SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 219170, November 13, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ABC,1 ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
A. REYES, JR., J.:
On appeal is the Decision2 dated November 28, 2013 (Assailed Decision) of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05457, affirming with modification the Decision3 dated February 20, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (RTC) in Criminal Case No. Q-08-152344. The RTC found accused-appellant ABC guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape in relation to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610 and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the victim, AAA,4 the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
That on or about the 26th day of May, 2008, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, by means of violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have carnal knowledge with AAA, 14 years old, a minor, against her will and without her consent, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended party.On November 17, 2008, ABC was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the charge. On February 24, 2009, pre-trial was held. The parties stipulated on and admitted: (1) the jurisdiction of the court over ABC; (2) the identity of ABC; and (3) the minority of private complainant AAA. Trial on the merits ensued.7
CONTRARY TO LAW.6
On May 26, 2008, about 7:00 in the morning, private complainant AAA was sleeping alone in her room at their house in xxxxxxxx. Around 7:45 in the morning, private complainant was awakened when she felt somebody embracing her. Private complainant panicked and called to her mother for help by shouting "Nanay!" "Nanay!" However, before she could rouse anyone to her aid, her assailant (later identified as [ABC]) covered her mouth and held her left breast with his other hand, which effectively halted her efforts to escape.BBB, mother of AAA, then took the witness stand. She said that AAA has been under the care of CCC since AAA was just a child. BBB often visited AAA as she lives nearby. On May 26, 2008 she proceeded to CCC's house at xxxxxxxx. Upon arriving at said place, she saw that there was a commotion. Her brother, DDD, was shouting that AAA was raped. They went to the Barangay Hall where AAA narrated the incident. From the Barangay Hall, they proceeded to Police Station 8 where AAA gave her statement. AAA was then made to undergo a medico-legal examination.10
As [ABC] gripped her body as she laid sideways, private complainant felt [ABC] lowering her shorts and panty. She could not struggle against him in their position because [ABC's] leg pinned down her left thigh. Private complainant felt [ABC] inserting his penis inside her vagina. Private complainant felt pain since it was her first time to experience sexual intercourse. She was sure that it was [ABC] who sexually assaulted her because the room was well-lighted and before he left, he turned his face to her.
After raping private complainant, [ABC] left her crying inside the room. When private complainant's grandmother, CCC arrived back home around noon time, she noticed her granddaughter crying. Upon confronting private complainant, the latter revealed that [ABC], who was their family boarder, raped her. Furious, [CCC], together with private complainant's mother, BBB, and other relatives, proceeded to the Barangay Hall, then to Police Station 8 in Quezon City, before going to Camp Crame. There, private complainant was subjected to a medico-legal examination. Private complainant and her family then proceeded to file the present case against [ABC].9
[O]n the night of May 25, 2008, [ABC] slept in their rented room in Bagumbayan, Quezon City together with his live-in partner Lorafe Tuscano. He woke up at around [6:00] in the morning and took a bath. He then proceeded to their house located at 159 San Juan St., Mayamot, Antipolo City because his mother told him to fix the wooden bed of his sister [EEE]. He boarded a bicycle and it took him forty[-]five (45) minutes to reach their house. He arrived in their house at 7:00 in the morning. His mother, sister [EEE], nephews and nieces were in their house when he arrived. He also saw Tessie and Relyn Venzon. He started fixing [EEE]'s bed at around 8:00 a.m. He finished his work at 9:00 a.m. He received a phone call from the cousin of AAA who told him that he has an important thing to tell him. [ABC] went back to Bagumbayan and arrived at 11:30 a.m. When he arrived in Bagumbayan, AAA's cousin and a barangay official told him to proceed to the barangay office. He and his live-in partner went to the barangay office [where] he gave his statement. He was brought to the police [station] and was immediately detained.16Benzon and Jebulan, both neighbors of ABC's mother, successively testified and corroborated ABC's testimony.17
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds accused ABC GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape in relation to R.A[.] 7610 and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua.ABC then appealed the RTC Decision to the CA.21
[ABC] is likewise ordered to pay [AAA] P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and 50,000.00 as moral damages.
SO ORDERED.20
WHEREFORE, the 20 February 2012 [Decision] of Branch 94, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as to the penalty imposed. [ABC] is found GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT for the crime of Rape in relation to Republic Act No. 7610 and is sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum.Hence, the present recourse.
The rest of the assailed Decision, including the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 civil indemnity stands.
SO ORDERED.22 (Emphasis in the original)
I.
Whether or not the RTC gravely erred in giving credence to AAA's testimony.II.
Whether or not the RTC gravely erred in finding him guilty of the crime charged despite the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.III.
Whether or not the RTC meted the wrong penalty and failed to apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law assuming arguendo that ABC is guilty of the crime charged.
It is well settled that the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling examination. These are important in determining the truthfulness of witnesses and in unearthing the truth, especially in the face of conflicting testimonies. For, indeed, the emphasis, gesture, and inflection of the voice are potent aids in ascertaining the witness' credibility, and the trial court has the opportunity and can take advantage of these aids. These cannot be incorporated in the record so that all that the appellate court can see are the cold words of the witness contained in transcript of testimonies with the risk that some of what the witness actually said may have been lost in the process of transcribing. As correctly stated by an American court, "There is an inherent impossibility of determining with any degree of accuracy what credit is justly due to a witness from merely reading the words spoken by him, even if there were no doubt as to the identity of the words. However artful a corrupt witness may be, there is generally, under the pressure of a skillful cross-examination, something in his manner or bearing on the stand that betrays him, and thereby destroys the force of his testimony. Many of the real tests of truth by which the artful witness is exposed in the very nature of things cannot be transcribed upon the record, and hence they can never be considered by the appellate court."37 (Citations omitted)In this case, it is indubitable that the RTC found the testimony of AAA as to how ABC had carnal knowledge of her through force and intimidation credible and gave great weight to the same when it ruled for his conviction.38 The trial court noted that it "has no reason to doubt the testimony of [AAA] which was given in a clear and straightforward manner."39 As confirmed by the CA, her testimony, "given positively and candidly, conclusively established" the elements of the crime charged.40 Relying on the assessment of the lower courts, particularly of the RTC that was in the best position to assess the truthfulness of AAA and the veracity of her narration, the Court finds the testimony of AAA conclusive and binding.
x x x when the offended party is 12 years old or below 18 and the charge against the accused is carnal knowledge through "force, threat or intimidation," then he will be prosecuted for rape under Article 266-A(1)(a) of the RPC. In contrast, in case of sexual intercourse with a child who is 12 years old or below 18 and who is deemed "exploited in prostitution or other sexual abuse," the crime could not be rape under the RPC, because this no longer falls under the concept of statutory rape, and the victim indulged in sexual intercourse either "for money, profit or any other consideration or due to coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group," which deemed the child as one "exploited in prostitution or other sexual abuse."Applying the foregoing jurisprudence, the CA was mistaken when it held that the conviction by the RTC of ABC was under sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610.48 His conviction should be for rape under Article 266-A(1).
Endnotes:
1 At the victim's instance or, if the victim is a minor, that of his or her guardian, the complete name of the accused may be replaced by fictitious initials and his or her personal circumstances blotted out from the decision, resolution, or order if the name and personal circumstances of the accused may tend to establish or compromise the victims' identities; in accordance with Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 (III [1] [c]) dated September 5, 2017.
* Designated as additional Member per Special Order No. 2727.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion and concurred in by then Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now member of the Court) and Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr.; rollo, pp. 2-15.
3 CA rollo, pp. 36-44.
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 initial shall, instead, be used, in accordance with People v. Cabalquinto (533 Phil. 703 [2006]) and the Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017.
5Rollo, p. 3.
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 Id.
9Rollo, p. 4.
10 Id. at 4-5.
11 Id. at 5.
12 Id.
13Rollo, p. 6.
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 CA rollo, p. 40.
17Rollo, p. 7.
18 Id.
19 CA rollo, pp. 36-44.
20 Id. at 44.
21 Id. at 122-124.
22Rollo p. 14.
23 Id. at 23-24.
24 Id. at 25-28.
25 Id. at 29-33.
26 CA rollo, p. 16.
27 Id. at 77.
28 Id. at 30.
29People v. Ocdol, 741 Phil. 701, 714 (2014).
30 Id.
31 Id.
32 Id.
33 Id.
34 Id.
35 Id.
36 614 Phil. 589 (2009).
37 Id. at 599.
38 CA rollo, pp. 41-42.
39 Id. at 43.
40Rollo, pp. 8-9.
41 CA rollo, pp. 22-29.
42People of the Philippines v. Salvador Tulagan, G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019.
43 Id.
44 Supra note 42.
45 811 Phil. 525 (2017).
46 599 Phil. 390 (2009).
47 676 Phil. 16 (2011).
48Rollo, p. 13.
49 CA rollo, p. 41.
50People v. Castillo, 274 Phil. 940, 946 (1991).
51People v. Pilpa, G.R. No. 225336, September 5, 2018.
52 Id.
53 REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 266-B.
54People v. Ducay, 747 Phil. 657, 671 (2014).
55People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 849 (2016).