THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 260301. August 23, 2022.]
XXX, 1petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 23, 2022, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 260301 (XXX, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.) — Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments, adduced in the Petition for Review on Certiorari, 2 the Court resolves to DENY it for failure to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in rendering the assailed Decision 3 dated May 20, 2021 and Resolution 4 dated March 31, 2022 in CA-G.R. CR No. 44301. The CA correctly affirmed the Decision 5 dated November 5, 2019 of Branch 5, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila in Criminal Case No. 07-258059 that found XXX (petitioner) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Rape through Sexual Assault, defined and penalized under Article 266-A paragraph (2) and Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act No. (RA) 8353. 6
In the instant petition, petitioner challenges AAA's 7 credibility by pointing out some inconsistencies in her statements. According to him, AAA's version of what transpired should not be given credence considering that she admitted during trial that she could no longer recall the exact year the incident happened. He likewise pointed out that AAA's Sworn Affidavit that the incident supposedly happened in December 2006 is inconsistent with her statement during trial that the incident happened in 2007. 8
Petitioner is grasping at straws.
Records disclose that petitioner is guilty of Rape through Sexual Assault defined under Article 266-A (2) of the RPC, in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610. 9 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:
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. (Italics Supplied)
Particularly, the elements of Rape by Sexual Assault are:
(1) That the offender commits an act of sexual assault;
(2) That the act of sexual assault is committed by any of the following means:
(a) By inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice; or
xxx xxx xxx
(3) That the act of sexual assault is accomplished under any of the following circumstances:
(a) By using force and intimidation;
(b) When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or
(c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; or
(d) When the woman is under 12 years of age or demented. 10 (Citation omitted)
On the other hand, Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610 provides:
Section 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.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:
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; and
xxx xxx xxx
The essential elements of sexual abuse under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 are as follows: (1) the accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) the said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and (3) the child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age. 11
Meanwhile, lascivious conduct is defined in Section 2 (h) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 7610 as:
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.
Here, the prosecution had sufficiently established the elements of Rape through Sexual Assault under Article 266-A (2) of the RPC, in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610, i.e., that petitioner inserted his penis into AAA's mouth and afterwards, licked her vagina. The prosecution also proved that AAA was born on September 3, 1996. Undeniably, she was merely 10 years old when petitioner molested her in December 2006.
The Court finds no doubt as to AAA's credibility and has no reason to deviate from the findings of the RTC and CA in lending credence to the victim's version of the incident.
The findings of the trial court which are factual in nature and which involve the credibility of witnesses are accorded respect, if not finality by the appellate court, when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, and speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. 12 The trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses first hand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grueling examination. 13
Petitioner's argument with regard to AAA's alleged inconsistent statements as to the year (2006 or 2007) when the crime was committed deserves scant consideration.
To stress, the exact date or time when the rape was committed is not an element of the crime of Rape. The exact date or time when petitioner allegedly molested AAA is immaterial; it cannot diminish AAA's credibility. The alleged inconsistencies do not affect AAA's testimonies, especially with respect to the fact of molestation and AAA's positive identification of petitioner as the molester. Further, whether the crime was committed in 2006 or 2007, the fact remains that AAA was a minor when she was molested.
AAA's failure to recall the exact year, whether it was in 2006 or 2007, when she was sexually abused does not impair her credibility. For where the time of commission is not an essential element of the crime charged, conviction may be had on proof of the commission of the crime, even if it appears that the crime was not committed at the precise time alleged. 14 Precision as to the time when the rape is committed has no bearing on its commission. 15
In addition, AAA cannot be expected to give a very accurate recollection of every detail regarding the sexual abuse because she was only 10 years old at the time of the abuse; she testified in court when she was already 22 years old. "Slight inconsistencies in the testimony even strengthen credibility as they show that the 'testimony was not rehearsed.' What is important is that there is consistency as to the occurrence and identity of the perpetrator." 16
AAA's testimony is worthy of full faith and credence as there is no proof that AAA was motivated to falsely accuse petitioner of the crime charged.
In addition, AAA executed a sworn affidavit dated January 27, 2007 stating that the incident occurred in December 2006. 17 This documentary evidence confirms that the molestation happened in 2006.
Further, the Court cannot accede to petitioner's assertion that it was impossible for him to commit the crime in his own house where his eight children also reside. It is recognized that lust is no respecter of time and place. 18 Sexual abuse can thus be committed even in places where people congregate, in parks, along the roadside, within school premises, inside a house where there are other occupants, and even in the same room where other members of the family are also sleeping. 19
Finally, there is a need to modify the nomenclature of the crime committed. Petitioner should be held guilty of Sexual Assault defined under Article 266-A (2) of the RPC, in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610, in conformity with People v. Tulagan20(Tulagan). In Tulagan, rape by sexual assault of a child below 12 years of age, as in the case at bench, is Sexual Assault under Article 266-A (2) of the RPC, in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610.
Likewise, the RTC and CA correctly imposed the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal, as minimum to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months, and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as maximum.
Following the ruling in Tulagan, Sexual Assault under Article 266-A (2) of the RPC, in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 is punishable by reclusion temporal in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term of the indeterminate penalty shall be that which could be properly imposed under the law, which is fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal. On the other hand, the minimum term shall be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree, which is reclusion temporal in its minimum period, or twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months. Thus, the penalty imposed by the RTC and CA is in order.
Also, the civil liability as well as moral and exemplary damages imposed in the amount of P50,000.00 each is likewise in accord with the pronouncement in Tulagan.
However, a fine in the amount of P15,000.00 is imposed against petitioner in accordance with Section 31 (f), 21 Article XII of RA 7610. Additionally, all monetary awards should earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of the finality of this Resolution until fully paid. 22
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated May 20, 2021 and Resolution dated March 31, 2022, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 44301 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner XXX is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Sexual Assault under Article 266-A (2) of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610. He is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months, and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as maximum. Further, he is ORDERED to pay AAA the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P15,000.00 as a fine. The amounts shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. 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 not be disclosed to protect her privacy, and fictitious initial shall, instead, be used, pursuant to Republic Act No. 7610 approved on June 17, 1992, RA 9262 approved on March 8, 2004, and Section 40 A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC (November 15, 2004). (See footnote 4 in People v. Cadano, Jr., 729 Phil. 576, 578 [2014], citing People v. Lomaque, 710 Phil. 338, 342 [2013]. See also Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017.)
2. Rollo, pp. 11-27.
3. Id. at 29-39. Penned by Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and concurred by Associate Justices Emily R. Aliño-Geluz and Raymund Reynold R. Lauigan.
4. Id. at 41-42. Penned by Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and concurred by Associate Justices Emily R. Aliño-Geluz and Raymund Reynold R. Lauigan.
5. Id. at 56-75. Penned by Presiding Judge Emily San Gaspar-Gito.
6. The Anti-Rape Law of 1997, approved on September 30, 1997.
7. 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 not be disclosed to protect her privacy, and fictitious initial shall, instead, be used, pursuant to Republic Act No. 7610 approved on June 17, 1992, RA 9262 approved on March 8, 2004, and Section 40 A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC (November 15, 2004). (See footnote 4 in People v. Cadano, Jr., 729 Phil. 576, 578 [2014], citing People v. Lomaque, 710 Phil. 338, 342 [2013]. See also Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017.)
8. Rollo, pp. 19-20.
9. Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, approved on June 17, 1992.
10. People v. Pueyo, G.R. No. 192327, February 26, 2020.
11. People v. Bejim, 824 Phil. 10, 28 (2018).
12. Estrella v. People, G.R. No. 212942, June 17, 2020, citing People v. Aspa, 838 Phil. 302, 311-312 (2018).
13. See People v. Manzano, G.R. No. 217974, March 5, 2018.
14. XXX v. People, G.R. No. 249595 (Notice), November 11, 2020.
15. People v. ZZZ, G.R. No. 224584, September 4, 2019.
16. Cirera v. People, 739 Phil. 25, 38 (2014).
17. Rollo, p. 66.
18. People v. CCC, G.R. No. 239336, June 3, 2019.
19. Id.
20. G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019.
21. Section 31. Common Penal Provisions. —
xxx xxx xxx
(f) A fine to be determined by the court shall be imposed and administered as a cash fund by the Department of Social Welfare and Development and disbursed for the rehabilitation of each child victim, or any immediate member of his family if the latter is the perpetrator of the offense.
22. Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013); People v. Briones, G.R. No. 240217, June 23, 2020.