FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236681. September 28, 2022.]
XXX, 1petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 28, 2022, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 236681 (XXX v. People of the Philippines). — This Petition for Review on Certiorari2 assails the July 17, 2017 Decision 3 and the January 19, 2018 Resolution 4 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 38837, affirming the May 3, 2016 Judgment 5 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of _________________, 6 Branch 33 in Criminal Case No. 3444-G, and denying petitioner XXX's Motion for Reconsideration, 7 respectively. The trial court found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Rape by Sexual Assault under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), 8 as amended.
Antecedents
In an Information, 9 petitioner was charged with the Rape of the 6-year-old AAA, 10 committed as follows:
That sometime in January, 2013, at _________________________, and within this Honorable Court's jurisdiction, accused, with lewd design, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, sexually molested [AAA], 6 years old[,] by removing her dress [and] inserting his finger into the vagina of [AAA], against her will, to the damage and prejudice of the latter, and detriment of her growth and development.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 11
Petitioner pleaded not guilty and pre-trial and trial ensued thereafter. 12
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented five witnesses during trial, including the victim AAA. 13 AAA's testimony was however stricken off the record after the defense was unable to cross-examine her, caused by her crying and becoming unruly every time she saw petitioner in the court room. 14
The other witnesses for the prosecution are BBB, AAA's mother; Senior Police Officer 1 Perla Exala (SPO1 Perla), the officer who interviewed AAA at the police station; CCC, AAA's younger brother who witnessed the incident; and Dr. Masonneh Shamssodin 15 (Dr. Masonneh), the doctor who examined AAA. 16
Their testimonies, including the stipulation on the statement of AAA's aunt, DDD, tended to establish the following:
Sometime in January 2013, CCC and AAA were at the house of petitioner, playing "mommy-mamihan" with petitioner's minor children, YYY and ZZZ. YYY played the role of daddy while AAA as mommy. During their game, AAA went into a room where petitioner demonstrated what a daddy does to a mommy. Petitioner removed the underwear of AAA and inserted his finger into her vagina. CCC witnessed the event through a peephole on the door. 17
BBB found out about the incident sometime in February 2013. While she was washing AAA's vagina, she noticed that it was purplish in color. Her daughter then told her that petitioner inserted his finger into her private part. Upon hearing the same, BBB brought AAA to the police station. 18
At the Women's and Children's Protection Desk, SPO1 Perla interviewed AAA. The child once again relayed that petitioner inserted his finger inside her. AAA also told SPO1 Perla that petitioner gave her coins after the incident and that petitioner often inserted his finger into her vagina. 19
Upon medical examination, Dr. Masonneh found lacerations at 6, 9, 3, and 12 o'clock positions in AAA's vagina. She noted that there was a blunt penetration, not full, in AAA's hymenal area, which was possibly caused by a sexual organ or finger, and which was infected by bacteria that possibly came from the person who abused her. 20
Version of the Defense
The defense presented two witnesses: petitioner and his minor stepdaughter VVV. 21 They testified as follows:
Petitioner stated that on the day of the incident, he was not in their home in ______________________, but in ______________ (still within ______________) working as a carpenter. He did not molest AAA. The reason why he was being accused of Rape was because his family intended to file a case against AAA's cousin who previously mauled petitioner's stepdaughter. AAA's mother also wanted money from petitioner's brother-in-law. 22
VVV, petitioner's step daughter, testified that she was a playmate of AAA and CCC. During their games, CCC would insert a barbecue stick on AAA's vagina. 23
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
The trial court found petitioner guilty of Rape by Sexual Assault under Art. 266-A, par. 2 of the RPC, viz.:
WHEREFORE, the court finds the accused [XXX] GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for rape through sexual assault under Article 266-A, paragraph 2. He is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years, ten (10) months and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum. He is ordered to pay the victim civil indemnity in the amount of P30,000.00 and moral damages in the amount of P30,000.00, with interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 24
The trial court held that the prosecution was able to prove the age of the victim (6 years old) through AAA's birth certificate which formed part of the records; that the chain of events — starting from when CCC saw petitioner insert his finger into AAA's vagina, to the discovery by BBB of AAA's painful vagina, to the family's interview with the police, and finally to when the doctor found lacerations on AAA's vagina — leads to the conclusion that petitioner indeed molested the victim; that the defense of petitioner is weak; that although the caption of the Information does not state that the charge was in relation to Republic Act No. (RA) 7610, 25 the penalty provided therefor should be imposed pursuant to jurisprudence; and that petitioner is liable for damages. 26
Thus, petitioner's appeal before the CA. 27
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The appellate court affirmed petitioner's conviction, viz.:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated 3 May 2016 of the Regional Trial Court of _____________________, Branch 33, in Criminal Case No[.] 34444-G [sic] is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 28
The CA held that the elements of Rape by Sexual Assault are present; that the element of age was established through BBB's testimony, AAA's birth certificate, as well as her physical appearance during trial; that the element of insertion of finger was established through the clear, straightforward, and sincere testimony of CCC, who was only 5 years old at the time of the incident; that the insertion was confirmed by the results of the medical examination; that the inconsistencies in CCC's testimonies are understandable; that what remains important is his positive identification of petitioner; that the uncorroborated alibi of petitioner cannot prevail over the affirmative testimony of CCC; that petitioner's imputation of ill motive does not inspire belief since it was unsubstantiated; and that the trial court imposed and awarded the correct penalty and damages, respectively. 29
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration 30 but this was denied by the appellate court. 31
Thus, this Petition. 32
Issue
Did the appellate court err in sustaining the conviction of petitioner?
Our Ruling
The petition lacks merit.
At the outset, the Court notes that petitioner raises factual questions, which are normally beyond the scope of a Rule 45 petition. 33 It is settled that this Court is not a trier of facts, and it is not its function to examine, review, and evaluate evidence already passed upon by the lower courts. 34
This rule finds an even more special application in this case, where petitioner's appeal is primarily anchored on the supposed lack of credibility of the prosecution's main witness, CCC. 35 Petitioner assails the child's testimony for being riddled with inconsistencies and for supposedly being coached by her mother. 36 However, the assessment of the credibility of witnesses is a function of the trial court, having the opportunity to observe the demeanor, attitude, and conduct of the witness while on the stand. 37 Unless the assessment is not supported by substantial evidence, the Court is bound to respect the same. 38
Here, We agree with both the RTC and the CA that although there are a few inconsistencies in the testimonies of CCC, particularly as to where exactly he was positioned when he witnessed the incident, and as to how his mother found out about it, such inconsistencies are not sufficient to discredit his testimony. Significantly, CCC was only 5 years old when he witnessed the incident, and 6 when he testified. It is thus understandable that his testimony is not perfect. 39 As consistently held by the Court, young witnesses must be accorded an ample margin of error and understanding in the evaluation of their testimonies, viz.:
As consistently ruled by the Court, the testimony of children of sound mind is likely to be more correct and truthful than that of older persons, so that once established that they have understood the character and nature of an oath, their testimony should be given full credence. The trivial inconsistencies in Ryan's eye witness narration of details are understandable, considering the suddenness of the attack, the dreadful scene unfolding before his eyes, and the imperfection of the human memory. It is for this reason that jurisprudence uniformly pronounces that minor inconsistencies in the testimony of a witness do not reflect on his [or her] credibility. What remains important is the positive identification of the accused as the assailant Ample margin of error and understanding must be accorded to young witnesses who, much more than adults, would be gripped with tension due to the novelty of the experience of testifying before the court. 40 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
In this case, what is important is that CCC remained firm in his narration that he saw petitioner insert his finger into AAA's vagina, to wit:
Q According to you, you heard [YYY] tell your sister [AAA] that your sister would lay down. Is that correct?
A Yes Sir.
Q What did you do when you heard that?
A I peeped through a hole, Sir.
Q And what did you see when you peeped through a hole?
A He was removing her panty and [XXX] is inserting [his] finger to her vagina.
xxx xxx xxx
Q When you peeped through a hole, what did you see?
A The panty of [AAA] is being removed, Sir.
Q Who was removing the panty of [AAA]?
A [XXX], Sir.
Q What else did you see aside from removing by [XXX] the panty of [AAA]?
A "Tinutusok po ng daliri ni [XXX], Sir."41 (Emphasis supplied)
In any case, petitioner's conviction is not solely anchored on CCC's testimony. As held by the trial court, the chain of events leading to petitioner's arrest supports the prosecution's theory, from the time CCC witnessed the incident, to when AAA's mother discovered the purplish vagina of her daughter, to when SPO1 Perla interviewed AAA and learned that she was molested by petitioner, until AAA was examined by a doctor who found lacerations in her vagina. 42 The totality of evidence here clearly supports petitioner's conviction.
Another reason why petitioner's appeal cannot be sustained is that as against the evidence offered by the prosecution, all petitioner could offer is bare denial and alibi. 43 He failed to substantiate his allegation that he was in ___________________ at the time of the incident, something that could have been corroborated by his co-workers or by anyone who saw at him that time. Similarly, he failed to substantiate his imputation of ill motive on the part of the victim's family. The Court is thus left with no choice but to reject his defenses. Indeed, denial and alibi are weak defenses that cannot prevail over a witness' positive identification. 44
Since the records show that that petitioner inserted his finger into the vagina of AAA, who was established to be below 12 years of age at that time, 45 the appellate court is correct in affirming petitioner's conviction under Art. 266-A, par. 2 of the RPC, which states:
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. (Emphasis supplied)
However, since AAA was under 12 years of age at the time of the incident, the nomenclature of the offense should be modified to "Sexual Assault under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Section 5 (b) of [RA] 7610" pursuant to People v. Tulagan, 46viz.:
Considering the development of the crime of sexual assault from a mere "crime against chastity" in the form of acts of lasciviousness to a "crime against persons" akin to rape, as well as the rulings in Dimakuta and Caoili, We hold that if the acts constituting sexual assault are committed against a victim under 12 years of age or is demented, the nomenclature of the offense should now be "Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610" and no longer "Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610," because sexual assault as a form of acts of lasciviousness is no longer covered by Article 336 but by Article 266-A (2) of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 8353. Nevertheless, the imposable penalty is still reclusion temporal in its medium period, and not prision mayor. 47
Pursuant to the same ruling, the penalty to be imposed upon petitioner should be that provided in RA 7610. 48 Under Section 5 (b), Article III thereof, the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under 12 years of age is reclusion temporal in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, 49 the appellate court correctly affirmed the indeterminate penalty of 12 years, 10 months and 21 days of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to 15 years, 6 months and 20 days of reclusion temporal, as maximum. 50
Finally, for the damages, the civil indemnity and moral damages awarded to the victim should be increased to P50,000.00 each pursuant to People v. Tulagan. 51 Petitioner should also pay the victim exemplary damages of P50,000.00 to set a public example and to protect the young from sexual abuse. 52
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The July 17, 2017 Decision and the January 19, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 38837 are AFFIRMED, with the modifications that petitioner XXX is held GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Sexual Assault under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610; that the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages are INCREASED to P50,000.00 each; that petitioner is ORDERED to pay the victim exemplary damages of P50,000.00; and that all monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Initials were used to identify the accused-appellant pursuant to the Supreme Court Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 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."
2. Rollo, pp. 10-33.
3. Id. at 35-49. Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion and concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes.
4. Id. at 51-52. Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion and concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes.
5. Id. at 72-81. Penned by Presiding Judge Frazierwin V. Viterbo.
6. Geographical location is blotted out pursuant to Supreme Court Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015.
7. Rollo, pp. 96-102.
8. Entitled "AN ACT REVISING THE PENAL CODE AND OTHER PENAL LAWS." Approved: December 8, 1930.
9. Records, p. 1.
10. "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, 2004." (People v. Dumadag, 667 Phil. 664, 669 [2011]).
11. Id.
12. Rollo, p. 72.
13. Id. at 36-37.
14. Id. at 37.
15. Also referred to as Dr. Masonneh Shamsoddin in the rollo.
16. Rollo, pp. 36-37.
17. Id. at 74.
18. Id. at 73.
19. Id. at 73-74.
20. Id. at 74.
21. Id. at 75.
22. Id.
23. Id.
24. Id. at 81.
25. Entitled "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: June 17, 1992.
26. Rollo, pp. 76-80.
27. Records, pp. 243-244.
28. Rollo, p. 48.
29. Id. at 40-48.
30. Id. at 96-102.
31. Id. at 51-52.
32. Id. at 10-33.
33. See RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, Sec. 1.
34. CICL XXX v. People, G.R. No. 246146, March 18, 2021, citing Cedeño v. People, 820 Phil. 575, 600 (2017).
35. Rollo, pp. 59-66.
36. Id.
37. People v. Sumayod, G.R. No. 230626, March 9, 2020, citing People v. Gahi, 727 Phil. 642, 658 (2014).
38. See Seguritan v. People, 632 Phil. 415, 418 (2010).
39. See People v. Avila, 787 Phil. 346, 359-360 (2016). Citations omitted.
40. Id.
41. TSN, November 24, 2014, pp. 6-7.
42. Rollo, pp. 77-78.
43. Id. at 75.
44. People v. Piosang, 710 Phil. 519, 527 (2013).
45. Rollo, pp. 40-41. The Court fully concurs with the lower courts' uniform factual finding that the victim was only 6 years old during the incident, as this is adequately supported by the evidence on record.
46. G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019.
47. Id.
48. Id.
49. Entitled "AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR AN INDETERMINATE SENTENCE AND PAROLE FOR ALL PERSONS CONVICTED OF CERTAIN CRIMES BY THE COURTS OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS; TO CREATE A BOARD OF INDETERMINATE SENTENCE AND TO PROVIDE FUNDS THEREFOR; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." Approved: December 5, 1933.
50. See People v. Tulagan, supra.
51. Id.
52. Id.