FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 208842, November 10, 2015
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. REYNALDO SIMBULAN ARCEO, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PEREZ, J.:
Before us for review is the Decision1 dated 12 March 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04544 which affirmed the Judgment2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City, Pampanga, Branch 60, in Criminal Case No. 00-871, finding accused-appellant Reynaldo Simbulan Arceo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.
Accused-appellant was charged with rape in an Information, the accusatory portion of which reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
That on or about the 22nd day of July 2000, in the [M]unicipality of Magalang, [P]rovince of Pampanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused Reynaldo Simbulan Arceo, with lewd design, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with [MMM],3 twelve (12) years old, a minor, against her will and without her consent.4cralawlawlibrary
GENITALIA: With abrasion at the left upper & middle quadrant of the labia minora.13cralawlawlibrary
WHEREFORE, finding the accused Reynaldo Simbulan Arceo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape and considering the presence of aggravating circumstance of minority, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in this case.Accused-appellant appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals on 7 June 2010,18 arguing that:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Accused is likewise ordered to indemnify the victim [MMM] the amount of P75,000.00 and another amount of P75,000.00 as moral damages.
With cost against the accused.17
I.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF RAPE UNDER PARAGRAPH 1(A), ARTICLE 266-A OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 8353, DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF INTIMIDATION;II.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT; ANDIII.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF RAPE UNDER PARAGRAPH 1(D), ARTICLE 266-A OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 8353, DESPITE THE CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT WAS OVER TWELVE (12) YEARS OLD AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED RAPE ON JULY 22, 2000.19cralawlawlibrary
[D]ue to its intimate nature, rape is usually a crime bereft of witnesses, and, more often than not, the victim is left to testify for herself. Thus, in the resolution of rape cases, the victim's credibility becomes the primordial consideration. It is settled that when the victim's testimony is straightforward, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things, unflawed by any material or significant inconsistency, it passes the test of credibility, and the accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof.25ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
cralawlawlibrary
It must be noted that even during the cross-examination, MMM did not waver and remained consistent all throughout, viz.:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Q: x x x x x x x When you were then sleeping on July 22, 2001 at around 2:30 o'clock (sic) in the morning, do you remember having unusual incident that happened? A: There is. Q: What was the unusual incident that happened? Court: That was already asked last time. Pros. Pangilinan: Not yet, Your Honor. Court: Okay, may answer. A: Someone entered our house, sir. Pros. Pangilinan: And did you come to know the person who entered your house? A: Yes sir. Q: Who was this person? A: Reynaldo Simbulan Arceo, sir. Q: Are you referring to the accused in this case? A: Yes sir. Q: How did you come to know that accused entered your house on the said date and time? A: Because I was able to see him and I was able to recognize him, sir. Q: How were you able to recognize him? A: Because the florescent lamp (sic) of our neighbor who is a tailor reflects through the window which has no covering. Q: Where was the accused when you saw his face? Atty. Yao: Objection. That will be very leading. Pros. Pangilinan: Where was the accused when you recognized him? A: He was [in front] of me sir. Q: What was his position when he was [in front] of you? A: I could not exactly tell his position but I know he was [in front] of me, sir. Q: What about you, what was your position then? A: I was [lying] down, sir. Q: What was he doing when you noticed him? A: That is it sir, he covered my mouth. Court: You did not see his position the first time you saw him facing you? A: No ma'am because he covered my mouth. Court: Where was his body in relation to you when you were [lying] down? A: On a leaning position and covering my mouth, ma'am. Court: Where was he, to your left or to your right? A: He was in front of me, ma'am. Pros. Pangilinan: What happened to you when he covered your mouth? A: I fought back, sir. Q: What did he do when you fought back? Court: The Court would like to determine the position of the accused. You said that the accused was leaning towards you. Do you know if his feet were straddle[d] on top of you? A: He is in a straddle position. Q: How did you fight him? A: I kicked him, sir. Q: On what part of his body did you kick him? A: On his stomach (witness pointing to her stomach). Q: What prompted you to kick him? A: Because I am afraid that he might harm us. Q: Why are you afraid that he might harm you? A: I am afraid that he might rape me and might do something bad against me. Pros. Pangilinan: By the way, what were you wearing at that time? A: I was wearing a sweater and shorts sir. Q: Do you have any underwear at that time? A: Yes sir. Q: When you were awaken[ed] by that person who was in front of you[,] did you notice the relative position of your short pants and underwear? A: The shorts was already unzipped together with the buttons and my panty was already pulled down up to my thighs, sir.30
cralawlawlibrary
Q: And all of you were sleeping in one room? A: Yes, sir, we were sleeping beside each other. Q: In relation to this Aaron and other siblings, where were you situated? A: I was in the middle between my youngest and second to the youngest siblings, sir. Q: During that time where were your parents? A: They were in Manila, sir. Q: Do you know why they were in Manila? A: They were working, sir. Q: In particular, who is working, your father or your mother or both of them? A: Both of them, sir. Q: Who is left to take care of you while your father and your mother were working in Manila? A: The mother of Aaron, ate Vangie, was the one taking care of us but she is not sleeping with us, sir. Court: Q: Where does she sleep? A: In their house, ma'am Atty. Yao: Q: How far is their house in relation to your house where you were staying madam witness? A: Five (5) houses away from our house, sir. Q: You said that you were suddenly awakened by someone whom you thought was your father and you stated that this person suddenly covered your mouth with his hand and you fought back when he tried to cover your mouth, were you still lying on the floor? A: Yes, sir. Q: When you fought back did you notice if Aaron and other siblings were awakened? A: I did not notice, sir. Q: Did you not try to ask or try to get hold of them while you were fighting back during that time madam witness? A: No sir. Q: Thereafter, you stated you shouted for help, during that time that you shouted for help was this person who covered your mouth still in your room? A: When I shouted for help he already left because I kicked him and he readily ran outside, sir. Q: You said that you kicked him, what part of his body did you kick him? A: On his stomach, sir. Q: And then you stated that [you] stood up to ask for help, is that correct? A: Yes, sir. Q: And it was during that time when you stood up and your short pants [fell] down, is that correct madam witness? A: Yes, sir.31
Premised on MM[M]'s narration that she was awakened by pain on her vagina and shocked to find her short[s] and panty lowered and accused-appellant on top of her who promptly covered her mouth to silence her, there is indubitable proof that accused-appellant had sexual intercourse with her. As heretofore stated, full penetration is not necessary to prove rape, as the slightest penetration or mere touching of the labia consummates the crime. In this case, the fact of forceful sexual intercourse is even bolstered and confirmed by the physical examination on the private part of MM[M] which revealed that she sustained abrasions on the left upper and middle quadrant of her labia minora. Indeed, as jurisprudence tell [u]s, when a victim's testimony of her violation is corroborated by physical finding of penetration, there is sufficient foundation for concluding that there was carnal knowledge.33ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
cralawlawlibrary
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 2-10; Penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios with Associate Justices Remedios Salazar-Fernando and Normandie B. Pizarro concurring.
2 CA rollo, pp. 13-32; Presided by Judge Ofelia Tuazon Pinto.
3 The real names of the victim and of the members of her immediate family are withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act) and Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004).
4 Records, p. 2.
5 Id. at 13.
6 TSN, 23 March 2001, pp. 2-4
7 TSN, 7 September 2001, p. 4.
8 TSN, 23 March 2001, p. 4.
9 TSN, 6 February 2002, p. 6.
10 TSN, 6 July 2001, pp. 4-5.
11 TSN, 13 September 2002, pp. 4-5.
12 Records, pp. 11-12.
13 Id. at 14.
14 TSN, 13 January 2006, p. 5.
15 TSN, 18 January 2008, pp. 2-3.
16Rollo, p. 5.
17 CA rollo, p. 32.
18 Id. at 33.
19Rollo, pp. 5-6.
20 Id. at 16.
21 Id. at 18-19 and 22-23.
22 CA rollo, pp. 47-63.
23 Id. at 107-123.
24 G.R. No. 200645, 20 August 2014, 733 SCRA 561.
25 Id. at 574.
26People v. Lumaho, G.R. No. 208716, 24 September 2014, 736 SCRA 542, 553.
27 CA rollo, p. 85.
28Rollo, p. 9.
29 People v. Baldo, 599 Phil. 382, 388 (2009).
30 TSN, 23 March 2001, pp. 2-4.
31 TSN, 7 September 2001, pp. 3-4.
32 Records, p. 12.
33Rollo, p. 8.
34People v. Esperanza, 453 Phil. 54, 77 (2003).
35 G.R. No. 184762, 25 February 2015.
35People v. Cabungan, G.R. No. 189355, 23 January 2013, 689 SCRA 236, 248-249.