SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 238206. September 29, 2021
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SSS,* Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
INTING, J.:
This is an appeal1 from the Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated August 25, 2017 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08248, which affirmed with modification the Decision3 dated December 28, 2015 of Branch 30, Regional Trial Court (RTC), xxxxxx, Nueva Vizcaya in Criminal Case No. 2944 finding SSS (accused-apellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape, defined and penalized under Article 266-A and Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act No. 8353.4chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
That sometime in October 2005, in xxxxxx Province of Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, while pulling the hand of [AAA], a fourteen (14) year old minor, said "come with me or else I will punch you" and thereafter brought said [AAA] to the kitchen and did then and there, by means of force and intimidation, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with lewd design, have carnal knowledge of said [AAA] by inserting his penis inside the vagina of said [AAA], against her will and without her consent, to her damage and prejudice.When arraigned, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge.7chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
CONTRARY TO LAW.6chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, finding accused [SSS] GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime [of] rape, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpet.ua and to indemnify victim [AAA] in the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; P50,000.00 as moral damages; and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.The RTC found AAA's straightforward and candid narration of her traumatic ordeal more than sufficient to support a conviction for Rape. It added that the failure of AAA to immediately report the rape incident to the authorities did not detract from the fact that rape was committed.19chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
x x x x.
SO ORDERED.18chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision of the court a quo is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, in that the damages awarded shall earn interest of six percent (6) per annum from the date of finality of the Decision until fully paid.The CA held that the alleged inconsistencies pointed out by accused-appellant were minor and trivial and do not affect the credibility of AAA or necessarily cast doubt on her positive identification of accused-appellant as the person who raped her so as to tilt the scales of justice in accused-appellant's favor.25 Nonetheless, the CA did not subscribe to the OSG's position that accused-appellant was correctly convicted of Statutory Rape considering that the RTC never convicted accused-appellant of Statutory Rape in the first place.26chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SO ORDERED.24chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
a) Through force, threat or intimidation;cralawlawlibraryHere, both the RTC and the CA found AAA's testimony, positively identifying accused-appellant as her assailant, to be clear, convincing, and credible. It was likewise established that AAA was only nine years old when accused-appellant had canal knowledge with her through force. Her testimony reads:
b) The victim is deprived of reason;cralawlawlibrary
c) The victim is unconscious;cralawlawlibrary
d) By means of fraudulent machination;cralawlawlibrary
e) By means of grave abuse of authority;cralawlawlibrary
f) When the victim is under 12 years of age; or
g) When the victim is demented.
This was further corroborated by the testimony of BBB, thus:32chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
PROS. DULNUAN: Q Madam Witness, do you recall where were you at around 3 o'clock in the afternoon of October 15, 2005? A Yes sir. Q Where were you at that time? A I was at the house of my grandmother, sir.xxx Q While you were in the house of your grandmother playing with these people particularly at the yard, do you recall any particular incident that happened? A Yes sir. Q What was the incident? A While we were playing, my other brothers except the one I was carrying, [accused-appellant] came, sir. Q What happened when [accused-appellant] came? A When he arrived, he pulled me and brought me in the kitchen. COURT: Q How did he pull you inside the kitchen? A He held my right hand. Q And where the baby then you were carrying? A At my back, sir. Q Meaning to say, your 2 hands were free while the baby was riding at your back? A Yes, sir. Q Were you able to enter the kitchen? A Yes sir. He pulled me at the kitchen and while already at the kitchen, he lowered my pajama. I was resisting but he said "ukinnam danugin kantu pay!" Q How did you react when he lowered your pajama? A I was resisting but he was forcing and he was able to lowered my pajama up to my knee. Q Where was the baby? A Still at my back, sir. PROS. DULNUAN: Q What happened after he lowered your pajama? A After that, he also lowered his pants? Q After he lowered his pants, what happened next? A He made me sit on his lap. Q What was the position when he made you sit on his lap? A He was seated. Q So, while you were sitting at his lap, what was your position in relation to [accused-appellant]? A My back was towards him. Q What happened while you were sitting at the lap of [accusedappellant]? A After that, he made me "paipit" of his penis and later on he inserted his penis inside my vagina. Q How many times did he insert his penis in your vagina? A Several times. COURT: Q After inserting his penis into your vagina, what was your position in relation to him? A Still my back was towards him. Q After inserting his penis into your vagina, what happened next? A (Witness demonstrating using her two hands as if grasping something in front of her was making a motion by moving upward and downward)31 (Italics supplied.)
Undoubtedly, the foregoing testimonies, coupled with the medical findings of Dra. Joaquin that AAA had healed lacerations at the 10 o'clock, 2 o'clock and 7 o'clock positions of her hymen,34 prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge with AAA who was only nine years old at the time the acts were committed.
Q What if your grand daughter is in your house and your husband is going there to drink, what makes you restless and apprehensive madam witness? A I do not know sir, that is my feeling so, I went home, sir. Q When you went home to follow your husband, were you able to follow him? A Yes, sir. Q While at your house, what did you observe? A I saw my grand daughter sitting on the lap of my husband and having sexual intercourse with my grand daughter (witness demonstrating with her two hands as if holding somebody above her lap sitting and making forward and backward motions.)33 (Italics supplied.)
More importantly, the RTC found AAA's testimony to be clear and convincing. Accordingly, the Court sees no cogent reason to disturb the factual findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, that accused-appellant forced AAA to engage in sexual intercourse with him. It is noteworthy that in resolving rape cases, the primary consideration is almost always given to the credibility of the victim's testimony. When the latter's testimony is credible, it may be the sole basis for the accused-appellant's conviction since, due to its intimate nature, rape is usually a crime bereft of witnesses, and, more often than not, the victim is left to testify for herself.40chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
04. Q Why are you going to file a formal complaint against [accused-appellant]? A Because he raped me, sir.xxx 06. Q. Please narrate in brief what had really happened? A. I was playing with my younger brother at the balcony of [accused-appellant's] house when he came and hold my left hand saying "come with me or else I will punch you" and, at the same time pulled me inside their kitchen then and there pulled down my jogging pants and inserted his penis between my legs that touched my vagina in which he rubbed in there until he secreted his sperm cells.39 (Italics supplied.)
Endnotes:
* The identity of the victim or any information to establish or compromise their identity, as well as those of their 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.
1 See Notice of Appeal dated September 13, 2017, rollo, pp. 14-15.
2 Id. at 2-13; penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda (now a Member of the Court) with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Ma. Luisa Quijano-Padilla, concurring.
3 CA rollo, pp. 9-19; penned by Presiding Judge Paul R. Attolba, Jr.
4 The Anti-Rape Law of 1997, approved on September 30, 1997.
5 CA rollo, pp. 9-10.
6 Id. at 10.
7 Rollo, p. 4.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 CA rollo, p. 10.
11 Rollo, pp. 4-5.
12 Id. at 5.
13 Id.
14 Id.
15 Id. at 6.
16 Id.
17 CA rollo, pp. 9-19.
18 Id. at 19.
19 Id. at 17-18.
20 See Notice of Appeal dated March 16, 2016, id. at 20-21.
21 Id. at 63.
22 See Brief for the Appellee dated May 15, 2017, id. at 132.
23 Rollo, pp. 2-13.
24 Id. at 12.
25 Id. at 10.
26 Id. at 10-11.
27 CA rollo, p. 63.
28 People v. Ramos, 371 Phil. 66, 76 (1999). Citations omitted.
29 People v. Traigo, 734 Phil. 726, 730 (2014).
30 People v. Quintos, 746 Phil. 809, 821-822 (2014).
31 CA rollo, pp. 134-136.
32 Id. at 137-141.
33 Id. at 139.
34 Rollo, pp. 7-8.
35 People v. Piosang, 710 Phil. 510, 527 (2013).
36 CA rollo, p. 63.
37 See People v. Piosang, supra.
38 CA rollo, pp. 64-65.
39 Id. at 142.
40 See People v. XXX, G.R. No. 230981, July 15, 2020
41 Rollo, p. 10.
42 The elements necessary in every prosecution for statutory rape are: (1) the offended party is under 12 years of age; and (2) the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim, regardless of whether there was force, threat, or intimidation or grave abuse of authority; See People v. Cariño y Tilzon, G.R. No. 230550 (Notice), January 13, 2020. Italics supplied.
43 People v. Urmaza, 829 Phil. 324, 340 (2018), citing People v. Dela Paz, 569 Phil. 684, 705-706 (2008).
44 People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 849 (2016).cralawredlibrary