THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 231984, July 06, 2020
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. LEO IBAÑEZ Y MORALES, ACCUSED-APELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
A man who forces sexual congress on a person is a rapist. Survivors of such cruelty must not be blamed for any action, or lack thereof, that they take when suddenly forced to respond to a threat. Rapist are rapists, and their acts must never be attributed to the victims.
For this Court's resolution is an appeal of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court's Joint Decision2 convicting Leo Ibañez y Morales (Ibañez) of four counts of qualified rape.
In four separate pieces of Information, Ibañez was charged with four counts of qualified rape committed on AAA, penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. The first Information reads:
That on or about the 25th day of April, 2003, in the Municipality of xxxxxxxx, Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with the use of a knife, a deadly weapon, through force, threat and intimidation, taking advantage of his moral ascendancy and with the attendant special qualifying circumstance of relationship and minority, the accused being the uncle, thus, a relative by affinity within the third civil degree of herein victim who was under eighteen (18) years of age, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one [AAA], a minor, 17 years old, against her will, in her own dwelling, to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW.3cralawlawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
(a) In Criminal Case No. 04-26058, finding accused-defendant LEO IBAÑEZ y MORALES "GUILTY" beyond reasonable doubt of the felony of Qualified Rape punishable under Article 266-A in relation to 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. He is therefore convicted of the Information dated January 6, 2004. Accused-defendant LEO IBAÑEZ y MORALES is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility of parole with all of its accessory penalties. He is also ordered to PAY the victim [AAA] the amount of seventy five thousand pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity, seventy five thousand pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages and thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages;
(b) In Criminal Case No. 04-26059, finding accused-defendant LEO IBAÑEZ y MORALES "GUILTY" beyond reasonable doubt of the felony of Qualified Rape punishable under Article 266-A in relation to 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. He is therefore convicted of the Information dated January 6, 2004. Accused-defendant LEO IBAÑEZ y MORALES is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility of parole with all of its accessory penalties. He is also ordered to PAY the victim [AAA] the amount of seventy five thousand pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity, seventy five thousand pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages and thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages;
(c) In Criminal Case No. 04-26060, finding accused-defendant LEO IBAÑEZ y MORALES "GUILTY" beyond reasonable doubt of the felony of Qualified Rape punishable under Article 266-A in relation to 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. He is therefore convicted of the Information dated January 6, 2004. Accused-defendant LEO IBAÑEZ y MORALES is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility of parole with all of its accessory penalties. He is also ordered to PAY the victim [AAA] the amount of seventy five thousand pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity, seventy five thousand pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages and thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages;
(d) In Criminal Case No. 04-26061, finding accused-defendant LEO IBAÑEZ y MORALES "GUILTY" beyond reasonable doubt of the felony of Qualified Rape punishable under Article 266-A in relation to 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. He is therefore convicted of the Information dated January 6, 2004. Accused-defendant LEO IBAÑEZ y MORALES is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility of parole with all of its accessory penalties. He is also ordered to PAY the victim [AAA] the amount of seventy five thousand pesos (P75.000.00) as civil indemnity, seventy five thousand pesos (P75.000.00) as moral damages and thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages;
....
SO ORDERED.17 (Emphasis in the original)
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 27 August 2015 of the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City, Branch 52 finding Leo Ibañez y Morales guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified Rape in Criminal Case Nos. 04-26058/59/60/61 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Leo Ibañez y Morales is ORDERED to pay AAA the amount of [P]100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages for each crime, plus legal interest on all damages awarded at the legal rate of 6% from the date of finality of this Decision.
SO ORDERED.31 (Emphasis in the original)
The Regional Trial Court had the opportunity to personally observe the witnesses during their testimonies. Thus, its assignment of probative value to testimonial evidence will not be disturbed except when significant matters were overlooked. A reversal of its findings becomes even less likely when affirmed by the Court of Appeals.40 (Emphasis supplied)
Article 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. — Rape is committed —
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.41
Q: . . . [W]ill you kindly narrate to us from the very beginning how [the rape] transpired?
A: On that afternoon. Leo Ibañez went to our house and inquired where my Papa and Mama was [sic], I answered "I don't know", they left" [sic] and then he came near me and pulled me and pointed a knife at me.
....
Q: After he pulled you and pointed a knife at your side, what happened next?
A: He pointed a knife at my side pulling me towards the house. He kissed my lips and his hands mashed different parts of my body going towards the bed. He held tightly both my hands and his left hand while his right hand pulling [sic] my pants and panty.
Q: What happened next?
A: Then he pushed me to the bed and he placed himself on top of me.
Q: What else happened?
A: He was wearing blue shorts and he also removed his shorts while on top of me.
Q: After he removed his shorts, what did he do?
A: Then he inserted his penis into my vagina and done [sic] the push-and-pull motion.
Q: Was he able to enter your vagina?
A: Yes, it penetrated me and I felt pain.
Q: After doing the push-and-pull inside your vagina, what happened next?
A: When he penetrated me I shouted "agoy".
....
Q: What were you doing at that time on April 12, 2003 at about 5:00 to 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon?
A: I was arranging my clothes inside our house when the accused called up and asked the whereabouts of my parents....
....
Q: While he was kissing and continued mashing [sic] the different parts of your body, what else happened?
A: He told me to go to the bed and he continued kissing me ... and then he undressed himself and he let me lie down and he placed himself on top of me and continued mashing the different parts of my body and pointing to me the knife.
....
Q: After licking your vagina with his tongue, what else happened?
A: He kissed my lips and he inserted his penis into my vagina, Sir.
....
Q: Can you recall when the third one happened? The second was on April 12, 2003, when was the third one?
A: April 25, 2003.
....
Q: What happened in your house when your parents were no longer there?
A: I placed the water in our kitchen and Leo Ibañez was already there sitting in our bamboo set, then he warned me not to tell my parents about the things he had been doing to me, Sir.
....
Q: What else happened?
A: He was on top of me, undressing me and he also undressed himself, Sir.
Q: After he had undressed himself, what did you do while on top of you? [sic]
A: He inserted his left middle finger inside my vagina, Sir.
Q: What else did he do?
A: He let his left mid[d]le finger roam around inside my vagina, Sir.
....
Q: What else happened?
A: [A]nd later on, he inserted his penis into my vagina and made a push-and-pull movement, Sir.
....
Q: For how long did he do the push-and-pull motion?
A: Until such time that he ejaculated, Sir.
....
Q: So when Sammy went home, what happened next?
A: And [sic] I tried to wake up Leo so that he will be able to go home but suddenly he switched the TV off and he then pulled me and tried to kiss me.
Q: What else transpired?
A: I tried to get away from Leo and my feet even slipped from the floor and I fell down on the floor, Sir.
Q: So when you fell down on the floor, what did you do, if any?
A: When I was on the floor, I tried to get away from him but he placed himself on top of me and kept kissing me, undressed me, he again inserted his fingers inside my vagina. He licked my vagina and he inserted his penis inside my vagina and did the push-and-pull movement. Sir.44 (Citations omitted)
The presence of lacerations is not an element of the crime of rape. This court previously characterized the presence or absence of lacerations as a "trivial or inconsequential [matter] that does not alter the essential fact of the commission of rape." The presence of lacerations is, therefore, not necessary to sustain a conviction. An accused may be found guilty of rape regardless of the existence or inexistence of lacerations. The absence of lacerations is not a sufficient defense.
However, the presence of lacerations may be used to sustain conviction of an accused by corroborating testimonies of abuse and documents showing trauma upon the victim's genitals.48 (Citation omitted)
The discrepancies pertaining to "minor details and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime" do not prejudice AAA's credibility. Thus, "[i]nstead of weakening [her] testimonies, such inconsistencies tend to strengthen [her] credibility because they discount the possibility of their being rehearsed,"51 (Citations omitted)
[R]esistance is not an element of the crime of rape. It need not be shown by the prosecution. Neither is it necessary to convict an accused. The main element of rape is "lack of consent."
"Consent," "resistance," and "absence of resistance" are different things. Consent implies agreement and voluntariness. It implies willfulness. Similarly, resistance is an act of will. However, it implies the opposite of consent. It implies disagreement.
Meanwhile, absence of resistance only implies passivity. It may be a product of one's will. It may imply consent. However, it may also be the product of force, intimidation, manipulation, and other external forces.
Thus, when a person resists another's sexual advances, it would not be presumptuous to say that that person does not consent to any sexual activity with the other. That resistance may establish lack of consent. Sexual congress with a person who expressed her resistance by words or deeds constitutes force either physically or psychologically through threat or intimidation. It is rape.
Lack of resistance may sometimes imply consent. However, that is not always the case. While it may imply consent, there are circumstances that may render a person unable to express her resistance to another's sexual advances. Thus, when a person has carnal knowledge with another person who does not show any resistance, it does not always mean that that person consented to such act. Lack of resistance does not negate rape.52 (Emphasis supplied)
Endnotes:
1 Id. at 4-11. The December 21, 2016 Decision in CA-G.R. CEB-CR HC No. 02169 was penned by Associate Justice Germano Francisco D. Legaspi and concurred in by Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap of the Eighteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu City.
2 CA rollo, pp. 54-69. The August 27, 2015 Joint Decision in Crim. Case Nos. 04-26058/59/60/61 was penned by Presiding Judge Raymond Joseph G. Javier of Branch 52, Regional Trial Court, Bacolod City.
3 Id. at 54.
4 Id. at 55-56.
5 Id. at 56.
6 Id.
7 Id. at 57.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10Rollo, p. 6.
11 Id.
12 CA rollo, p. 58.
13 Id.
14 Id. at 54-69.
15 Id. at 66.
16 Id. at 65.
17 Id. at 67-69.
18Rollo, p. 7.
19 CA rollo, pp. 29-53.
20 Id. at 41.
21 Id. at 43.
22 Id. at 44.
23 Id. at 45.
24 Id. at 46.
25 Id. at 47.
26 Id.
27 Id. at 46.
28 Rollo, pp. 4-11.
29 Id. at 8.
30 Id. at 10.
31 Id. at 11.
32 Id. at 12-14.
33 Id. at 1 and 15.
34 Id. at 17-18.
35 Id. at 22-24.
36 Id. at 26-29.
37 Id. at 30-31.
38People v. Pusing, 789 Phil. 541, 556 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division] citing People v. De Jesus, 695 Phil. 114, 122 (2012) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
39 G.R. No. 227755, August 14, 2019.
40 Id. citing People v. Dimapilit, 816 Phil. 523, 540-541 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
41 REV. PEN. CODE, art. 266-A, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 (1997).
42 REV. PEN. CODE, art. 266-B, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 (1997).
43People v. Armodia, 810 Phil. 822, 833 (2017). [Per J. Leonen, Third Division] citing People v. Malana, 646 Phil. 290, 310 (2010) [Per J. Perez, First Division].
44 CA rollo, pp. 59-64.
45People v. Arlee, 380 Phil. 175 (2000) [Per J. Purisima, Third Division].
46 CA rollo, p. 65.
47 746 Phil. 800 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
48 Id. at 825-826.
49People v. Buclao, 736 Phil. 325, 339 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division] citing People v. Alvero, 386 Phil. 181, 200 (2000) [Per Curiam, En Banc] and People v. Piosang, 710 Phil. 519 (2013) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
50 812 Phil. 62 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
51 Id. at 88.
52People v. Quintos, 746 Phil. 809, 828 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
53 CA rollo, p. 45.
54See People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].
55 See Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013) [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary