THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 218255, April 11, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JERRY BUGNA Y BRITANICO, Accused-Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
MARTIRES, J.:
This is an appeal from the 17 December 2014 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01055-MIN, which affirmed with modification the 15 May 2012 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx South Cotabato (RTC), in Criminal Case Nos. 4613-S and 4614-S, finding accused-appellant Jerry Bugna y Britanico (Bugna) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of Qualified Rape defined and penalized under Article 266-B(1) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
That on or about the 7th day of April 2007 at around 8:00 o'clock in the evening, in their own house situated at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Province of South Cotabato and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one [AAA], 16 years old and xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx against her will and consent4In a separate information of the same date, Bugna was charged with another count of rape against AAA. The accusatory portion of the information reads:
That on or about the 21st day of December 2007 at around 2:00 o'clock in the morning, in their own house situated at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Province of South Cotabato and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one [AAA], 16 years old and xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx against her will and consent.5During his arraignment on 16 July 2008, Bugna, with the assistance of his counsel, pleaded "Not Guilty" to both counts of rape.6
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered and discussed, the court finds the evidence of the prosecution sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accused, Jerry B. Bugna, is therefore found GUILTY of the crime of two (2) counts of Rape against xxxxxxxxxxxxxx as charged in the above informations.The CA Ruling
ACCORDINGLY, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in each of the cases.
He is further ordered to pay the private offended party the amount of P50,000.00 in each case, as moral damages.11
Aggrieved, Bugna appealed before the CA.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated May 15, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court, xxxxxxx South Cotabato, xxxxxxx in Criminal Cases Nos. 4613-S and 4614-S is hereby AFFIRMED, finding accused-appellant Jerry Bugna y Britanico GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of qualified rape, with MODIFICATION of the award of civil indemnity, ordering accused-appellant to pay [AAA], in each case, P75,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. The award of damages shall earn legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.12Hence, this appeal.
WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF RAPE
Based on AAA's testimony, it was established that she had sexual contact with Bugna and that the same was against her will or was done without her consent. Her testimony was corroborated by the medical findings that she had healed lacerations on her hymen.19 On the other hand, it was admitted that AAA was Bugna's xxxxxxxx and was only 16 years old at the time of the rape.20 Thus, it is painstakingly clear that there is overwhelming evidence to find Bugna guilty of the atrocities he had committed against AAA on two separate occasions.
PROSECUTOR VALDEZ-DAMO: Q: And you filed two (2) cases of rape against xxxxxxxxx right? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: Could you recall when was the first incident? A: In April, 2007. Q: What time when the alleged incident happened, if you could recall? A: In the evening. Q: Where were you then at that time? A: I was at home. Q: While you were at home, what were you doing? A: We were about to go to sleep. x x x x Q: What happened on that night? A: After they drank, he locked all the doors. Q: And after he locked all the doors, what else did xxxxxxxxxxx do? A: We fell asleep already and I just felt that he removed my shorts. PROSECUTOR VALDEZ-DAMO: May we put it on record, Your Honor, that the victim is already crying. Q: You said that you felt that xxxxxxxxxxx was removing your shorts, right? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: What did you do then? A: I did not move then he inserted his finger. Q: Where did he insert his finger, will you tell the court? A: Into my vagina. Q: What did you feel at that time? A: I was nervous. Q: What did you do when your xxxxxx inserted his finger into your vagina? A: It was painful. Q: And after that, what did xxxxxxxxx do? A: He removed his finger then he put himself on top of me. Q: What else did xxxxxxxxx do? A: That was when he abused me. Q: You said that xxxxxxxxx abused you. Will you tell the court what do you mean by that? A: He placed himself on top of me then he inserted his penis into my vagina. x x x x Q: Was that the only incident that xxxxxxxxx sexually abused you? A: There were other incidents. The last sexual abuse happened on December 21, 2007. x x x x Q: And what happened while you were at home on that date? A: Early morning, around 2:00 o'clock, I felt that xxxxxxxxx was pulling my shorts. Q: What did you do when you felt that xxxxxxxxx was pulling down your shorts? A: I was trying to prevent his hand and I seated. Q: And after that, what happened next? A: I attempted to run but he pulled me. Q: And after xxxxxxxxx pulled you, what happened next? A: He held my hand, instructed me to lie down and then he put himself on top of me. Q: What did you feel at that time when xxxxxxxxxx instructed you to lie down and then he put himself on top of you? A: I was scared. Q: And after that, what did xxxxxxxxxx do? A: He inserted his penis into my vagina. Q: For how long? A: For only around one (1) minute. Q: After that, what else did xxxxxxxxx do? A: He left and went back to where he was sleeping. Q: What did you feel when xxxxxxxxxx put himself on top of you and inserted his penis into your vagina? A: It was painful. Q: What else? A: Then a sticky substance like water came out.18
In every criminal prosecution, no less than moral certainty is required in establishing the identity of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime, x x x The test to determine the moral certainty of an identification is its imperviousness to skepticism on account of its distinctiveness. To achieve such distinctiveness, the identification evidence should encompass unique physical features or characteristics, like the face, the voice, the dentures, the distinguishing marks or tattoos on the body, fingerprints, DNA, or any other physical facts that set the individual apart from the rest of humanity.23Being her xxxxxxxx, AAA is intimately familiar with the physical features of Bugna, such as his voice or stature. She could easily distinguish xxxxxxxxx from other persons inside the room especially since only her siblings were with them during the rape incidents. Thus, AAA was adamant that it was Bugna who raped her; according to her there was no other tall person inside the room. Further, she could identify him through his voice because after the rape incident they still had a conversation. It is noteworthy that in one of the conversations, the assailant even identified himself as AAA's xxxxxxxx. AAA testified accordingly:
Positive identification trumps denial and alibi.
PROSECUTOR VALDEZ-DAMO: Q: What did you do when xxxxxxxxxx allegedly put himself on top of you and inserted his penis into your vagina? A: I was asking him why he did it to me. Q: What was the answer of xxxxxxxxxx A: Allegedly, xxxxxxxxx was able to use me, so why not me being the xxxxxx. x x x x Q: After that, what else did xxxxxxxxx do? A: He removed himself from me and slept beside me and he further asked me if I already have experienced a sexual intercourse.24
It is a time-honored principle in jurisprudence that positive identification prevails over alibi since the latter can easily be fabricated and is inherently unreliable. Hence, it must be supported by credible corroboration from disinterested witnesses, and if not, is fatal to the accused. x x x While the witnesses presented by the defense to corroborate the respective alibis of Marcelino Dadao and Antonio Sulindao consisted of friends and relatives who are hardly the disinterested witnesses that is required by jurisprudence.27 (emphasis supplied)In the case at bar, other than his testimony, Bugna failed to present disinterested witnesses to corroborate his claim that he was not at home from April to December 2007. Faced with such appalling allegations, he could only muster a measly self-serving alibi to defend himself. Surely, such defense fails to convince the Court of Bugna's innocence especially since AAA had positively and convincingly identified him as her abuser.
It is hornbook doctrine that in the xxxxxxxxxxx rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not even be employed where the overpowering xxxxxx influence xxxxxxxxxxx would suffice. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx One should bear in mind that in xxxxxxxx rape, the minor victim is at a great disadvantage. The assailant, by his overpowering and overbearing moral influence, can easily consummate his bestial lust with impunity. As a consequence, proof of force and violence is unnecessaryxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx of the victim.30 (emphasis and underlining supplied)In the present case, actual force and intimidation need not be present to convict Bugna with rape. He was AAA's xxxxxxx and such relationship or influence rendered her unable to resist xxxxxxxxxxx advances. Similarly, Bugna's insistence that AAA's lack of resistance belies her allegation of rape deserves scant consideration.
We are not persuaded by the accused-appellant's insistence that the absence of any resistance on the part of AAA raised doubts as to whether the sexual congress was without her consent. The failure of the victim to shout for help or resist the sexual advances of the rapist is not tantamount to consent. Physical resistance need not be established in rape when threats and intimidation are employed and the victims submit herself to her attackers because of fear.Like other forms of sexual abuse or assault, rape essentially boils down to the lack of consent on the part of the victim. In turn, consent should not be implied from the lack of resistance of the abused. As is now seen of the recent Me Too Movement, women have been coming forward about the sexual abuse they had suffered from prominent figures or persons of influence across all industries. What stands out among from these allegations is that the victims failed to show resistance to the advances of their abusers precisely because of the influence the latter possessed.
Besides, physical resistance is not the sole test to determine whether a woman voluntarily succumbed to the lust of an accused. Rape victims show no uniform reaction. Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all. After all, resistance is not an element of rape and its absence does not denigrate AAA's claim that the accused-appellant consummated his bestial act.32 (emphases supplied)
| Very truly yours, |
(SGD) | |
WILFREDO V. LAPITAN | |
Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 3-20; penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, and concurred in by Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Oscar V. Badelles.
2 CA rollo, pp. 38-45; penned by Presiding Judge Roberto L. Ayco.
3 The true name of the victim has been replaced with fictitious initials in conformity with Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 (Subject: Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders Using Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances). The confidentiality of the identity of the victim is mandated by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act); R.A. No. 8508 (Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act of 1998); R.A. No. 9205 (Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003); R.A. No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004); and R.A. No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006).
4 Records (Criminal Case No. 4614-S), p. 1.
5 Records (Criminal Case No. 4613-S), p. 1.
6 Id. at 15.
7 TSN, 25 June 2009, pp. 8-13.
8 Id. at 15-18.
9 TSN, 23 July 2009, pp. 6 and 10-11.
10 TSN, 22 February 2012, pp. 5-6.
11 CA rollo, p. 45.
12Rollo,p. 19.
13 Article 266-A in connection with Article 266-B of the RPC.
14People v. Buclao, 736 Phil. 325, 336 (2014).
15People v. Colentava, 753 Phil. 361, 376 (2015).
16People v. Gahi, 727 Phil. 642, 657 (2014).
17People v. Jalbonian, 713 Phil. 93, 104 (2013).
18 TSN, 25 June 2009, pp. 8-12 and 15-17.
19 TSN, 23 July 2009, pp. 10-11.
20 Records, p. 26.
21People v. Maguing, 452 Phil. 1026, 1045 (2003).
22 675 Phil. 742 (2015).
23 Id. at 756.
24 TSN, 25 June 2009, pp. 12-13.
25People v. Ramos, 715 Phil. 193, 207 (2013).
26 725 Phil. 298 (2014).
27 Id. at 312.
28People v. Tionloc, G.R. No. 212193, 15 February 2017.
29 593 Phil. 288 (2008).
30 Id. at 319.
31People v. Joson, 751 Phil. 450 (2015).
32 Id. at 460.
33People v. Cabral, 623 Phil. 809, 815 (2009).
34People v. Lucena, 728 Phil. 147, 163 (2014).
35 An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines.
36 783 Phil. 806 (2016).