THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 217024, August 15, 2016
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODEL BOLO Y MALDO, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
Before the Court is an appeal from the Decision1 dated March 12, 2014 of the Court Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05676 which affirmed the Decision2 dated December 7, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 86, Quezon City, in Criminal Case No. Q-07-146758 for rape.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryIn an Information3 dated April 13, 2007, accused-appellant Rodel Bolo y Maldo was charged with the crime of rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A, paragraph 2, in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), committed by inserting his finger into the vagina of his 4-year-old daughter, AAA,4 against her will and without her consent. The accusatory portion of said Information reads:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
That on or about the 9th day of April, 2007, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously insert his finger into the vagina of AAA, a minor, 4 years of age, his daughter, against her will and without her consent, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended party.Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.6 Thereafter, during trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of the victim, AAA, the Medico-Legal Officer, Police S/Insp. Dr. Marianne S. Ebdane (S/Insp. Ebdane), and PO1 Simeon Masangaya.7chanrobleslaw
Contrary to law.5
WHEREFORE, the accused Rodel Bolo y Maldo is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt and convicted of Rape under Article 266-A, par. 2, in relation to Article 266-B, and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.According to the RTC, the prosecution was able to successfully prove the presence of all the elements of the crime charged herein in view of the fact that AAA testified on the event that transpired in a straightforward, consistent and coherent manner. She clearly narrated on the fact that while she was standing by the gate of her maternal aunt's house one evening, appellant kissed her on the neck and inserted his finger in her vagina.13 The trial court added that while there is no finding of any injury upon physical examination of AAA, the Medico-Legal Examiner explained that the absence of a laceration was due to the elasticity of the minor's hymen, making it possible for there to be penetration without breakage or injury.14 Nevertheless, it was ruled that full penetration, which would ordinarily result in hymenal rupture or laceration of the vagina, is not a consummating ingredient of the crime of rape. Furthermore, the court took note of the fact that all that appellant could offer was mere denial. He even admitted that he was with his daughter on the date of the alleged incident. While he claimed to have been engaged in a drinking session with a kumpadre, it was only from morning until the afternoon whereas the assault allegedly took place in the evening. Besides, the RTC added that said claim was, at best, self-serving for said kumpadre was never presented in court.15chanrobleslaw
The accused is adjudged liable to pay the victim: (1) Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) by way of civil indemnity ex delicto; (2) moral damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00); (3) Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) as exemplary damages; (4) as well as cost of suit.
SO ORDERED.12
ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated December 7, 2011 is MODIFIED, imposing upon the appellant an indeterminate penalty of 12 years of prision mayor, as minimum, to 20 years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and directing him to pay P30,000.00 as civil indemnity, P30,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. The Decision is AFFIRMED in all other respects.First, the CA rejected appellant's contention that the Information was defective as it failed to specify the exact nature of the charge against him. While the Information failed to specify the particular provision of law which appellant allegedly violated, the character of the crime is not determined by the specification of law but by the recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances of the case.17 Since the body of the Information herein clearly alleged that appellant, through force and intimidation, inserted his finger into his daughter's vagina, a minor, thereby enumerating all the essential elements of the crime, appellant is considered sufficiently apprised of the charge against him.18Second, the CA reiterated the trial court's finding that hymenal rupture, vaginal laceration, or genital injury is not indispensable because the same is not an element of the crime of rape. AAA's testimony that she felt pain in her vagina during the sexual assault sufficiently corroborated her testimony that she was raped by appellant. Moreover, appellant's allegation that the crime charged was merely fabricated by his mother-in-law deserves scant consideration for it is highly unbelievable that a grandmother would expose her granddaughter to humiliation and the stigma of rape trial just to punish appellant for his alleged misdeeds.19Third, the appellate court likewise rejected appellant's claim for acquittal due to the prosecution's failure to prove the exact date and place of the commission of the crime. According to the CA, the same are not elements of the crime for what is decisive herein is the act of sexual assault.20chanrobleslaw
SO ORDERED. 16
Appellant reiterated the following arguments he raised before the appellate court: (1) the Information filed against him was defective as it failed to specify the exact nature of the charge against him; (2) the prosecution failed to prove by convincing proof the elements of the crime charged; (3) the prosecution failed to establish the exact time and place of the commission of the crime: (4) the prosecution failed to offer the original or certified true copy of the Certificate of Live Birth of AAA, and consequently, (5) the qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship were not proven beyond reasonable doubt.I. THE [COURT OF APPEALS] ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.23
Article 266-A. Rape: When And How Committed. – Rape is committed:Under the new provision, therefore, rape can now be committed in two ways: (1) through sexual intercourse under Article 266-A, paragraph 1, also known as "organ rape" or "penile rape," the central element of which is carnal knowledge, which must be proven beyond reasonable doubt; and (2) by sexual assault under Article 266-A, paragraph 2, also called "instrument or object rape," or "gender-free rape," which must be attended by any of the circumstances enumerated in subparagraphs (a) to (d) of paragraph 1. 26chanrobleslaw
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;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 person25cralawred
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;
In the instant case, both the trial and appellate courts conclusively found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape by sexual assault for inserting his finger inside his daughter's vagina. Accordingly, the Court does not find any reason to depart from the findings of the courts below. In resolving rape cases, the Court has always given primordial consideration to the credibility of the victim's testimony. Since rape is a crime that is almost always committed in isolation, usually leaving only the victims to testify on the commission of the crime, for as long as the victim's testimony is logical, credible, consistent and convincing, the accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof.
(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 (b) By inserting any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person; (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.27
It is evident from AAA's positive and consistent testimony that appellant inserted his finger inside her vagina. Thus, unless there appears certain facts or circumstances of weight and value which the lower court overlooked or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the case, the trial court's conclusions on the credibility of witnesses in rape cases are generally accorded great weight and respect, and at times even finality.30chanrobleslaw
Q: AAA, what did Rodel Bolo do to you? A: He kissed me. Q: And Rodel is your father? A: Yes, sir. Q: What else did he do to you? A: "Dinukot and pepe ko." Q: By a finger? A: (Witness showing her forefinger) Q: What did you feel when your father inserted his finger into your vagina? A: It was painful. Q: Where did he do that? A: Outside the gate of CCC. Q: Who is this CCC? A: The sister of my mother. Q: Who was your companion at that time aside from your father? A: No one. We were only two (2), my father and I. Q: Did he tell you something while he was doing that insertion of the finger? A: None, sir. xxxx xxxx Q: Does (appellant) normally do that to you? A: No, sir. Q: So that was the first time? A: Yes, sir. Q: Is your father present in this court? A: Yes. (Witness pointing to the accused who gave his name as Rodel Bolo).29
In order to remove any confusion that may be engendered by the foregoing cases, we hereby set the following guidelines in appreciating age, either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance.Nevertheless, despite the foregoing and in the interest of justice and fairness, the pieces of evidence and the circumstances of the instant case should be appreciated in determining whether the age of the victim was actually established by the prosecution.
1. The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party.
2. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents such as baptismal certificate and school records which show the date of birth of the victim would suffice to prove age.
3. If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of the victim's mother or a member of the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the following circumstances:a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 7 years old;4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the testimony of the victim's mother or relatives concerning the victim's age, the complainant's testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused.
b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 12 years old;
c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 18 years old.
5. It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the offended party. The failure of the accused to object to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken against him.
6. The trial court should always make a categorical finding as to the age of the victim.37
Endnotes:
* Designated Additional Member in lieu of Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza, per Raffle dated May 13,2015.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Pedro B. Corales concurring; rollo, pp. 3-20.
2 Penned by Judge Roberto P. Buenaventura.; CA rollo, pp. 17-21.
3Rollo, p. 7.
4 In line with the Court's ruling in People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703, 709 (2006), citing Rule on Violence Against Women and their Children, Sec. 40, Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act No. 9262, Rule XI, Sec. 63, otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act," the real name of the rape victim will not be disclosed.
5 CA rollo, p. 7.
6Rollo, p. 4.
7Id.
8Id. at 5.
9Id.
10Id at 6.
11Id.
12 CA rollo, p. 21.
13Id. at 18.
14Id. at 19.
15Id. at 21.
16Rollo, pp. 19-20. (Emphasis in the original)
17Id. at 10.
18Id. at 11.
19Id. at 15.
20Id. at 16.
21Id.at 21.
22Id. at 27-28.
23 CA rollo, p. 38.
24People v. Pareja, 724 Phil. 759, 781 (2014).
25cralawred Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (1930), as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 (1997). (Emphasis ours)
26People v. Pareja, supra note 24, at 782.
27People v. Soria, 698 Phil. 676, 693-694 (2012). (Citation omitted)
28People v. Gallano, G.R. No. 184762, February 25, 2015, 752 SCRA 1, 9.
29Rollo, pp. 11-12.
30People v. Padilla, 617 Phil. 170, 183 (2009).
31 Section 1 of Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code provides:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common law spouse of the parent of the victim.
32People v. Reman Sariego, G.R. No. 203322, February 24, 2016.
33People v. Lomaque, 710 Phil. 338, 354 (2013).
34People v. Reman Sariego, supra note 32.
35People v. Soria, 698 Phil. 676, 696 (2012).
36 439 Phil. 440 (2002).
37People v. Pruna, supra, at 470-471. (Citation omitted)
38 Records, p. 4.
39Id.at 17.
40Id. at 19.
41Id. at 20.
42 TSN, June 24, 2008, p. 8.
43 TSN, April 27, 2011, p. 6.
44 See People v. Dela Cruzy Dacillo, 452 Phil. 1080, 1094 (2003).
45 Rule 130, Section 44. Entries in official records. — Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
46 People v. Dela Cruzy Dacillo, supra note 44.
47 385 Phil. 689 (2000).
48People v. Tipay, supra, at 718.
49People v. Jose Salvador, a.k.a. "Felix, " G.R. No. 207815, June 22, 2015.
50Id.
51Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013).