FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 243625, December 02, 2020
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. JEFFREY DERECO Y HAYAG, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, C.J.:
Before this Court is an appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking the reversal of the Decision1 dated April 11, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. CR-HC No. 08172, which affirmed with modification the Decision2 dated November 16, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 76, finding accused-appellant Jeffrey Dereco y Hayag guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
In an Information3 dated September 1, 2009, accused-appellant was charged with the special complex crime of Robbery with Rape, to wit: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
That on or about the 26th of August 2009, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused JEFFREY DERECO Y HAYAG, conspiring and confederating with another person who is at-large, and mutually helping each other, with intent to gain and by means of force, violence and intimidation against person, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously rob one [AAA]4 in (sic) following manner, to wit: on the date and place aforementioned, while complainant was walking along xxxxxxxx this City, accused, pursuant to their conspiracy, appeared from behind and thereafter took and carried away from her one (1) Nokia cellphone worth Php5,000.00, one (1) gold ring 18k worth Php3,000.00, and cash money worth Php1,000.00, all valued in the total amount of Php9,000.00, Philippine Currency, belonging to said [AAA], and on the occasion of the Robbery, by means of force and intimidation, with lewd designs, accused one after another and mutually helping each other, had carnal knowledge with the said complainant, all against her will and without consent, to her damage and prejudice.During arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. On pre-trial, the parties stipulated on the identity of the accused-appellant as the same person named in the Information. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
CONTRARY TO LAW.5cralawlawlibrary
WHEREFORE, accused Jeffrey Dereco y Hayag is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of paragraph (1) of Art. 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, otherwise known as Rape.Unperturbed, accused-appellant appealed the court a quo's decision before the Court of Appeals. However, on April 11, 2017, in its disputed Decision,15 the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the decision of the trial court. The dispositive portion of which reads: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
He is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, with no eligibility for parole, and TO PAY the private complainant victim AAA that amount of Php 50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages, and P30,000 as exemplary damages, with all such amounts to earn interest of 6% per annum from the finality of this decision until full payment.
SO ORDERED.14cralawlawlibrary
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated November 16, 2015 of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court, Branch 76, in Criminal Case No. Q-09-160418 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS, in that the phrase "without eligibility for parole" is DELETED and the accused-appellant is ordered to indemnify the private complainant the following amounts: (1) Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity; (2) Php75,000.00 as moral damages; and (3) Php75,000.00 as exemplary damages, with interest on all damages awarded at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.Thus, before this Court, accused-appellant reiterated the following arguments previously raised before the appellate court to argue his conviction, to wit:
All other aspects of the assailed Decision
STAND. SO ORDERED.16cralawlawlibrary
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF RAPE DESPITE THE INCONSISTENCIES AND INCREDIBILITY IN THE TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT.In seeking the reversal of the assailed CA decision, accused-appellant asserts that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He claims that AAA's testimony was riddled with inconsistencies and improbabilities. Thus, accused-appellant asserts that the courts a quo erred in giving credence to AAA's testimony as her credibility was questionable.17II
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING PROBATIVE WEIGHT TO PRIVATE COMPLAINANT'S TESTIMONY DESPITE BEING CONTROVERTED BY THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD.III
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE AND UNDUE CONSIDERATION TO THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT'S INCREDIBLE AND INCONSISTENT TESTIMONY WHILE COMPLETELY DISREGARDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S DEFENSE OF ALIBI AND DENIAL.
Rape is committed —In the instant case, both the RTC and the CA correctly found that all the elements of rape were established by the prosecution. The prosecution sufficiently established beyond reasonable doubt that on August 26, 2009, accused-appellant had carnal knowledge with AAA, and inserted his finger inside AAA's genitalia, while Biboy acted as look-out. It was also proven that accused-appellant employed force, threat, and intimidation upon AAA when he continuously poked a knife at AAA's left side.
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 other wise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of au thority; and
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances men tioned above be present.
2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances men tioned 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.
Dr. Shanne Lore A. Dettabali, M.D., who conducted the medico-legal examination on AAA on the same day of the alleged commission of rape, also testified that upon examination, AAA's hymen not only appeared to be "erythematous"20 but also, there was "positive presence of spermatozoa" found in her vagina which shows a "definite evidence of sexual contact."21
Prosecutor Usita: The witness is crying. Q What happened after one of them grabbed you? A The accused Jeffrey Dereco immediately poked a knife at my left side while Biboy was at my right side and suddenly grabbed my bag. Q After that, what happened, Madam Witness? A They dragged me to a vacant lot. Q While they were dragging you towards the vacant lot, what did you do, if any? A I was trying to free myself and told them to just get every thing they want but not to harm me. Q What was the reply of the accused and his companion? A While I was trying to free myself, Jeffrey kept poking his knife at me. Q Thereafter, what happened next? A When we were already on the far end of the vacant lot, Jeffrey raised my clothes. Q While Jeffrey was raising your clothes, what did you do? A I tried to fight back but he kept on mashing my breasts. Q Who was mashing your breasts? A Jeffrey Dereco. Q After Dereco kept on mashing your breasts, what happened next? A Dereco unzipped my pants and lowered my underwear down to my knees. Q After Dereco unzipped your pants and lowered your underwear, what did you do? A I tried fighting bank but he kept spreading my legs. Q Was accused Dereco able to spread your legs? Atty. Cabarrubias: Leading, your honor. Prosecutor Usita: Anyway, it is a follow-up question but we already established the basis that the accused was trying to spread the thighs of the witness. Q. Was he able to spread your legs? A Yes, sir. Q What happened after the accused was able to spread your legs? A He inserted his fingers in my vagina. Q Was he able to insert his finger into your vagina? Atty. CabaiTubias: Leading, your honor. Prosecutor Usita: Follow-up question, your honor. Witness: A. Yes, sir. Prosecutor Usita: Q. What did you feel? A. It hurts. Q. How about the companion of accused Dereco, what was he doing at the time? A He was just looking around and said, "Bilisan mo." Q What else did he utter after saying, "Bilisan mo?" A Biboy approached me and said, "Auntie, huwag kang sisigaw kung ayaw mong patayin ka namin dahil may dala kaming baril." Q After uttering those words, what happened next? A Biboy then pushed me and told me to turn around and face the wall and then he went on my back. Q What happened next? A Then he kept on trying to remove my pants and underwear. I kept fighting back. Q What happened next? A They were stronger than me. When Biboy was at my back, he kept pushing my head downwards. Q What did you do after Biboy pushed your head downwards? A I fought back but they were stronger than me. Q What was Dereco doing while Biboy was pushing your head down? A Dereco was in front of me and he was helping Biboy in spreading my legs. Q What happened next? A After they were able to remove my pants and underwear, Biboy, who was at my back, inserted his penis in my vagina. Q What happened next, Madam Witness? A At that moment, Dereco, who was in front of me, knelt and he was pressing my mouth open and kissed me. Q What did you do? A I kept fighting back and begging them not to do what they were doing. Q What was the response of Dereco to your pleading? A They did not mind what I was saying and instead, pressed hard on the knife pointed at me. Q Who in particular was pointing that knife at you? A Jeffrey Dereco, at first. Q Then who came next? A It was still Dereco pointing the knife at me because he was in front of me at the time. Q After Biboy inserted his penis inside you, what happened next? A They changed places and it was [the] turn of Dereco to go to my back. Q What happened after Dereco went to your back? A He removed his shorts and pulled out his penis and was pushing me and at the same time, I felt I was going to be killed. Q What happened after that? A Dereco did the same thing that Biboy did to me. Q What did he exactly do to you? A He inserted his penis into my vagina. Q What did you feel at the time, Madam Witness? A It was painful. Q How long did Dereco insert his penis into your vagina? A More or less, a minute. Q Before Dereco inserted his penis into your vagina, what did you do? A I was fighting back. Q What happened when you tried to fight back? A The more I fought back, the more they exerted efforts to pin my head down. Q What happened after Dereco inserted his penis into your vagina for about a minute? A Then he left my back and I just sat down at the place of incident. Q Could you describe the lighting condition at the time at the place of the incident? A The light came from the post at the corner of the street. Q You said you sat down on the spot of the incident, how long did you sit down on that place? A I do not recall but I remember that I just put on my pants and underwear.
Q How about the accused Dereco and his companion, what did they do after that? A They told me not to leave and out of fear, I just "sumiksik sa dido." Q After that, what happened? A When I felt that they were no longer around, I stood up and walked towards the highway. x x x .19
Endnotes:
1 Penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante, with Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles concurring; rollo pp. 2-15.
2 Records, pp. 334-342.
3Id.at 1.
4 The victim's name and personal circumstances, as well as the names of the victim's immediate family or household members, are withheld and replaced with fictitious initials pursuant to Section 44 of Republic Act No. 9262 and Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC or the Rule on Violence Against Women and their [C]hildren. See People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 (2006).
5 Records, p. 1.
6 TSN, June 2, 2010, pp. 3-8.
7Id. at 9-12.
8Id. at 12-13.
9Id. at 14-15.
10 Records, p. 92.
11 TSN, October 22, 2015, pp. 8-9.
12Id. at 10-11.
13 CA rollo, pp. 51-59.
14Id.
15Supra note 1.
16Id.
17 CA rollo, pp. 43-46.
18People v. Avelino, Jr. y Gracillian, G.R. No. 231358, July 8, 2019.
19 TSN (Direct examination of AAA, June 2, 2010); records, pp. 5-12.
20 Records, pp. 6-7.
21Id.
22People v. Etnpuesto, 851 Phil. 611, 628 (2018).
23People v. Ganaba, G.R. No. 219240, April 4, 2018, 860 SCRA 513, 525.
24People v. Gahi, 727 Phil. 642, 659 (2014).
25People v. Gerola, 813 Phil. 1055, 1066 (2017).
26People v. Amoc, 810 Phil. 253, 259 (2017).
27People v. Gani, 710 Phil. 466, 473 (2013).
28People v. Pareja, 724 Phil. 759, 783 (2014).
29People v. Romobio, G.R. No. 227705, October 11,2017, 842 SCRA512, 538.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary