PEOPLE v.
RICHARD SARCIA veracity and weight of their testimonies where there is consistency
September 10, 2009 | Leonardo – De Castro, J. | Actual or Compensatory Damages
Digester: Roa, Annamhel Monique C.
SUMMARY: Richard Sarcia was convicted of statutory rape. Uncertainty
surrounded the detail of his actual age when he committed the crime, so in keeping
with the principle in criminal law of resolving doubt in favor of the accused, he was
presumed as being less than 18 years old at the time of commision, and the special
mitigating circumstance of minority was appreciated in his favor. The Court ruled
that although his penalty had been mitigated, the damages he is liable to pay remains
the same as it would have been had there been no mitigating circumstance
appreciated in his favor. DOCTRINE: Civil indemnity ex delicto is in the nature of
actual and compensatory damages for the injury caused to the offended party and
that suffered by her family, and moral damages are likewise compensatory in nature.
The fact of minority of the offender at the time of the commission of the offense has
no bearing on the gravity and extent of injury caused to the victim and her family,
particularly considering the circumstances attending this case.  having been sexually abused. In the absence of other circumstances
FACTS:
 1996 - Sarcia was said to have committed rape against AAA, his then 5-year old
neighbor. Witness to the crime was AAA’s cousin, who testified that while they
were playing in the yard of one Crisologo, Sarcia invited AAA to go with him to
the backyard. Unbeknownst to Sarcia, the cousin had followed him and AAA
and allegedly saw Sarcia remove AAA’s shorts and underwear, then remove his
trousers and brief and then lay on top of AAA and make an up-and-down
movement.
 The complaint was instituted by AAA’s father only 4 years later.
 The Municipal Health Officer who inspected AAA found no showing of any
scar or wound, but all the same described a “perforation of the hymen” which
means that it could have been subjected to a certain trauma or pressure.
 Sarcia denied the allegations, saying:
o AAA’s complaint was concocted and instigated by her parents.
o This was in connection with an earlier imputation to him of the
crime of Murder by one Bobier, a relative of AAA’s family (he
alleges this is just a ploy to lock him up for good).
o He could not have raped AAA as he was already incarcerated for
the above false charge of Murder at the time the rape was said to
have been committed.
CONTENTIONS OF SARCIA WITH RESPECT TO HIS GUILT FOR THE
CRIME OF RAPE, disposed of ad seriatim
 Testimonies of AAA and her cousin were inconsistent
o Court: Inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses, which refer
only to minor details and collateral matters, do not affect the
in relating the principal occurrence and the positive identification
of the accused. Slight contradictions in fact even serve to
strengthen the credibility of the witnesses and prove that their
testimonies are not rehearsed. The alleged inconsistencies in this
case are too inconsequential to overturn the findings of the court a
quo. It is important that the two prosecution witnesses were one in
saying that it was accused-appellant who sexually abused AAA.
Their positive, candid and straightforward narrations deserve full
faith and credence.
 Victim was confused as to date and time
o Court: The date is not an essential element of the crime of rape, for
the gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge of a woman.
 There was a 4-year delay in filing the case
o Court:  It is common for a rape victim to prefer silence for fear of
her aggressor and the lack of courage to face the public stigma of
that show that the charge was a mere concoction and impelled by
some ill motive, delay in the filing of the complainant is not
sufficient to defeat the charge. Here, the father testified that the
delay was because they did not have the money to file a suit.
 No proof that he employed threats, intimidation or force in having carnal
knowledge with AAA
o Court: Proof of force, intimidation or consent is immaterial in a
prosecution for statutory rape. Age alone is determinant.
 Medical report fails to sufficiently support rape allegation
o Court:  A medical report is not indispensable in a prosecution for
rape.
 All these considered, Sarcia was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of rape. Added to the considerations is the thought that an innocent girl
like AAA could not fabricate this story and would not have subjected herself to
a full-blown trial if the allegations were not true. Same with her parents.
 Court proceeds to determine the proper penalty to be imposed.
 RTC – Sentenced to reclusion perpetua, pay AAA 50Kphp civil indemnity +
50Kphp moral damages, and cost of suit
 Case was elevated to the SC for automatic review, case was transferred to the
CA (People v Mateo ruling).
 CA – Sentenced to death, pay AAA 75Kphp civil indemnity + 50Kphp moral
damages + 25Kphp exemplary damages

RULING: WHEREFORE, the decision of the CA dated July 14, 2005 in CA-G.R.
CR-H.C. No. 00717 is hereby AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:
(1) the penalty of death imposed on accused-appellant is reduced to reclusion
perpetua; and (2) accused-appellant is ordered to pay the victim the amount
of P75,000.00 and P30,000.00 as moral damages and exemplary damages,
respectively. The award of civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00 is
maintained. However, the case shall be REMANDED to the court a quo for
appropriate disposition in accordance with Sec. 51 of R.A. 9344.
SO ORDERED.
Whether the CA erred in determining the penalty to be imposed for Sarcia’s
crime – YES.
 The Court finds ground for modifying the penalty imposed by the CA. When
accused appellant testified on March 14, 2002, he admitted that he was 24 years
old, which means that in 1996, he was 18 years of age. As found by the trial
court, the rape incident could have taken place "in any month and date in the
year 1996." Since the prosecution was not able to prove the exact date and time
when the rape was committed, it is not certain that the crime of rape was
committed on or after he reached 18 years of age in 1996. In assessing the
attendance of the mitigating circumstance of minority, all doubts should be
resolved in favor of the accused, it being more beneficial to the latter. Under
Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, when the offender is a minor under 18
years, the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but
always in the proper period. However, for purposes of determining the proper
penalty because of the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, the
penalty of death is still the penalty to be reckoned with. Thus, the proper
imposable penalty for the accused-appellant is reclusion perpetua.
Whether the award of damages should be reduced in view of the presence here
of the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority of the accused at the time
of the commission of the offense – NO.
 The Court is granted discretion in awarding damages provided in the Civil Code,
in case a crime is committed. Specifically, Article 2204 of the Civil Code
provides that "in crimes, the damages to be adjudicated may be respectively
increased or lessened according to the aggravating or mitigating circumstances."
 BUT, Article 107 of the Revised Penal Code defines the term "indemnification,"
which is included in the civil liability prescribed by Article 104 of the same
Code, as including not only those caused the injured party, but also those
suffered by his family or by a third person by reason of the crime.
 DAMAGES (I) Relative to civil indemnity --
o People v. Victor - The indemnity authorized by our criminal law as
civil liability ex delicto for the offended party, in the amount
authorized by the prevailing judicial policy and aside from other
proven actual damages, is itself equivalent to actual or
compensatory damages in civil law. It is not to be considered as
moral damages thereunder, the latter being based on different jural
foundations and assessed by the court in the exercise of sound
discretion. xxx One other point of concern has to be addressed.
Indictments for rape continue unabated and the legislative response
has been in the form of higher penalties. The Court believes that
the jurisprudential path on the civil aspect should follow the same
direction. Hence, starting with the case at bar, if the crime of
rape is committed or effectively qualified by any of the
circumstances under which the death penalty is authorized by
the present amended law, the indemnity for the victim shall be
in the increased amount of not less than P75,000.00. This is not
only a reaction to the apathetic societal perception of the penal law,
and the financial fluctuations over time, but also an expression of
the displeasure of the Court over the incidence of heinous crimes
against chastity.
 DAMAGES (II) Relative to moral damages --
o Likewise compensatory in nature
o San Andres v. Court of Appeals - x x x Moral damages, though
incapable of pecuniary estimation, are in the category of an award
designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered and
not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer.
 Thus, according to law and jurisprudence, civil indemnity is in the nature
of actual and compensatory damages for the injury caused to the offended
party and that suffered by her family, and moral damages are likewise
compensatory in nature. The fact of minority of the offender at the time of
the commission of the offense has no bearing on the gravity and extent of
injury caused to the victim and her family, particularly considering the
circumstances attending this case. 
 Notwithstanding the presence of the privileged mitigating circumstance of
minority, which warrants the lowering of the public penalty by one degree, there
is no justifiable ground to depart from the jurisprudential trend in the award of
damages in the case of qualified rape, considering the compensatory nature of
the award of civil indemnity and moral damages.
 The principal consideration for the award of damages, under the ruling in People
v. Salome and People v. Quiachon is the penalty provided by law or imposable
for the offense because of its heinousness, not the public penalty actually
imposed on the offender.
o People v Salome - "As to damages, we have held that if the rape is
perpetrated with any of the attending qualifying circumstances that
require the imposition of the death penalty, the civil indemnity for
the victim shall P75,000.00 … Also, in rape cases, moral damages
are awarded without the need proof other than the fact of rape
because it is assumed that the victim has suffered moral injuries
entitling her to such an award. However, the trial court’s award
of P50,000.00 as moral damages should also be increased
to P75,000 pursuant to current jurisprudence on qualified rape."
o People v Quiachon – Same; Same
 DAMAGES (III) Relative to exemplary damages –
 o 2229 of the Civil Code provides that exemplary or corrective his/her disposition or rehabilitation program, the child in conflict with the
damages are imposed in addition to the moral, temperate, law shall be brought before the court for execution of judgment.
liquidated or compensatory damages. Exemplary damages are not If said child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen (18)
recoverable as a matter of right. years of age while under suspended sentence, the court shall determine
o Requirements of an award of exemplary damagees are: (1) they whether to discharge the child in accordance with this Act, to order
may be imposed by way of example in addition to compensatory execution of sentence, or to extend the suspended sentence for a certain
damages, and only after the claimant’s right to them has been specified period or until the child reaches the maximum age of twenty-one
established; (2) they cannot be recovered as a matter of right, their (21) years.
determination depending upon the amount of compensatory
damages that may be awarded to the claimant; (3) the act must be To date, accused-appellant is about 31 years of age, and the judgment of the RTC
accompanied by bad faith or done in a wanton, fraudulent, had been promulgated, even before the effectivity of R.A. No. 9344. Thus, the
oppressive or malevolent manner. application of Secs. 38 and 40 to the suspension of sentence is now moot and
o Since the compensatory damages, such as the civil indemnity and academic. However, accused-appellant shall be entitled to appropriate disposition
moral damages, are increased when qualified rape is committed, under Sec. 51.
the exemplary damages should likewise be increased in accordance
with prevailing jurisprudence.
 In sum, the increased amount of P75,000.00 each as civil indemnity and moral
damages should be maintained. It is also proper and appropriate that the award
of exemplary damages be likewise increased to the amount of P30,000.00 based
on the latest jurisprudence on the award of damages on qualified rape. Thus, the
CA correctly awarded P75,000.00 as civil indemnity. However the award
of P50,000.00 as moral damages is increased toP75,000.00 and that
of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages is likewise increased to P30,000.00.

NOTES:
The Court also ruled on the applicability of The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act
(RA 9344), which took effect 2006. Appellant was convicted by final judgment of
the RTC on 2003, and of the CA on 2005. Court retroactively applied RA 9344
pursuant to Sec. 68 thereof, which states,

Children Who Have Been Convicted and are Serving Sentence. –

Persons who have been convicted and are serving sentence at the time of
the effectivity of this Act, and who were below the age of eighteen (18)
years at the time of the commission of the offense for which they were
convicted and are serving sentence, shall likewise benefit from the
retroactive application of this Act. x x x

The Court then considered WON Sarcia is entitled to automatic suspension of notice.
It ultimately held that he isn’t, pursuant to Sec. 40 thereof, which states,

Sec. 40. Return of the Child in Conflict with the Law to Court. – If
the court finds that the objective of the disposition measures imposed upon
the child in conflict with the law have not been fulfilled, or if the child in
conflict with the law has willfully failed to comply with the condition of