THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 229209, February 12, 2020
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ZZZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
The lower court's determination of witness credibility will seldom be disturbed on appeal, unless significant matters have been overlooked. Reversal of these findings becomes even more inappropriate when affirmed by the Court of Appeals.1
In determining a victim's credibility in rape cases, however, courts should be wary of adopting outdated notions of a victim's behavior based on gender stereotypes. Regardless of such preconceptions, conviction may be warranted based "solely on the testimony of the victim, provided of course, that the testimony is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things."2
For this Court's resolution is an appeal filed by ZZZ. He questions the Decision3 of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court's finding4 that he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of raping his granddaughter AAA. The Information charging him with the crime read:
That during the month of December 2010, at Sitio Anahaw. Barangay Otod, Municipality of San Fernando, Province of Romblon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, through force, threat and intimidation and by taking advantage of the minority and lack of education of [AAA], did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had (sic) carnal knowledge of [AAA], a minor, 15 years of age, without her consent and against her will and that the commission of this crime of rape demeans, debases and degrades the intrinsic worth and dignity of said [AAA] as a human being.ZZZ pleaded not guilty during his arraignment,6 initiating trial. The prosecution offered the testimonies of the victim AAA, Dr. Lolinie Celestial B. Montojo (Dr. Montojo), Rosa Ravalo (Ravalo), and Barangay Captain Manuel Lotec (Barangay Captain Lotec).
That the accused is the grandfather of the victim [AAA].
CONTRARY TO LAW.5
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered finding accused [ZZZ] GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape, defined and penalized under Article 266-A, par. 1 (a) or the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentence (sic) to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua pursuant to Art. 266-B of the Revised Penal Code and to pay the complainant [AAA] the sums of P75,000.00 as indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.The trial court found AAA's testimony credible and sufficiently corroborated by the medico-legal certificate and the other witnesses' testimonies. It likewise appreciated Barangay Captain Lotec's testimony of having seen AAA pale and trembling as corroborative proof that AAA was telling the truth about her rape. It also noted that AAA's sworn statement was uncontroverted by the defense. To the trial court, her positive testimony prevailed over ZZZ's defense of denial.19
SO ORDERED.18
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing premises, the instant APPEAL is hereby DENIED and the Decision dated March 8, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court of Romblon in Criminal Case No. 2919 on the guilt of accused-appellant [ZZZ] guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION insofar as the award of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity which is reduced to P50,000.00. In addition to the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages, the appellant is ordered to pay exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00, with legal rate of interest of six (6) percent per annum on all monetary awards from the date of finality of this Judgment.The Court of Appeals found AAA's testimony credible and sufficiently corroborated by the other prosecution witnesses' testimonies. According to it, AAA "positively identified [ZZZ] as her abuser [and] did not waver on the material points of her testimony."36 Even if ZZZ's contentions on the absence of corroboration were to be believed, the Court of Appeals held that "corroboration is not indispensable for condemnation[.]"37
SO ORDERED.35
Article 266-A. Rape: When and How Committed. - Rape is committed -Here, as the lower courts found, accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA without her consent and by using his moral ascendancy over her as her grandfather and father figure.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.
More often than not, where the alleged victim survives to tell her story of sexual depredation, rape cases are solely decided based on the credibility of the testimony of the private complainant. In doing so, we have hinged on the impression that no young Filipina of decent repute would publicly admit that she has been sexually abused, unless that is the truth, for it is her natural instinct to protect her honor. However, this misconception, particularly in this day and age, not only puts the accused at unfair disadvantage, but created a travesty of justice.Thus, in Amarela, the accused was acquitted because the victim's account was improbable and marred by inconsistencies, regardless of the existing preconception that a Filipino woman's honor would prevent her from lying about her ordeal.
....
This opinion borders on the fallacy of non sequitur. And while the factual setting back then would have been appropriate to say it is natural for a woman to be reluctant in disclosing a sexual assault; today, we simply cannot be stuck to the Maria Clara stereotype of a demure and reserved Filipino woman. We, should stay away from such mindset and accept the realities of a woman's dynamic role in society today; she who has over the years transformed info a strong and confidently intelligent and beautiful person, willing to fight for her rights.
In this way, we can evaluate the testimony of a private complainant of rape without gender bias or cultural misconception. It is important to weed out these unnecessary notions because an accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided of course, that the testimony is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. Thus, in order for us to affirm a conviction for rape, we must believe beyond reasonable doubt the version of events narrated by the victim.52 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
This Court in Amarela, however, did not go as far as denying the existence of patriarchal dominance in many social relationships. Courts must continue to be sensitive to the power relations that come clothed in gender roles. In many instances, it does take courage for girls or women to come forward and testify against the boys or men in their lives who, perhaps due to cultural roles, dominate them. Courts must continue to acknowledge that the dastardly illicit and lustful acts of men are often veiled in either the power of coercive threat or the inconvenience inherent in patriarchy as a culture.Here, AAA's account of having been attacked by accused-appellant was sufficiently corroborated by Barangay Captain Lotec's testimony that he saw AAA "pale and trembling." Such description is based on his personal knowledge, having actually observed and spoken to AAA regarding her ordeal. This, taken with the prosecution's other corroborating evidence and AAA's straightforward identification of accused-appellant as the perpetrator, makes AAA's testimony sufficiently credible-independent of her perceived propensity for truthfulness based on gender stereotypes.
Even if it were true that AAA was infatuated with the accused, it did not justify the indignity done to her. At the tender age of 12, adolescents will normally be misled by their hormones and mistake regard or adoration for love. The aggressive expression of infatuation from a 12-year-old girl is never an invitation for sexual indignities. Certainly, it does not deserve the accused's mashing of her breasts or the insertion of his finger into her vagina.
Consistent with our pronouncement in Amarela. AAA was no Maria Clara. Not being the fictitious and generalized demure girl, it does not make her testimony less credible especially when supported by the other pieces of evidence presented in this case.54 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
Clearly, the presumption had always been in favor of potency. Stated differently, impotency-the physical inability to have sexual intercourse-is considered an abnormal condition and should not be presumed ...The Court of Appeals did not find any reason to overturn the trial court's findings, and neither do we. This Court finds that AAA positively identified accused-appellant as the assailant. The elements of simple rape that he had carnal knowledge of AAA without her consent and by using his moral ascendancy over her given their paternal relationship-were duly established by AAA's testimony, admissions by accused-appellant, and the prosecution's other corroborating evidence. Again, unless important matters have been overlooked, the trial court's determination of witness credibility will seldom be disturbed on appeal-especially when they are affirmed by the Court of Appeals.57
....
In rape cases, impotency as a defense must be proven with certainty to overcome the presumption in favor of potency. Under the present circumstances, the evidence proffered by the defense failed to discharge such burden, inasmuch as the very testimony of Dr. Wilma Flores-Peralta repudiates the claim that accused-appellant could not have performed the sexual act.56
When the circumstances surrounding the crime call for the imposition of reclusion perpetua only, there being no ordinary aggravating circumstance, the Court rules that the proper amounts should be P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages and P75,000.00 exemplary damages, regardless of the number of qualifying aggravating circumstances present.59Since accused-appellant was meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua for raping AAA, accused-appellant must be held liable to the modified amounts of P75,000.00 each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages.
| Very truly yours, |
(SGD) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG III | |
Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1People v. Diu, 708 Phil. 218, 232 (2013) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
2People v. Amarela, G.R. No. 225642-43, January 17, 2018, 852 SCRA 54, 68 [Per J. Martires, Third Division].
3 CA rollo, pp. 76-85. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam (now a retired member of this Court) and Francisco P. Acosta of the Fourth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
4 Id. at 18-23. The March 8, 2013 Decision was penned by Executive Judge Ramiro R. Geronimo of Branch 18, Regional Trial Court of Romblon, Romblon.
5 Id. at 18.
6 Id.
7 Id. at 20.
8 Id.
9 Id. at 33.
10 Id. at 20 and 64.
11 Id. at 20.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id. at 19.
15 Id.
16 Id. at 21 and 34.
17 Id. at 18-23.
18 Id. at 22.
19 Id. at 21-22.
20 Id. at 22.
21 Id. at 29-41.
22 Id. at 35.
23 Id.
24 Id. at 36.
25 Id. at 36-37.
26 Id. at 38.
27 Id. at 62-63.
28 Id. at 63.
29 Id. at 64-65.
30 Id. at 66.
31 Id. at 66-67.
32 Id. at 67.
33 Id. at 64.
34 Id. at 76-85.
35 Id. at 84-85.
36 Id. at 81.
37 Id.
38 Id. at 82.
39 Id.
40Rollo, pp. 1 and 12-15.
41 Id. at 17.
42 Id. at 18-21, accused-appellant's Manifestation and 22-25, plaintiff-appellee's Manifestation.
43People v. Diu, 708 Phil. 218, 232 (2013) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
44 CA rollo, pp. 21-22.
45 Id. at 20.
46 Id. at 81.
47 694 Phil. 529 (2012) [Per J. Perez, En Banc].
48 Id. at 559.
49 CA rollo, pp. 80-81.
50 Id. at 82.
51 G.R. No. 225642-43, January 17, 2018, 852 SCRA 54 [Per J. Martires, Third Division].
52 Id. at 67-68.
53 G.R. No. 201414, April 18, 2018, [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
54 Id.
55People v. Cruz, 612 Phil. 726, 735 (2009) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Third Division].
56People v. Austria, 389 Phil. 737, 753-754 (2000) [Per J. Buena, Second Division].
57People v. Diu, 708 Phil. 218, 232 (2013) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
58 783 Phil. 806 (2016) [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].
59 Id. at 840.
60Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013) [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].