THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 208173, June 11, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. OLIVER A. BUCLAO, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
In Criminal Case No. 06-CR-6298:Accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty, and the cases were tried jointly.5cralawredINFORMATION
The undersigned prosecutor accuses OLIVER A. BUCLAO of the crime of Rape, defined under Article 266-A, par. 1 (a & c), and penalized under Article 266-B, both of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, otherwise known as "The Anti-Rape Law of 1997", in relation to Republic Act No. 7610, committed as follows:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryThat on or about the third week of September 2004, at Camanggaan, Virac, Municipality of Itogon, Province of Benguet, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, who is the biological father of the complainant, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by means of force, threats, intimidation and grave abuse of authority, have carnal knowledge with her daughter AAA who is a minor, being fifteen (15) years old, against her will and consent, to her great damage, prejudice and mental anguish.CONTRARY TO LAW. In Criminal Case No. 06-CR-6299:INFORMATION
The undersigned prosecutor accuses OLIVER A. BUCLAO of the crime of Rape, defined under Article 266-A, par. 1 (a & c), and penalized under Article 266-B, both of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, otherwise known as "The Anti-Rape Law of 1997", in relation to Republic Act No. 7610, committed as follows:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryThat on or about the 3rd day of June 2003, at Camanggaan, Virac, Municipality of Itogon, Province of Benguet, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, who is the biological father of the complainant, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by means of force, threats, intimidation and grave abuse of authority, have carnal knowledge with her daughter [sic] AAA who is a minor, being fifteen (15) years old, against her will and consent, to her great damage, prejudice and mental anguish.CONTRARY TO LAW.4
WHEREFORE, accused OLIVER BUCLAO is hereby found GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of TWO COUNTS OF RAPE. ITe is sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua for each case.On review, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification35 the trial court's decision. It held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code.36 AAA was able to narrate in detail the antecedents and the surrounding circumstances of both rape incidents.37 Accused-appellant's defense of denial and ill motives of AAA's grandmother in prodding AAA to file the case are insufficient to rebut the evidence and arguments presented by the prosecution.38cralawred
Further, accused Oliver Buclao is ordered to pay the victim child the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and another P30,000.00 as exemplary damages for each of the two counts of Rape.
Furnish copy of this Consolidated Judgment to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Benguet, the complainant, the accused and her counsel.
SO ORDERED.34
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED and the August 17, 2011 Consolidated Judgment of the Regional Trial Court (Family Court for Benguet Province), Branch 9, in LA Trinidad, Benguet in Crim. Cases Nos. 06-CR-6298 and 06-CR-6299 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant OLIVER BUCLAO is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of the crime of QUALIFIED RAPE, and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, in lieu of death, without eligibility for parole, for each case. He is ORDERED to pay the victim AAA Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity, Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages and Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages, for each of the two counts of rape.On September 11, 2013, we issued a resolution which noted the records forwarded by the Court of Appeals, notified the parties that they may file their respective' supplemental briefs if they so desire, and required the Chief Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prison to confirm the confinement of accused-appellant.40cralawred
SO ORDERED.39 (Emphasis in the original)
Article 266-A. Rape: When And How Committed. - Rape is committed:Rape is qualified when "the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim."53 The elements of qualified rape are: "(1) sexual congress; (2) with a woman; (3) [done] by force and without consent; ... (4) the victim is under eighteen years of age at the time of the rape; and (5) the offender is a parent (whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted) of the victim."54cralawred
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.52
The absence of external signs or physical injuries on the complainant's body does not necessarily negate the commission of rape, hymenal laceration not being, to repeat, an element of the crime of rape. A healed or fresh laceration would of course be a compelling proof of defloration. [However,] the foremost consideration in the prosecution of rape is the victim's testimony and not the findings of the medico-legal officer.58We also disagree with accused-appellant's argument that private complainant AAA's delay in reporting the alleged rape incidents, together with the prodding of AAA's grandmother, signals the falsity of the rape allegations. In People v. Delos Reyes,59 this court ruled that:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
The failure to immediately report the dastardly acts to her family or to the authorities at the soonest possible time or her failure to immediately change her clothes is not enough reason to cast reasonable doubt on the guilt of [accused]. This Court has repeatedly held that delay in reporting rape incidents, in the face of threats of physical violence, cannot be taken against the victim. Further, it has been written that a rape victim's actions are oftentimes overwhelmed by fear rather than by reason. It is this fear, springing from the initial rape, that the perpetrator hopes to build a climate of extreme psychological terror, which would, he hopes, numb his victim into silence and submissiveness.60To this court's mind, there can be no greater source of fear or intimidation than your own father — one who, generally, has exercised authority over your person since birth. Delay brought by fear for one's life cannot be deemed unreasonable. This court has recognized the moral ascendancy and influence the father has over his child.61 In cases of qualified rape, moral ascendancy or influence supplants the element of violence or intimidation.62 It is not only an element of the crime, but it is also a factor in evaluating whether the delay in reporting the incident was unreasonable.
Endnotes:
* Villarama, Jr., J., designated as Acting Member per Special Order No. 1691 dated May 22, 2014 in view of the vacancy in the Third Division.
1Rollo, p. 2.
2 CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05240, Court of Appeals, Special Thirteenth Division per Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican with Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios and Associate Justice Agnes Reyes-Carpio concurring.
3See Rep. Act No. 7610 (1992), Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act.
4Rollo, pp. 3-4.
5 Id. at 4.
6See People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703, 709 (2006) [Per J. Tinga, En Banc], citing Rep. Act No. 9262 (2004), An Act Defining Violence Against Women And Their Children, Providing For Protective Measures For Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefore, And For Other Purposes, sec. 44.
7Rollo, p. 4.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Id. at 4-5.
14 Id. at 5.
15 Id.
16 Id.
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Id.
20 Id.
21 Id.
22 Id.
23 Id.
24 Id.
25 Id.
26 Id.
27 Id. at 5-6.
28 Id. at 6.
29 Id.
30 Id.
31 Id.
32 Id. at 6-7.
33 Id. at 7.
34 Id.
35 Id. at 14.
36 Id. at 8.
37 Id. at 8-11.
38 Id. at 13.
39 Id. at 14-15.
40 Id. at 21.
41 Id. at 32-33.
42 CA records, p. 45.
43 Id. at 46.
44 Id.
45 Id.
46 Id. at 47.
47 Id.
48 Id. at 73.
49 Id. at 77.
50 Id. at 77-78.
51 Id. at 12-15.
52 REV. PEN. CODE (1930), art. 266-A, as amended by Rep. Act No. 8353 (1997).
53 REV. PEN. CODE (1930), art. 266-B, as amended by Rep. Act No. 8353 (1997).
54People v. Candellada, G.R. No. 189293, July 10, 2013, 701 SCRA 19, 30 [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
55Rollo, p. 11.
56People v. Gani, G.R. No. 195523, June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA 530, 537 [Per J. Peralta, Third Division]; See People v. Delos Reyes, G.R. No. 177357, October 17, 2012, 684 SCRA 260, 275 [Per J. Mendoza, Third Division] wherein this court held that "[t]he rule is well-settled that when the decision hinges on the credibility of witnesses and their respective testimonies, the trial court's observations and conclusions deserve great respect and are accorded finality, unless the records show facts or circumstances of material weight and substance that the lower court overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated, and which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the case." See also People v. Mirandilla, Jr., G.R. No. 186417, July 27, 2011, 654 SCRA 761, 771 [Per J. Perez, Second Division], citing Soriano v. People, 579 Phil. 83, 97 [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Second Division].
57 616 Phil. 275 (2009) [Per J. Velasco, Third Division].
58 Id. at 288, citing People v. Boromeo, G.R. No. 150501, June 3, 2004, 430 SCRA 533, 542 [Per Curiam, En Banc] and People v. Espino, Jr., 577 Phil. 546, 566 (2008) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
59 G.R. No. 177357, October 17, 2012, 684 SCRA 260 [Per J. Mendoza, Third Division].
60 Id. at 279-280.
61People v. Pioquinto, 549 Phil. 479, 486^87 (2007) [Per J. Corona, En Banc].
62People v. Candellada, G.R. No. 189293, July 10, 2013, 701 SCRA 19, 32 [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
63People v. Venturina, G.R. No. 183097, September 12, 2012, 680 SCRA 508, 516 [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division].
64People v. Alvero, 386 Phil. 181, 200 (2000) [Per Curiam, En Banc]; see People v. Piosang, G.R. No. 200329, June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA 587, 596 [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
65See People v. Laurino, G.R. No. 199264, October 24, 2012, 684 SCRA 612, 620 [Per J. Reyes, First Division]; People v. Tamano, G.R. No. 188855, December 8, 2010, 637 SCRA 672, 689 [Per J. Perez, First Division],
66People v. Rubio, G.R. No. 195239, March 7, 2012, 667 SCRA 753, 766-767 [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Third Division].
67 Rep. Act No. 9346 (2006), An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines.
68See Rep. Act No. 9346 (2006), sec. 2, par. a; see also People v. Rubio, G.R. No. 195239, March 7, 2012, 667 SCRA 753 [Per J. Velasco, Third Division].
69See People v. Piosang, G.R. No. 200329, June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA 587, 599 [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division]; People v. Pamintuan, G.R. No. 192239, June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA 470, 485 [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
70 See People v. Piosang, G.R. No. 200329, June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA 587, 599 [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division]; People v. Pamintuan, G.R. No. 192239, June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA 470, 485 [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
71People v. Gambao, G.R. No. 172707, October 1, 2013, 706 SCRA 508 [Per J. Perez, En Banc].
72 Id. at 533.
73See People v. Cruz, G.R. No. 201728, July 17, 2013, 701 SCRA 548, 559-560 [Per J. Reyes, First Division], citing People v. Cabungan, G.R. No. 189355, January 23, 2013, 689 SCRA 236, 249 [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division]; People v. Gani, G.R. No. 195523, June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA 530, 540 [Per J. Peralta, Third Division], citing People v. Amistoso, G.R. No. 201447, January 9, 2013, 688 SCRA 376, 395-396 [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division]; People v. Arpon, G.R. No. 183563, December 14,2011, 662 SCRA 506, 540 [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].