SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 239906, August 26, 2020
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. XXX,* ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
INTING, J.:
This is an appeal1 from the Decision2 dated November 24, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06589 which affirmed the Judgment3 dated September 2, 2013 and the Order4 dated October 22, 2013 of Branch 102, Regional Trial Court (RTC), xxxxxxxx convicting XXX (accused-appellant) of the crime of Rape, defined and penalized under Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended, and denying accused-appellant's Motion for New Trial.5
That on or about the 12th day of June, 2009, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, with force, threat and/or grave abuse of authority, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of [AAA], a 14 year-old minor, and his daughter, with lewd design and against her will, to the damage and prejudice of said offended party.Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.8 Trial ensued.
CONTRARY TO LAW.7cralawlawlibrary
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused [XXX], GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape penalized under Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code.On September 17, 2013, accused-appellant through counsel, filed a Motion for New Trial22 anchored on the Sinumpaang Salaysay23 purportedly executed by AAA recanting her previous statements made against accused-appellant.
Accordingly, said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to indemnify private complainant [AAA] the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.21cralawlawlibrary
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The decision of the Regional Trial Court of xxxxxxxx dated September 2, 2013 in Criminal Case No. Q-09-159438 finding accused-appellant [XXX] guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape under Art. 266-A in relation to Art. 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and imposing upon him the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua without eligibility for parole in Criminal Case No. Q-09-159438 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as to the award of damages. Accused-appellant shall pay the victim AAA P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, with legal interest on all the damages awarded at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this decision until fully paid.Insisting on his innocence, accused-appellant interposed the present appeal.
SO ORDERED.27cralawlawlibrary
Accused-appellant mainly ascribes fault to the CA for upholding the RTC Order that denied his Motion for New Trial. He argues that the CA overlooked that the RTC did not set for hearing his Motion for New Trial. He further avers that the case was decided on the basis of AAA's testimony; thus, AAA's affidavit of recantation confirms his innocence of the crime charged.30I
WHETHER ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE OF THE CRIME OF RAPE.II
"WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY AFFIRMED THE RTC IN DENYING THE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL.
ART. 266-A. Rape, When and How Commuted. - Rape is committed -In this jurisdiction, the Court is guided by the well-established principles laid down in the disposition and review of rape cases, to wit: (1) the prosecution has to show the guilt of the accused by proof beyond reasonable doubt or that degree of proof that, to an unprejudiced mind, produces conviction; (2) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit: and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the evidence of the defense; (3) unless there are special reasons, the findings of trial courts, especially regarding the credibility of witnesses, are entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on. appeal; (4) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; and (5) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution.33
1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrarya. 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.
The foregoing testimony of AAA contains badges of truth and sincerity. It is spontaneous and does not show any sign of fabrication. Even after questions propounded towards her were asked repeatedly during cross-examination, AAA proved to be very consistent in narrating her ordeal. When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability, but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.42 A young girl's revelation that she had been raped, coupled with her voluntary submission to medical examination and willingness to undergo public trial where she could be compelled to give out the details of an assault on her dignity, cannot be so easily dismissed as mere concoction.43
On direct examination:40Q: You said that your father started abusing you since you were in Grade I. How old were you then when your were in Grade I?A: I was eight (8) years old, sir. Q: And, you said that he continuously done this until June 12, 2009. How often was the abuse committed on you? A: Very often, sir, almost everyday. For example, he did it today, tomorrow, he would do it again. Q: He did it today. What did he do to you? A: "Ginagalaw niya po ako". Q: When you said "ginagalaw", what do you mean by that? A: He was inserting his penis to my vagina. x x x xQ: So, you said that on June 12, 2009, your father showed to you bold videos in his cellphone, and then, he asked you to undress, after you undressed yourself, what happened? A: He inserted his penis to my vagina. Q: Did you tell any body what has been done tc you by your father? A: None sir. Q: Why? A: He was threatening me that he would maul me and would send me out of the house if I told the incidents to anybody? On cross:examination:41 Q: Okay, Now. After your father raped you, what happened? A: He asked me to put my clothes on and told me not to tell anybody. x x x xQ: So, when your father started to molest you, your sister was sleeping beside you? A: Yes, sir. Q: You said you were crying? A: I went out of the room, went downstairs and cried inside the comfort room, sir. Q: While your father was raping you, you were not crying? A: I was also crying sir. Q: Okay. Was your sister awakened by what your father was doing to you? A: No sir.
x x x It is settled that an affidavit of desistance made by a witness after conviction of the accused is not reliable, and deserves only scant attention. The affidavits of desistance filed by the private, complainant and her witness were executed twelve (12) days after the promulgation of judgment of conviction, and are clearly mere afterthoughts. Hence, they cannot have the effect of negating a previous credible declaration.52cralawlawlibraryIn the instant case, AAA's affidavit of recantation was executed fifteen days after the judgment of conviction. Thus, it can be viewed as a mere afterthought and unreliable. More importantly, a careful perusal thereof reveals that AAA's purported signature is different from that of her signature in her Sinumpaang Salaysay and consent for the medical examination.53 The signatures on the Sinumpaang Salaysay and consent for the medical examination are similar, but the signature on the purported affidavit of desistance is different. In People v. Antonio,54 the Court found doubtful the authenticity of the affidavit of desistance because the signatures appearing thereon were different from that on the complaint affidavit.
Endnotes:
* The identity of the victim or any information to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. (RA) 7610, "An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, Providing Penalties for its Violation and For Other Purposes;" RA 9262, "An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, and For Other Purposes," Section 40 of Administrative Matter No. 04-10-11-SC, known as, the "Rule on Violence against Women and Their Children," effective November 15, 2004; People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 (2006); and Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017, Subject: Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting, on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders Using Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances.
** On official leave.
1 See Notice of Appeal dated January 23, 2018, rollo, pp. 14-15.
2Id. at 2-13; penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez with Associate Justices Ramon A. Cruz and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy, concurring.
3 CA rollo, pp. 22-31; penned by Presiding Judge Ma. Lourdes A. Giron.
4 Records, pp. 209-211.
5Id. at 182-186.
6Id. at 1-2.
7Id. at 1.
8Id. at 21.
9 TSN, August 4, 2010, p. 6.
10Id. at 10-12.
11Id. at 8.
12Id. at 11-15.
13Id. at 16-19.
14 Records, pp. 83-84.
15 TSN, February 2,2011, pp. 10-11, 17. See also the Medico-Legal Report No. R09-1173, id.
16 TSN, September 21, 2011, p. 3.
17Id. at 5-8.
18Id. at 10-12.
19Id. at 13-15.
20 CA rollo, p. 30
21Id. at 30-31.
22 Records, pp. 182-186.
23Id. at 189-190.
24Id. at 209-211.
25 CA rollo, pp. 65-70.
26Rollo, pp. 9-12.
27Id. at 12-13.
28 See Manifestation and Motion dated November 26, 2018, id. at 21 -22.
29Id. at 33-50.
30Id. at 44-45.
31People v. Yagao, G.R. No. 216725, February 18, 2019.
32Id.
33People v. Alcazar, 645 Phil. 181, 191-192 (2010), citing People v. San Antonio, Jr. 559 Phil. 188, 201 (2007).
34People v. Condes, 659 Phil. 375, 386 (2011).
35People v. Hermocilla, 554 Phil. 189, 194 (2007), citing People v. Maguikay, 307 Phil. 605, 620 (1994).
36People v. Ampo, G.R. No 229938, February 27, 2019.
37People v. Espenilla, 713 Phil. 153, 166 (2013), citing People v. Bulagao, 674 Phil. 535, 544 (2011).
38People v. Sumingwa, 611 Phil. 650, 663(2009).
39People v. Caratay, 374 Phil. 590, 601 (1999), citing People v. Reñola, 367 Phil. 415, 423-424 (1994).
40 TSN, August 4, 2010, pp. 8, 14-15.
41 TSN, September 22, 2010. pp. 20, 23-24.
42People v. Amaro, 739 Phil. 170, 178 (2014), citing People v. Piosang, 710 Phil. 519, 526 (2013).
43 See People v. Tulagan, G R. No. 227363. March i2, 2019, citing People v. Garcia, 605 Phil. 579, 588-589(2012).
44People v. Bagsic, 822 Phil. 784, 797 (2017), citing People v. Soria, 698 Phil. 676, 689 (2012).
45 People v. Condes, 659 Phil. 375. 395 (2011).
46People v. Malana, 646 Phil. 290, 308. Citations omitted.
47 764 Phil. 144(2015).
48 739 Phil. 502 (2014).
49Firaza v. People, 47 Phil. 572, 584 (2007).
50Id.
51 443 Phil. 618 (2003).
52Id. at 625-626. Citation omitted.
53 Records, pp. 12, 84, 199.
54 596 Phil. 808 (2009).
55 ART. 266-B. Penalties. - Rape under paragraph i of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rap;.- is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
1. 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 commonlaw spouse of the parent of the victim; (Emphasis supplied.)
56 The phrase "without eligibility for parole" is not deleted in view of the guidelines provided for in A.M. No. 15-08-02 SC dated August 4, 2015 which states that, (2) When circumstances are present warranting the imposition of the death penalty, but this penalty is not imposed because of RA 9346, the qualification of "without eligibility for parole" shall he used to qualify reclusion perpetua in order to emphasize that the accused should have been sentenced to suffer death penalty had it not been for RA. 9346.
57People vs. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 843 (2016).chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary