FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 223681, August 20, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BENJAMIN SALAVER Y LUZON, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
On appeal is the May 19, 2014 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05478 affirming the August 24, 2011 Joint Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 40, Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro, finding Benjamin Salaver y Luzon (appellant) guilty of three counts of qualified rape.
Factual Antecedents
Appellant was charged with the crime of rape in three separate Informations which read:
In Criminal Case No. CR-06-8596:The three cases were tried and heard jointly. During arraignment, appellant entered a plea of not guilty. Trial on the merits ensued.
That on or about the 19th day of July 2006, at around 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon, x x x City of Calapan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, motivated by lust and lewd desire, by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously [have] carnal knowledge of one [AAA],3 his fifteen (15)4 year old daughter and therefore a relative within [the] 3rd civil degree by consanguinity, and living with him in the same house, against her will and without her consent, acts which debase, degrade and demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the said [AAA], to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW.5
In Criminal Case No. CR-06-8597:
That on or about the 23rd day of August 2006, at around 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon, x x x City of Calapan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, motivated by lust and lewd desire, by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously [have] carnal knowledge of one [AAA], his fifteen (15) year old daughter and therefore a relative within [the] 3rd civil degree by consanguinity, and living with him in the same house, against her will and without her consent, acts which debase, degrade and demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the said [AAA], to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW.6
In Criminal Case No. CR-06-8598:
That on or about the 8th day of September 2006, at around 7:00 o'clock in the morning, x x x City of Calapan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, motivated by lust and lewd desire, by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously [have] carnal knowledge of one [AAA], his fifteen (15) year old daughter and therefore a relative within [the] 3rd civil degree by consanguinity, and living with him in the same house, against her will and without her consent, acts which debase, degrade and demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the said [AAA], to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW.7
[AAA], x x x born on 07 May 1990 (Exh. F) to the spouses [appellant] Benjamin Salaver and [DDD,8] testified x x x that: at around 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon of 19 July 2006, she and [appellant] were then inside their house x x x [in] Calapan City when the latter x x x pulled her towards his bedroom; x x x then, [appellant] told her to remove her shorts but she refused; [appellant] got angry and removed her shorts and panty after which, he laid her on the bed; then, [appellant] removed his shorts enabling her to see his erect sex organ; after instructing her to spread her legs, [appellant] inserted his sex organ into her private organ causing her to feel pain; while [appellant] was holding her hands and making an up and down motion, she struggled and pleaded to him but her pleas fell on deaf ears; she was not able to shout anymore because [appellant] warned her that he would do something bad if she did; when the incident happened, her younger brother x x x [and] eldest brother [were] not in their house; on the other hand, her mother, who was a house help, was staying in the house of [her] employer; after the incident, she left their house and spent the night with her mother x x x she informed her older brother about the incident but the latter ignored her; when she informed her mother about the incident, the latter told her not to sleep in their house anymore; that at around 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon of 23 August 2006, she and [appellant] were inside their house while her younger brother was playing outside their house; [appellant] told her to go inside his room x x x once inside [appellant's] bedroom, he told her to lie down on the bed and she complied; then, [appellant] told her to remove her clothes but she refused[,] so [appellant] removed her shorts and panty; just like what he did during the first rape incident, [appellant] inserted his sex organ into her private organ and made an up and down movement of his body; she tried to resist but she was unsuccessful; when she informed her older brother about the second rape incident, her brother [was] shocked; she also informed her mother about the incident and her mother asked her why she still went back to their house;although her mother already told her not to sleep in their house anymore after the first rape incident, she still went back to their house after school because she intended to get something in their house; she did not expect that [appellant] would rape her for the second time; that at around 7:00 o'clock in the morning of 08 September 2006, she went to their house and while she was washing the dishes, [appellant] suddenly held her hand and pulled her inside his room; at the time, her younger brother was sent by [appellant] on an errand; then, [appellant] told her to remove her shorts but she refused; as [appellant] was trying to remove her panty, she tried to push him away but she was unsuccessful; then, [appellant] made her lie down on the bed and held her hands while inserting his sex organ into her private organ causing her to feel pain; once again, [appellant] made an up and down movement with his body; she struggled against [appellant] and pleaded, "Huwag po" but her efforts were in vain; she was not also able to shout because [appellant] threatened to kill all of them if she did; accompanied by her mother and a barangay tanod, she submitted herself to medical examination on 08 September 2006; she was investigated at the PNP Provincial Headquarters in [B]arangay Suqui, Calapan City. She affirmed the truthfulness and correctness of the contents of her affidavit (Exh. A).Dr. Legaspi was the Rural Health Physician of the Calapan City Health and Sanitation Department. She testified that she examined "AAA" on September 8, 2006 and that she found no external injuries on the body of AAA; however, she confirmed that "AAA" sustained "old healed complete hymenal lacerations at 1, 4, 6, 9 and 11 o'clock positions, [with] no hymenal nor vaginal bleeding at the time of examination."10 Dr. Legaspi testified that these lacerations could have been caused by the insertion of a male sex organ into "AAA's" private organ and that it was possible that "AAA" had been sexually molested about three or more times.11
On cross-examination, she testified that she did not inform her mother about the first rape incident but on 12 September 2006, she informed her mother about the second rape incident that happened on 23 August 2006; her mother left their house in August 2006 because [appellant] was inflicting physical harm on her mother. She maintained that [appellant] was able to insert his sex organ into her private organ during the three rapes committed by [appellant] on her.9
In sum, after a judicious evaluation of the totality of evidence adduced by both the prosecution and the defense, this Court finds nothing which would destroy the moral certainty of the accused's guiltThe RTC disposed of the case, as follows:
In the case at bar, the accused [was] being charged of the crime of qualified rape considering that at the time the rape incidents took place, the private complainant was only fifteen (15) years of age and x x x the daughter of the accused. Records x x x clearly [showed] that both the private complainant's minority and her relationship with the accused as her father [were] both alleged in the informations and were proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution during the trial. The prosecution was able to prove that the private complainant [AAA] was only fifteen (15) years old at the time the incidents of rape took place by presenting the private complainant's Certificate of Live Birth (Exhibits F, F-1 to F-4), issued by the Local Civil Registrar x x x wherein x x x it [was stated] that her father [was] the accused Benjamin Salaver y Luzon (Exhibit F-3).
ACCORDINGLY, finding herein accused Benjamin Salaver y Luzon x x x guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of rape, said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the THREE (3) penalties of RECLUSION PERPETUA without eligibility for parole and with all the accessory penalties as provided for by law. The accused is hereby directed to indemnify the private complainant civil indemnity ex delicto in the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (Php75,000.00) for each case x x x; moral damages in the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (Php75,000.00) for each case x x x and exemplary damages of Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (Php25,000.00) for each case x x x.Ruling of the Court of Appeals
SO ORDERED.20
Appellant's assertion that AAA - (a) continued to live with him in their house after the alleged first rape incident; (b) did not immediately report the rape to authorities; and [c] did not have any fresh hymenal lacerations and bruises on her body, give rise to doubt as to the veracity of the rape, deserves scant consideration. First, where did appellant expect AAA to go[?] She was a minor, only fifteen (15) years of age, when appellant raped her. Second, [it was] not uncommon for a rape victim to initially conceal the assault against her person for several reasons, including that of fear of threats posed by her assailant, specially when the assailant [was] her father. Third, well-settled is the rule that in rape cases, the absence of fresh lacerations in complainant's hymen does not prove that she was not raped. A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape. Healed lacerations do not negate rape. Lastly, settled is the rule that in incestuous rape, the father's moral ascendancy and influence over his daughter substitutes for violence and intimidation. x x x22The CA disposed of appellant's appeal, as follows:
All told, appellant's denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive testimony of AAA.Appellant, thus, filed a Notice of Appeal.24 On July 11, 2016, the Court required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs.25 However, in separate Manifestations,26 both parties opted not to file the same.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated August 24, 2011 is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.23
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."28 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."29
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 is 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.27
The Court has held that "[t]he failure to physically resist the attack, x x x, does not detract from the established fact that a reprehensible act was done to a child[]woman by no less than a member of her family. In cases of qualified rape, moral ascendancy or influence supplants the element of violence or intimidation. Physical resistance need not be established when intimidation is brought to bear on the victim and the latter submits herself out of fear."46
Pros. Lalia:QAnd at the time that your father inserted his penis inside your private part, x x x [w]hat kind of movement [did] your father [make]?AWhile holding my hands, my father made an up and down bodily motion, Sir.QAnd at the time that your father was making the up and down bodily motion while holding x x x your hands, did you have the opportunity to at least shout or [manifest] that you did not like what he was doing?AI struggled and begged my father not to do that to me, sir.QYou want to tell us that it was only physical struggle that you did?ABecause he warned me that he would do something bad if ever I shout, sir.44x x x xCourt:QDuring the third time that you were raped by your father, did you shout?AI did not because he was threatening me, Your Honor.QWhat was the threat [of] your father x x x?AThat he would kill us, Your Honor.45
Endnotes:
* Designated as Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2582 (Revised) dated August 8, 2018.
** Designated as additional member per November 29, 2017 raffle vice J. Jardeleza who recused due to prior action as Solicitor General.
*** Designated as Acting Member per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
1 CA rollo, pp. 114-128; penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser and concurred in by Associate Justices Rodil V. Zalameda and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy.
2 Records, Criminal Case No. CR-06-8596, pp. 144-153; penned by Judge Tomas C. Leynes.
3 "The identity of the victim or any information which could establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. 7610, An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence And Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation And Discrimination, And for Other Purposes; Republic Act No. 9262, An Act Defining Violence Against Women And Their Children, Providing For Protective Measures For Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, And for Other Purposes; and Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the Rule on Violence against Women and Their Children, effective November 15, 2004." People v. Dumadag, 667 Phil. 664, 669 (2011).
4 "AAA" is sixteen (16) years of age at the time of alleged rape incidents as she was born on May 7, 1990 as per her Certificate of Live Birth (Records, Criminal Case No. CR-06-8596, p. 28).
5 Records, Criminal Case No. CR-06-8596, pp. 1-2.
6 Records, Criminal Case No. CR-06-8597, pp. 1-2.
7 Records, Criminal Case No. CR-06-8598, pp. 1-2.
8 Mother of AAA.
9 Records, Criminal Case No. CR-06-8596, pp. 146-148.
10 See Dr. Legaspi's Medical Certificate dated September 8, 2006, id. at 10.
11 TSN, May 26, 2010, pp. 10-11.
12 TSN, October 13, 2010, pp. 12-14.
13 Records, Criminal Case No. CR-06-8596, p. 5.
14 TSN, October 13, 2010, pp. 17-19.
15 Id. at 25-27.
16 TSN, May 23, 2011, p. 5.
17 Id. at 5-6.
18 Id.
19 Records, Criminal Case No. CR 06-8596, pp. 144-153.
20 Id. at 152-153.
21 CA rollo, pp. 30-56.
22 Id. at 126-127.
23 Id. at 127.
24Rollo, pp. 17-19.
25 Id. at 22.
26 Id. at 26-31 and 32-36.
27 REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 266-A, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 (1997).
28 REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 266-B, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 (1997).
29People v. Colentava, 153 Phil. 361, 372-373 (2015).
30People v. Vergara, 724 Phil. 702, 709 (2014).
31People v. Colentava, supra note 29 at 377.
32People v. Dalipe, 633 Phil. 428, 448 (2010).
33People v. Melivo, 323 Phil. 412, 427-428 (1996).
34People v. Lagbo, 780 Phil. 834, 844 (2016).
35People v. Descartin, G.R. No. 215195, June 7, 2017, 826 SCRA 650, 663.
36 TSN, August 15, 2007, pp. 28-30.
37 Id. at 23.
38People v. Francisco, 406 Phil. 947, 959 (2001).
39People v. Buclao, 736 Phil. 325, 338 (2014).
40 Id.
41People v. Bayona, 383 Phil. 943, 956 (2000).
42People v. Galvez, 656 Phil. 487, 500-501; citing People v. Cuadro, 405 Phil. 173 (2001).
43People v. Baldo, 599 Phil. 382, 389 (2009).
44 TSN, August 15, 2007, pp. 21-22.
45 Id. at 35-36.
46People v. Palanay, G.R. No. 224583, February 1, 2017, 816 SCRA 493, 505.
47People v. Mendoza, 441 Phil. 193, 206 (2002).
48 An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of the Death Penalty in the Philippines.
49 783 Phil. 806, 848 (2016).
50Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267, 282 (2013).