SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 252351, July 07, 2021
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. XXX, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:
Criminal Case No. 04-2755
That on or about the 11th day of March 2004 at around 7 o'clock in the evening, at Brgy. xxxxxxxxxxx, in the municipality of xxxxxxxxxxx, Province of Quezon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd designs, by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one xxxxxxxxxxx, a minor, 15 years of age, against her will,
Rolando is the stepfather of xxxxxxxxxxx
CONTRARY TO LAW.2
Criminal Case No. 04-2754
That on or about the 27th day of March 2004, at Brgy. xxxxxxxxxxx Municipality of xxxxxxxxxxx, Province of Quezon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, and slap one xxxxxxxxxxx minor, 15 years of age, inflicting injury on her face, conditions prejudicial to the development of said child.
CONTRARY TO LAW.3
DIAGNOSIS/FINDINGS:On March 27, 2004, AAA, accompanied by another aunt of hers, FFF and two barangay tanods went to AAA's house to get her belongings. It was appellant who opened the door. AAA asked him if she could get her belongings. Appellant, upon noticing that AAA was accompanied by barangay officials, asked AAA "Bakit ngqyon ka lang?" and thereafter slapped AAA's left cheek which caused the latter to fall on her knees. Appellant was about to hit her again but was prevented by the barangay officials.10
- Normal looking external genitalia
- Hymenal lacerations 2, 5, 9 o'clock positions
- Admits 1 finger with no resistance9
DIAGNOSIS/FINDINGS:
- Contusions hematoma left maxillary area
- Tenderness left cheek
Under normal condition without subsequent complication unless deeper involvement might be present but not clinically apparent at the time of examination, said physical injuries will require a medical treatment for a period of less than nine (9) days.12chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, accused XXX of Brgy. xxxxxxxxxxx Quezon is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape in Criminal Case No. 04-2755, and taking into consideration the age of the victim and his relationship with her, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and for the accused to pay the private complainant P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000,00 as exemplary damages; and in Criminal No. 04-2754 for violation of Section 10 (a), Article VI of RA 7610, accused is hereby sentenced applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, considering the aggravating circumstance of disregarding of the respect due to the offended party on ground of her age, to suffer FOUR (4) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS AND ONE (1) DAY OF PRISION CORRECTIONAL as minimum to TEN (10) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY OF PRISION MAYOR as' maximum and to pay the private complainant moral damages in the amount of P20,000.00, civil indemnity in the amount of F30,000.00 and exemplary damages in the amount of P20,000.00.The trial court found AAA to have positively identified appellant as the person who had carnal knowledge of her against her will on the night of March 11, 2004. While there were inconsistencies in her testimony as to the exact part of the house she was raped, whether in the bedroom or downstairs, such inconsistencies will not necessarily impair AAA's credibility. For victims may not be expected to be errorless in recounting the details of a harrowing' experience. More so in light of AAA's testimony here that appellant had been caressing and embracing her when they were downstairs and in the bedroom where he eventually had carnal knowledge of her.18
SO ORDERED.17
That Accused-Appellant is the stepfather of the victim further aggravates the rape. The crime of Qualified Rape is committed when the following concur:and in Criminal Case No. 04-2754, viz.:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
- Sexual congress
- With a woman
- Done by force and without consent;
- The victim is under eighteen years of age at the time of the rape;
- 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.
There is no doubt on the relationship between the Accused-Appellant and Private Complainant. Both of them admitted that he is the live-in partner of her mother; even BBB confirmed their common-law relationship in court. Accused-Appellant is Private Complainant's stepfather who had considerable moral ascendancy over (sic) him. This alone sufficiently explains why Private Complainant did not offer a more physical resistance particularly because it is a settled rule that in cases where the rape is committed by a close kin, such as the common-law spouse of the victim's mother, it is not necessary that actual force or intimidation be employed; moral ascendancy takes the place of violence or intimidation.
x x x
Since the penalty of death cannot be imposed in view of Republic Act No. 9346, then the court a quo correctly sentenced Accused-Appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility of parole. However, there is a need to modify the amounts of damages awarded. Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, We hold that Private Complainant is entitled to P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, for the (sic) three counts of rape.
x x x x
x x x
The finding that Accused-Appellant XXX is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 10 (a) of Republic Act No. 7610 in Criminal Case No. 042754 is likewise AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of four (4) years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days of prision correctional, as minimum, to six (6) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum. He is likewise directed to pay the amount of P3 0,000.00 as civil indemnity to Private Complainant xxxxxxxxxxx
Interest of 6% per annum is imposed on all damages awarded from date of finality of this judgment until fuIly paid.
SO ORDERED.27
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated 15 January 2018 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 64, of xxxxxxxxxxx Quezon in Criminal Case No. 04-2755 is AFFIRMED with (sic) the MODIFICATION. Accused-Appellant XXX is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Rape and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is ordered to pay to Private Complainant xxxxxxxxxxx the following amounts:In contrast, the Court of Appeals disposed of Criminal Case No. 042754 conformably with its factual findings and conclusion as borne in the body of its Decision dated August 28, 2019, thus:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
- P100,000.00 as civil indemnity;
- P100,000.00 as moral damages; and
- P100,000.00 as exemplary damages.
The finding that Accused-Appellant XXX is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 10 (a) of Republic Act No. 7610 in Criminal Case No. 042754 is likewise AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of four (4) years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days of prision correctional, as minimum, to six (6) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum. He is likewise directed to pay the amount ofP30,000.00 as civil indemnity to Private Complainant xxxxxxxxxxx.
Interest of 6% per annum is imposed on all damages awarded from date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.28chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
As correctly ruled by the CA, the clear findings of the Family Court is that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of petitioner in his indictment for Criminal Case No. 37119- R which charged him for his act of insertion of a finger into the victim's anal orifice; and that only one instance of Sexual Assault was established which pertained to Criminal Case No. 37120-R committed by petitioner by his insertion of a finger into AAA's genitalia. Thus, it is only just and proper to correct the dispositive portion to reflect the exact findings and conclusions of the Family Court as the Court already settled in Coharrubias, viz.:This exception applies to the present case. The Court of Appeals extensively discussed how AAA's minority and her relationship with appellant i.e. appellant being the common law spouse of AAA's mother were used to qualify the offense from simple rape to qualified rape. It also discussed at length why in view of Republic Act No. 9346 (RA 9346),33 appellant may only be meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole instead of death. It further increased the award of damages to conform with the prescribed amounts set by prevailing jurisprudence for the crime of qualified rape.The general rule is that where there is a conflict between the fallo, or the dispositive part, and the body of the decision or order, the fallo prevails on the theory that the fallo is the final order and becomes the subject of execution, while the body of the decision merely contains the reasons or conclusions of the court ordering nothing. However, where one can clearly and unquestionably conclude from the body of the decision that there was a mistake in the dispositive portion, the body of the decision will prevail.In Cobarrubias, there was a clerical error in the fallo or the dispositive portion of Presiding Judge Florentino M. Alumbres' Order dated March 20, 2001, which should have dismissed Criminal Case No. 94-5038 for Homicide instead of Criminal Case No. 94-5037 for Illegal Possession of Firearms, as discussed in the body of the order. Accordingly, it was ruled therein that it was only just and proper to correct the dispositive portion to reflect the exact findings and conclusions of the trial court.
Article 266-A. Rape: When And How Committed. - Rape is committed:For a charge of rape to prosper under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the prosecution must prove that (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) he accompanied such act through force, threat, or intimidation, or when she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she was under twelve years of age or was demented.
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.
Article 266-B. Penalty. - x x xRape is qualified when: a) the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age; and b) committed by the victim's parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, or relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or by the common-law spouse of the victim's parent. In order for an accused to be convicted of qualified rape, it is essential that these special qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship are properly alleged in the Information and duly proven during the trial.37 This is to comply with the constitutional right of the accused to be properly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The purpose is to allow the accused to prepare fully for his defense to prevent surprises during the trial.38x x x
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
Nevertheless, the death penalty is not the correct penalty for the two counts of rape committed by appellant because the two informations in Criminal Case No. CEB-BRL-478 and CEB-BRL-479 failed to correctly state appellant's relationship with Jenelyn. To justify the death penalty, the prosecution must specifically allege in the information and prove during the trial the qualifying circumstances of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender. The information must jointly allege these qualifying circumstances to afford the accused his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly mandate that the qualifying circumstance should be alleged in the information.Here, since the Information erroneously alleged that appellant is the stepfather of AAA, appellant is only liable for simple rape and not for qualified rape, as found by the courts below.
Although the prosecution proved that appellant was the common- law spouse of (AAA's) mother, what appears in the informations is that the victim is the stepdaughter of appellant, A stepdaughter is the daughter of one's spouse by a previous marriage. For appellant to be the stepfather of (AAA), he must be legally married to (AAA's) mother. However, appellant and the victim's mother were not legally married but merely lived in common-law relation. The two informations failed to allege specifically that appellant was the common-law spouse of the victim's mother. Instead, the two informations erroneously alleged the qualifying circumstance that appellant was the stepfather of the victim. Hence, appellant is liable only for two counts of simple statutory rape punishable with reclusion perpetua for each count.
The minority of AAA was sufficiently alleged in the information that stated that she was "a 13-year-old girl." The Prosecution established that her age when the rape was committed on May 12, 2000 was thirteen years and two months by presenting her birth certificate revealing her date of birth as March 15, 1987. As to her relationship with Arcillas, the information averred that he was "then the step-father of AAA." It turned out, however, that he was not her stepfather, being only the common-law husband of BBB. The RTC itself found that he and BBB were only "live-in partners." In addition, AAA's birth certificate disclosed that her father was CCC, who had been married to BBB, who was widowed upon the death of CCC in 1996. No evidence was adduced to establish that BBB and Arcilla legally married after CCC's death.Here, although the allegation of relationship as a qualifying circumstance was not proved, taking into consideration, however, the fact that the other qualifying circumstance of minority was both sufficiently alleged in the Information and proved, AAA is entitled to the award of exemplary damages in accordance with Bayya and Arcillas.x x x x
xxx The CA and the RTC should have recognized the entitlement of AAA to exemplary damages on account of the attendance of her minority and the common-law relationship between him and her mother. It did not matter that such qualifying circumstances were not taken into consideration in fixing his criminal liability, because the term aggravating circumstances as basis for awarding exemplary damages under the Civil Code was understood in its generic sense. As the Court well explained in People v. Catubig:The term "aggravating circumstances" used by the Civil Code, the law not having specified otherwise, is to be understood in its broad or generic sense. The commission of an offense has a two-pronged effect, one on the public as it breaches the social order and the other upon the private victim as it causes personal sufferings, each of which is addressed by, respectively, the prescription of heavier punishment for the accused and by an award of additional damages to the victim. The increase of the penalty or a shift to a graver felony underscores the exacerbation of the offense by the attendance of aggravating circumstances, whether ordinary or qualifying, in its commission. Unlike the criminal liability which is basically a State concern, the award of damages, however, is likewise, if not primarily, intended for the offended party who suffers thereby. It would make little sense for an award of exemplary damages to be due the private offended party when the aggravating circumstance is ordinary but to be withheld when it is qualifying. Withal, the ordinary or qualifying nature of an aggravating circumstance is a distinction that should only be of consequence to the criminal, rather than to the civil, liability of the offender. In fine, relative to the civil aspect of the case, an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, should entitle the offended party to an award of exemplary damages within the unbridled meaning of Article 223043 of the Civil Code.
SEC. 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation andUnder Section 3 (b) paragraph 2 of RA 7610, child abuse may be committed by deeds or words which debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being.
Other Conditions Prejudicial to the Child's Development.
(a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or to be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child's development including those covered by Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, but not covered by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period.
Endnotes:
* J. Inting designated as additional member per S.O. 2823-L dated May 7, 2021.
1 Penned by Now Supreme Court Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez and concurred in by Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Perpetua Susana T. Atal Paño: rollo, pp. 3-19.
2 CA rollo, p. 55.
3Id.
4 Id. at 47.
5 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 initial shall, instead, be used, in accordance with People v. Cabalquinto [533 Phil. 703 (2006)] and Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2037. '
6Rollo, p. 5.
7Id. at 4-5.
8Id. at 5.
9Id. at 6.
10Id. at 5.
11Id.
12Id. at 7.
13Id. at 8.
14Id.
15Id.
16 Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Adolfo V. Encomienda; CA rollo, pp. 47-53
17Rollo, p. 4.
18 CA rollo, p. 65.
19 Id.
20Id.
21Id.
22Rollo, p. 9.
23Id. at 10.
24 CA rollo, p. 85.
25Id. at 89.
26 Penned by now Supreme Court Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez and concurred in by Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Perpetua T. Atal-Paño; rollo, pp. 3-19.
27Id. at 18-19.
28Id.
29Id. at 25-26.
30Id. at 28-30 and 33-34.
31 See Tadeo-Matias v. Republic, 612 Phil. 984, 996-997 (2018).
32 G.R. No. 241591, July 8, 2020.
33 AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES.
34 CA rollo, p. 49.
35Id. at 102.
36Id. at 65.
37People v. XXX, G.R. No. 240441, December 4, 2019.
38People v. XYZ, G.R. No. 244255, August 26, 2020.
39Id. at 47.
40 473 Phil. 717, 737-738 (2004).
41 384 Phil. 519, 527-528 (2000).
42 692 Phil. 40, 52-53 (2012).
43 ART. 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Such damages are separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended party.
44 783 Phil. 806, 846 (2016).
45 803 Phil. 480, 487 (2017).
46People v. Jugueta, supra note 44.
47Posadas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 228223, June 10, 2019; People v. Ronquillo, 818 Phil. 641 649- 650 (2017).
48Sanchez v. People, 606 Phil. 768, 780 (2009).
49Fernandez v. People, G.R. No. 217542, November 18, 2018; Sanchez v. People, G.R. No. 179090, June 5 2009.
50 G.R. No. 235071, January 7, 2019.
51ARTICLE XII
Common Penal Provisions
Section 31. Common Penal Provisions. -
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.cralawredlibrary