DIVISION

[ GR No. 223708, Jun 28, 2017 ]

PEOPLE v. NORIETO MONROYO Y MAHAGUAY +

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Before the Court is an ordinary appeal[1] filed by accused-appellant Norieto
Monroyo y Mahaguay (Monroyo) assailing the Decision[2] dated May 27,
2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 06078, which
affirmed the Joint Decision[3] in Crim. Case Nos. C-04-7785, C-04- 7786
and C-04-7787 and the Decision[4] in Crim. Case No. C-04-7788 both dated
November 16, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court of Oriental Mindoro, Branch
40 (RTC), finding Monroyo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three (3)
counts of Acts of Lasciviousness and one (1) count of Rape under the
Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act No. (RA) 8353,
[5]
 otherwise known as "The Anti-Rape Law of 1997."
The Facts
On October 13, 2004, four (4) Informations were filed before the RTC,
charging Monroyo of the crimes of Acts of Lasciviousness against
AAA[6] and Qualified Rape against her sister, BBB, viz.:
Criminal Case No. C-04-7787 (Acts of Lasciviousness)
That on or about 24 August, 2003, at around 11:30 o'clock in the morning,
in the dwelling of complainant AAA located at Barangay San Isidro,
Municipality of Victoria, Province of Oriental Mindoro, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
actuated by lust and lewd desire, with force and intimidation, did and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, commit acts of lasciviousness on AAA,
a fourteen (14) year-old-virgin, by then and there touching her private
parts, against her will and without her consent, [an] act which debases,
degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of the said AAA, to her
damage and prejudice.
Contrary to law.[7]
Criminal Case No. C-04-7786 (Acts of Lasciviousness)
That on or about 15 October, 2003, at around 10:30 o'clock in the morning,
at Barangay San Isidro, Municipality of Victoria, Province of Oriental
Mindoro, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, actuated by lust and lewd desire, with force and
intimidation, did and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, commit
acts of lasciviousness on AAA, a fourteen (14) year-old-virgin, by then and
there touching her private parts, against her will and without her consent,
[an] act which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and
dignity of the said AAA, to her damage and prejudice.
Contrary to law.[8]
Criminal Case No. C-04-7785 (Acts of Lasciviousness)
That on or about 13 October, 2003, at around 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon,
in the dwelling of complainant AAA located at Barangay San Isidro,
Municipality of Victoria, Province of Oriental Mindoro, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
actuated by lust and lewd desire, with force and intimidation, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and [feloniously], commit acts of lasciviousness
on AAA, a fourteen (14) year-old-virgin, by then and there touching her
private parts, against her will and without her consent, [an] act which
debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of the said
AAA, to her damage and prejudice.
Contrary to law.[9]
Criminal Case No. C-04-7788 (Rape)
That on or about November 18, 2003, at around 11:00 o'clock in the
evening, in the dwelling of complainant BBB,[10] located at Barangay San
Isidro, Municipality of Victoria, Province of Oriental Mindoro, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, motivated by lust and lewd desire and by means of force and
intimidation, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of
one BBB, a sixteen (16) year-old-virgin, against the will and without the
consent of said private complainant, thereby violating her person and
chastity, [an] act of sexual abuse which debase[s], degrade[s] and
demean[s] her intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being, to the damage
and prejudice of said private complainant.
In the commission of the offense the qualifying circumstance of
relationship is attendant, the accused being a relative of the complainant by
affinity within the 3rd civil degree and the complainant being then under
eighteen years of age.
Contrary to law.[11]
On the charges of Acts of Lasciviousness, the prosecution alleged that at
around 11:30 in the morning of August 24, 2003, AAA was alone in her
house when her uncle, Monroyo, arrived. While AAA was cleaning the
house, Monroyo approached her, touched her private organ, and warned
her against telling her parents about what happened.[12]
The incident was repeated on October 13, 2003, at around 3 o'clock in the
afternoon, when Monroyo went to AAA's house to ask for cigarette sticks.
AAA went out to buy the cigarette sticks, handed them to Monroyo, and
went to the living room to resume cleaning the house. Monroyo followed
her to the living room and once more, touched her private organ.[13]
Finally, at around 10:30 in the morning of October 15, 2003, AAA went to
Monroyo's house looking for her cousin, Norton, but the latter was not at
home. When she was about to leave, Monroyo touched her private organ.[14]
On the charge of Rape, the prosecution claimed that on the night of
November 18, 2003, BBB, a sixteen (16) year-old girl, slept on a bed with
her siblings, AAA and EEE. At around 11 o'clock in the evening, BBB woke
up when she felt someone touching her breast. She saw Monroyo, the
husband of her mother's half-sister,[15] sitting on the floor beside their bed.
Her uncle instructed her to sit down on the floor and told her not to make
any noise. He then forced her to lie down on the floor and started kissing
her all over her body while BBB cried. He forcibly removed her shorts and
panty and thereafter stood up to remove his shorts and brief. He then
placed himself on top of her, inserted his penis into her private organ, and
made a push and pull motion. BBB cried loudly but Monroyo covered her
mouth with his hand. After satisfying his lust, he put on his clothes and
threatened to kill BBB and her family if she tells anyone about what
happened. BBB did not see him again after the incident.[16]
In March 2004, BBB mustered enough courage to tell her mother about the
incident when the latter saw her crying. BBB subjected herself to a medical
examination administered by Municipal Health Officer Dr. Ma. Virginia R.
Valdez (Dr. Valdez), who found healed hymenal lacerations that could have
been caused by a hard object, like an erect penis.[17]
For his part, Monroyo denied the accusations against him and testified that
on October 15, 2003, AAA and BBB asked for money from him to buy junk
food while he was buying cigarettes from a store. When he refused to give
them money, they grabbed the belt bag tied around his belt. Monroyo tried
to retrieve the bag by tickling them on the side of their bodies but the bag
was ripped in the process. Monroyo slapped AAA and BBB for destroying
the bag and then he went home. He claimed that he does not know why the
cases were filed against him by complainants but speculated that it was
probably because of a familial tiff with the latter's father regarding the
house that he and his wife were residing in. [18]
The RTC Ruling
In a Joint Decision[19] dated November 16, 2011, the RTC found Monroyo
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of Acts of Lasciviousness
(Crim. Case Nos. C-04-7785, C-04-7786 and C-04-7787) and accordingly,
sentenced him to suffer in each case the penalty of two (2) months and one
(1) day of arresto mayor in its medium period, as minimum to four (4)
years and two (2) months of prision correccional in its medium period, as
maximum, and ordered him to pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, as well
as P25,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages. [20]
The RTC gave more credence to AAA's testimony clearly and convincingly
narrating the details of each lascivious conduct committed by Monroyo
against her. It added that AAA had no ill motive against Monroyo, while the
latter's excuses were too shallow and insignificant for AAA to concoct a
story that she was molested.[21]
In another Decision[22] dated November 16, 2011, the RTC similarly found
Monroyo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape (Crim. Case
No. C-04-7788), and accordingly, imposed the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, and ordered him to pay BBB P100,000.00 as civil indemnity,
P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages. [23]
The RTC gave full faith and credence to BBB's testimony, as she was
likewise able to narrate the details of how Monroyo raped her inside their
house, noting further that her youth and immaturity are generally badges of
truth. The foregoing account was corroborated by the medical certificate
issued by the physician who examined BBB (i.e., Dr. Valdez) that confirmed
the latter's hymenal lacerations, which could have been caused by a hard
object, like an erect penis. On the other hand, Monroyo merely interposed
the defense of bare denial, which cannot be given greater weight than the
positive declaration of a credible witness like BBB. The RTC however, did
not consider the special qualifying circumstances of relationship and
minority because these were not purportedly alleged in the Information. [24]
Dissatisfied, Monroyo elevated his case to the CA.
The CA Ruling
In a Decision[25] dated May 27, 2015, the CA affirmed the RTC's ruling,
observing that the trial court's findings as to the credibility of the witnesses
and their testimonies deserve the highest respect absent any showing that it
overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied material facts or circumstances.
[26]
 The CA added that the minor inconsistencies in AAA and BBB's
testimonies do not refer to the essential elements of the crimes; thus, they
are not grounds to reverse the conviction.[27] Notably, the CA no longer
discussed the attendant circumstances of relationship and minority in the
Rape case.
Aggrieved by his impending conviction, Monroyo filed the present appeal.
[28]

The Issue Before the Court

The main issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not Monroyo's
conviction for three (3) counts of Acts of Lasciviousness and one (1) count
of Rape should be upheld.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is bereft of merit.
The Court first examines the charges of Acts of Lasciviousness against
Monroyo in Crim. Case Nos. C-04-7785, C-04-7786 and C-04-7787,
committed against AAA.
Preliminarily, although the three Informations designated the crime
committed only as "Acts of Lasciviousness," the facts alleged therein
pertain not only to violations of Article 336 of the RPC but also of Section 5
(b) of RA 7610, otherwise known as the "Special Protection of Children
Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act." It is settled that a
designation in the information of the specific statute violated is imperative
to avoid surprise on the accused and to afford him the opportunity to
prepare his defense.[29] Nevertheless, the erroneous reference to the law
violated does not vitiate the information if the facts alleged therein clearly
recite the facts constituting the crime charged. [30] As the Court had ruled,
the real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or
preamble of the information, or from the specification of the legal provision
alleged to have been violated, which are mere conclusions of law, but by the
actual recital of facts in the information.[31] In the present case, the recital of
facts in the Informations constitute violations of Acts of Lasciviousness
under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610.
Article 336 of the RPC provides:
Article 336. Acts of Lasciviousness. - Any person who shall commit any
act of lasciviousness upon other persons of either sex under any of the
circumstances mentioned in the preceding article, shall be punished
by prision correccional.
Its elements are: (1) that the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or
lewdness; (2) that it is done (a) by using force or intimidation, or (b) when
the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious or (c)
when the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age; and (3) that the
offended party is another person of either sex.[32]
On the other hand, Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 states:
Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. - x x x
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period
to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:
xxxx
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct
with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse; x x x
x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
The elements under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 are: (1) the accused commits
the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) the said act is
performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual
abuse; and (3) the child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.
[33]
 In Quimvel v. People,[34] the Court held that the allegation of “force and
intimidation" is sufficient to classify the minor victim as one who is
"exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse."[35]
Common to both legal provisions is the element of lascivious conduct or
lewdness. The term "lewd" is commonly defined as something indecent or
obscene. It is characterized by or intended to excite crude sexual desire.
That an accused is entertaining a lewd or unchaste design is a mental
process that can be inferred by overt acts carrying out such intention, i.e.,
by conduct that can only be interpreted as lewd or lascivious. [36]
In this case, the Court agrees with the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by
the CA, that the prosecution was able to establish the presence of the
aforementioned elements. As correctly observed by the lower courts, AAA
clearly and convincingly narrated in detail each lascivious act committed by
Monroyo against her. On various occasions, i.e., August 24, October 13 and
15, 2003, Monroyo succeeded in touching the latter's private organ. The
Court finds that Monroyo's overt acts were done against AAA's will and
much more, committed without any other justifiable reason, hence,
demonstrating its lewd character. AAA also sufficiently established that she
was a minor during that time. In this relation, it should be pointed out that
Monroyo was AAA's uncle and thus, exercised moral ascendancy and
influence over her, which according to case law, constitutes intimidation. [37]
Verily, AAA's testimony is worthy of full faith and credence as there is no
proof that she was motivated to falsely accuse Monroyo of the crimes
charged. To this, it may not be amiss to state that in several cases, the Court
has observed that no young and decent girl (like AAA in this case) would
fabricate a story of sexual abuse, subject herself to undergo public trial,
with concomitant ridicule and humiliation, if she is not impelled by a
sincere desire to put behind bars the person who assaulted her.
[38]
 Ultimately, the credibility of AAA's testimony, as well as Monroyo's
opposite account involves findings of fact which the Court does not
generally review. Case law dictates that factual findings of the trial court,
particularly when affirmed by the CA, are binding on the Court barring
arbitrariness and oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and
substance,[39] of which there are none in this case.
In view of the foregoing, Monroyo's conviction for three (3) counts of Acts
of Lasciviousness is proper under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to
Section 5 (b) of RA 7610. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
[40]
 Monroyo is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment with
an indeterminate period of fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months
of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion
temporal, as maximum.[41] Furthermore, in order to conform with
prevailing jurisprudence,[42] his civil liabilities are adjusted, in that he is
ordered to pay the amounts of P20,000.00 as civil indemnity, P30,000.00
as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, also for each
count.
Separately, Monroyo was charged with the crime of Qualified Rape in Crim.
Case No. C-04-7788, this time committed against AAA's sister, BBB. At the
outset, it should be clarified that, contrary to the RTC's observation, the
qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship were sufficiently
alleged in the Information in Crim. Case No. C-04-7788, the pertinent
portion of which reads:
In the commission of the offense the qualifying circumstance
of relationship is attendant, the accused being a relative of the
complainant by affinity within the 3rd civil degree and the complainant
being then under eighteen years of age.[43] (Emphases supplied)
The presence of these circumstances is readily verifiable from the records of
this case. As to BBB's minority (i.e., sixteen years old at the time the crime
was committed), the prosecution formally offered a photocopy of her birth
certificate, the authenticity of which was not in any way disputed by the
defense.[44] Meanwhile, the fact that Monroyo is BBB's relative by affinity
within the third civil degree was attested to by BBB, who testified that
Monroyo is the husband of her mother's half-sister.[45] In fact, Monroyo
admitted their relationship on cross-examination, stating that "his wife is
the sister of the mother of [BBB]."[46]
Well-settled is the rule that an appeal in a criminal case opens the entire
case for scrutiny on any question, even one not raised by the parties as
errors,[47] and that the appeal confers the appellate court with full
jurisdiction over the case, enabling the court to examine records, revise the
judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper
provision of the penal law.[48] Thus, given that the circumstances of
minority and relationship were alleged and proven in this case, the Court
examines Monroyo's criminal liability for Qualified Rape as charged.
Article 266-A (1) (a), in relation to Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended by
RA 8353, defines and penalizes the crime of Rape, including the
circumstances which qualify the penalty to be imposed:
Article 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. - Rape is committed-
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the
following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat or intimidation;
xxxx
Article 266-B. Penalties. - Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding
article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
xxxx
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 (Emphases supplied)
The elements of Qualified Rape under these provisions are: (a) the victim is
a female over twelve (12) years but under eighteen (18) years of age; (b) 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; and (c) the offender has carnal
knowledge of the victim either through force, threat, or intimidation. [49]
A perusal of the records reveals that all these elements are present. Both the
RTC and the CA found credible BBB's categorical testimony that on
November 18, 2003, Monroyo had carnal knowledge of her without her
consent; that she was sixteen (16) years old at that time; and that Monroyo
is her uncle, being the husband of her mother's half-sister. In addition, the
results of Dr. Valdez's medical examination corroborated BBB's account.
The lower courts also noted BBB's testimony that Monroyo previously
molested her five (5) times prior to the rape incident but she opted not to
inform her parents due to Monroyo's threats against her.[50]
As in the Acts of Lasciviousness cases, the Court defers to the findings of
fact of the trial court, as affirmed by the CA. Jurisprudentially settled is the
principle that if a victim's testimony is straightforward, convincing and
consistent with human nature and the normal course of things, unflawed by
any material or significant inconsistency, it passes the test of credibility and
the accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof. Putting more
emphasis, the factual findings of the trial court, especially on the credibility
of the rape victim, are accorded great weight and respect and will not be
disturbed on appeal,[51] as in this case.
At this juncture, it should be emphasized that Monroyo only proffered the
defense of denial, which the courts a quo, found to be too shallow and
insignificant so as to impel BBB to falsely charge her uncle and publicly
disclose that she was raped. Case law edifies that "[d]enial cannot prevail
over [a] private complainant's direct, positive and categorical assertion that
rings with truth. Denial is inherently a weak defense which cannot
outweigh positive testimony. As between a categorical statement that has
the earmarks of truth on the one hand and bare denial, on the other, the
former is generally held to prevail."[52]
Based on the foregoing, Monroyo's criminal liability in Crim. Case No. C-
04-7788 is thus upheld. However, for the reasons initially stated, his
conviction is modified from Rape to Qualified Rape, which, based on Article
266-B of the RPC, as amended by RA 8353, is penalized with death.
Pursuant to RA 9346,[53] courts shall impose the penalty of reclusion
perpetua in lieu of the death penalty and the offender shall not be eligible
for parole. As for his civil liability, jurisprudence states that when death is
the imposable penalty for the crime committed but it cannot be imposed
due to RA 9346, the Court shall award the following to BBB: (a)
P100,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) P100,000.00 as moral damages; and
(c) P100,000.00 as exemplary damages.[54]
Finally, the Court imposes interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per
annum on all monetary awards from the date of finality of judgment until
fully paid, for each count of Acts of Lasciviousness and Qualified Rape. [55]
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated May 27, 2015
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 06078 is
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS, finding accused-appellant
Norieto Monroyo y Mahaguay GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of three
(3) counts of Acts of Lasciviousness and one (1) count of Qualified Rape.
Accordingly:
(a) In Criminal Case Nos. C-04-7785, C-04-7786, C-04-7787, Monroyo
is SENTENCED to suffer the penalty of imprisonment with an
indeterminate period of fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months
of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion
temporal, as maximum, for each count and is ORDERED to pay AAA the
amounts of P20,000.00 as civil indemnity, P30,000.00 as moral damages,
and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, also for each count;
(b) In Criminal Case No. C-04-7788, Monroyo is SENTENCED to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole, and
is ORDERED to pay BBB the amounts of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity,
P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages;
and
(c) All monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%)
per annum from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, and Del Castillo, JJ.,
concur.
Caguioa, J., concur consistent with his opinion in Peo. v. Caoili, GR #
196342.