FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 254947. * June 30, 2021.]
ALVIN SAMBILE y PANGILINAN, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 30, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 254947 — ALVIN SAMBILE y PANGILINAN, petitioner, versus PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
After a careful review of the Petition and its annexes, the Court finds no error in the Decision 1 dated January 29, 2020 issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 43030. The CA did not err in finding petitioner Alvin Sambile y Pangilinan (petitioner Sambile) guilty of the crimes of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 2 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in relation to Section 5 (b) 3 of Republic Act (RA) No. 7610 4 and Rape by Sexual Assault under Article 266-A (2) 5 of the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA No. 7610.
It is a well-settled doctrine that when the case pivots on the issue of the credibility of the victim, the findings of the trial court necessarily carry great weight and respect. 6 This is because the trial court's determination proceeds from its first-hand opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, their conduct and attitude under grilling examination, thereby placing the trial court in the unique position to assess the witnesses' credibility and to appreciate their truthfulness, honesty and candor. 7 Moreover, when the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to his or her account of what transpired, considering not only his or her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which he or she would be exposed if the matter to which he or she testified is not true. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. 8
In the case at bar, as in most acts of lasciviousness and rape cases, the issue boils down to the credibility of the victim. In his appeal before this Court, petitioner Sambile raises the same arguments already disposed of by the lower courts:
Appellant attempted to discredit the testimony of private complainant by alleging that he could not have been raped because he acted as if nothing had happened and still went to appellant's house on February 10, 2017 despite having been molested three (3) days earlier on February 7, 2017. Contrary to appellant's contention, these do not affect private complainant's credibility. It has been held that the workings of the human mind placed under emotional stress are unpredictable such that different people react differently to a given situation or type of situation and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience. Victims of a crime as heinous as rape, cannot be expected to act within reason or in accordance with society's expectations. It may be well to add that private complainant was eleven (11) years old when he was sexually assaulted by appellant. It is unreasonable to demand a standard rational reaction to an irrational experience, especially from a young victim such as private complainant.
Appellant's attempt to discredit the testimony of private complainant because he failed to disclose in his sworn statement that on the first incident on February 7, 2017, appellant removed his pajamas before touching his penis and buttocks and that appellant showed him pictures of children he has previously molested must fail. Inconsistencies between the declarations of the affiant in a sworn statement and in open court do not necessarily discredit the witness nor is it fatal to the prosecution's cause. Suffice it to state that if there is an inconsistency between the affidavit and the testimony of a witness, the latter should be given more weight since affidavits being taken ex parte are usually incomplete and inaccurate.
There is similarly no merit in the ill motive imputed by appellant to private complainant which purportedly prompted him to testify falsely against him, that is, that private complainant wanted revenge on private complainant because the latter threatened to remove him from the basketball team. On cross-examination, appellant himself agreed that the motive is too trivial to merit serious consideration. As such, private complainant's credibility is strengthened by his clear lack of ill motive to falsify such charges against appellant. 9
AAA's 10 supposed delay in reporting the incidents subject of this case should not be taken against him, especially since AAA was then only 11 years old and petitioner Sambile is his basketball coach. Victims of a heinous crime, such as rape, cannot be expected to act within reason or in accordance with society's expectations. It is unreasonable to demand a standard rational reaction to an irrational experience, especially from a young boy victimized by someone who had moral ascendancy over him. One cannot be expected to act as usual in an unfamiliar situation as it is impossible to predict the workings of a human mind placed under emotional stress. Moreover, it is wrong to say that there is a standard reaction or behavior among victims of the crime of rape since each of them had to cope with different circumstances. 11 CAIHTE
With respect to the discrepancy in AAA's sworn statement and testimony, the same has no bearing on petitioner Sambile's conviction for the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness. Inconsistencies on minor details do not impair the credibility of the witnesses where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the assailant. 12 Whether AAA still had his pajama bottoms on when petitioner Sambile touched his penis and buttocks is irrelevant to the elements of the crime charged. Section 2 (h) of the Rules and Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases clarified lascivious conduct as:
SECTION 2. Definition of Terms. — As used in these Rules, unless the context requires otherwise —
xxx xxx xxx
h) "Lascivious conduct" means the intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person[.] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Finally, the CA was correct in modifying the nomenclature of the crimes charged against petitioner Sambile, the terms of imprisonment imposed on him, and the amount of damages awarded to AAA following prevailing jurisprudence. 13
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated January 29, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 43030, finding petitioner Alvin Sambile y Pangilinan GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the crimes of (1) Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610 and (2) Rape by Sexual Assault under Article 266-A (2) of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* No unmodified version because the real name of the victim cannot be ascertained from the rollo.
1.Rollo, pp. 32-50. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia, with Associate Justices Pedro B. Corales and Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig, concurring.
2. Art. 336. Acts of lasciviousness. — Any person who shall commit any act of lasciviousness upon other persons of either sex, under any of the circumstances mentioned in the preceding article, shall be punished by prision correccional.
3. SEC. 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.
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 victim 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[.]
4. AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION, PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR ITS VIOLATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, approved on June 17, 1992.
5. Article 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. — Rape is committed —
xxx xxx xxx
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.
6.People v. Aguilar, G.R. No. 177749, December 17, 2007, 540 SCRA 509, 522.
7.Medina, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 161308, January 15, 2014, 713 SCRA 311, 320.
8.People v. Padit, G.R. No. 202978, February 1, 2016, 782 SCRA 562, 572.
9.Rollo, pp. 44-45.
10. The real name of the victim, his or her personal circumstances and other information which tend to establish or compromise his or her identity, as well as those of his or her immediate family, or household members, shall not be disclosed to protect his or her privacy, and fictitious initial shall, instead, be used, in accordance with People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 (2006), and Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017.
11.People v. Gersamio, G.R. No. 207098, July 8, 2015, 762 SCRA 390, 404.
12.People v. Pulgo, G.R. No. 218205, July 5, 2017, 830 SCRA 220, 231.
13. See People v. Tulagan, G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019, 896 SCRA 307.