FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 227841, August 19, 2020
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSEPH MANLOLO Y GANTE, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, J. JR., J.:
Before us is an appeal assailing the Decision1 dated May 17, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07134, which affirmed in toto the Decision2 dated July 21, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 81, Romblon, Romblon, convicting appellant Joseph Manlolo y Gante (Manlolo) of the crime of rape in Criminal Case No. 2975.
That on or about the 10lh day of August 2011, at around 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon at Barangay Camantaya, Municipality of San Agustin, 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,3 did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had carnal knowledge of AAA, who is 6 years old minor, 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 human being.4
With additional aggravating/qualifying circumstance that the above-named accused is the father of the said victim, AAA, is attendant to this crime of rape.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this [c]ourt hereby finds accused JOSEPH GANTE MANLOLO, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE in relation to R.A. 7610 and is sentence[d] to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA. He is also ordered to pay [AAA] the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages plus costs.Dissatisfied, Manlolo interposed an appeal alleging that the RTC erred: (i) in disregarding the version of the defense; and (ii) in giving weight and credence to the prosecution witnesses' improbable testimonies.
x x x x
SO ORDERED.6
WHEREFORE, all premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED.Dissatisfied, Manlolo then appealed to this Court. Both parties adopted their respective Briefs filed with the CA as their Supplemental Briefs.8chanrobleslaw
Accordingly, the Decision dated [July 21, 2014] of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 81, Romblon, Romblon, in Criminal Case No. 2975, finding accused-appellant Joseph Manlolo y Gante guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.7
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:cralawredFor purposes of imposing the death penalty in cases of qualified rape, Article 266-B of the RPC provides:cralawreda) Through force, threat, or intimidation;x x x x
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.
ART. 266-B. Penalty. — x x x x x xx"The elements of qualified rape are: (1) sexual congress; (2) with a woman; (3) done by force and without consent; (4) the victim is under 18 years of age at the time of the rape; (5) the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.9
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape 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 common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.
x x x x
Based on the foregoing, there is no doubt that the crime of qualified rape was indeed committed. After careful review of the records, we found no irregularities which would warrant the reversal of the findings of the trial court, which was affirmed by the CA. We have no reason to doubt the veracity of the testimony of AAA, which was also corroborated by the testimonies of her mother, BBB, and Dr. Muleta.
PROSECTOR BUFFE: Q. Miss Witness, please tell us the reason why you are testifying before us today? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. Please tell us. A. In order to send, imprison my father to jail. Q. Why would you like your father to be sent to jail or imprisoned? A. Because he is raping [sic] me and he is [sic] hurting me. Q. Do you know the name of yonx papa or father? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. Tell us the name of your papa. A. Joseph Gante Manlolo. Q. Is your papa inside the courtroom? A. Yes, sir. Q. Can you point [him] to us? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. How did your papa rape you or how did your papa do in raping you?
A. He pointed... x x x x A. He "tuslok ang akon puki." Q. How did your papa "tuslok ang imo puki"? What did your papa use in "pagtuslok sa imo puki"? A. His hand. Q. What else did he use[?] [Y]ou mentioned that he [first] used his first [sic] hand in "pagtuslok" your vagina[.] [U]sing your hands[,] what particular fingers of your hands did your papa use? A. This one (witness is pointing to her forefinger), Q. What else did your papa use "sa pagtuslok ng imo kiki"? A. His penis. Q. What did you feel or how did you feel when he inserted or pointed his finger and his penis to your vagina. COURT: Finger first. A. My vagina was very painful. PROSECUTOR BUFFE: Q. How about when the penis was pointed or was put in your vagina[,] how did you feel? A. My vagina is [sic] very painful. Q. Was there blood in your "pipi"? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. Can you still remember when your father did that to yolu? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. Tell us when was it? A. That was Wednesday, ma'am. Q. How about the year? A. No, ma'am. Q. How about the time? A. Nighttime.
Q. Where was mama that time? A. She was looking for food for us. Q. What did your papa do after he poked, inserted or pointed his finger to your vagina? A. I did not do anything after that but he warned me that I should not tell because if I will report this matter he will whip me. Q. What did you do? Did you answer him? A. No, ma'am. Q. How about when he pointed or inserted his penis to outraging? Did you do anything? A. I cried. Q. After he inserted his penis in your vagina[,] what else did he do? A. No more[,] ma'am. Q. Did he say something to you after he inserted or pointed his penis to your vagina? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. What did he say? A. That I should not tell. Q. Can you still remember how many times did yom papa rape you? A. Yes, sir. Q. How many times? A. Many times.
Q. Always night time[,] Baby? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. Did you finally report or tell your mama? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. Why did you finally report or tell your mama about it? A. So that he will be imprisoned. Q Do you have brothers and sisters[,] Baby? A. There is, ma'am. Q. Do you miss your father? A. No, rna'am. Q. Where did your father rape you[?] [I]n your house? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. Every time your papa did that to you every time [sic] your mama is not around? A. Yes, ma'am.12
In rape cases, the credibility of the victim is almost always the single most important issue. If the testimony of the victim passes the test of credibility, which means it is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things, the accused may be convicted solely on that basis. The rule is settled that when the decision hinges on the credibility of witnesses and their respective testimonies, the trial court's observations and conclusions deserve great respect and are accorded finality, unless the records show facts or circumstances of material weight and substance that the lower court overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated, and which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the case. This is so because trial courts are in the best position to ascertain and measure the sincerity and spontaneity of witnesses through their actual observation of the witnesses' manner of testifying, their demeanor and their behavior in court. Trial judges, therefore, can better determine if such witnesses are telling the truth, being in the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies. The rule finds an even more stringent application where the said findings are sustained by the CA.14"Based on jurisprudence, the testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit, for when a woman or a girl-child says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that Rape was indeed committed."15
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. Errorless recollection of a harrowing incident cannot be expected of a witness, especially when she is recounting details of an experience so humiliating and so painful as rape. What is important is that the victim's declarations are consistent on basic matters constituting the elements of rape and her positive identification of the person who did it to her.No child would charge the father she naturally revered and respected with such heinous crime as rape had it not been true.19
x x x x
Where there is no evidence and nothing to indicate that the principal witness for the prosecution was actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that she was not so actuated and her testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. Further, a daughter would not accuse her own father of a serious offense like rape, had she really not been aggrieved. Her testimony against him is entitled to greater weight, since reverence and respect for elders is too deeply ingrained in Filipino children and is even recognized by law.18
Indeed, no young girl would concoct a sordid tale of so serious a crime as sexual molestation at the hands of her own father, undergo gynecological examination, subject herself to the stigma and embarrassment of a public trial, if her motive were other than a fervent desire to seek justice.21Manlolo points out that he could not have raped AAA as his sister Joan Manlolo was inside their house watching over his three other children. The Court is not convinced. Jurisprudence instructs us that lust is no respecter of time or place; rape defies constraint of time and space. Rapists are not deterred from committing the odious act of sexual abuse by mere inconvenience or awkwardness of the situation or even by the presence of people or family members nearby. Rape is committed not exclusively in seclusion.22
By and large, [w]e hold that the trial court correctly rejected the defense of denial proffered by appellant which is not only inherently weak and feeble, but which became more dubious when it was sought to be established by appellant himself with the aid of his sister, and not by disinterested, unbiased person who would, in the natural order of things, be best situated to support the denial.23Denial is inherently a weak defense which cannot outweigh positive testimony. A categorical statement that has the earmarks of truth prevails over a bare denial which can easily be fabricated and is inherently unreliable. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime and it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity. These requirements of time and place must be strictly met.24
The Court is also not swayed by Manlolo's argument that the absence of spermatozoa renders AAA's claim doubtful. We have consistently ruled that the absence of semen in AAA's vaginal area does not rule out a finding of rape. The presence or absence of spermatozoa is immaterial because the presence of spermatozoa is not an element of rape,28 since it is penetration, not ejaculation, which constitutes the crime of rape. Besides, the absence of the seminal fluid from the vagina could be due to a number of factors, such as the vertical drainage of the semen from the vagina, the acidity of the vagina, or simply the washing of the vagina after the sexual intercourse.29
Q. Do you know what is wrong? A. Yes, sir. Q. If you are lying, is that right or wrong? A. It is wrong, sir. Q. Now, do you know what is right? A. Yes, sir. Q. What is right[?] Is telling a lie right? A. It is wrong. Q. Is telling a lie right? A. No, sir. Q. Do you know that if you will tell a lie you will [go] to hell? A. Yes, sir. x x x x Q. Are you telling a lie[,] Miss Witness? A. No[,] ma'am. Q. So when you said and what you testified before us that your father raped you, that is the truth? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. Because you are afraid to tell a lie? A. Yes, ma'am.27
Endnotes:
1 Penned by Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob, with Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario and Edwin D. Sorongon, concurring; rollo, pp. 2-17. 2
2 CA rollo, pp. 46-51.
3 The real name of the victim, her personal circumstances and other information which tend to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members shall not be disclosed to protect her privacy and fictitious initials shall instead be used in accordance with People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 (2006) and A.M. No. 04-11-09 SC dated September 19, 2006.
4 CA rollo, p. 53.
5 Rollo. pp 3-5.
6 CA rollo, p. 51.
7 Rollo, p. 16.
8 Id. at 26, 30.
9People v. ZZZ, G.R. No. 274584, September 4, 2019.
10People v. XXX G.R. No. 229836. July 17, 2019.
11People v. CCC, G.R. No. 231925 November 19, 2018.
12 Rollo, pp. 7-10.
13 G.R. No. 234240, February 6,2019.
14People v. Navasero, Sr., id.
15People v. ABC, G.R. No. 244835, December 11, 2019 (citations omitted).
16 Id.
17 Supra note 8.
18People v. ZZZ, id. (citations omitted).
19People v. XXX, G.R. No. 222492, June 3, 2019.
20 421 Phil. 805(2001).
21 Id. at 811.
22People v. XXX, G.R. No. 225793, August 14, 2019.
23 Rollo, p. 12.
24People v. Moreno, G.R. No. 191759 , March 2, 2020 (citations omitted).
25People v. Maceda, 405 Phil. 698, 711 (2001).
26People v. Moreno, supra note 23 (citations omitted).
27 Rollo.p. 13.
28People v. Agalot, G.R. No. 220884, February 21, 2018.
29People v. Alberca, 810 Phil. 896, 907-908 (2017) (citations omitted).
30People v. XXX, G.R. No. 244047, December 10, 2019.
31People v. XXX, supra note 9.