THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 224295, March 22, 2017
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARIEL S. MENDOZA, Accused-Appellant.
RESOLUTION
REYES, J.:
This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated March 13, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04919, which affirmed with modification the Decision2 dated December 9, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iba, Zambales, Branch 69, in Criminal Case No. RTC 5785-I finding Ariel S. Mendoza (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified Rape.
That sometime in between 2008 and 2009, in Brgy. Luna, Municipality of San Antonio, Province of Zambales, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the [accused-appellant], with lewd design, through intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously inserted his penis into the vagina and buttocks of his own daughter, five (5) year old [AAA],4 against her will and consent, and which degraded and demeaned the latter of her intrinsic worth and dignity, to the damage and prejudice of said minor [AAA].Upon arraignment on April 13, 2010, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. During the preliminary conference held on May 5, 2010, he admitted that AAA is his daughter, as well as the existence and due execution of AAA's certificate of live birth.6
CONTRARY TO LAW.5
EEE, the mother of AAA and live-in partner of the accused-appellant, testified that she was in Meycauayan, Bulacan when the incident happened. She claimed that she had a fight with the accused-appellant which prompted her to leave their place for a while but she left her children under the care of their grandfather and not with the accused-appellant.9
TANONG - AAA, marunong ka bang magsalita at bumasa ng salita o wikang Tagalog? SAGOT - Marunong lang pong magsalita ng Tagalog. T - AAA, bakit nandito kayo ni mama mo sa opisina ng pulis? S - Isusumbong ko po si Ninong Rolex at Papa ko. T - Bakit mo isusumbong si Papa mo? S - Kasi pinasok po niya yong 'TOTOY' niya sa 'PEPE' ko at saka sa 'PUWET' ko. T - Papaano ipinasok ng PAPA mo ang 'TOTOY' niya sa pepe mo? S - Diba ito yong 'TOTOY' niya, ito yung 'PEPE' ko, yun ipinasok nya? (Victim demonstrate thru her hands how [her] father sexually abused her) T - Maalala mo ba kong ano ang itsura ng 'TOTOY' ni PAPA mo? S - May balbas saka medyo mahaba. T - Anung kulay ng balbas ng 'TOTOY' ni PAPA mo? S - Kulay itim, katulad ng buhok. (Victim hold her hair) T - Anung naramdaman mo noong pinasok ni PAPA mo ang 'TOTOY' niya sa pepe mo? S - Masakit po at saka mahapdi. T - Pagkatapos ipinasok ng PAPA mo ang 'TOTOY' niya sa 'PEPE' mo, anung ginawa mo? S - Nagsumbong po ako kay BBB, ninang at tita. T - Maalala mo ba kung kailan ipinasok ni PAPA mo ang kanyang 'TOTOY' sa 'PEPE' mo? S - Noong giniba yong bahay namin, umaga po sa loob ng bahay ni Lolo [DDD]. T - Alam mo ba kung anung pangalan ni PAPA? S - Opo, ARIEL MENDOZA, pero ang palayaw po niya ay "DAGA"[.] T - Maari mo bang ikuwento sa amin kong anu ang ginawa ni PAPA mo sa iyo? S - Hinubad po ni PAPA ko ang short ko at panty ko at saka damit ko, tapos pinadapa niya ako, tapos ipinasok nila ang 'TOTOY' niya sa 'PEPE' at saka sa 'PUWET' ko tapos po dumating si LOLO ko, nagbihis na po ako tapos lumabas na po ako, at si papa ay naiwan sa loob ng bahay ni LOLO, tapos naglaro po ako kasama ko ang aso ko po.8 (Citation omitted)
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The decision dated December 9, 2010 issued by the [RTC] of Iba, Zambales[,] Branch 69, finding [the accused-appellant] guilty of qualified rape under Articles 266-A and 266-B of the [RPC] in further relation of [sic] Art. III, Section 5(B) of Republic Act [No.] 7610 with [sic] AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The award of civil indemnity of P75,000[.00] and moral damages of P75,000[.00] is AFFIRMED. The award for exemplary damages is increased to P30,000.00. All damages awarded by this Court shall earn legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this decision until fully paid.The CA found no reason to doubt AAA's credibility and accorded great weight and respect to the observation of the RTC that her testimony was consistent, candid and straightforward throughout the proceedings. It likewise dismissed the accused-appellant's question on the failure of the prosecution to present the medico-legal officer who conducted the physical examination on AAA after the incident holding that the same is not indispensable in the prosecution for rape.17
SO ORDERED.16
The elements of minority and relationship were also duly established during the trial by the admission of the parties and the presentation of AAA's certificate of live birth, where the accused-appellant was identified as the father and also verified that the victim was only 5 years old at the time of the incident.22 As to the manner by which the crime was committed, i.e., by force, threat or intimidation, such is dismissible in view of the relationship between the parties. In People v. Barcela,23 the Court expounded on this matter, viz.:
T - Bakit mo isusumbong si Papa mo? S - Kasi pinasok po niya yong 'totoy' niya sa 'pepe' ko at saka sa 'puwet' ko. T - Papaano ipinasok ni papa mo ang 'totoy' niya sa 'pepe' mo? S - Di [ba] ito yong 'totoy' niya, ito yung 'pepe' ko, yun ipinasok nya (Victim demonstrate thru her hands how his father sexually abused her[.])21
[I]n the incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not be [proven]. x x x The moral and physical [domination] of the father is sufficient to [intimidate] the victim into submission to his [carnal] desires, x x x The [rapist], by his overpowering and overbearing moral influence, can easily consummate his bestial lust with impunity. [Consequently], proof of force and violence is unnecessary, unlike when the accused is not an ascendant or a blood relative of the victim.24What is most important is that the victim categorically and consistently identified her own father as the author of that hideous violation of her person. There was no instance that she showed even the slightest hesitation on the identity of her perpetrator. All throughout the proceedings, and even on her sworn statement, she has pointed to her own father as the one who committed the crime.
Endnotes:
* Additional Member per Raffle dated March 20, 217 vice Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam.
** Additional Member per Raffle dated March 15, 2017 vice Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, with Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam (now a Member of this Court) and Mario V. Lopez concurring; CA rollo, pp. 70-80.
2 Rendered by Judge Josefina D. Farrales; id. at 10-15.
3 Id. at 71.
4 The real name of the victim, her personal circumstances and other information which tend to 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 initials shall, instead, be used, in accordance with People v. Cabalquinto (533 Phil. 703 [2006]), and A.M. No. 04-11-09-SC dated September 19, 2006.
5 CA rollo, p. 10.
6 Id. at 71.
7 Id. at 13.
8 Id. at 72-73.
9 Id. at 11.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Id. at 10-15.
13 Id. at 15.
14 Id. at 14.
15 Id. at 70-80.
16 Id. at 79-80.
17 Id. at 77-78.
18 Id. at 86-87.
19People v. Amistoso, 701 Phil. 345, 355 (2013).
20 Id.
21 CArollo, p. 13.
22 Id. at 14.
23 652 Phil. 134 (2010).
24 Id. at 147.
25People v. Amistoso, supra note 19, at 247.
26People v. Barcela, supra note 23, at 148.
27 628 Phil. 678(2010).
28 Id. at 689.
29 G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016.
30 Id.