THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243933. June 21, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ZZZ, 1accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 21, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243933 (People of the Philippines v. ZZZ) — For consideration of this Court is the appeal of the Decision 2 dated June 25, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09836, which dismissed the appeal of ZZZ (accused-appellant) and affirmed the Judgment 3 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 106, Quezon City (RTC) in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-14-05558-CR, convicting him of the crime of Rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
On June 14, 2014, accused-appellant was charged before the RTC in an Information 4 with Rape, as defined by Art. 266-A, and penalized under Art. 266-B of the RPC.
The accusatory portion of the Information reads:
Criminal Case No. R-QZN-14-05558-CR
That on or about the 9th day of JUNE 2014, in __________ 5 Philippines, the said accused, with lewd designs and by means of violence and intimidation upon the person of [AAA], 6 a minor, 10 years old, his stepdaughter, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, had carnal knowledge with said [AAA], all against her will and without her consent, to the damage and prejudice of said offended party.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 7
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded "not guilty" to the charge. 8 Trial on the merits ensued thereafter.
Antecedents
During trial, the prosecution presented the victim, AAA, her mother, BBB, SPO1 Rosalina Rebutido (SPO1 Rebutido) and PS1 Michael Nick Sarmiento (PS1 Sarmiento) as its witnesses. 9
AAA testified that she executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay10 on June 11, 2014. She affirmed the contents of her affidavit and successfully identified accused-appellant as the person who raped her. In her affidavit, AAA stated that on June 9, 2014, when she was only ten (10) years of age, between 11 o'clock to 12 midnight, ______________________________ she was in their house sleeping beside her mother, BBB. Also, with them was accused-appellant, her stepfather, who was sleeping just below their feet. After her mother fell asleep, accused-appellant stealthily removed her short pants, laid on top of her, and inserted his penis into her vagina. AAA, in her resistance, was able to hit the accused-appellant, which led him to slowly return to his bed so that BBB would not be awakened. The following day, AAA confessed to BBB the sexual molestations done to her by accused-appellant. BBB immediately accompanied her daughter to the barangay hall to report the incident. During the investigation, AAA also revealed that accused-appellant had been subjecting her to sexual abuse ever since she was nine (9) years old. She chose to withhold such information for fear that her mother would not believe in her. On cross-examination, AAA testified that she felt pain when accused-appellant inserted his penis in her vagina. 11 In identifying the accused-appellant as her perpetrator, she recalls that while the lights were off, she was still able to recognize his face. 12
BBB also testified that she executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay13 on June 11, 2014 and affirmed its contents. In her affidavit, she established that on June 10, 2014, her daughter revealed that accused-appellant raped her the night before. Despite her surprise, she accompanied her daughter to the barangay hall to report the incident. On the same day, the barangay officials, together with AAA and BBB, arrested accused-appellant, who immediately confessed to the abuse, while pleading for forgiveness. After the arrest, AAA and BBB went to the ___________________ for medical examination. On direct examination, BBB corroborated AAA's minority, testifying that she had given birth to AAA on November 30, 2003, as evidenced by a Certificate of Live Birth. 14 She expressed that she pitied AAA for suffering such a harrowing ordeal, all at the hands of accused-appellant, who she expected to act is AAA's stepfather. On re-direct examination, she testified that she believed in AAA, as she was crying and pleading while narrating what her stepfather did to her. 15
SPO1 Rebutido testified that she was the investigator of the case, being the one who personally interviewed and prepared the affidavits of AAA and BBB. She narrated that AAA was afraid and hesitant to talk when she was interviewed. 16
For his part, PS1 Sarmiento, a medico-legal expert, testified that he performed a physical and genital examination on AAA. In this regard, he prepared a Medico-Legal Report No. QCSC-14-228, 17 dated June 12, 2014, which revealed clear evidence of blunt penetrating trauma to the hymen. PS1 Sarmiento confirmed that a penis may qualify as a blunt object. 18
The defense presented the accused-appellant as its lone witness.
Accused-appellant resorted to a defense of denial. In his Judicial Affidavit 19 dated January 10, 2017, which he confirmed to have been executed personally, he declared that he was working as a stay-in construction worker at ___________________ located at the nearby barangay where he lived together with BBB and AAA. He testified that he worked from 8 o'clock in the morning to 5 o'clock in the afternoon, from Monday to Saturday. On the day of the incident and at the time of his arrest, he claimed to have been at the construction site. In denying the accusations against him, he argued that his wife's siblings held a grudge against him and have somehow coerced AAA to file the instant case. He insisted that it is highly improbable to commit such a crime, especially since there were six (6) other occupants in their two-bedroom house, all of whom were BBB's family. To add to such improbability, the room where the incident occurred had an area of roughly six (6) square meters; it had no door and the walls were made of plywood, making every sound audible. 20
The Ruling of the RTC
After trial, the RTC rendered a Judgment 21 on July 17, 2017, finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. The RTC disposed thus:
IN VIEW WHEREOF, accused [ZZZ] is found guilty of the crime of rape and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The accused is ordered to pay private complainant the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this Judgment until fully paid.
The period of the accused's preventive detention shall be credited in the service of his sentence.
SO ORDERED. 22
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA via a Notice of Appeal 23 dated July 18, 2017.
The Ruling of the CA
In a Decision 24 dated June 25, 2018, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling with modification, convicting accused-appellant of Rape as defined under Article 266-A and penalized under Article 266-B of the RPC. The CA added that accused-appellant shall not be eligible for parole, in accordance with Section 3 25 of Republic Act No. 9346, or "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines." The fallo of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The Judgment dated 17 July 2017 of Branch 106, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-14-05558-CR is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant [ZZZ] is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.
SO ORDERED.
Concurring with the RTC, the CA held that through AAA's clear and straightforward testimony, the prosecution had sufficiently established all the elements of rape. However, for failure of the prosecution to establish the relationship of AAA as the stepfather of accused-appellant, as the marriage certificate between the latter and BBB was not offered in evidence, the CA agreed with the RTC in convicting accused-appellant of Simple Rape. On the other hand, it did not give credence to accused-appellant's defense of denial, as it was not physically impossible for him to commit the crime, as the place of his employment was located in the adjacent barangay where he lived with BBB and AAA. Moreover, AAA's failure to alert BBB, who was just sleeping beside her at the time of the incident, does not negate the fact of rape, nor does it cast doubt on her credibility. The CA reasoned that AAA's failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance does not make voluntary the victim's submission to the perpetrator's lust. 26
Hence, this appeal.
The Issue Before the Court
The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not accused-appellant's conviction for the crime of Rape must be upheld.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is without merit.
Rape is defined in Article 266-A of the RPC as:
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 HTcADC
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. 27
Accordingly, to sustain a conviction for rape through sexual intercourse, the prosecution must prove the following elements beyond reasonable doubt, namely, (i) that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (ii) that said act was accomplished (a) through the use of force or intimidation, or (b) when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or (c) by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority, or (d) when the victim is under 12 years of age or is demented. 28
Rape, under Article 266-A (1) (d), is termed statutory rape as it "departs from the usual modes of committing rape." 29 Here, what the law seeks to punish 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. 30 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 evil from good. 31
People v. Bagsic32 laid down the elements of statutory rape, to wit:
For the accused to be found guilty of the crime of statutory rape, two (2) elements must concur: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) that the victim is below twelve (12) years old. If the woman is under 12 years of age, proof of force and consent becomes immaterial not only because force is not an element of statutory rape, but the absence of a free consent is presumed. Conviction will therefore lie, provided sexual intercourse is proven.
At the outset, this Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the factual findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. It is well-settled that the factual findings of the trial court, especially on the credibility of the rape victim, are accorded great weight and respect, and will not be disturbed on appeal. 33
Here, this Court is more than convinced that the prosecution sufficiently established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant had carnal knowledge with AAA, a minor, on June 9, 2014.
It must be stressed that the defense did not dispute the fact that AAA was merely ten (10) years of age at the time of the incident. Her Birth Certificate 34 was presented in evidence before the trial court and was not questioned by the defense. What only needs to be proved, therefore, is whether AAA and accused-appellant had sexual intercourse.
In establishing the fact of sexual intercourse, AAA was able to withstand the rigors of direct examination and cross-examination. She was consistent in her recollection of the details of her defloration; in fact, not once did she falter in narrating the reprehensible act committed against her, even identifying accused-appellant as the perpetrator. The Court, on numerous occasions, held that by the peculiar nature of rape cases, conviction thereon most often rests solely on the basis of the offended party's testimony, if credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. 35 This ruling exactly mirrors AAA's testimony.
It bears to mention that in a litany of cases, 36 this Court has given full weight and credence to the testimony of child victims, holding that their "[y]outh and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.'' 37 Besides, the testimony and Medico-legal Report of PS1 Sarmiento lends credence to AAA's testimony. It is well-settled that when the testimony of a rape victim is consistent with the medical findings, there is sufficient basis to conclude that there has been carnal knowledge. 38
To quote from the records: 39
FISCAL HAYAG:
Q Ms. Witness, if the accused is here in this room, would you be able to identify him?
A Opo.
Q Could you please point him, Ms. Witness?
A Yung naka-yellow po.
INTERPRETER
Witness pointing to a man wearing a yellow t-shirt who when [asked] answered by the name [ZZZ].
FISCAL HAYAG
Q Ms. Witness, when you were asked "Tinakot ka ba ng stepfather mo?" your answer was, "Hindi po pero sinasabihan ako na huwag magsumbong" when you were asked or ordered by your stepfather not to tell anybody of what he was doing to you, what did you feel?
A Natatakot po ako.
xxx xxx xxx
Q Ms. Witness, on June 9, 2014 on question 11 you were asked to relate the incident and you said that between 11 and 12 in the evening of June 9, 2014 inside your house you were sleeping beside your mom and your stepfather was sleeping at the bottom of your feet and when your mother was asleep your stepfather start (sic) removing your short pants and he immediately went on top of you and inserted his penis inside your vagina and I quote "pagkaramdam po ako na pinasok niya ang titi sa pepe ko ay pumalag na ako at doon po siya dahan-dahan bumalik sa kanyang hinihigaan para hindi magising si mama" Ms. Witness, do you mean to say that in your statement that you already knew that he started removing your short pants?
A Hindi po.
Q Why is that, Ms. Witness?
A Mahimbing po kasi ang tulog ko.
Q When you said that "Pagkaramdam ko na po na pinasok niya ang titi niya sa pepe ko ay pumalag na ako" what do you mean pumalag, what exactly did you do, Ms. Witness?
A Pinalo ko po siya.
Q What did you do after you hit him?
A Umalis na po siya.
Q When you say "pinasok niya ang titi sa pepe ko" what do you mean by that? Do you understand that?
A Opo.
Q What do you mean by titi and pepe?
A Mga maseselang kasarian sa katawan.
Q So pinasok niya ang titi sa pepe mo?
A Opo.
Q You said that after he did that "dahan-dahan bumalik sa kanyang hinihigaan para hindi magising si mama" is that correct?
A Opo.
Q Did you tell your mom, did you try to wake up your mother?
A Opo.
Q But Ms. Witness in your salaysay in question number 12 you said that you only told your mom the next day why is that, Ms. Witness?
A Opo.
Q Why is that?
A Inisip ko po na baka akala ni mama sibihin (sic) ni mama na gumagawa lang ako ng kwento pero pagkatapos noon sinabi ko na kay mama hindi ko na kasi mapigilan.
xxx xxx xxx
In stark contrast, the accused-appellant's defense of denial must crumble in light of AAA's positive and specific testimony. Being a negative defense, the defense of denial, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, as in the instant case, deserves no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the testimony of credible witnesses, like AAA, who testified on affirmative matters. Since AAA testified in a categorical and straightforward manner without any ill motive, her positive identification of accused-appellant as the sexual offender must prevail over his defenses of denial and alibi. 40
The courts a quo did not grant credence to ZZZ's alibi, considering that his place of work was located only in the adjacent barangay, and as admitted by accused-appellant himself, was a mere walking distance from where he lived and where the rape took place. 41 Regardless of the distance, however, accused-appellant likewise confirmed that he would leave work at 5 o'clock in the afternoon and would be able to arrive home by half past 6 o'clock in the evening. Thus, it would not be far-fetched to conclude that he could have committed the act of raping AAA between 11 o'clock and 12 midnight. "Physical impossibility" refers to distance and the facility of access between the crime scene and the location of the accused when the crime was committed. There must be a demonstration that they were so far away and could not have been physically present at the crime scene and its immediate vicinity when the crime was committed. 42 In this regard, accused-appellant failed to prove the physical impossibility for him to be at the crime scene when rape was committed. It is noteworthy that other than his testimony, no other evidence was presented to disprove his physical presence in the house of BBB and AAA at the time of the incident.
In a bid to exonerate himself, accused-appellant raises the improbability of rape due to the proximity of location of BBB, who could be easily awakened at any sign of commotion. He also argues that the room where they were sleeping was small and was made of light materials; thus, any sound or struggle from AAA would be easily heard. This Court disagrees.
In People v. Corial, 43 rapists are not deterred from committing the odious act of sexual abuse by the mere presence nearby of people or even family members; rape is committed not exclusively in seclusion. Jurisprudence is clear that lust is no respecter of time or place and rape defies constraints of time and space. 44
In People v. Pareja, 45 the Court recognized that it was not improbable for the accused to have sexually abused the victim, even considering that their house was so small that they had to sleep beside each other with the private complainant sleeping beside her younger siblings. Thus, this Court rejects the argument that rape is impossible under such circumstances.
Further, the accused-appellant's imputation of ill motive on the part of BBB's siblings, who he asserts to have coerced AAA to file a case against him due to a grudge, fails to convince. Absent any concrete supporting evidence, said allegation will not convince this Court to believe that the RTC and the CA's assessment of the credibility of AAA and her supporting witnesses was tainted with arbitrariness or blindness to a fact of consequence. After all, the legal teaching continuously invigorated by jurisprudence is that motives have never swayed this Court from giving full credence to the testimony of a minor rape victim. 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. 46
Beyond reasonable doubt, accused-appellant took advantage of AAA's youth and naivete to commit the dastardly act of rape.
With respect to the qualifying circumstance of relationship, testimonial evidence exists to support the allegation that accused-appellant is the stepfather of AAA. BBB testified that she and accused-appellant married in January 2014. 47 AAA, likewise testified that she attended the wedding of her mother and accused-appellant. 48 There was also an admission on the part of accused-appellant that he is indeed the stepfather of AAA. 49 In the case of People v. Velasco, 50 the Court considered the testimonies of the victim, her mother, and the admission of the accused with respect to the existence of the marriage, as sufficient to prove the stepfather-stepdaughter relationship alleged in the Informations therein. In the same vein, the existence of the marriage, as testified by AAA and BBB, with the admission of accused-appellant that he is the stepfather of AAA constitutes as sufficient proof of the relationship of accused-appellant to AAA. To be sure, the admission made by accused-appellant in the course of his testimony constitutes as a judicial admission, which no longer require proof. 51 Such an admission dispenses with the further requirement on the part of the prosecution to prove the relationship of AAA and accused-appellant. Consequently, the age of AAA, being a child below 12 years of age, and her relationship with accused-appellant, as her stepfather was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Accused-appellant must, therefore, be held guilty of the crime of qualified rape.
With this, accused-appellant must be meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, in lien of the death penalty, pursuant to Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346 (RA 9346), entitled as "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines." We modify the amounts awarded to AAA in view of recent jurisprudence imposing a minimum amount of P100,000 as civil indemnity; P100,000.00 as moral damages; and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, in cases where the proper penalty for the crime committed by the accused is death but where it cannot be imposed because of the enactment of RA 9346. 52 Further, the civil indemnity, and the moral and exemplary damages 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 DISMISSED. The Decision dated June 25, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09836, is MODIFIED. Accused-appellant ZZZ is GUILTY of Qualified Rape and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility of parole.
Accused-appellant is ORDERED to PAY AAA the following amounts of damages: 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. The civil indemnity and the moral and exemplary damages shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED." (Leonen, J., on wellness leave; Hernando, J., Acting Chairperson, per Special Order No. 2828 dated June 21, 2021).
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Initials were used to identify the accused-appellant pursuant to Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-15 dated September 5, 2017 Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders using Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances issued on September 5, 2017.
2.Rollo, pp. 2-14; Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco (ret.), with Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon (ret.) and Rodil V. Zalameda (now a member of this Court) concurring.
3. Penned by Judge Angelene Mary W. Quimpo-Sale, CA rollo, pp. 43-56.
4. Records, pp. 1-2.
5. Geographical location blotted out pursuant to Supreme Court Amended Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017 or the Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders using Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances issued on September 5, 2017.
6. 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.
7.Supra note 4.
8.See Certificate of Arraignment, id. at p. 31.
9.Id. at p. 44.
10.Id. at p. 5.
11. TSN, April 28, 2016, p. 6.
12.Id. at p. 4.
13. Records, p. 5.
14.Id. at 11.
15. TSN, September 29, 2014, p. 7.
16. TSN, December 4, 2014, pp. 1-10.
17. Records, p. 8.
18. TSN, March 12, 2015, p. 10.
19. Records, pp. 138-143.
20.Id.
21. CA rollo, pp. 43-56.
22.Id. at p. 56.
23.Id. at p. 10.
24.Rollo, pp. 2-14.
25.SEC. 3. Person convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.
26. CA rollo, pp. 104-107.
27. REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 266-B, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, otherwise known as the "Anti-Rape Law of 1997."
28.People v. Martinez and Granada, 827 Phil. 410, 420 (2018).
29.People v. Macafe, 650 Phil. 580, 588 (2010).
30.People v. Pancho, 462 Phil. 193, 201 (2003).
31.People v. Natan, 581 Phil. 649, 655 (2008).
32. 822 Phil. 784, 797-798 (2017). (Emphases ours).
33.People v. Lansangan, 698 Phil. 847, 853 (2012).
34. Records, p. 11.
35.People v. Ramos, 838 Phil. 797, 809 (2018).
36.See Pielago v. People, 706 Phil. 460 (2013); Campos v. People, 569 Phil. 658 (2008); People v. Galigao, 443 Phil. 246 (2003).
37.People v. Francica, 817 Phil. 972, 973 (2017).
38.People v. Bagsic, supra note 31.
39. TSN, December 3, 2015, pp. 8-10.
40.People v. Tulagan, G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019.
41. TSN, February 27, 2017, p. 6.
42.People v. Tulagan, supra.
43. 451 Phil. 703, 709 (2003).
44.People v. Pareja, 724 Phil. 759, 777 (2014).
45.Id.
46.People v. Ganaba, 829 Phil. 306, 321 (2018).
47. TSN, September 29, 2014, p. 4.
48. TSN, September 3, 2015, p. 7.
49. TSN, February 27, 2017, p. 14.
50. 405 Phil. 588, 613 (2001).
51. See Rule 129, Sec. 4 of the Revised Rules on Evidence:
Section 4. Judicial admissions. — An admission, oral or written, made by [the] party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that the imputed admission was not, in fact, made. (4a)
52.People v. Gaa, 810 Phil. 860, 871 (2017).