraph 1 (d) 13 of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), qualified by the circumstance under Article 266-B, 14 the prosecution must allege and prove the following elements: (1) Accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA; (2) AAA was under twelve years of age, a minor, at the time of the rape; and (3) Accused-appellant is the uncle of AAA, a relative by consanguinity within the third civil degree. 15 This Court finds that the prosecution established the presence of all these elements beyond reasonable doubt. CAIHTE

First, AAA's testimony showed that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of her. In rape cases, the conviction or acquittal of the accused often depends almost entirely on the credibility of the complainant's testimony. By the very nature of this crime, it entails reliance on the lone uncorroborated testimony of the victim as it is generally unwitnessed and usually the victim is left to testify for herself. 16 For as long as the testimony is clear, convincing, and otherwise consistent with human nature, it shall be sufficient to support a conviction. 17

When the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, moreover, this Court will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court. Settled is the rule that the trial court's conclusions on the credibility of witnesses in rape cases are generally accorded great weight, even finality, unless there appear facts of value which this court overlooked and which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the case. 18 Indeed, the trial court is in a better position to decide the question of credibility as it heard the witnesses themselves and observed the manner by which they testified during the trial. 19

In this case, the RTC duly gave credence to AAA's straightforward testimony as to how her uncle, accused-appellant, succeeded in bringing her to the farm where he undressed and kissed her, inserted his penis in her vagina, and thereafter threatened to kill her should she tell anyone of the incident. In the absence of any indication that the trial court overlooked certain facts, there is no reason for this Court to disturb the RTC's reliance on AAA's straightforward and candid testimony.

Second, the Certificate of Live Birth of AAA indicating that she was born on January 15, 2001 indubitably established that she was only 10 years and seven months old on September 23, 2011 when the alleged rape was committed. 20 This satisfies the age requirement of the victim in statutory rape (below 12 years old) as well as in qualified rape (below 18 years old). 21

Third, the fact that accused-appellant was AAA's uncle, the older brother of her father, BBB, was shown not only by testimonies of AAA and BBB, but was also admitted by accused-appellant himself in his own judicial affidavit. 22

This notwithstanding, accused-appellant argued for his acquittal pointing to alleged inconsistencies in AAA's testimonies. Unfortunately, this Court cannot give credence to the same.

Inconsistencies in AAA's testimony as to the number of times accused-appellant asked her father, BBB, to allow her to accompany accused-appellant to the farm, are too trivial and must be liberally construed given that the same is not an essential element to the crime charged. Indeed, inconsistencies on minor details are in fact badges of truth, candidness, and the fact that the witness is unrehearsed. 23

The same holds true with respect to the alleged absence of visible lacerations. Time and again, this Court has held that the absence of physical injuries or fresh lacerations does not negate rape, and although medical results may not indicate physical abuse or hymenal lacerations, rape can still be established since medical findings or proof of injuries are not among the essential elements in the prosecution for rape. 24

We similarly reject accused-appellant's claim that the reason behind the baseless accusation is that his brother, BBB, had been "eyeing" his farm. On the contrary, no decent parent would use his or her daughter as an instrument of revenge, especially if it will subject the child to embarrassment and lifelong stigma that a public trial brings. 25 AAA's parents, who were not shown to be indecent people, would not sully the honor of their child if they were not motivated solely by an honest desire to punish their daughter's molester. To put her to the rigors of rape proceedings over some farm would be incredulous. 26

In view of the foregoing, this Court sustains the findings of the trial court and appellate court that accused-appellant's unsubstantiated defenses of denial and alibi cannot prevail over AAA's clear and categorical testimony. Accordingly, YYY's conviction of statutory rape qualified by the circumstances of minority and relationship is affirmed.

As for the penalty, this Court affirms that which was imposed by the CA. Under Article 266-B of the RPC, the death penalty shall be imposed when the victim 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. We cannot, however, impose the death penalty in view of R.A. No. 9346, entitled "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of the Death Penalty in the Philippines." In lieu of the death penalty, We impose on accused-appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility of parole.

Furthermore, to be consistent with People v. Jugueta, 27 the amount of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages shall be increased to P100,000.00. Likewise, an interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be imposed on all damages awarded from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated August 29, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02355 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS that the accused-appellant, YYY is: (a) DECLARED GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of statutory rape under paragraph 1 (d) of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, qualified by the circumstance under Article 266-B and penalized with reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole; and (b) ORDERED TO PAY AAA P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, plus interest rate of six percent (6%) per annum on all the civil liability reckoned from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid.

The accused-appellant shall pay the costs of suit.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

* Initials were used to identify the accused-appellant pursuant to Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-15 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.

1.Rollo, pp. 23-24.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Emily R. Aliño-Geluz, with Associate Justices Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and Carlito B. Calpatura, concurring; id. at 5-22.

3. Penned by Judge Ma. Mercedita U. Sarsabab; CA rollo, pp. 51-84.

4. Geographical location is blotted out pursuant to Supreme Court Amended Circular No. 83-2015, supra note 1.

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, 2002." (People v. Dumadag, 667 Phil. 664, 669 [2011]).

6.Rollo, p. 6.

7.Id. at 7-8.

8.Id. at 9.

9.Id. at 11.

10.Id.

11.Id. at 22.

12. YYY submitted a Manifestation (In Lieu of Supplemental Brief) on July 15, 2020; id. at 48-49. The OSG submitted a Manifestation on June 16, 2020; id. at 32-34.

13. Article 266-A of the RPC provides:

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:

xxx xxx xxx

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.

14. Article 266-B of the RPC provides:

Article 266-B. Penalties. — 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.

15.People v. XXX, G.R. No. 236562, September 22, 2020.

16.Id.

17.People v. XXX, G.R. No. 248878 (Notice), June 23, 2020.

18.People v. XXX, supra note 15.

19.People v. XXX, supra note 17.

20. Record, p. 18.

21.People v. XXX, supra note 15.

22.Rollo, p. 9.

23.People v. Salaver, G.R. No. 223681, August 20, 2018.

24.People v. Nical, 754 Phil. 357, 364 (2015).

25.People v. XXX, G.R. No. 237348 (Notice), September 22, 2020.

26.People v. XXX, supra note 17.

27. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).