FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243576. October 13, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ZZZ, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 13, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243576 (People of the Philippines v. ZZZ). — For the Court's consideration is an appeal directed against the Decision 1 promulgated on July 27, 2018 by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB-CR-HC No. 02601 whereby the appellate court affirmed with modification the Decision 2 dated April 25, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 7, Tacloban City, finding ZZZ (accused-appellant), guilty of three counts of rape in Criminal Case Nos. 2003-05-269, 2003-05-270, and 2003-05-271 while Criminal Case No. 2003-05-268 was dismissed for failure of the prosecution to comply with the order of the court to reconstitute the lost case records.
The State initially filed four informations for rape, and as earlier stated, Criminal Case No. 2003-05-268 was dismissed. The accusatory portions of the three identical indictments that were tried and decided by trial court read:
CRIM. CASE No. 2003-05-269
That on or about the 30th day of December 2002, in the ______________________, ______________, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously and by means of force and intimidation, succeed in having carnal knowledge of [AAA], 3 an 11-year old minor and his stepdaughter, against her will and consent.
Contrary to law with the aggravating circumstance that the victim is under eighteen (18) years old and the offender is her stepfather. 4
CRIM. CASE No. 2003-05-270
That on or about the 29th day of December 2002, in the ______________________, ______________, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and by means of force and intimidation, succeed in having carnal knowledge of [AAA], an 11-year old minor and his stepdaughter, against her will and consent. DETACa
Contrary to law with the aggravating circumstance that the victim is under eighteen (18) years old and the offender is her stepfather. 5
CRIM. CASE No. 2003-05-271
That on or about the 28th day of December 2002, in the ______________________, ______________, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and by means of force and intimidation, succeed in having carnal knowledge of [AAA], an 11-year old minor and his stepdaughter, against her will and consent.
Contrary to law with the aggravating circumstance that the victim is under eighteen (18) years old and the offender is her stepfather. 6
Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges against him. Trial on the merits ensued as a matter of course.
To establish the prosecution's case, it presented the testimony of the victim, AAA, which was summarized by the CA as follows:
In sum, AAA testified that [on] December 2009, she was 11 years old and a Grade 11 pupil; that she is the stepdaughter of the accused-appellant herein; that she was raped by the accused-appellant herein on 28 December 2002, on 29 December 2002, and 30 December 2002 that she was allegedly first raped by her "Tatay," the accused-appellant herein on 28 December 2002 while her mother was not home; allegedly, herein accused-appellant threatened her with a long bolo, undressed her and removed her panty; that thereafter, accused-appellant likewise undressed and removed his brief; that, after making AAA lay down on the floor, the accused-appellant herein then inserted his penis inside her vagina which caused AAA pain and AAA cried; that, after consummating his beastful act, the accused-appellant warned AAA not to tell anyone about what just happened, or else, he will kill her; that, after the first rape, she was again raped by her "Tatay" in their house on two (2) more occasions — on 29 December 2002 and on 30 December 2002; that the 29 December 2002 rape happened at noon time and AAA was with her baby sister; that accused-appellant, again, threatened her with a bladed instrument, undressed her, and removed her panty; thereafter, accused-appellant took off his own [clothing] and his brief; that accused-appellant also made AAA lay down on the floor and right after that placed himself on top of AAA; that he again forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina which also caused AAA pain; that AAA cried, but she was too afraid to shout for help; that just like the previous days, in the evening of 30 December 2002, accused-appellant once again raped AAA; that, while everybody in the house was sleeping, the accused-appellant herein allegedly threatened AAA with a bladed instrument, undressed her, and removed her panty again; he thereafter removed his own pants and brief; he then inserted his penis into AAA's vagina; that, all these acts were done while the bladed weapon was within the reach of accused-appellant; thus, AAA did not resist nor call for help even if her mother was also in the house sleeping; that because herein accused-appellant threatened AAA against telling anyone about the incident, AAA kept silent about the whole incident; that, on 13 January 2003, very afraid that she would be sent again to their house and be raped again, AAA finally mustered enough courage to tell her Auntie BBB, her mother's sister, about her most tragic experience in the hands of her "Tatay." 7
In his attempt to exonerate himself, accused-appellant proffered the defense of alibi and denial, the CA abridged his testimony in this manner:
For his part, the accused-appellant herein invokes the defense of denial and alibi. Allegedly, on 28 December 2002, AAA was in her aunt's house located in ______________________ while he was in their house in _______________________________; that, in the noon of 29 December 2002, he was not in their house, as he was allegedly cultivating the land of one Dondon Dacume located in _______________________________. Also, on 30 December 2002, herein accused-appellant likewise testified that he was with his wife and children in their house located in _______________________________, while AAA was in the house of her aunt. 8
After trial, the RTC rendered its consolidated judgment convicting the accused-appellant for three counts of rape. The decretal portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises well considered, judgement is hereby rendered:
1.) DISMISSING Criminal Case No. 2003-05-268, for failure of the prosecution to comply with the order of the Court for the reconstitution of the lost case records, specifically the information;
2.) In Criminal Case No. 2003-05-269, finding the accused[-appellant] GUILTY beyond reasonable double of statutory rape, with the qualifying aggravating circumstance of relationship. Conformably with RA 9346, he is hereby sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole; aDSIHc
3.) In Criminal Case No. 2003-05-270, finding the accused[-appellant] GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of statutory rape, with the qualifying aggravating circumstance of relationship. Conformably with RA 9346, he is hereby sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole;
4.) In Criminal Case No. 2003-05-271, finding the accused[-appellant] GUILTY beyond reasonable double of statutory rape, with the qualifying aggravating circumstance of relationship. Conformably with RA 9346, he is hereby sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole; and,
5.) In each of these three counts, the said accused is also ordered to indemnify AAA in the amount of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity; P100,000.00 representing moral damages and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. The accused is also ordered to suffer all the accessory penalties under the law.
Costs against the accused.
SO ORDERED. 9
Aggrieved, accused-appellant filed an n before the CA.
In his brief, 10 he argued that the RTC erred in convicting him of the crimes charged since the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He pointed out that there is a reason to doubt AAA's uncorroborated testimony on whether she was actually raped by the accused-appellant. AAA's testimony cannot be given due credence considering that it was elicited almost entirely through leading questions. 11
Accused-appellant further stated that he was able to prove that he did not commit the atrocious acts against AAA. He argued that he was able to establish that AAA was permanently living with her aunt, BBB while he was living with his wife and their children in a different municipality. He also detailed that on December 28, 2002, he was at home with his wife and children while AAA was with her aunt in a different locality. Thus, according to accused-appellant, it is impossible to believe that he committed the crime considering the presence of AAA's siblings in their house. 12
Accused-appellant also denied the December 29, 2002 rape, as according to him, he was working from 7:00 o'clock in the morning up to 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon. He was accompanied by several adults in the rice field while AAA was living at her aunt's residence. 13
Lastly, accused-appellant also disavowed the December 30, 2002 rape as he was in their residence with his wife and children, while AAA was with her aunt in another locality. 14
As stated above, the CA affirmed with modification the findings of the RTC that found accused-appellant guilty of three counts of rape. The CA ruled thus:
WHEREFORE, the present appeal is hereby DENIED. Consequently, the 25 April 2017 consolidated Judgment of Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Tacloban City in CRIM. CASES Nos. 2003-05-269, 2003-05-870, and 2003-05-271 is hereby AFFIRMED, but the same should be modified to include an interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum, which shall be imposed on all damages awarded from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid. ETHIDa
SO ORDERED.15
In affirming the findings of guilt by the RTC, the CA noted that the prosecution was able to establish the elements of the crime thru the testimony of AAA. 16 It ruled that the defense of denial and alibi invoked by the accused-appellant cannot stand against the positive identification of AAA, corroborated by the medical findings. 17
Hence, accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal. 18 Accordingly, the CA gave due course to the appeal and elevated the case records to this Court. 19
The accused-appellant and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) both manifested that they are no longer submitting supplemental briefs. Instead they will be adopting the briefs they submitted in the CA. 20 Thus, the case was deemed submitted for decision.
The sole issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not the CA erred in convicting accused-appellant for three counts of qualified rape.
After careful examination of the records, the Court affirms with modifications the accused-appellant's conviction.
The State was able to prove its case
The Court does not find any reason to depart from the findings of the RTC and CA as to accused-appellant's guilt. Article 266-A, paragraph (1) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) provides the elements of the crime of rape:
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 this case, it bears stressing, that due to super typhoon Yolanda that hit the province of Leyte on November 8, 2013, the records of this case, including the Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN) were completely lost and washed out. As a result, the RTC had to order the reconstitution of the original records and to retake the testimonies of the witnesses. In so far as AAA is concerned, she was already of age or 23 years old when her direct testimony was re-taken on October 14, 2014. 21 Pertinent portions of her direct testimony are quoted as follows:
PROS. SABARRE:
Q: AAA what is your birthdate?
A: July 25, 1991.
Q: And on December 2002 you were eleven (11) years old, correct?
A: Yes.
xxx xxx xxx. 22
Q: Do you know a person by the name [ZZZ]?
A: Yes.
Q: Why do you know him?
A: He is my step-father.
Q: He is your step-father because he is the husband of your mother, correct? cSEDTC
A: Yes.
Q: So your father is a different person from [ZZZ]?
A: Yes.
Q: Now this [ZZZ] is being charged for rape, what did he do to you?
A: I already forgot.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: And it was on several occasions when you were raped about 11 years old, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Now the first of the incident was on December 28, 2002, sometime in the evening inside your house, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Where was your mother at that time? Was she in your house at that time? She was not in your house because your mother was a maid in other place?
A: She was not at the house at the time but she was at home.
Q: So in that evening [ZZZ] threatened you with a long bolo to have sexual intercourse with you is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And then he undressed you and removed your panty is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Then after which he also undressed himself and removed his brief correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And you were lying down on the floor and he placed himself on top of you, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And when he was already on top of your what did he do, did he insert his penis into your vagina.
A: Yes.
Q: And when his penis was already inside your vagina, what did you feel?
A: I felt pain.
Q: And you cried?
A: Yes.
Q: After he raped you, he warned you not to tell anybody or else he will kill you?
A: Yes.
Q: So you did not tell your mother when she arrived home?
A: No I did not.
Q: How did you call [ZZZ] at that time?
A: Tatay.
Q: Now on the noontime of December 29, 2002 you were in your house at that time, correct? SDAaTC
A: Yes.
Q: And [ZZZ] was also in your house at that time?
A: Yes.
Q: You were the only two in that house at that time, correct?
A: And my baby sister.
Q: Your mother was not there?
A: No.
Q: Now again [ZZZ] threatened you with a bladed weapon so that he can have sexual intercourse with you?
A: Yes.
Q: He again removed your clothes and panty and he likewise removed his brief and pants correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And he made you [lie down] on the floor, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And place himself on top of you correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And after which he placed his penis Inside your vagina correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And when his penis was inside your vagina what did you feel?
A: Same.
Q: You felt pain?
A: Yes.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: You were just crying, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And after he raped you he again threatened you not to tell anybody including your mother, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, on December 30, 2002 in the evening again, you and your step-father [ZZZ] were alone in the house, correct?
A: We were sleeping at that time.
Q: Your mother was not there in your house?
A: She was also there but sleeping.
Q: Again [ZZZ] threatened you with bladed weapon to have sex with him, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And again he removed your clothes and panty as well as he also removed his pants and brief, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And afterwhich he inserted his penis inside your vagina, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: You did not resist or shout for help or ask help from your mother because you were afraid at that time, correct? acEHCD
A: Yes.
Q: At that time the bladed weapon was near [ZZZ] when he inserted his penis to your vagina, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And still you did not tell your mother of the incident because [ZZZ] threatened you that you will be killed in case you would tell anybody including your mother of what he did to you, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: If this [ZZZ] is present now in Court, will you please point him out?
A: (Witness pointed to a man inside the court room wearing yellow shirt who identified himself as [ZZZ]). 23
From the foregoing, it is unmistakably clear that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of the minor victim, who was then 11 years old, against her will on December 28, 29 and 30, 2002. In all these three (3) incidents, the manner of rape was the same. Accused-appellant threatened AAA with a long bolo or bladed weapon, which is sufficient to cower her into submission to the beastly and lustful desires of accused-appellant. After satisfying his lust, accused-appellant threatened to kill AAA if she tells anyone what had happened.
The testimony of AAA was candid, straightforward, and worthy of belief. Her unimpeached testimony of her ghastly ordeal in hands of accused-appellant has sufficiently established the elements of the crime of rape.
Significantly, while it may be true that AAA's testimony was elicited through leading questions, the same does not affect the evidentiary weight given to her testimony nor diminish the plausibility of her claims.
Firstly, prior to the start of her direct examination, Pros. Sabarre, sought the RTC's permission to ask leading questions. The RTC allowed him to proceed without any objection from Atty. Suyom, the counsel for the defense, to wit:
PROS. SABARRE:
This testimony your honor of this witness is being re-taken because of her previous testimony, the Transcript of Stenographic Notes of which was destroyed by the typhoon. She will testify that she is the victim in these cases. She will testify as to the date, approximate time and place of the incidents subject matter of these cases. She will testify likewise as to the pertinent matters before, during and after the incident. She will identify the accused herein as well as her relationship to the accused and to testify on other pertinent matters.
COURT:
Comment?
ATTY. SUYOM:
No comment. SDHTEC
PROS. SABARRE:
With the kind permission of this honorable court.
COURT:
Proceed.
PROS. SABARRE:
May I be allowed to ask leading questions your honor?
COURT:
It's alright.
PROS. SABARRE:
And I move for a joint trial of these cases. These 3 cases should be tried simultaneously. 24
Under Section 36, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, "objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness shall be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent." In other words, objection to oral evidence must be raised at the earliest possible time, that is after the objectionable question is asked or after the answer is given if the objectionable issue becomes apparent only after the answer was given. 25 Failure to raise a timely objection, when the party is in the position to object, constitutes a waiver of any objections thereto. As explained in the case of Tison v. Court of Appeals: 26
[A] protest or objection against the admission of any evidence must be made at the proper time, otherwise it will be deemed to have been waived. The proper time is when from the question addressed to the witness, or from the answer thereto, or from the presentation of the proof, the inadmissibility of the evidence is, or may be inferred. 27
Verily, since no objection was made during the entire course of AAA's direct testimony, the defense is deemed to have already waived any objections to the admissibility thereof and its belated attempts to invalidate the testimony of AAA has no leg to stand on.
Secondly, during the cross-examination, it was pointed out by the defense counsel that prior to the start of the direct examination, AAA already manifested her desire to desist from the case. As aptly noted by the CA, this explains why the prosecutor had to propound his questions in a way that was answerable by a "yes or no." 28 This is also the reason why AAA initially claimed that she has already forgotten what had happened. Nevertheless, upon further inquiry of the prosecutor, she never hesitated to answer them directly, which confirmed the three (3) incidents of rape.
Thirdly, the defense counsel had an opportunity to cross-examine AAA but even then, AAA never altered her testimony that she was a victim of rape. She explained that she is desisting from the case due to financial difficulties as her mother could no longer provide for their needs and she believed that accused-appellant would probably reform. Notably, there was no mention that accused-appellant did not commit the charges hurled against him:
Q: Madam witness before you testified on direct examination this morning you informed the court that you are no longer interested, for the record, why are you not interested in pursuing the cases against [ZZZ]?
A: Because we are in a difficult situation right now and my mother would oftentimes get sick and cannot work anymore because of her age.
Q: That is the only reason?
A: My sibling cannot go to school. My husband cannot support the school needs of my sibling because he earns small amount.
Q: Why?
A: Probably he will reform.
Q: And because of this reason you are hesitant to testify against [ZZZ]?
A: Yes but my decision actually is to desist from my case. 29
Fourthly, AAA reiterated in her re-direct examination that her reason for no longer pursuing the case is due to her impression that accused-appellant had already reformed after being in prison for 13 years. She has also forgiven accused-appellant for what he did to her and she thinks that the latter might be able to help them in their financial situation:
PROSECUTOR EDGAR A. SABARRE:
Q: When you said that you want to desist you decide now to desist (sic), does it mean that you forgive your step-father of what he did to you?
A: Yes maybe he has reformed.
Q: With the 13 years he is inside the prison? HESIcT
A: And so that she (sic) will be able to help sustain the needs of the family. 30
Indisputably, the main reason behind the victim's desistance is her belief that accused-appellant could provide them with financial support if he is released from prison and not because the latter was innocent of the crime charged.
In any case, even if AAA has desisted from the case, the same is not a sufficient ground for the dismissal of the action against accused-appellant. Under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8353, otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Law, which took effect in 1997, rape is no longer considered a crime against chastity. Having been reclassified as a crime against persons, it is no longer considered a private crime, or one which cannot be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the aggrieved party. Thus, pardon by the offended party of the offender will not extinguish his criminal liability. 31
Fifth and lastly, AAA's direct testimony finds greater force in view of the Medical Certificate 32 dated January 13, 2003 issued by Dr. Darryl David C. Dolina ("Dr. Dolina"), the physician who conducted a physical examination on AAA. Material portion of his medical findings reads:
"Genital Examination: No pubic hair, labia majora gaping with each other covering the labia minora, Fourchette U-shaped, Hymen stellate thick with single orifice with complete laceration charactered as healed with sharp coapteble borders without congestion at 3 o'clock position and an incomplete deep laceration which is healed with sharp coaptible borders without congestions at 9 o'clock position according to the face of a clock.
Conclusion: Genital findings compatible with something inserted into her vagina on or about the alleged date of commission.
The result of the medical examination showing that AAA had healed lacerations on her vagina two (2) weeks after the three (3) incidents of rape and the conclusion of Dr. Dolina that his "genital findings [are] compatible with something inserted into her vagina on or about the alleged date of commission," strongly corroborate the testimony of AAA that she was sexually molested. Settled is the rule that hymenal lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best evidence of forcible defloration. 33 Further, when the testimony of a rape victim is consistent with the medical findings, as in this case, there is sufficient basis to conclude that carnal knowledge has taken place. 34
Taken collectively, the foregoing supports the conclusion that the testimony of AAA that she was raped on three (3) separate occasions is worthy of credence and thus, sufficient to sustain the conviction of accused-appellant.
Nevertheless, even if the Court affirms the guilt of accused-appellant, the latter should be held criminally liable only for simple statutory rape and not for qualified statutory rape.
In a conviction for qualified rape, the prosecution must prove that (1) the victim is under 18 years of age at the time of the rape, and (2) the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, or relative within third civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. In other words, it is the concurrence of both the minority of the victim and her relationship with the offender that will be considered as a special qualifying circumstance. 35 caITAC
In the present case, the prosecution only submitted as documentary exhibits, the Medical Certificate 36 and the Certificate of Live Birth 37 of AAA. The Certificate of Live Birth proves that AAA was eleven years old when the horrendous events transpired in the last days of December 2002.
However, the prosecution failed to prove the allegation in the three Informations that the accused-appellant is the step-father of AAA. A "stepfather" is the "husband of one's mother by virtue of a marriage subsequent to that of which the person spoken of is the offspring. It presupposes a legitimate relationship between the accused-appellant and the victim's mother." 38 In the present case, the prosecution should have presented the Marriage Certificate of AAA's mother and the accused-appellant to prove such relations. Unfortunately, as earlier noted, the State merely offered the Medical Certificate and the Certificate of Live Birth as its documentary exhibits. To the Court's mind, the non-presentation of the Marriage Certificate would mean that the prosecution failed to prove the qualifying circumstance of relationship. Thus, the Court cannot affirm the conviction of the accused-appellant for three counts of qualified statutory rape as this would violate his right to due process.
The Court rules that because of the prosecution's failure to prove the qualifying circumstance of relationship, the accused-appellant should be convicted of simple statutory rape. Rape under paragraph 1 (d) of Article 266-A is termed statutory rape as it departs from the usual modes of committing rape. What the law punishes in statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve (12) years old. Thus, force, intimidation and physical evidence of injury are not relevant considerations; the only subject of inquiry is the age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge took place. The law presumes that the victim does not and cannot have a will of her own on account of her tender years; the child's consent is immaterial because of her presumed incapacity to discern good from evil. 39
In the case at bar, the prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA in three separate occasions on the month of December 2002, when AAA was just 11 years old. Accordingly, the provisions of Article 266-B in relation to Article 266-A of the RPC provides that simple statutory rape shall be punished by reclusión perpetua. TAIaHE
To be consistent with People v. Jugueta40 and People v. Tulagan, 41 the amount of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages shall be modified to P75,000.00 for each count of rape. 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.
As a last note, it is to be noted that the Court's denial to elevate the crimes in its qualified form does not lessen its condemnation of the acts accused-appellant committed against AAA. The Court's refusal stems rather from its solemn duty to protect the right of accused-appellant to due process. 42
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS with modifications the Decision dated July 27, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-CR-HC No. 02601. The Court finds ZZZ GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of Simple Statutory Rape; IMPOSES the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape; and ORDERS him to pay for each count of rape civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00, moral damages in the amount of P75,000.00, and exemplary damages in the amount of P75,000.00, subject to 6% interest per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."Lopez, M., J., on official leave.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos (retired member of this Court), with Associate Justices Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga, concurring; rollo, pp. 4-15.
2. Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Lauro A.P. Castillo, Jr., CA rollo, pp. 25-48.
3. 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.
4. Records, p. 1-R.
5.Id. at 2-R.
6.Id. at 3-R.
7.Rollo, pp. 7-8.
8.Id. at 8.
9.Id. at 8-9.
10. CA Rollo, pp. 10-23.
11.Id. at 19.
12.Id. at 20.
13.Id.
14.Id.
15.Rollo, p. 14.
16.Id. at 10.
17.Id.
18.Id. at 16-17.
19.Id. at 19-20.
20. The accused-appellant submitted a manifestation and motion (re: supplemental brief) on July 4, 2019, rollo, pp. 33-34; the Office of the Solicitor General submitted a manifestation and motion (in lieu of supplemental brief) on July 10, 2019, rollo, pp. 25-28.
21. Records, p. 13R.
22. TSN, October 24, 2014, p. R-55.
23. TSN, October 24, 2014, pp. R-55-60.
24. TSN, October 24, 2014, pp. R-54-55.
25.Magsino v. Magsino, G.R. No. 205333, February 18, 2019.
26. 342 Phil. 550 (1997).
27.Id. at 564.
28.Rollo, p. 11.
29. TSN, October 14, 2014, p. R-62.
30.Id. at R-62-63.
31.People v. Estibal, 748 Phil. 850, 865 (2014).
32. Records, p. 5-R.
33.People v. Ronquillo, 818 Phil. 641, 651 (2017).
34.People v. Hilarion, 722 Phil. 52, 55 (2013).
35.People v. Sariego, 781 Phil. 659, 669 (2016).
36. Records, p. 5-R.
37.Id. at 28R-29R.
38.People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 224212, November 27, 2019.
39.People v. Teodoro, 622 Phil. 328, 337 (2009).
40. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
41. G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019.
42.People v. XYZ, G.R. No. 244255, August 26, 2020.
n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.