THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 229862, June 19, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ZZZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
Recantations are viewed unfavorably especially in rape cases. Circumstances in which the recantation was made are thoroughly examined before the evidence of retraction can be given any weight.
Before this Court is a criminal case for rape committed by the common-law spouse of the victim's mother. Accused-appellant ZZZ assails the September 30, 2016 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01769, which affirmed his conviction in the June 25, 2013 Judgment2 of the Regional Trial Court.
On May 23, 2006, an Information3 was filed against ZZZ charging him with the crime of rape:
ZZZ pleaded not guilty to the crime charged during his arraignment on July 19, 2006. Pre-trial was held on October 25, 2006. Trial on the merits then ensued.5That on or about 11:00 o'clock (sic) on the morning of the 12th day of April 2006, in the City of xxxxxxxxxxx, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, the live-in partner of the mother of the victim, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the victim [AAA], a minor fourteen (14) years old, against her will.Contrary to Article 266-A, in relation to 266-B of the Revised Penal Code.4
WHEREFORE, based on the prevailing facts, evidences, law and jurisprudence applicable, the court finds accused [ZZZ] GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of simple statutory rape and hereby sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of reclusion perpetua. He is hereby ordered to pay to the victim civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 and moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 without proof of its basis.ZZZ appealed37 before the Court of Appeals. In turn, the People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, filed its Brief.38
SO ORDERED.36
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Judgment dated June 25, 201.3, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 63, Bayawan City, in Criminal Case No. 529 is hereby AFFIRMED, but with modification only in that the word "statutory" in the dispositive portion thereof is DELETED.Hence, ZZZ appealed his case before this Court.49
SO ORDERED.48
First. [AAA] was then 14-year old when appellant had sexual intercourse with her.Plaintiff-appellee maintains that AAA's narration of the incident proves that accused-appellant raped her.65 It adds that recantations are usually viewed unfavorably since it can be secured by intimidating the witness or in exchange of monetary consideration.66 It alleges that AAA's recantation was doubtful because BBB and accused-appellant continued their common-law relationship and AAA's new claim "was a mere legal conclusion, bereft of any details or other indicia of credibility, much less truth."67
Second. Appellant who is the common-law husband of [AAA's] mother exercises moral ascendancy and authority over her.
Third. [AAA] testified that appellant had carnal knowledge of her on April 12, 2006 at about 11:00 o'clock (sic) in the morning while her mother went to the Barangay Hall to do an errand for appellant.64 (Emphasis in the original)
Article 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. — Rape is committed —After a careful examination of the case records, this Court holds that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant is guilty of raping AAA. The trial court also found AAA's testimony credible and supported by evidence:
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 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.
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 person.
The candid, straightforward and unrehearsed testimony of victim [AAA] who declared against the bestial acts of the accused on her person and maintained that she was required to hold his penis and thereafter, again, rode on top of her placing his penis on her vagina is corroborated by the unrefuted findings of Dr. Edalin L. Dacula who found that the abrasion and redness in color on the right side of the labia minora is caused by a smooth, soft object. A smooth, soft object is a penis and that the abrasion and redness in color on the right side of the labia minora is caused probably by the friction of the hardened and erected penis of the accused. That was why the victim complained that she felt pain on her vagina.69The Court of Appeals, likewise, found that AAA's testimony during the direct examination showed that she clearly remembered how accused-appellant committed the crime:
This Court finds no reason to disturb the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals. In People v. Quintos:71
PROS. BALBUENA ON DIRECT EXAMINATION: (COURT INTERRUPTED) COURT . . . Which come (sic) first, the raping or the masturbating? WITNESS The raping. Q How did he rape --- How did the accused rape you? . . . . A First, he positioned himself on top of me and then he undressed me, and then he sat on the floor and masturbated. He let me hold his penis, kissed me. On top of me, he kissed me, and he undressed me, sat on the floor and masturbated, and then he let me hold his penis, and then he again positioned himself on top of me. Q Court. Tell in straight words; answer 'yes' or 'no'. Did he place his penis inside your vagina? A Yes. . . . . [ON CROSS EXAMINATION] (COURT INTERRUPTED) Q Did you feel? A Yes. Q And what was your feeling? A Pain Q What was painful? A At the side Q Of what? A The side of my vagina. Q Why? A Because his penis [was] in my vagina.70 (Emphasis in the original)
The observance of the witnesses' demeanor during an oral direct examination, cross-examination, and during the entire period that he or she is present during trial is indispensable especially in rape cases because it helps establish the moral conviction that an accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. Trial provides judges with the opportunity to detect, consciously or unconsciously, observable cues and microexpressions that could, more than the words said and taken as a whole, suggest sincerity or betray lies and ill will. These important aspects can never be reflected or reproduced in documents and objects used as evidence.There is also no merit in accused-appellant's argument that force, intimidation, threat, fraud, or grave abuse of authority was not present. In People v. Gacusan,73 this Court reiterated that "[t]he abuse of moral influence is the intimidation required in rape committed by the common-law father of a minor."74
Hence, "[t]he evaluation of the witnesses' credibility is a matter best left to the trial court because it has the opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor during the trial. Thus, the Court accords great respect to the trial court's findings," more so when the Court of Appeals affirmed such findings.72 (Citations omitted)
The gravamen of the offense of statutory rape, as provided for in Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is the carnal knowledge of a woman below 12 years old. To convict an accused of the crime of statutory rape, the prosecution must prove: first, the age of the complainant; second, the identity of the accused; and last but not the least, the carnal knowledge between the accused and the complainant.76 (Citation omitted)Here, the Information against accused-appellant did not allege AAA to be below 12 years old, but 14 years old, when the crime was committed upon her. The trial court even held that without documentary or testimonial evidence, the prosecution failed to substantiate the qualifying circumstance of minority. Despite this, it still found him guilty of simple statutory rape and imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Likewise, the absence of hymenal laceration fails to exonerate accused-appellant. As explained in People v. Osing:81
PROS. BALBUENA ON CROSS EXAMINATION: Q: Now, Mrs. (sic) Witness, can you recall having testified in this case? A: Yes. Q: In fact, it was I who presented you as our witness, Mrs. (sic) Witness? A: Yes. Q: And when you testified Mrs. (sic) Witness, of course, this Fiscal did not force you to testify, is that not right? A: I was not forced. Q: So, in your testimony when you were presented by the prose[cu]tion as our witness[,] you were not under duress then, Mrs. (sic) Witness? ATTY. CABUSAO: Objection Your honor. What has be[e]n testified by the witness, Your Honor, it is not the Prosecutor who forced her, Your Honor. PROS. BALBUENA: I am on cross examination, Your Honor and the credibility of this witness is questioned, Your Honor. COURT: Okay, let her answer. . . . . WITNESS: A: I was not forced by the Fiscal.80 (Emphasis in the original, citation omitted)
[M]ere touching, no matter how slight of the labia or lips of the female organ by the male genital, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is sufficient to consummate rape. The absence of fresh hymenal laceration does not disprove sexual abuse, especially when the victim is a young girl[.]82 (Citation omitted)This Court has consistently held that an intact hymen does not negate the commission of rape.83 The element of rape does not even include hymenal laceration:
The absence of external signs or physical injuries on the complainant's body does not necessarily negate the commission of rape, hymenal laceration not being, to repeat, an element of the crime of rape. A healed or fresh laceration would of course be a compelling proof of defloration. What is more, the foremost consideration in the prosecution of rape is the victim's testimony and not the findings of the medico-legal officer. In fact, a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape; the victim's testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict.84 (Citations omitted)The guilt of accused-appellant having been proven beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of rape, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed. However, in line with prevailing jurisprudence,85 this Court increases the amount of civil indemnity to P75,000.00 and moral damages to P75,000.00. Exemplary damages of P75,000.00 shall also be awarded to AAA.86
Very truly yours, (SGD) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 4-13. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Edward B. Contreras, and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos and Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig of the Nineteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu City.
2 CA rollo, pp. 40-47. The Judgment, in Crim. Case No. 529, was penned by Executive/Presiding Judge Ananson E. Jayme of Branch 63, Regional Trial Court, Bayawan City, Negros Oriental.
3 Id. at 39.
4 Id.
5Rollo, p. 5.
6 In People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 (2006) [Per J. Tinga, En Banc], this Court discussed the need to withhold the victim's real name and other information that would compromise the victim's identity, applying the confidentiality provisions of: (1) Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act) and its Implementing Rules and Regulations; (2) Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004) and its Implementing Rules and Regulations; and (3) this Court's October 19, 2004 Resolution in A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC (Rule on Violence Against Women and their Children).
7 CA rollo, p. 41.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id. at 42-43.
15 Id. at 42.
16 Id.
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Id.
20 Id. at 43.
21 Id.
22 Id.
23 Id.
24 Id.
25 Id.
26 Id.
27 Id.
28 Id. at 43 and rollo, p. 6.
29 Id. at 43.
30 Id.
31 Id. at 40-47.
32 Id. at 47.
33 Id. at 44.
34 Id. at 44-46.
35 Id. at 45.
36 Id. at 47.
37 Id. at 18-37.
38 Id. at 67-81.
39Rollo, pp. 4-13.
40 Id. at 13.
41 Id. at 8-10.
42 Id. at 10.
43 Id. at 8-10.
44 Id. at 10.
45 678 Phil. 752 (2011) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
46Rollo, p. 10.
47 Id. at 10-12.
48 Id. at 13.
49 Id. at 14-16.
50 Id. at 20-21.
51 Id. at 22-25, Manifestation for plaintiff-appellee, and 27-28, Manifestation for accused-appellant.
52 Id. at 22 and 27.
53 CA rollo, p. 26.
54 Id.
55 Id. at 27.
56 Id.
57 Id. at 27-34.
58 Id. at 34.
59 Id.
60 Id. at 35.
61 Id. at 34.
62 Id. at 72-76.
63 Id. at 70-72.
64 Id. at 72.
65 Id.
66 Id. at 76-78.
67 Id. at 77.
68 Id. at 78-79.
69 Id. at 46.
70Rollo, pp. 9-10.
71 746 Phil. 809 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
72 Id. at 819-820.
73 809 Phil. 773 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
74 Id. at 774.
75 736 Phil. 298 (2014) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
76 Id. at 303.
77 REV. PEN. CODE, art. 266-B provides:
ARTICLE 266-B. Penalties. — Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
78See People v. Gacusan, 809 Phil. 773, 789 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division] and People v. Corpuz, G.R. No. 208013, July 3, 2017, 828 SCRA 565, 600 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
79People v. Bertulfo, 431 Phil. 535, 550 (2002) [Per C.J. Davide, Jr., First Division].
80Rollo, p. 11.
81 402 Phil. 343 (2001) [Per J. Melo, Third Division].
82 Id. at 354.
83People v. Francica, G.R. No. 208625, September 6, 2017, 839 SCRA 113, 135 [Per J. Leonen, Third Division]; People v. Austria, G.R. No. 210568, November 8, 2017, 844 SCRA 523, 543-544 [Per J. Leonen, Third Division]; and People v. Opong, 577 Phil. 571, 592-593 (2008) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
84People v. Araojo, 616 Phil. 275, 288 (2009) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Third Division].
85People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 851 (2016) [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].
86 Id.
87Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013) [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].