SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 230981, July 15, 2020
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. XXX* Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
INTING, J.:
The case tells the story of a child snatched from the cradle of innocence by the bestiality of his own step-father whom she fondly called as Papa XXX. The controversy lies in the forthright and positive testimony of the victim regarding the sexual abuse she suffered in the hands of her step-father as against the latter's defense that it is incredible that he would rape the victim, while his own children are in the house.
For the Court's consideration is the appeal1 of the Decision2 dated October 27, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01331-MIN which affirmed in toto the Joint Decision3 dated July 4, 2014 of Branch 22, Regional Trial Court (RTC), x x x x x x x x finding XXX (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape under Article 266-A, in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended; and for violating Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. (RA) 7610, otherwise known as the "Special Protection of Children against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act."
That sometime in the year 2010, and on dates subsequent and prior thereto, at, x x x x x x x x , Misamis Oriental, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, having moral ascendancy over the herein victim, being the common-law husband of her mother, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit a series of acts of sexual abuse upon one [AAA], a 12-years old minor, by sodomizing her by inserting his penis into said victim's anus, and on several occasions by inserting his penis into her vagina, which acts of said accused debase, degrade and demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of said child, [AAA], as a human being, to the damage and prejudice of said victim.Additionally, in Criminal Case No. 2011-441,6 accused-appellant was indicted for child abuse, viz.:cralawred
CONTRARY TO and in violation of Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 (CHILD ABUSE).5
That sometime in the month of February, 2011 or prior thereto, at x x x x x x x x , Misamis Oriental, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, through force and intimidation and having moral ascendancy over the herein victim,, being the common-law husband of her mother, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one [AAA], a 12-year-old minor, against her will and consent, to the damage and prejudice of said victim.On January 20, 2012, accused-appellant, upon his arraignment, entered his pleas of not guilty to both charges.8
CONTRARY TO and in violation of Article 266-A, in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 8353.7
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused [XXX];
1). GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of CHILD ABUSE as defined and penalized under Section 5(b), Article III, Republic Act No. 7610 in F.C. Criminal Case No. 2011-440 and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate sentence of Fourteen (14) years, Eight (8) months and One (1) day of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to Seventeen (17) years, Four (4) months and One (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. He is also ordered to pay "AAA" the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages. Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, the accused is also ordered to pay the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages.
2). GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape as defined and penalized under Article 266-A, Par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code in F.C. Criminal Case No. 2011-441 and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the imprisonment of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole. He is also ordered to pay "AAA" P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
The accused is likewise ordered to pay "AAA" interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum in all the amounts of damages awarded, reckoned from the date of finality of this decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.16
From the foregoing, the elements of rape have been established without iota of doubt. In the case at bar, the appellant had carnal knowledge of the private complainant with the use of force, threat, intimidation and by means of abuse of authority. This was supported by private complainant's testimony, the foregoing affidavit and corroborated by the medical and psychological reports. Her minority was substantiated by her birth certificate showing that she was born on 19 May 1998 and admitted by the defense during the pre-trial conference.Before the Court, accused-appellant manifested that he would no longer file a Supplemental Brief as he had exhaustively discussed the arguments for his acquittal in his Appellant's Brief.19 The Office of the Solicitor General manifested in like manner that the Appellee's Brief filed before the CA already discussed its arguments; hence, there is no necessity to file a Supplemental Brief.20
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The 4 July 2014 Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Branch 22, x x x x x x x x in Criminal Cases No. 2011-440 for violation of R.A. No. 7610 and No. 2011-441 for Rape is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.18
Article 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. — Rape is committed —Paragraph 2 of Section 266-A refers to rape by sexual assault. It is known as instrument or object rape or gender-free rape and must be attended by any of the circumstances enumerated above.24 Thus:cralawred
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 is otherwise unconscious;
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
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.
ART. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. — x x x
x x x x
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 oral orifice of another person.
Accused-appellant is guilty of Qualified Rape in Criminal Case No. 2011-441. |
Faced with such serious accusation, accused-appellant raised the defense of denial and faulted AAA for her failure to report the alleged sexual abuse to her mother or the authorities. He argued that AAA was already 12 years old at the time of the supposed incident and she can decide on her own and report it. What is more, he claimed that AAA harbors ill-feelings towards him for disciplining her for her misdemeanors.
[PROS. BONOAN: (To: Witness)] x x x x Q. What is the work of your mother BBB? A. She is a "puto" vendor. Q. How about your step father, what is his work? A. He worked in the farm. Q. Do you call him Papa or Uncle? A. Papa. x x x x Q. You filed a case against [XXX], why is it that you filed a case against him? A. Because he abused me. Q. Where did it happen? A. At our house. Q. When you say he abused you, what did he do to you? RECORDS: Witness is wiping her eyes and start to sob. PROS. BONOAN: (To: Witness) Q. Did it happen in your house in x x x x x x x x ? A. At x x x x x x x x Q. Where was your mother at that time? A. She was selling puto. Q. Who was left in the house? A. The four of us. My two half siblings and stepfather. Q. What was your stepfather doing when your mother was selling puto? A. He abused me. Q. What do you mean he abused you? RECORDS: Witness is nodding her head. PROS. BONOAN: (To: Witness) Q. Where did he take you? A. In our room. Q. Once inside the room, what did he do? A. He then abused me by removing my short pants. Q. After removing your short pants, what else did he do? A. He removed his pants. Q. After that what happened? A. He went on top of me. Q. What did he do when he was on top of you? A. He made a push and pull motion. Q. Was it painful? A. Yes. Q. Why? A. Because he molested me. Q. Did he insert part of his body to your body? A. Yes. Q. What part [of] his body did he use? A. He inserted his penis into my vagina. Q. How old are you when the incident happened for the first time? A. Twelve years old. Q. Was that the only time he inserted his penis into your vagina? A. Also on the following day. Q. Where did it happen? A. In our room. Q. Again he did the same thing? A. He made me sucked his penis. Q. What else did he do to you? A. He let me sucked his penis into my mouth. Q. What happened after that? A. Nothing happened. Q. Did you tell your mother? A. No. Q. Why? A. I was afraid to tell my mother because he might kill me. Q. Did the Accused threaten you or your mother? A. Yes.28 (Emphasis supplied.)
We are likewise not persuaded with the appellant's allegation that had he sexually abused and raped the private complainant, she would have reported the incident to her mother or to the authorities and would have distanced herself from him instead of seeking his help regarding her studies.Third, the result of the Living Case Report33 of AAA shows the presence of hymenal lacerations at five and nine o'clock positions, which is consistent with the statement that accused-appellant inserted his penis into her vagina. At this point, 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 a mere concoction.34
Behavioral psychology teaches us that, even among adults, people react to similar situations differently, and there is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a startling or frightful experience. Let it be underscored that these cases involve victims of tender years, and with their simple, unsophisticated minds, they must not have fully understood and realized at first the repercussions of the contemptible nature of the acts committed against them. This Court has repeatedly stated that no standard form of behavior could be anticipated of a rape victim following her defilement, particularly a child who could not be expected to fully comprehend the ways of an adult.
Considering that private complainant practically grew up with the appellant and even called him "Papa XXX" since she was about six (6) years old. We find it difficult to believe that she (barely 13 years old when she executed her Affidavit and 15 years old when she testified in court) would fabricate a tale of defilement where the perpetrator is her step-father and let the public know about it unless she was motivated by a genuine desire to obtain redress for the wrong done to her. Granting that she had ill-will against her step-father for having received beatings from him, the said reason is not enough to accuse him of an offense so grave as charged, if untrue.32 (Emphasis supplied.)
Accused-appellant is guilty of Lascivious Conduct in Criminal Case No. 2011-440. |
From the foregoing, it is readily apparent that accused-appellant sexually abused his own step-daughter by lifting her skirt, pulling down his own shorts and brief, inserting his penis into her anus, and then "picking" her vagina. Notably, AAA was a minor, being only 13 years old at that time. During her testimony, she revealed that she did not disclose her ordeal to anyone, including her mother, because she was afraid of accused-appellant who was then making threats on her. Indubitably, accused-appellant succeeded in coercing AAA to engage in lascivious conduct. Not only did he scare her with his threats should she disclose his bestiality, he even used his moral ascendancy as her step-father. As mentioned earlier, it is doctrinal that moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence and intimidation.41
[PROS. BONOAN: (To: Witness)] Q. Was that the only time he abused you or there were other times that he abused you? A. When I was thirteen. Q. Where did it happen, when you said that he abused you? A. Still in our room. Q. In that house in x x x x x x x x ? A. Yes. Q. And your mother was not there? A. Yes. Q. What did he do to you? A. I came from the bathroom and I went upstair and asked Papa [XXX] to help me with my examination. Q. After asking him to help you in your examination, what happened next? A. He let me lie on my stomach and lift my skirt. Q. After lifting your skirt, what happened next? A. He removed his short pants. Q. What happened after that? A. Then he removed his brief and went on top of me. Q. You were facing each other? A. No. Q. The Accused was at your back? A. Yes. Q. What did he do? A. He made a push and pull motion. Q. What happened after that? A. Then he let me go to school. Q. When he was on your back, did he insert part of his body? A. Yes. Q. What is that? A. His penis. Q. Where did he insert it? A. Into my anus. Q. You said that you are thirteen years old at that time. Was there another incident that happened to you? A. Yes. Q. Where did it happen? A. At the pig pen. Q. Where is that pig pen located? A. Near our house. Q. What did he do to you? A. I just came from washing the dishes. Q. What happened after you washed the dishes? A. I sat near the coop. Q. What happened after that? A. He called me and let me sat on his lap. Q. What happened after that? A. He removed his short pants and he picked me. Q. What part of your body did he pick? A. My vagina.40 (Emphasis supplied.)
Considering the development of the crime of sexual assault from a mere "crime against chastity" in the form of acts of lasciviousness to a "crime against persons" akin to rape, as well as the rulings in Dimakuta and Caoili, We hold that if the acts constituting sexual assault are committed against a victim under 12 years of age or is demented, the nomenclature of the offense should now be "Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610" and no longer "Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610," because sexual assault as a form of acts of lasciviousness is no longer covered by Article 336 but by Article 266-A (2) of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 8353. Nevertheless, the imposable penalty is still reclusion temporal in its medium period, and not prision mayor.In line with the pronouncement in Tulagan, the rulings of the lower courts should be modified by convicting accused-appellant of the offense of Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of RA 7610. The penalty to be imposed for Lascivious Conduct is reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. The prosecution established herein AAA's minority and her relationship with accused-appellant. The proper penalty to be imposed is the maximum which, in this case, is reclusion perpetua, there being no mitigating circumstance to offset the aggravating circumstance present.44 There is no need also to qualify the sentence to reclusion perpetua with the phrase "without eligibility for parole" since under [Administrative Matter No. 15-08-02-SC, in cases where the death penalty is not warranted, it is understood that convicted persons penalized with an indivisible penalty are not eligible for parole.45
Whereas if the victim is 12 years old and under 18 years old, or 18 years old and above under special circumstances, the nomenclature of the crime should be "Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610" with the imposable penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua, but it should not make any reference to the provisions of the RPC. It is only when the victim of the sexual assault is 18 years old and above, and not demented, that the crime should be called as "Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC" with the imposable penalty of prision mayor.43 (Emphasis supplied; italics in the original.)
1). | In Criminal Case No. 2011-440, accused-appellant XXX is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of LASCIVIOUS CONDUCT under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a FINE of P15,000.00. He is further required to PAY AAA the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. |
2). | In Criminal Case No. 2011-441, accused-appellant XXX is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of QUALIFIED RAPE under Article 266-A, in relation to Article 266-B, of the Revised Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole, and is ordered to PAY AAA the amounts of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. |
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, 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.
** Designated as additional member per Special Order No. 2780 dared May 11, 2020.
1 See Notice of Appeal dated November 11, 2016, rollo, pp. 17-18.
2Id. at 3-16; penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles with Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Ronaldo B. Martin, concurring.
3 CA rollo, pp. 35-45; penned by Presiding Judge Richard D. Mordeno.
4 Records, pp. 3-4.
5Id. at 3.
6Id. at 31.
7Id.
8 See Order dated January 20, 2012, id. at 55.
9Rollo, p. 5.
10Id.
11Id. at 5-6.
12Id. at 6.
13Id.
14 Exhibit "E," Index of Exhibits, p. 9.
15 Exhibit "E-4," Index of Exhibits, id.
16 CA rollo, pp. 44-45.
17Rollo, pp. 3-16.
18Id. at 15.
19Id. at 28-29.
20Id. at 23-25.
21 CA rollo, p. 31.
22Id.
23People v. Moya, G.R. No. 228260, June 10, 2019, citing People v. Soria, 698 Phil. 676, 689 (2012).
24Id., citing People v. Abulon, 557 Phil. 428, 454 (2007) and People v. Soria, 698 Phil. 676, 687 (2012).
25 See Pre-Trial Order dated February 6, 2012, records, pp. 62-64.
26People v. Vañas, G.R. No. 225511, March 20, 2019.
27People v. CCC, G.R. No 228822, June 19, 2019, citing People v. Palanay, 805 Phil. 116, 123 (2017) and People v. Pacayra, 810 Phil. 275, 288 (2017).
28 TSN, May 3, 2012, pp. 7-9.
29People v. BBB, G.R. No. 232071, July 10, 2019, citing People v. Galagati, 788 Phil. 670, 684-685 (2016).
30People v. Moya, supra note 23.
31Pendoy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 228223, June 10, 2019, citing People v. Biala, 773 Phil. 464, 482 (2015).
32Rollo, pp. 10-11.
33 Exhibit "E," Index of Exhibits, p. 9.
34People v. Moya, supra note 23, citing People v. Tuballas, 811 Phil. 201, 217 (2017).
35 An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines.
36People v. Vañas, supra note 26. Sections 2 and 3 of RA 9346 state:
SECTION 2. In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed:
(a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or (b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code.
SECTION 3. Person convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.
37People v. Vañas, supra note 26, citing People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 848 (2016).
38People v. Moya, supra note 23, citing People v. Villacampa, G.R. No. 216057, January 8, 2018, 850 SCRA 75, 90-91.
39People v. XXX, G.R. No. 235662, July 24, 2010, citing Section 32 of RA 7610, Rules and Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases.
40 TSN, May 3, 2012. pp. 9-11.
41People v. BBB, G.R. No. 232071, July 10, 2019.
42 G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019.
43Id. Citation omitted.
44People v. Moya, supra note 23. See also People v. XXX, G.R. No. 242207, July 3, 2019.
45Id.
46 SECTION 31. Common Penal Provisions. — x x x x
(f) A fine to be determined by the court shall be imposed and administered as a cash fund by the Department of Social Welfare and Development and disbursed for the rehabilitation of each child victim, or any immediate member of his family if the latter is the perpetrator of the offense.
47People v. XXX, supra note 39, citing People v. Caoili, 815 Phil. 839, 896-897 (2017).