Rape involving a Minor Victim

CONTENTS

REYNALDO DE CASTRO vs. HON. MANUEL B. FERNANDEZ, JR. in his official capacity as
Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, Branch 254, Metro Manila .......... 2
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JESUS PARAGAS CRUZ .............................................................. 5
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LILIO U. ACHAS, Accused-Appellant. ....................................... 9
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROEL VERGARA y CLAVERO....................................................15
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HERMENIGILDO DELEN y ESCO BILLA .................................20
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FRED TRAIGO ............................................................................27
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CHARLES REYES y MARASIGAN ..............................................30
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ELADIO B. LUMAHO alias "ATTUMPANG".............................37
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RICHARD RAMIREZ y TULUNGHARI ........................................42
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RAMON BAY-OD .......................................................................49
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. XXXXXXXXXXX ..................................................................55
 REYNALDO DE CASTRO vs. HON. MANUEL B. FERNANDEZ, JR. in his
official capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Las
Piñas City, Branch 254, Metro Manila

G.R. No. 155041 February 14, 2007

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

This petition for certiorari1 assails the Orders dated 5 and 28 August 2002 of Judge Manuel B.
Fernandez, Jr., Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, Branch 254 (trial court) in Criminal Case
No. 02-0527.2 The 5 August 2002 Order denied petitioner Reynaldo de Castro’s (petitioner)
Motion for Reinvestigation and the 28 August 2002 Order denied petitioner’s Motion for
Reconsideration.

The Facts

On the evening of 11 June 2002, barangay tanods invited petitioner to the barangay hall in
connection with a complaint for sexual assault filed by AAA,3 on behalf of her daughter
BBB.4 Petitioner accepted the invitation without any resistance. 1avvphi1.net

On 12 June 2002, the barangay officials turned over petitioner to the Las Piñas City Police
Station.

On 13 June 2002, the police indorsed the complaint to the city prosecutor of Las Piñas City for
inquest proceedings.5 Later, the state prosecutor issued a commitment order for petitioner’s
detention.6

On 18 June 2002, State Prosecutor Napoleon A. Monsod filed an Information against petitioner
for the crime of rape. The Information reads:

The undersigned State Prosecutor II accuses REYNALDO DE CASTRO y AVELLANA of the

crime of Rape (Art. 266-A, par. 2 in relation to Art. 266-B, Revised Penal Code, as amended by
R[.]A[.] [No.] 8353 and R[.]A[.] [No.] 7659) and in relation with R[.]A[.] [No.] 7610, committed as
follows:

That on or about the 11th day of June 2002 or prior thereto, in the City of Las Piñas, Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd designs,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commits [sic] act[s] of sexual assault with
one [BBB], a seven (7) years [sic] old minor, by touching and inserting his finger into her vagina
against her will and consent.

CONTRARY TO LAW.7

On 1 July 2002, petitioner filed a Motion for Reinvestigation praying that the trial court issue an
order directing the Office of the Prosecutor of Las Piñas City to conduct a preliminary
investigation in accordance with Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner also asked that the
charge filed against him be amended to acts of lasciviousness instead of rape since "fingering" is
not covered under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of Republic Act No. 8353 (RA 8353).8 In the Order
dated 5 August 2002, the trial court denied petitioner’s Motion for Reinvestigation.

On 22 August 2002, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration. In the Order dated 28 August
2002, the trial court denied the motion. Hence, this petition.

The Issues

Petitioner raises the following issues:

1. WHETHER A FINGER CONSTITUTES AN OBJECT OR INSTRUMENT IN THE

CONTEMPLATION OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8353; and

2. WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS ENTITLED TO A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION IN

FULL ACCORD WITH RULE 112 OF THE RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.9

The Court’s Ruling

We dismiss the petition.

At the outset, we declare that petitioner availed of the wrong remedy in assailing the trial court’s
Orders. Petitioner filed before this Court a petition captioned "Petition for Certiorari" and
specifically stated that the petition is based on Rule 65. However, petitioner also stated that the
issues raised are pure questions of law,10 which properly fall under Rule 45.

Under Rule 65, a special civil action for certiorari lies where a court has acted without or in
excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion and there is no appeal, nor any plain,
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.11 In this case, petitioner failed to
allege any circumstance which would show that in issuing the assailed Orders, the trial court
acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Moreover, following
the hierarchy of courts, a special civil action for certiorari assailing an order of the Regional Trial
Court should be filed with the Court of Appeals and not with this Court.12 Petitioner did not raise
any special reason or compelling circumstance that would justify direct recourse to this Court.13

On the other hand, if the petition is to be treated as a petition for review under Rule 45, the
petition would fail because only judgments or final orders that completely dispose of the case can
be the subject of a petition for review.14 In this case, the assailed Orders are only interlocutory
orders. Petitioner should have proceeded with the trial of the case and if the trial court renders an
unfavorable verdict, petitioner should assail the Orders as part of an appeal that may eventually
be taken from the final judgment to be rendered in this case.15

Additionally, the petition will not prosper because petitioner failed to comply with the
requirements under Rule 45 as to the documents, and their contents, which should accompany
the petition. Petitioner failed to submit a duplicate original or certified true copy of the 28 August
2002 Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration.16 Petitioner also failed to show the
timeliness of the filing of the petition because the petition did not state the date when petitioner
received the 28 August 2002 Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration.17

Hence, on the issue alone of the propriety of the remedy sought by petitioner, this petition must
fail.

On the merits, petitioner is deemed to have waived his right to a preliminary investigation. Under
Section 7 of Rule 112,18 if an information is filed in court without a preliminary investigation, the
accused may, within five days from the time he learns of its filing, ask for a preliminary
investigation. The accused’s failure to request for a preliminary investigation within the specified
period is deemed a waiver of his right to a preliminary investigation.19

In this case, the information against petitioner was filed with the trial court on 18 June 2002. On
20 June 2002, one Glenn Russel L. Apura, on behalf of Atty. Eduardo S. Villena (Atty. Villena),
requested for copies of the pertinent documents on petitioner’s case.20 On 25 June 2002, Atty.
Villena entered his appearance as counsel for petitioner.21 Yet, petitioner only asked for a
reinvestigation on 1 July 2002 or more than five days from the time petitioner learned of the filing
of the information. Therefore, petitioner is deemed to have waived his right to ask for a
preliminary investigation.

Petitioner also questions the charge filed against him by the prosecutor. Petitioner insists that a
"finger" does not constitute an object or instrument in the contemplation of RA 8353.

Petitioner is mistaken. Under the present law on rape, Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended by RA 8353, and as interpreted in People v. Soriano,22 the insertion of one’s finger
into the genital of another constitutes "rape through sexual assault." Hence, the prosecutor did
not err in charging petitioner with the crime of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 223 of the
Revised Penal Code.

WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition. We AFFIRM the assailed Orders dated 5 August 2002
and 28 August 2002 of Judge Manuel B. Fernandez, Jr., Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City,
Branch 254.

SO ORDERED.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JESUS PARAGAS CRUZ

G.R. No. 186129 August 4, 2009

VELASCO, JR., J.:

This is an appeal from the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated May 30, 2008 in CA-G.R.
CR-H.C. No. 01760, which affirmed the August 12, 2002 Decision in Criminal Case No. 99-329 of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 259 in Parañaque City.

Accused-appellant Jesus Paragas Cruz was convicted of one (1) count of rape or violation of
paragraph 1(a), Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. He was sentenced to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

The Facts

The Information dated February 23, 1999 against Cruz alleged the following:

That on or about the 6th day of June 1998 in the City of Parañaque, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force and
intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with
one [AAA],1 a minor, 9 years old, against her will.

CONTRARY TO LAW.2

Upon arraignment on July 8, 1999, Cruz pleaded not guilty.

The prosecution offered the testimony of the following witnesses: PO3 Maria Bautista; Dr.
Winston Tan; the victim’s mother, BBB; and Emiliano Mariano, the barangay tanod of San
Dionisio, Parañaque City. Apart from Cruz, the defense presented as witnesses his wife, Melinda
Cruz; Antonio Gonzales; Benjamin Gudal; Jesus Cruz; Dr. Darius Mariano; and Dr. Winston Tan.

Version of the Prosecution

On June 6, 1998, AAA, then a nine-year old, was at her house watching television with her
cousin Jady. It was past three in the afternoon when Jady left to go to her grandmother’s house.
Upon her departure, Cruz abruptly entered the house and turned off the television. He closed the
windows and told AAA to remove her shorts. She did as instructed. Cruz later kissed AAA and
touched her vagina. She felt pain as he inserted his penis into her vagina. She did not do
anything, however, as she was fearful of Cruz. To intimidate her further, Cruz threatened to kill
her should she report what had just happened. He then left in a hurry and closed the door of the
house.3

AAA tried her best to keep the rape a secret as she was terrified that Cruz would come back and
kill her. Nevertheless, she told her mother BBB what happened to her a few months later. BBB
subsequently told Cruz’s wife of what she had just discovered. Thereafter, BBB took her
daughter to the barangay hall and then to the police station to report the matter to the
authorities.4
A medical examination was conducted on AAA by Dr. Winston Tan. His report showed that AAA
had two (2) hymenal lacerations. One was a deep-healed laceration at the 3 o’clock position and
another one a shallow healed laceration at the 5 o’clock position.5

Version of the Defense

Maintaining his innocence, Cruz claimed that at the time of the rape he was with Antonio
Gonzales in Multinational Village, Parañaque City. Gonzales later testified that they met from 11
o’clock in the morning to about 5:30 in the afternoon. Cruz conducted a survey of Gonzales’ land
to prepare it for a prospective buyer. A couple of months later or on September 28, 1998, his wife
told him of AAA’s allegation of rape. Policemen subsequently arrested him and brought him to
the police station where he was informed that he was being charged of rape. To further establish
his defense, Cruz maintained that it was impossible for him to commit rape as he had been
sexually impotent since 1995. He pointed to a land dispute he had with the victim’s family as a
possible reason for the fabricated charge.6

Cruz’s wife Melinda corroborated his story by saying that they seldom had sexual intercourse
after 1995 as he had become impotent. Dr. Darius Mariano, meanwhile, diagnosed Cruz in 2001
as suffering from erectile dysfunction.7

The Ruling of the Trial Court

The RTC found Cruz guilty for the crime charged. It found Cruz’s defense too shallow in light of
his positive identification as the perpetrator of the rape. The dispositive portion of the RTC
Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, finding accused Jesus Paragas Cruz GUILTY

beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Rape as defined and penalized under par. 1(c) Art.
266-A RA 8353 in relation to Sec. 5(b) RA 7610; this Court hereby sentences him to reclusion
perpetua and to suffer the accessory penalties provided by law, particularly Art. 41 of the
Revised Penal Code. For the civil liability, he is further condemned to pay the amount of
P100,000.00 as actual and moral damages.

xxxx

SO ORDERED.8

On June 25, 2008, Cruz filed his Notice of Appeal of the RTC Decision.

The Ruling of the CA

Cruz, in arguing that the trial court erred in convicting him, alleged that AAA’s hymenal
lacerations could have been caused by means other than sexual intercourse. He furthermore
submitted that his erectile dysfunction raised doubts as to his culpability. Additionally, he claimed
that the corroboration of his alibi by two other witnesses should not have been disregarded.

The CA found Cruz’s assertions without merit. It ruled that his impotency was not proved with
certainty. The appellate court pointed out that the medical finding of erectile dysfunction was
based on an examination more than three years after the rape occurred; thus, no categorical
conclusion could be made that Cruz was impotent when the rape was committed.

Following jurisprudence on the subject matter, the appellate court held that it was hard to believe
AAA’s mother would file rape charges against Cruz because of a land dispute, seeing as it would
cause AAA embarrassment and subject her to a lifelong stigma. As to Cruz’s alibi, the CA opined
that he was not able to prove the physical impossibility of his having committed the crime.
 The fallo of the CA Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATIONS that
accused-appellant JESUS PARAGAS CRUZ is ordered to pay private complainant P50,000.00
as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages, and exemplary damages in the amount of
P25,000.00. The awarded amount of P100,000.00 is DELETED. The Decision stands in all other
respects.

SO ORDERED.9

On March 11, 2009, this Court required the parties to submit supplemental briefs if they so
desired. The parties manifested their willingness to submit the case on the basis of the records
already submitted.

The Issue

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY

BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF RAPE

Cruz reiterates his previous assertions, i.e., that (1) the victim’s hymenal lacerations could have
been caused by a non-sexual act; (2) Cruz’s erectile dysfunction made it impossible for him to
commit rape; and (3) his alibi that he was elsewhere at the time of the rape deserves more
weight as it was corroborated by two other witnesses.

Non-Sexual Cause of Hymenal Lacerations

Courts use the following principles in deciding rape cases: (1) an accusation of rape can be
made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent,
to disprove; (2) due to the nature of the crime of rape in which only two persons are usually
involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the
evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw
strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. Due to the nature of this crime,
conviction for rape may be solely based on the complainant’s testimony provided it is credible,
natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.10

Bearing the aforementioned principles in mind, we find the prosecution’s evidence sufficient for a
conviction. The claim that AAA’s hymenal lacerations could have been caused by something
other than sexual congress is distinctly speculative and does not throw any doubt as to the fact of
rape. What is more, proof of hymenal laceration is not even an element of rape so long as there
is enough proof of entry of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum of the female organ.11

We have gleaned from the records a credible and straightforward account of the rape from the
victim herself. She was unflinching both during her direct and cross-examinations and was
categorical in identifying Cruz as the rapist. We, thus, concur with both the trial and appellate
courts in holding that AAA’s testimony is enough to hold Cruz liable. Most important in a
prosecution for statutory rape is to prove the following elements: (1) that the accused had carnal
knowledge of a woman; and (2) that the woman was below 12 years of age. Sexual congress
with a girl under 12 years old is always rape.12 These elements were sufficiently established
during trial and were not rebutted by the defense with any solid evidence to the contrary. As the
trial court was in a better position to observe the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, we
respect its findings of fact especially as these were sustained by the CA.13

Impotence as a Defense
As a defense, impotence is both a physical and medical question that should be satisfactorily
established with the aid of an expert and competent testimony.14 Impotency as a defense in rape
cases must likewise be proved with certainty to overcome the presumption in favor of
potency.15 While Cruz was indeed diagnosed as suffering from erectile dysfunction, this does not
preclude the possibility of his having sexual intercourse with AAA. As the CA observed
accurately, AAA was raped in 1998 while the medical examination of Cruz was conducted in
2001. A good three years had already lapsed since AAA had been sexually abused. The
diagnosis on Cruz in 2001 is, therefore, useless to disprove his sexual potency at the time of the
rape incident. It merely corroborates his assertion that he is currently sexually impotent, and not
that he has been so since 1995. Cruz was not able to adduce hard evidence to demonstrate his
impotency prior to or on June 6, 1998 when the crime of rape was committed. Moreover,
assuming arguendo that he was indeed impotent since 1995, it does not discount the possibility
that his erection was cured by drugs like Viagra or Ciales. There was simply no proof of his
alleged impotency on June 6, 1998 when the beastly act of rape was committed against AAA.

Furthermore, we find the testimony of Cruz’s wife Melinda more harmful than helpful to the theory
of the defense. It can be recalled that she testified as to having infrequent sexual intercourse with
her husband after 1995 because he had become impotent. This contradicts Cruz’s claim that it
was impossible for him to have raped AAA because of his medical condition. Apparently his
alleged impotence, which started in 1995, did not completely stop him from engaging in sexual
intercourse over the years. 1avv phi 1

Erectile dysfunction or ED can be a total inability to achieve erection, an inconsistent ability to do

so, or a tendency to sustain only brief erections. These variations make defining ED and
estimating its incidence difficult.16 The testimony of the doctor who examined Cruz in 2001 did
not specify what kind of ED Cruz was suffering from. Cruz’s impotency cannot, therefore, be
considered as completely eliminating the possibility of sexual intercourse.

Defense of Alibi

Cruz’s final argument likewise fails to convince this Court. He relies on as alibi his presence in
Multinational Village in Parañaque City conducting a land survey at the time of the rape incident.
To sustain such an alibi, the defense must establish the physical impossibility for the accused to
be present at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.17 True it is that his story was
corroborated by additional witnesses. These testimonies, however, did not show the physical
impossibility of Cruz to be present at AAA’s home when she was raped. Even if Cruz conducted
the land survey on the same day, he could have very easily committed the rape as he was in the
same city as AAA.

Penalty Imposed

The award of civil indemnity of PhP 50,000 in simple rape cases without need of pleading or
proof is correct.18 In addition, moral damages of PhP 50,000 were also correctly
awarded.19 These are automatically granted in rape cases without need of proof other than the
commission of the crime.20 Exemplary damages were appropriately awarded by way of public
example and to protect the young from sexual predators. We, however, increase the award to
PhP 30,000 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.21

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CA Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01760 finding
accused-appellant Jesus Paragas Cruz guilty of statutory rape is AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION that the award of exemplary damages is increased to PhP 30,000.

SO ORDERED.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LILIO U. ACHAS

G.R. No. 185712 August 4, 2009

VELASCO, JR., J.:

This is an appeal from the Decision dated May 19, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
CR-H.C. No. 00480, affirming the Decision dated March 11, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 37 in Cagayan de Oro City. The RTC adjudged accused-appellant Lilio U. Achas
guilty of two (2) counts of the crime of rape.

In two (2) separate informations filed before the RTC, docketed as Crim. Case Nos. 2000-045
and 2001-143, Achas was charged with two counts of rape, allegedly committed as follows:

Crim. Case No. 2000-045

Sometime in the month of June, 1998, on a Sunday noon, or thereabout at x x x, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused being the common-law
husband of the mother, [BBB], of the victim, [AAA],1 with lewd design, and by means of force and
intimidation poked a knife on said eight (8) year old minor victim, [AAA], did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with the said victim against her will.

CONTRARY TO and in violation of Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal
Code as amended by RA 8353.

Crim. Case No. 2001-143

Sometime in the month of July, 1999, on [a] Sunday morning, in the mountain of x x x,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused being
the common-law husband of the mother of the eight (8) year old minor-victim, [AAA], with lewd
design, and by means of force, intimidation and grave abuse of authority, did then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with the said victim [AAA] against her
will.

The commission by the accused is further aggravated by his knowledge that he is afflicted by [a]
sexually transmissible disease and the disease [was] transmitted to the aforesaid victim.

CONTRARY TO and in violation of Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended by RA 8353.2

The antecedent facts, as summarized in the decision under review, are as follows:

In 1998, AAA, then barely eight years old, was staying with her mother, BBB, and her common-
law spouse, Achas, in Misamis Oriental. One Sunday in June of that year, AAA, while watching
over her two half-brothers, CCC and DDD, in their home, was grabbed by Achas and led to their
adjoining store. Once inside the store, Achas removed AAA’s short pants and underwear. He
then mounted her and succeeded in inserting his penis into her vagina, causing her excruciating
pain.
Sometime in March 1999, EEE, BBB’s sister, saw a very pale AAA and asked what the matter
was. For a reply, AAA only placed her arms around her aunt, shivering. Sensing that something
was amiss, EEE lost no time in having AAA examined at the Northern Mindanao Medical Center
where AAA was found to be afflicted with gonorrhea.3

The beastly act that occurred in June 1998 was to be repeated in the same place sometime in
July 1999, while BBB was out gathering firewood. This time around, Achas covered AAA’s mouth
with a towel to prevent her from making any noise. And pointing a knife at the left side of AAA’s
neck before and after the sexual abuse, Achas warned her that he would kill her mother should
she tell on him.4

Achas denied the accusations hurled against him by one who he allegedly loved like a daughter,
claiming, in the same breath, to be in another province in June 1998 and July 1999. He tagged
EEE, who disliked him and wanted her sister to leave him, as having masterminded the filing of
the fabricated charges.5

CCC, AAA’s half-brother and Achas’ son, testified that it was not his father but two young boys
who sexually molested his sister. According to CCC, AAA no less told him about Achas’ virtual
innocence. Pushing his point, CCC testified to being told by EEE to keep quiet about AAA not
having been raped by Achas. EEE’s instructions, per CCC, allegedly came when Achas was
already in jail.6

On March 11, 2004, the RTC rendered judgment finding Achas guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of rape on two counts and sentencing him to death for each crime. The dispositive portion of the
RTC Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds accused Lilio U. Achas guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of two (2) counts or crimes of rape committed against the minor offended party,
and said accused is hereby sentenced to die for each of the two counts or crimes of rape said
penalty of death to be carried out in accordance with the procedure and method enforced by the
appropriate authorities of the Executive Department. Moreover, the accused is sentenced to pay
the minor offended party in each of the two counts or crimes of rape the sum of P75,000.00 by
way of civil indemnity x x x and the sum of P50,000.000 by way of moral damages.

xxxx

SO ORDERED.7

The RTC forthwith elevated the records of the case to this Court for automatic review in light of
the penalty imposed. In accordance, however, with the People v. Mateo8 ruling, the Court, per
Resolution of June 6, 2006, ordered the transfer of the case records to the CA for intermediate
review.

On May 19, 2008, the CA rendered a Decision affirming that of the trial court. The appellate
court, however, reduced the penalty of death for each count of rape to reclusion perpetua without
eligibility for parole in light of Republic Act No. (RA) 93469 prohibiting the imposition of the death
penalty. The dispositive portion of the CA’s decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
10th Judicial Region, Branch 37, Cagayan de Oro City, in Criminal Cases Nos. 2000-045 and
2001-143, convicting appellant, Lilio U. Achas of two (2) counts of rape is hereby AFFIRMED,
with the modification in that appellant is only meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua instead of
death for each count of rape and that AAA is awarded P75,000.00 as moral damages,
P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of rape.

SO ORDERED.10
On June 24, 2008, Achas filed his Notice of Appeal of the CA Decision.

In response to the Resolution of the Court for them to submit supplemental briefs, if they so
desired, the parties manifested their willingness to have the case resolved on the basis of the
records and pleadings already on file.

The issue before us is:

WHETHER THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED

DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT

Achas’ defense is predicated on alibi and denial. He denies having committed the crimes
imputed against him, being, in the first place, in Bukidnon on the dates the supposed rape
incidents occurred. How could he, he protests, do something dastardly on one who he loved and
treated like his own child? His son, CCC, when called on the witness stand, belied AAA’s
inculpatory allegations against his father.

Achas brands AAA’s account as to his guilt as incredulous and inconsistent with human
experience and the natural course of things. He likewise maintains that the physical evidence ran
counter to AAA’s testimonial evidence. In particular, he asserts that AAA was not alone in the
house when the alleged June 1998 rape happened; yet, contrary to human nature, AAA did not
cry out for help. He also belies committing the second rape charged, for, in July 1999, EEE
already had custody of AAA.

Setting his focus on another angle, Achas maintains that if AAA’s allegations of rape were true,
then hymenal lacerations and external physical injuries would have been observed by the
examining physician and so indicated, but was not, in the medical records.

The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), would have the Court discredit the
proffered defenses of denial and alibi, describing them as the favorite sanctuary of felons. And
for reasons detailed in its Brief,11 the OSG, citing jurisprudence, urges that Achas’ assault on
AAA’s credibility be rejected.

The Court resolves to affirm the CA decision.

For conviction in the crime of rape,12 the following elements must be proved:

1. that the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman;

2. that said act was accomplished under any of the following circumstances-

a. through force, threat or intimidation;

b. when the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious;

c. by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; or

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.13

By the distinctive nature of rape cases, conviction usually rests solely on the basis of the
testimony of the victim, provided that such testimony is credible, natural, convincing, and
consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.14 Accordingly, the Court has
consistently adhered to the following guiding principles in the review of similar cases, to wit: (1)
an accusation for rape can be made with facility; while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is
even more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that, in the
nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the
complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution
must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness
of the evidence for the defense.15

Complementing the foregoing principles is the rule that the credibility of the victim is always the
single most important issue in prosecution for rape;16 that in passing upon the credibility of
witnesses, the highest degree of respect must be afforded to the findings of the trial court.17

AAA had pointed to Achas as the person who forced himself on her on at least two occasions
and who caused her pain when he entered her. As determined by the trial court, AAA’s testimony
on the fact of molestation was positive and credible. The trial court wrote:

Based on the demeanor of the private complainant when she testified, and after an assessment
of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, this Court believes and concludes that the
prosecution witnesses and their testimonies are credible. These witnesses testified positively,
directly, and in a candid manner. There is neither cause nor reason for this Court to withhold
credence on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.18

And citing this Court’s ruling on an analogous case involving a girl-child, the trial court added:

x x x [I]t is unbelievable for a ten-year old virgin to publicly disclose that she had been sexually
abused, then undergo the trouble and humiliation of a public trial if her motive were other than to
protect her honor and bring to justice the person who unleashed his lust on her.19

Just like the CA, the Court loathes to disturb the trial court’s assessment of AAA’s credibility,
having had the opportunity to observe her demeanor in the witness box. 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.20

AAA may perhaps have not cried for help while being taken forcibly by Achas to the store
adjoining their house or during the actual penile insertion itself. This imputed omission, however,
does not necessarily diminish the plausibility of AAA’s story, let alone destroy her credibility. AAA
was a young country girl of eight during the period material. It was easy to intimidate her then
into silence. She was with her stepfather who enjoyed moral authority over her and the only
people around were her two younger—and doubtless undiscerning—half-brothers whom she was
looking after. Could the two toddlers be expected to understand what their father was about to do
or was doing then to AAA and come to their half-sister’s succor?

Physical resistance need not be established when intimidation is brought to bear on the victim
and the latter submits herself out of fear. As has been held, the failure to shout or offer tenuous
resistance does not make voluntary the victim’s submission to the criminal acts of the
accused.21 Intimidation is addressed to the mind of the victim and is, therefore,
subjective.22 AAA’s credibility should, thus, not be undercut just because she did not cry out, if
this really be the case, for help. Rape is subjective and not everyone responds in the same way
to an attack by a sexual fiend. There is no stereotypical form of reaction for a woman when
facing a traumatic experience, such as a sexual assault.23 When a girl, especially a minor, says
that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was
committed.24 1avvphi 1

Achas has made much of the absence of medical traces of hymenal laceration on AAA. Given
the unwavering testimony of AAA as to her ordeal in the hands of Achas, however, the Court
cannot accord merit to the argument that the lack of physical manifestation of rape weakens the
case against Achas. The medical report on AAA is only corroborative of the finding of rape. The
absence of external signs or physical injuries on the complainant’s body does not necessarily
negate the commission of rape.25 This is because hymenal laceration is not an element of the
crime of rape,26 albeit a healed or fresh laceration is a compelling proof of defloration.27 What is
more, the foremost consideration in the prosecution for rape is the victim’s testimony and not the
findings of the medico-legal officer. In fact, a medical examination of the victim is not
indispensable in a prosecution for rape; the victim’s testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to
convict.28

Achas’ claim of being in Bukidnon, a province adjoining Misamis Oriental, during the commission
of the sexual assaults stands uncorroborated and cannot be given much consideration to support
his alibi. He was not able to show the physical impossibility of his being with AAA at the time the
incidents occurred. For alibi to prosper, the accused must show being somewhere else during
the actual commission of the crime and that it was physically impossible for him to have been at
the crime scene. Alibi must fail where, owing to the short distance as well as the facility of access
between the two places involved, there is least chance for the accused to be present at the crime
scene.29 But just to put things in the proper perspective, what Achas testified to, as noted by the
trial court, was that he went to Don Carlos, Bukidnon in May 1999 and left that municipality in
October 1999,30 a plausible alibi for the July 1999 rape incident only.

Denial, just like alibi, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is inherently weak,
being self-serving negative evidence undeserving of weight in law.31 To be sure, either gratuitous
defense cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration of credible
witnesses.32 Put a bit differently, the defense of denial or alibi becomes even weaker in the face
of an unqualified and positive identification of Achas as complainant’s rapist.33

CCC’s uncorroborated testimony in the defense of Achas also deserves scant consideration, it
being but natural for a son to testify for his father. CCC’s version of events, moreover, requires a
considerable stretch of the imagination to be believed. His story has his aunt, EEE, cooking up
an elaborate frame-up of Achas only because she did not like him. CCC’s aunt allegedly coached
him to say it was their two neighbors who committed the crime against his half-sister. CCC’s
account taxes credulity, for it is highly unusual for AAA to accuse her own stepfather of rape,
while letting the real culprits go unpunished.

At any event, her having been sexually assaulted by someone else does not foreclose the
possibility of Achas having raped her also. As it were, CCC was not present when Achas—to
satisfy his lust, at least the second time around—dragged AAA into the adjoining store. In other
words, CCC did not, as he could not, testify on the physical impossibility of the crime having
being committed by his father. We go back to the oft-cited jurisprudential gem that a young girl
will not have the courage and strength to concoct a tale of defloration against a stepfather and
relate in public all its horrifying were she not in fact sexually violated. The Court cannot bring its
mind to a rest that a girl of tender age—like AAA, who has not been shown to have ill motive to
falsely testify against her stepfather—would allow herself to go through the humiliation of a public
trial if not to pursue justice for what has happened.34 As to the testimony of CCC, we have
previously held that when the denial of the accused is tended to be established only by himself,
his relatives, or friends, his denial of culpability should be accorded the strictest scrutiny; their
testimonies are necessarily suspect and cannot prevail over the testimonies of the more credible
witnesses for the prosecution.35 So it must be here.

On pecuniary liability, we affirm the amount of damages awarded by the appellate court. Civil
indemnity for statutory rape is currently pegged at PhP 75,000, while moral damages, which are
awarded without need of proof of mental suffering or anguish other than the fact of statutory
rape, was properly awarded in the amount of PhP 75,000.36 The award of exemplary damages in
the amount of PhP 25,000 is increased to PhP 30,000 pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.37
While RA 9346 prohibited the imposition of the death penalty and the penalty is reduced to
reclusion perpetua, the accused is, however, no longer eligible for parole.

WHEREFORE, the CA Decision dated May 19, 2008 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00480 finding
accused-appellant Lilio U. Achas guilty of two (2) counts of rape is hereby AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION that he is ordered to pay PhP 30,000 as exemplary damages and that he is
ineligible for parole.

SO ORDERED.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROEL VERGARA y CLAVERO

G.R. No. 199226 January 15, 2014

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

On appeal is the Decision1 dated March 31, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C.
No. 03772, which affirmed in toto the Decision2 dated November 26, 2008 of the Regional Trial
Court RTC), Branch 17, Cavite City, in Criminal Case No. 297-04, finding accused-appellant Roel
Clavero Vergara guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of simple statutory rape.

Consistent with the ruling in People v. Cabalquinto3 and People v. Guillermo,4 the Court withholds
the real names of the private offended party and her immediate family members, as well as such
other personal circumstances or any other information tending to establish or compromise their
identity. The initials AAA shall represent the private offended party.

In the Information dated September 15, 2004, accused-appellant was charged before the RTC
with the rape of AAA, thus:

That on or about September 12, 2004, in the City of Cavite, Republic of the Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being then the
stepfather of one [AAA], a minor, 9 years of age, with force and intimidation, did, then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had carnal knowledge with said minor, [AAA], without her
consent and against her will.5

When arraigned on October 13, 2004, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge.[[6]

The prosecution presented the testimonies of AAA,7 the private offended party herself, and Dr.
Remigio R. Camerino (Camerino),8 the physician who physically examined AAA for signs of
sexual abuse. The prosecution also submitted several documentary exhibits, particularly: AAA’s
Certificate of Live Birth,9 issued by the Office of the City Civil Registrar of Cavite City, stating that
AAA was born on October 20, 1994; AAA’s Sworn Statement10 dated September 14, 2004 in
which AAA recounted how, where, and when accused-appellant raped her; the Letter-
Request11 for AAA’s Medico-Legal Examination dated September 14, 2004; Dr. Camerino’s
Medico-Legal Report12 dated September 15, 2004; the result of AAA’s Pregnancy
Test13 conducted on September 15, 2004 confirming her pregnancy at only nine years of age; the
Certificate of Live Birth14 of AAA’s son, issued by the Office of the City Civil Registrar of Manila,
stating that AAA’s son was born on January 16, 2005; and a picture15 of AAA’s son. The totality of
the prosecution’s evidence established the following version of events:

AAA was born on 20 October, 1994. Her parents were not married and got separated when she
was five (5) years old. Her mother then lived-in, and begot a child, with [accused-appellant].
Unlike her two other siblings by her biological father, AAA lived with her mother and [accused-
appellant].

[Accused-appellant] began abusing AAA as soon as she had her first menstruation in May 2003.
By the time AAA was nine (9) years old, [accused-appellant] had sexually molested her five (5)
times.

The last incident of rape, which is the subject of this case, happened around 3:00 o’clock in the
afternoon of 12 September 2004. The 9-year old AAA was left alone in the house with [accused-
appellant] and the latter’s 2-year old daughter because AAA’s mother was away working as a
cook in a restaurant in a nearby place. [Accused-appellant] ordered AAA to go inside his
bedroom. When there, he ordered her to embrace him and remove her shirt, pants and panty.
Afraid, AAA complied. [Accused-appellant] forced himself on AAA, who pleaded, "Tama na po!"
(Enough, please). Despite AAA’s pleas, however, [accused-appellant] persisted, telling her, "Eto
na ang huli, pumayag ka na." (Do as I say because this will be the last.) [Accused-appellant]
inserted his penis into AAA’s vagina and made a pumping motion for twenty (20) minutes. AAA
cried and resisted by punching [accused-appellant] on his shoulders, but to no avail. After
satisfying his lust, [accused-appellant] ordered AAA to put on her clothes and warned her not to
tell anyone about what happened.

AAA confided her ordeal to her mother’s friend, Tita, who helped her report the incident to the
police authorities. AAA was also examined by Dr. Remigion R. Camerino, whose findings
revealed the following:

"> Thin circular hymen with rough edges and previous healed lacerations.

> (-) vaginal lacerations

> (-) bleeding/discharge

> positive pregnancy test (9/15/04)

> uterus enlarged to 4 months age of gestation."

On 16 January 2005, AAA gave birth to a baby boy.16 (Citations omitted.)

Accused-appellant17 took the witness stand in his own defense, denying that he raped AAA and
offering an alibi for the afternoon of September 12, 2004. Accused-appellant’s testimony, in sum,
was as follows:

In his defense, [accused-appellant] interposed the lone defense of alibi, alleging that he was not
in their house on the day of the incident but was at work as a cook in a restaurant, less than a
kilometer or about a 30-minute walk away from their house. [Accused-appellant] testified that he
never had the chance to be with the victim on the day in question since his work was from 3:00
o’clock in the afternoon to 2:00 o’clock in the morning of the following day.

On cross-examination, [accused-appellant] denied having any previous misunderstanding with

the victim and admitted that he could not think of a reason why AAA would impute such a serious
accusation against him.18 (Citations omitted.)

In its Decision dated November 26, 2008, the RTC convicted accused-appellant for simple
statutory rape, and not for qualified rape as charged. The trial court reasoned that it could not
appreciate the aggravating or qualifying circumstance of relationship alleged in the Information,
particularly, accused-appellant being AAA’s stepfather, because, as admitted by the parties and
proved during trial, accused-appellant was not legally AAA’s stepfather, but merely the common-
law spouse of AAA’s mother. Hence, the RTC decreed:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused ROEL

VERGARA y CLAVERO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE as defined and
punished under paragraph (1), (d) Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA
8363, and accordingly sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to
indemnify the victim [AAA] in the amount of ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity, the amount of
₱50,000.00 as moral damages, and the amount of ₱25,000 as exemplary damages.19
Accused-appellant sought recourse from the Court of Appeals, anchoring his appeal on a lone
assignment of error, to wit:

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF

THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH HIS
GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.20

The Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision on March 31, 2011, wholly affirming the judgment
of conviction rendered by the RTC against accused-appellant. The appellate court upheld the
assessment by the RTC of the witnesses’ credibility, as well as the conclusion of said trial court
that the prosecution was able to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, accused-appellant’s guilt
for the crime of simple statutory rape.

Aggrieved, accused-appellant comes before this Court through the instant appeal.

The appeal is bereft of merit.

Under Article 266-A(1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353,21 the
crime of rape is committed by a man having 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.

In People v. Teodoro,22 the Court clearly explained the elements of statutory rape committed
under Article 266-A(1)(d):

Rape under paragraph 3 of this article is termed statutory rape as it departs from the usual
modes of committing rape. What the law punishes in statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a
woman below twelve (12) years old. Thus, force, intimidation and physical evidence of injury are
not relevant considerations; the only subject of inquiry is the age of the woman and whether
carnal knowledge took place. The law presumes that the victim does not and cannot have a will
of her own on account of her tender years; the child’s consent is immaterial because of her
presumed incapacity to discern good from evil. (Citations omitted.)

In the case at bar, the prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused-
appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA in the afternoon of September 12, 2004, when AAA was
just nine years old.

In her Sworn Statement dated September 15, 2004 to Senior Police Officer 4 Eloisa B. Ocava,
AAA narrated how accused-appellant had been raping her since 2003, and described in great
detail the last rape that occurred on September 12, 2004.

AAA subsequently took the witness stand during trial and personally recounted her ordeal in
accused-appellant’s hands, particularly, the last incident of rape on September 12, 2004. AAA,
who was already starting to feel pregnant, finally gained courage soon after the last rape to tell
her mother’s friend about what accused-appellant was doing to her.

It is settled jurisprudence that testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit,
because when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in
effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. Youth and immaturity are generally
badges of truth and sincerity.23

Herein, AAA’s testimony is not only consistent and straightforward, but is further corroborated by
other evidence. According to AAA’s birth certificate, she was born on October 20, 1994, thus,
establishing that she was nine years old on September 12, 2004. Dr. Camerino, after physical
examination of AAA on September 15, 2004, found that AAA had "previously healed lacerations"
in her vagina and that AAA’s "uterus [was] enlarged to [four (4)] months age of gestation." AAA’s
pregnancy test, also conducted on September 15, 2004, confirmed that she was pregnant. AAA
later gave birth to a son on January 16, 2005, which was evidenced by her son’s birth certificate.

Accused-appellant challenged AAA’s credibility by pointing out that AAA often giggled and smiled
while testifying before the trial court; AAA testified during direct examination that she was raped
by accused-appellant on September 12, 2004 at home but later inconsistently declared during
cross-examination that the rape took place in a room at accused-appellant’s place of work; Dr.
Camerino, who examined AAA on September 15, 2004, only three days after AAA’s purported
rape on September 12, 2004, did not find fresh lacerations on AAA’s vagina, hence, indicating
that AAA had no recent sexual activity; and AAA could not have been just nine years old at the
time of her alleged raped as pre-teen ovulation was rare and as Dr. Camerino himself observed,
AAA already had the built of an adolescent woman. Accused-appellant further denied raping AAA
and insisted that he was at some other place at the time AAA was supposedly raped.

Accused-appellant’s arguments were already considered and thoroughly addressed by the Court
of Appeals. As the appellate court appropriately held:

Time-honored is the doctrine that the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of a witness, is
entitled to great weight on appeal. The reason therefor is that the trial judge enjoys the peculiar
advantage of observing first-hand the deportment of the witnesses while testifying and is,
therefore, in a better position to form accurate impressions and conclusions on the basis thereof.
AAA’s seemingly inconsistent behavior, such as smiling while narrating in open court about the
rape, was properly explained by her, as follows:

Q (PROS. GARCIA): Now, a while ago, while you were testifying you kept smiling, could you
please tell this Hon. Court why you were smiling?

A: I was just trying to be brave, sir.

Moreover, We consider the alleged inconsistency on the place where the crime happened as a
minor inconsistency which should generally be given liberal appreciation considering that the
place of the commission of the crime in rape cases is after all not an essential element thereof.
What is decisive is that [accused-appellant’s] commission of the crime charged has been
sufficiently proved.

The alleged inconsistency is also understandable considering that AAA was only ten (10) years
old at the time she testified before the trial court. Courts expect minor inconsistencies when a
child-victim narrates the details of a harrowing experience like rape. Such inconsistencies on
minor details are in fact badges of truth, candidness and the fact that the witness is unrehearsed.
These discrepancies as to minor matters, irrelevant to the elements of the crime, cannot thus be
considered a ground for acquittal. In this case, the alleged inconsistency in AAA’s testimony
regarding the exact place of the commission of rape does not make her otherwise straightforward
and coherent testimony on material points, less worthy of belief.

Significantly also, AAA’s testimony is supported by the medical evidence on record, which
showed that she had scars in her hymen and was thus in a non-virgin state. That no fresh
lacerations were found in her hymen is no indication that she was not raped on 12 September
2004. Contrary to [accused-appellant’s] contention, the old lacerations on AAA’s hymen confirm
and strengthen her allegation that she had been repeatedly raped by [accused-appellant] not
only on 12 September 2004, but even before. As the victim was no longer a virgin when she was
raped on 12 September 2004, no new injury on her hymen could be expected. It is settled that
healed lacerations do not negate rape. In fact, lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best
physical evidence of defloration.
On the issue of AAA’s age, We quote the Supreme Court’s consistent ruling that "in this era of
modernism and rapid growth, the victim’s mere physical appearance is not enough to gauge her
exact age." Hence, the best evidence to prove AAA’s age is her Certificate of Live Birth, which
indicates that she was born on 20 October 2004 and was thus nine (9) years of age on 12
September 2004, when she was raped by [accused-appellant].

In People v. Pruna, the Supreme Court stated that in appreciating age, either as an element of
the crime or as a qualifying circumstance, "[t]he best evidence to prove the age of the offended
party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party."

A certificate of live birth is a public document that consists of entries (regarding the facts of birth)
in public records (Civil Registry) made in the performance of a duty by a public officer (Civil
Registrar).

As such, it is prima facie evidence of the fact of one’s birth and can only be rebutted by clear and
convincing evidence to the contrary. Obviously in this case, no such controverting evidence was
adduced by the defense to question AAA’s Certificate of Live Birth.24 (Citations omitted.)

In contrast, accused-appellant’s bare denial and uncorroborated alibi deserve scant

consideration. The defense of alibi should be considered with suspicion and always received
1âwphi 1

with caution, not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable, but also because it is easily
fabricated.25 Denial and alibi constitute self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded
greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration of a credible witness.26 AAA’s positive
testimony that she was sexually ravished by accused-appellant, coupled with the appalling fact
that she got pregnant at her tender age, certainly deserve more credence and greater evidentiary
weight than that of accused-appellant’s uncorroborated defenses.

Moreover, for alibi to prosper, accused-appellant must not only prove that he was somewhere
else when the crime was committed, he must also convincingly demonstrate the physical
impossibility of his presence at the locus criminis at the time of the incident.27 In the present case,
however, accused-appellant himself admitted that his place of work was less than a kilometer or
a mere 30-minute walk away from his house, where AAA was raped. Given the short distance
between these two places, it was not physically impossible for accused-appellant, in the
afternoon of September 12, 2004, to have left his work for a short while to go home and commit
the rape of AAA.

The sentence of reclusion perpetua imposed upon accused-appellant by the RTC, affirmed by
Court of Appeals, for the crime of statutory rape, without any aggravating or qualifying
circumstance, is in accordance with Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The
awards of civil indemnity and moral damages in favor of AAA by the trial and appellate courts, in
the amounts of ₱50,000.00 each, are also proper. However, the Court increases the amount of
exemplary damages awarded to AAA from ₱25,000.00 to ₱30,000.00, in line with the latest
jurisprudence.28

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision dated March 31, 2011 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03772 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, increasing the
award of exemplary damages to ₱30,000.00 and ordering accused-appellant to pay the private
offended party interest on all damages awarded at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date
of finality of this judgment.

SO ORDERED.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HERMENIGILDO DELEN y
ESCO BILLA

G.R. No. 194446 April 21, 2014

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

The accused-appellant Hermenigildo Delen y Escobilla seeks the reversal of his conviction for
child abuse under Section 10(a), Article VI of Republic Act No. 7610 and qualified rape under
Article 266-A, paragraph 1 in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. The Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas City, Branch 1, adjudged the accused-appellant guilty of said
crimes in a Consolidated Decision1 dated January 29, 2008. The Court of Appeals affirmed the
conviction in a Decision2 dated February 17, 2010 in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03324.

The accused-appellant was separately charged with child abuse under Section 10(a), Article VI
of Republic Act No. 7610 and qualified rape in separate informations, respectively docketed as
Criminal Case Nos. 13870 and 13932, before the RTC of Batangas City. Said crimes were
alleged to have been committed against AAA3 as follows:

[CRIMINAL CASE NO. 13870]

That on or about January 23, 2005 at around 6:00 o’clock (sic) in the evening at [XXX] and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, while armed with a hammer,
without any justifiable cause, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit [a]
cruel act against [AAA], a 12-year old girl, by violently striking her head with the said hammer,
kicking her and smashing her head on a wooden post, thereby causing her physical injuries,
which act debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of [AAA] as a human
being, in violation of the aforecited law.

That the aggravating circumstance of relationship is attendant in the commission of the offense,
the accused being the father of the offended party.4

[CRIMINAL CASE NO. 13932]

That on or about January 17, 2005 at around 6:00 o’clock (sic) in the morning at [XXX] and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, motivated by lust and lewd
designs, through force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
have carnal knowledge on one [AAA], a 12-year old minor, against the latter’s will.

That the aggravating circumstances of minority and relationship, the victim being then a 12-year
old minor and daughter of the accused, are attendant in the commission of the offense.5

Upon arraignment, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges.6 On motion of the
parties, the two cases were tried jointly.7

The Prosecution’s Version of Events

AAA was born on March 29, 1992 to accused-appellant and BBB.8 AAA’s parents separated as
the accused-appellant was beating BBB. AAA then lived with her aunt until the accused-appellant
took her in. In the year 2000, AAA lived in the accused-appellant’s house.9 One day, she was
awakened from her sleep when the accused-appellant removed her shorts and panty. The
accused-appellant then removed his shorts and went on top of AAA. He inserted his penis into
her organ and told her not to create any noise because their neighbors might hear them. He also
warned AAA that he would kill her if she would report the incident. AAA could not do anything but
cry. Subsequently, at around 6:00 a.m. on January 17, 2005, AAA woke up with her legs spread
apart and tied to wooden panels on the wall. She was only wearing her upper clothing and was
not wearing her shorts and panty anymore. The accused-appellant removed his shorts and only
wore briefs. The accused-appellant then lay on top of her and began to insert his penis into her
organ, which caused her pain. While the accused-appellant was doing said act, he told AAA not
to report the incident; otherwise, he threatened to cut her tongue and kill her. Thereafter, the
accused-appellant untied her.10

On January 23, 2005, the accused-appellant asked AAA to look for a lighter. When AAA failed to
find one, the accused-appellant told her to go inside a room in their house. There, he kicked AAA
in the buttocks, hit her head with a hammer and smashed her head on the wooden wall. She
suffered injuries on her forehead and the back of her head. Afterwards, she told the accused-
appellant that she was going to use the toilet so she was able to go out of their house. She ran to
the street and went to the house of a neighbor, Ate Annie. The accused-appellant looked for her
there so she hid under the bed. After the accused-appellant left, AAA was brought to the house
of Nanay Loleng, a neighbor of Ate Annie. They treated AAA’s wounds and put her to sleep.
When she woke up, the barangay tanods were already at the place. They first talked to AAA then
they called the police so that the accused-appellant could be apprehended. When the accused-
appellant was arrested, AAA was brought to the police station where she gave her statement.
AAA was then taken to the hospital where she was treated and examined by doctors.11

The Medico-Legal Certification executed by Dr. Rex B. Rivamonte and Dr. Aristotle R. Arellano of
the Batangas Regional Hospital showed that AAA sustained the following injuries:

SURGICAL FINDINGS:

(+) contusion hematoma right parietal area.

(+) contusion hematoma left parietal area.

(+) contusion hematoma right flank area.

(+) contusion hematoma left flank area.

(+) contusion hematoma with abrasion frontal area.

(+) contusion hematoma right lumbar area.

Multiple physical injuries secondary to mauling.

OB-GYNE FINDINGS:

PHYSICAL EXAMINATION: (+) Physical injuries on time of examination.

EXTERNAL GENITALIA: well coaptated labia majora (-) pubic hair.

HYMEN: (+) complete healed laceration at 1, 3, 6, 9 o’clock position[s].

INTERNAL FINDINGS: Admits 2 fingers with ease, cervix closed, firm, uterus not enlarge, no
adnexal mass (-) tenderness.

LABORATORY RESULT: SPERM CELL DETERMINATION: No sperm cell seen.

PREGNANCY TEST: Negative.

In the opinion of the undersigned, these injuries will incapacitate or require medical attendance
for a period of less than nine (9) days barring complications; otherwise, this period of healing will
vary accordingly.12

The Defense’s Version of Events

For his part, the accused-appellant testified that he has been residing at XXX since 1999. He
lived in a house shared with his eldest brother and his family. On January 17, 2005, he was at his
house together with AAA and the family of his brother but he left early at about 6:00 a.m. He
denied that he raped AAA on said date. He claimed that AAA might have been raped at her
grandparents’ house where she lived prior to January 17, 2005. He alleged that there was a
person with a mental defect living in said house. He further asserted that the charge of rape was
instigated by the sibling of AAA’s mother who was angry with him because he separated from his
wife. Moreover, the barangay kagawad who lodged a complaint against him was also angry with
him as he was a guard at the cockpit and the kagawad did not want a cockpit in their barangay.13

On January 23, 2005, the accused-appellant was also at his house with AAA and the family of
his brother. He denied causing the contusions on the different parts of AAA’s body. He stated
that AAA was injured when she fell in a canal at the side of their house and this fact was
witnessed by his brother and AAA’s cousin. He even brought AAA to the barangay health center
for treatment. The accused-appellant admitted, however, that he did hit AAA on her buttocks on
January 23, 2005. He explained that he asked her to cook rice but because she played with her
playmates, the rice was overcooked.14

The Judgment of the RTC

In a Consolidated Decision dated January 29, 2008, the RTC handed down a judgment of
conviction against the accused-appellant. The trial court ruled that AAA’s testimony against the
accused-appellant was sufficiently conclusive, logical and probable to overcome the presumption
of innocence in favor of the latter. According to the trial court, AAA’s testimony that she was
physically and sexually abused by the accused-appellant was amply corroborated by the medical
findings of Dr. Arellano and Dr. Rivamonte. As such, the trial court concluded that the accused-
appellant was indeed guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. The trial court, thus,
decreed:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, finding the Accused Hermenigildo Delen y Escobilla guilty
beyond reasonable doubt, as principal, of the crimes of Child abuse (by infliction of physical
injury) defined under Section 3, Article I and penalized under Section 10, Article VI of Republic
Act No. 7610 in relation to Section 2(b) of its Implementing Rules and Regulations and rape
defined and penalized under Article 266-A and Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, in
relation to Republic Act 9346 he is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate sentence of
imprisonment ranging from FOUR (4) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS and One (1) DAY of Prision
Correccional, as minimum, to SIX (6) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision
Mayor, as maximum, and to pay the costs, in [C]riminal [C]ase [N]o. 13870 and [the] penalty of
Reclusion Perpetua, in [C]riminal [C]ase [N]o. 13932, respectively.

Further, for the rape committed the accused is ordered to indemnify [AAA] the sum of Seventy-
Five Thousand (Php75,000.00) Pesos as civil indemnity plus the sum of Fifty Thousand
(Php50,000.00) Pesos, as moral damages, the sum of Thirty Thousand (Php30,000.00) Pesos,
as moral damages of [AAA]’s mother, and the sum of Thirty Thousand (Php30,000.00) Pesos, as
exemplary damages, and to pay the costs.

Considering that Accused Hermenigildo Delen y Escobilla has undergone preventive

imprisonment, being a detention prisoner, and there being no evidence to show that he is a
recidivist, he shall be credited in the service of sentence with the full time during which he has
undergone preventive imprisonment, had he agreed in writing to abide by the same disciplinary
rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, otherwise, he shall be credited only with four-fifths (4/5)
of the time during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment, as provided for in Article 29
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.15

The Decision of the Court of Appeals

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the above ruling of the RTC in a Decision dated
February 17, 2010. The appellate court ruled that the RTC correctly appreciated the evidence
and properly concluded that the accused-appellant indeed committed the acts of child abuse and
rape against AAA. The appellate court likewise found AAA’s testimony straightforward, candid
and clear. In contrast, the appellate court rejected the unsubstantiated defenses of denial and
alibi put forth by the accused-appellant. The Court of Appeals disposed of the case in this wise:

WHEREFORE, the challenged Consolidated Decision dated January 29, 2008 in Criminal Case
Nos. 13870 and 13932 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, that the moral damages awarded to
the victim is INCREASED to ₱75,000.00, while the award of moral damages in the amount of
₱30,000.00 to the victim’s mother is DELETED.16

The Ruling of the Court

On appeal to this Court, the accused-appellant seeks the reversal of the allegedly erroneous
judgment of the trial court.

The appeal lacks merit.

The RTC unequivocally ruled that the testimony of AAA passed the test of credibility. The Court
of Appeals thereafter upheld the trial court’s assessment of AAA’s testimony. After thoroughly
reviewing the records of the present case, the Court similarly finds worthy of credence the
testimony of AAA that the accused-appellant is guilty of physically and sexually abusing her. We,
thus, find no reason to disturb, much less overturn, the trial court’s reliance on the testimony of
AAA. Verily, in People v. Leonardo,17 the Court had occasion to reiterate that:

It is a fundamental rule that the trial court’s factual findings, especially its assessment of the
credibility of witnesses, are accorded great weight and respect and binding upon this Court,
particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. This Court has repeatedly recognized that the
trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies
because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of
the witnesses’ deportment on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is denied to the
appellate courts. Only the trial judge can observe the furtive glance, blush of conscious shame,
hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath.
These are significant factors in evaluating the sincerity of witnesses, in the process of unearthing
the truth. The appellate courts will generally not disturb such findings unless it plainly overlooked
certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case.
(Citations omitted.)

In Criminal Case No. 13870, the RTC and the Court of Appeals found the accused-appellant
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of committing child abuse by infliction of physical injury against
AAA. Under Section 3(b), Article I of Republic Act No. 7610,18 the term "child abuse" is defined as
the maltreatment of a child, whether habitual or not, which includes the physical abuse of a child,
among other acts.

In this case, AAA positively identified the accused-appellant as the person who kicked her in the
buttocks, hit her head with a hammer, and smashed her head on the wall on January 23, 2005.
Because of the said brutal and inhumane acts of the accused-appellant, AAA suffered bruises
and contusions in different parts of her body. The Medico-Legal Certification of Dr. Rivamonte
and Dr. Arellano clearly reflected the fact that AAA indeed sustained contusions, coupled with a
finding that she suffered multiple physical injuries secondary to mauling.

In Criminal Case No. 13932, the accused-appellant was also found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of qualified rape.

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code defines the crime of rape by sexual intercourse as
follows:

ART. 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;

b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious;

c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;

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.

Thus, for a charge of rape to prosper under the above provision, the prosecution must prove that:
(1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) he accomplished 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.

In the instant case, the prosecution was able to establish that the accused-appellant had carnal
knowledge of AAA on January 17, 2005. AAA narrated in a straightforward manner the harrowing
details of how the accused-appellant had sexual intercourse with her. Again, the RTC found
credible and convincing AAA’s testimony on this matter. Likewise, the Court finds no cogent
reason to disbelieve AAA’s testimony, which was corroborated by the medical findings of Dr.
Rivamonte and Dr. Arellano that the victim’s hymen had "complete healed lacerations at 1, 3, 6,
9 o’clock position[s]." We held in People v. Oden19 that the "eloquent testimony of the victim,
coupled with the medical findings attesting to her non-virgin state, should be enough to confirm
the truth of her charges." As to the manner by which the rape was committed, the accused-
appellant’s moral ascendancy over AAA takes the place of the force and intimidation that is
required in rape cases.20

To exculpate himself from the charges of child abuse and rape, the accused-appellant merely
denied the accusations of AAA. The Court finds that the RTC and the Court of Appeals were
correct in rejecting the accused-appellant’s bare denials. Undeniably, the accused-appellant did
not present any clear and convincing evidence to substantiate his claims that another person
with mental defect could have raped AAA and that her injuries were caused when she fell in a
canal beside their house. The accused-appellant also failed to present any evidence to prove
that AAA was impelled by ill motive to testify against him. Settled is the rule that where no
evidence exists to show any convincing reason or improper motive for a witness to falsely testify
against an accused, the testimony deserves faith and credit.21

The Proper Penalties

Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, the minority of a rape victim and her relationship
to the accused-appellant qualify the charge of rape in this wise:
Art. 266-B. Penalties. — x x x.

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,
stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the
common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.

For the charge of rape in Criminal Case No. 13932, the qualifying circumstances of minority and
relationship attended the commission of the crime. Not only were the said circumstances
specifically alleged in the information, the same were sufficiently proved during the trial of the
case. The fact that AAA was only 12 years old when she was raped by the accused-appellant on
January 17, 2005 was established by the certification22 issued by the Office of the Local Civil
Registrar of x x x, Batangas, which stated that AAA was born on March 29, 1992. Moreover, said
certification stated that AAA’s biological father is none other than the accused-appellant
Hermenigildo Delen. The accused-appellant likewise admitted this fact when he testified in court.
Still, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, the RTC and the
Court of Appeals correctly held that the appropriate penalty that should be imposed upon the
accused-appellant is reclusion perpetua. This is in accordance with the provisions of Republic
Act No. 9346, which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty.

The Court of Appeals properly upheld the trial court’s award of ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity and
₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages in favor of AAA, as well as the increase of the award of
moral damages in favor of AAA from ₱50,000.00 to ₱75,000.00, in accordance with current
jurisprudence. The appellate court’s removal of the separate award of moral damages in favor of
AAA’s mother is also in accordance with our ruling in People v. Alajay23 where we held that "the
prevailing jurisprudence is that the award of moral damages should be granted jointly to both the
victim and her parents. Stated differently, the parents are not entitled to a separate award of
moral damages."

For the charge of child abuse in Criminal Case No. 13870, the RTC found the accused-appellant
guilty of violating Section 10(a), Article VI of Republic Act No. 7610, which states:

SEC. 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and Other Conditions Prejudicial
to the Child’s Development. –

(a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or 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. (Emphasis
ours.)

The Court of Appeals upheld the ruling of the RTC, which imposed against the accused-appellant
an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment ranging from 4 years, 2 months and 1 day of prision
correccional, as minimum, to 6 years, 8 months and 1 day of prision mayor, as maximum. The
trial court imposed the above penalty as it found no modifying circumstance that attended the
commission of the aforestated crime charged. 1awp++i 1

The Court, however, disagrees. We find that the penalty imposed by the trial court needs to be
modified since, as previously discussed, the alternative circumstance of relationship, i.e., that the
accused-appellant is the father of AAA, has been duly established by the prosecution.
In this case, the imposable penalty is prision mayor minimum, the range of which is from 6 years
and 1 day to 8 years. In the imposition of the penalty herein, Section 31(c), Article XII of Republic
Act No. 761024 expressly provides that the penalty provided therein shall be imposed in its
maximum period when the perpetrator is a parent of the victim. Now then, applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law and taking into consideration the circumstance of relationship, the
maximum term of the sentence shall be taken from the maximum period of prision mayor
minimum, which is 7 years, 4 months and 1 day to 8 years. The minimum term of the sentence
shall be taken from the penalty next lower in degree, which is prision correccional maximum, the
range of which is from 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 6 years. Thus, in Criminal Case No.
13870, considering the gravity of the physical abuse committed against AAA, the Court imposes
upon the accused-appellant the indeterminate sentence of imprisonment ranging from 6 years of
prision correccional, as minimum, to 8 years of prision mayor, as maximum.

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS with MODIFICATIONS the Decision dated February 17,
2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03324. The accused-appellant
Hermenigildo Delen y Escobilla is hereby sentenced as follows:

1. In Criminal Case No. 13932, the accused-appellant is found GUILTY beyond

reasonable doubt of one count of qualified rape and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, in lieu of death. The accused-appellant is
ORDERED to pay AAA ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱75,000.00 as moral damages,
and ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages, plus legal interest on all damages awarded at
the legal rate of 6% from the date of finality of this Decision.

2. In Criminal Case No. 13870, the accused-appellant is found GUILTY beyond

reasonable doubt of committing child abuse in violation of Section 10(a), Article VI of
Republic Act No. 7610 and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment ranging from 6 years of
prision correccional, as minimum, to 8 years of prision mayor, as maximum.

Costs against the accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FRED TRAIGO

G.R. No. 199096 June 2, 2014

BRION, J.:

We resolve the appeal, filed by appellant Fred Traigo, from the March 14, 2011 decision1 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04158. The challenged CA decision2 affirmed the
July 16, 2009 decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 163, Taguig City, finding the
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and qualified rape in Criminal Case Nos.
133721 and 133722, respectively.

In its July 16, 2009 decision, the RTC convicted the appellant of the crimes. of rape and qualified
rape for the sexual abuses committed against AAA on March 2006 and September 2004,
respectively. It found credible AAA’s testimony that the appellant inserted his penis into her
vagina on two occasions; her testimony was corroborated by the Initial Medico-Legal Report
showing that she suffered deep-healed hymenal lacerations. The CA also ruled that the exact
date of the rape is immaterial, and that AAA’s delay in reporting this first rape was
understandable since the appellant threatened to kill her mother, BBB, if she would reveal the
incident to anyone.

For the simple rape committed in March 2006, the RTC sentenced the appellant to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to pay AAA the amounts of ₱75,000.00 as civil
indemnity, ₱50,000.00 as moral damages, and ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages, all with legal
interest. For the qualified rape committed in September 2004, the RTC sentenced the appellant
to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to pay the victim the following
amounts: ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱50,000.00 as moral damages, and ₱30,000.00 as
exemplary damages, also with legal interest until fully paid.

On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision. It found AAA to be a "credible, honest, and
straightforward witness;"3 AAA never wavered in her identification of the appellant as her abuser
despite the defense’s grueling cross-examination. According to the CA, the testimony of a sole
witness is sufficient for conviction if it is free from any sign of impropriety or falsehood. The CA
also found unmeritorious the appellant’s denial, and reasoned out that the presence of other
persons inside the room did not negate the commission of rape.

Our Ruling

We deny the appeal, but modify the crime committed,4 the penalty imposed, and the awarded
indemnities.

As a general rule, the findings of facts and assessment of credibility of witnesses are matters
best left to the trial court because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and
incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying.5

In the present case, the CA affirmed the RTC’s finding on the truthfulness of AAA’s testimony.
We see no reason to deviate from the trial and appellate courts’ factual findings that the appellant
had carnal knowledge of AAA on two (2) occasions. In the absence of any evidence showing that
the trial judge overlooked or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight which would
affect the result of the case, or that the judge acted arbitrarily, we are bound by the lower courts’
factual findings.
Notably, the appellant did not impute any improper motive on AAA’s part to falsely testify against
him. AAA’s testimony was also corroborated by the medical findings of Dr. Joseph Palmero
showing that the victim suffered "deep-healed lacerations at 3 & 8 o’clock position" on her
hymen.

It is settled that when a rape victim's account is straightforward and candid, and is corroborated
by the medical findings of the examining physician, the testimony is sufficient to support a
conviction.6

We find unmeritorious the appellant’s defense that it was impossible for him to rape AAA
because the latter’s two sisters also slept in the same place when the rapes allegedly happened.
It is recognized that lust is no respecter of time and place; rape can thus be committed even in
places where people congregate, in parks, along the roadside, within school premises, inside a
house where there are other occupants, and even in the same room where other members of the
family are also sleeping. To our mind, it is not impossible or incredible for the members of the
victim's sisters to be in deep slumber and not to be awakened while a sexual assault is being
committed.7

We modify the crime committed by the appellant in Criminal Case No. 133721from simple rape to
qualified rape. The evidence showed that the appellant was 12 years old when she was raped on
March 2006, as evidenced by her Certificate of Live Birth8 showing that she was born on

November, 18, 1993. The evidence also established that the appellant was the common-law
spouse of BBB. Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, the death penalty shall be
1âwphi1

imposed when the victim is below 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. We cannot, however, impose the death penalty in view of
Republic Act No. 9346, entitled "An Act Prohibiting the imposition of the Death Penalty in the
Philippines." In lieu of the death penalty, we impose on the appellant the penalty of reclusion
Perpetua without eligibility for parole. Accordingly, we increase the awarded moral damages from
₱50,000.00 to ₱75,000.00.

We point out in Criminal Case No. 133722 that AAA was only ten (10) years old when the
appellant raped her in September 2004. The minority of the victim and her relationship to the
appellant, however, raised the crime from statutory rape to qualified rape. Simply put, qualified
rape is statutory rape in its qualified form.9 Accordingly, we sentence the appellant to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole; and increase the awarded moral
damages from ₱50,000.00 to ₱75,000.00 to conform to prevailing jurisprudence on qualified rape
cases.10

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C.
No. 04158 is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:

I. In Criminal Case No. 133721

(a) appellant Fred Traigo is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified rape;

(b) he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for
parole; and

( c) the amount of moral damages is increased from ₱50,000.00 to ₱75,000.00.

 II. In Criminal Case No. 133722

(a) the appellant Fred Traigo is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
without eligibility for parole; and

(b) the amount of moral damages is increased from ₱50,000.00 to ₱75,000.00.

SO ORDERED.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CHARLES REYES y MARASIGAN

G.R. No. 210619 August 20, 2014

REYES, J.:

For review1 is the Decision2 rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) on July 10, 2013 in CA-G.R.
CR-H.C. No. 04374 affirming in toto the Joint Decision3 dated November 25, 2009 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro, Branch 40 in Criminal Case Nos.
C-02-6987 and C-02-6988, convicting Charles Reyes y Marasigan (accused-appellant) of two
counts of rape committed against AAA,4 an 11-year old daughter of his common-law wife.

Antecedents

Two separate informations for rape were filed against the accused-appellant before the RTC, viz:

Criminal Case No. C-02-6987

"That sometime in the month of May, 2002, at Barangay Calero, City of Calapan, Province of
Oriental Mindoro, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, motivated by lust and lewd design, and by means of force and intimidation,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously did lie, and succeeded in having carnal knowledge [of] [AAA],
an eleven (11) year-old[-] daughter of his common-law wife, against her will and without her
consent, to the damage and prejudice of the latter."5

Criminal Case No. C-02-6988

"That on or about the 5th day of August, 2002, at Barangay Calero, City of Calapan, Province of
Oriental Mindoro, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, motivated by lust and unchaste design, and by means of force and intimidation,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously did lie, and succeeded in having carnal knowledge [of] [AAA],
an eleven (11) year-old[-] daughter of his common-law wife, against her will and without her
consent, to the damage and prejudice of the latter."6

When arraigned, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges.

During the pre-trial conference, the prosecution stipulated and the defense admitted that the
accused-appellant is the common-law husband of AAA’s mother, BBB. The defense, on its part,
waived the accused-appellant’s right to stipulate facts and enter into a plea-bargaining
agreement.7

Among the documentary evidence marked and offered by the prosecution were: (a) AAA’s birth
certificate indicating that she was born on October 31, 1990; (b) the medical certificate, dated
August 7, 2002, which was prepared by Dr. Ma. Teresita Nieva-Bolor (Dr. Nieva-Bolor), Rural
Health Physician of the Calapan City Health and Sanitation Department; and (c) AAA and BBB’s
affidavits.8 The defense, on its part, offered AAA’s birth certificate as sole documentary
evidence.9

In the course of the joint trial, AAA, BBB and Dr. Nieva-Bolor testified for the prosecution. On the
other hand, the accused-appellant and his 13-year old niece, Princess Ann Sicat (Sicat), were
the defense witnesses.

Version of the Prosecution

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) summed up the prosecution’s version of the events,
viz:

In 2002, [AAA] was an eleven (11) year old girl, having been born on October 31, 1990. She is
living with her mother [BBB] and her common-law husband, [herein accused-appellant,] in their
residence in Barangay Calero, Calapan City.

Sometime in May 2002, while [AAA] was alone inside the room of their house, [the accused-
appellant] entered the room and touched her breasts, afterwhich, [the accused-appellant]
removed her clothes, sando shirt, shorts and panty; she tried to go out of the room but [the
accused-appellant] did not allow her to do so. Then, [the accused-appellant] removed his shorts
and brief[s], placed himself on top of her and tried to insert his penis into her vagina causing her
to feel pain; failing to insert his penis into her vagina, [the accused-appellant] put on his shorts
and brief[s] and went out of the house. [AAA] also put on her clothes and proceeded to the house
oftheir neighbor where she watched a television program. At the time of the rape incident, her
mother was not in their house because she was instructed by [the accused-appellant] to go to the
market; also, the mother of [the accused-appellant], who was living with them, was at the time in
the house of their neighbor. Although she was able to talk to her mother after the rape incident,
she did not inform her about it because she was afraid ofthe threat of [the accused-appellant]
that the latter will kill her and her mother.

On August 5, 2002, at around four o’clock in the afternoon, [AAA] was again alone in the room of
their house when [the accused-appellant] entered the room. He removed her blouse, skirt, sando
shirt and panty. She was not able to do anything because [the accused-appellant] threatened to
kill her and her mother. While naked, [the accused-appellant] placed himself on top of her and
tried to insert his penis into her vagina. She tried to push [the accused-appellant] away but she
was unsuccessful. She felt pain in her vagina when [the accused-appellant] made a push and
pull motion. Thereafter, [the accused-appellant] put on his shorts and brief[s] and left her in the
room[,] afterwhich, she put on her clothes. At the time of the incident, her mother was in the
market while her siblings CCC and DDD were somewhere else. About one hour after the
incident, her mother and her two siblings arrived but she was not able to do anything because
she was afraid.

At around 8:00 o’clock in the evening, she told her mother about the rape incidents. Her mother
and an employee of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) accompanied
her to the Calapan City Police Station where they reported the rape incidents.

On August 6, 2002, [Dr. Nieva-Bolor] x x x conducted a physical examination on [AAA] and

issued a medical certificate with the following findings:

xxx the presence of vulvar erythema, incomplete hymenal laceration and complete hymenal
lacerations, possibly caused by insertion of the penis, among others, xxx incomplete healed
hymenal laceration at 3:00 o’clock position and complete healed hymenal lacerations at 5, 6, 8
and 9 o’clock positions which were probably caused by masturbation, insertion of handsor
objects or the insertion of a hard or erect penis during actual sexual intercourse.10 (Citations
omitted)

Version of the Defense

The accused-appellant, who was then a 34-year old construction worker when he took the
witness stand, vehemently denied the charges against him. He stated that heand BBB
maintained a common-law relationship for two years. Thereafter, things turned sour as BBB was
unemployed and indulged in gambling using the accused-appellant’s earnings. He alleged that
on August 5,2002, he was at home the whole day doing carpentry work. AAA and BBB were
there as well, while the former’s three siblings were in school. That night, the accused-appellant
drove BBB and her children, including AAA, away from the house. The incident earned AAA’s ire,
which led her to filethe complaints against him.11

Sicat, on her part, testified that she was with AAA the entire day of August 5, 2002. The accused-
appellant could not have raped AAA at that time as the latter went home late at around 8:00
p.m.12

Ruling of the RTC

On November 25, 2009, the RTC rendered a Joint Decision13 convicting the accused-appellant of
two counts of rape. The trial court found the motive, which according to the accused-appellant
impelled AAA to file the complaints, was "too shallow, flimsy and insignificant."14 A minor would
not have risked undergoing humiliation, anxiety and public exposure if her claims were untrue.
Her testimony, as regards the two rape incidents, was likewise detailed and straightforward.
Besides, Dr. Nieva-Bolor’s statements to the effect that AAA sustained hymenal lacerations
corroborated the latter’s allegations.15

Further, the RTC found Sicat’s testimony as biased and without credence. While claiming that
she was with AAA the whole day of August 5, 2002, she also stated that she attended her
classes inCalapan Central School.16

The RTC also declared that the accused-appellant’s denial of the charges against him was
nothing more than self-serving negative evidence, which pales vis-à-visAAA’s positive
testimony.17

The dispositive portion of the RTC’s Joint Decision thus reads:

ACCORDINGLY, finding herein accused Charles Reyes y Marasigan GUILTYbeyond reasonable

doubt asprincipal by direct participation [in] two counts of Rape, punishable under paragraph 1
(a) of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty of two (2) RECLUSION PERPETUA with all the accessory penalties as provided for by
law. Further, the accused is hereby directed to indemnify [AAA] in the amount of One Hundred
Thousand Pesos ([P]100,000.00) as civil indemnity, the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand
Pesos ([P]75,000.00) as moral damages and the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos ([P]50,000.00)
as exemplary damages.

SO ORDERED.18

The Parties’ Arguments Before the CA

Dissatisfied, the accused-appellant assailed the above disquisition before the CA.

As regards the alleged rape incident inMay of 2002, the accused-appellant claimed the absence
of proof on the part of the prosecution to show that his penis actually penetrated AAA’s vagina.
AAA even testified that the accused-appellant merely tried to insert his organ into hers but was
unable to do so.19

Anent the rape incident on August 5, 2002, the accused-appellant pointed out that the medical
examination conducted by Dr. Nieva-Bolor two days after yielded no evidence of fresh
lacerations. Instead, only an incomplete hymenal laceration at three o’clock position and
completely healed ones at five, six, eight and nineo’clock positions were found. How they were
incurred was likewise uncertainsince a regular insertion of hard objects including an erect penis,
self manipulation and severe scratching due to improper hygiene could have caused the
lacerations.20
The OSG, on the other hand, refuted the accused-appellant’s claims.

Relative to the rape incident in May of 2002, the affidavit executed by AAA while she was in
Calapan City Police Station, and which was offered as part of the prosecution’s evidence,
categorically indicated that the accused-appellant inserted his penis into the victim’s vagina, viz:

13. T Noon bang una kang hindutin ng iyong Daddy ay pumasok ang titi nito sa iyong ari?

S Opo[,] pumasok po iyon.

14. T Ano naman ang naramdaman mo ng ipasok ng iyong Daddy ang kanyang titi sa iyong ari?

S Labis po akong nasaktan.

xxxx

6. T Maari mo bang isalaysay ang mga pangyayari kung iyong matandaan pa?

S … pilit niyang ipinasok ang kanyang uten sa aking maliit na puki na ako nga po ay halos
mawalan ng malay o ulirat sa ginawa niyang pagpasok ng kanyang uten sa aking puki…21

(Citations omitted)

As to the rape incident on August 5, 2002, AAA gave a detailed account of how the accused-
appellantundressed and mounted her, then made pumping motions, which caused her tofeel
severe pain in her vagina.22

Dr. Nieva-Bolor found that AAA had hymenal lacerations, hence, corroborating the latter’s
claims.23 Moreover, at the time of the examination, AAA’s vulva was reddish in color and Dr.
Nieva-Bolor opined that sexual intercourse was among the possible causes of such condition.24

Ruling of the CA

On July 10, 2013, the CA rendered the herein assailed decision25 affirming in totothe RTC’s
judgment based on the following grounds:

[AAA’s] testimony has the ring of truth as it was given in a simple but clear and straightforward
manner.

On the face of the overwhelming evidence against him, [the] accused-appellant capitalizes on the
perceived absence of penetration during the first incident of rape. x x x This contention of the
accused-appellant is a lie, in view of the victim’s declaration that she felt pain in her private part
because [the] accused-appellant, while on top of her and doing a pumping motion, tried to insert
his penis into her vagina. It must be emphasized at this juncture that an entry, to the least extent,
of the labia or lips of the female organ is sufficient. In fact, remaining a virgin does not negate
rape.

x x x [T]he absence of fresh lacerations in the hymen cannot be a firm indication that she was not
raped. Hymenal lacerations are not an element of rape.

As regards the second count of rape committed on August 5, 2002, the testimony of the victim
alone is sufficient to convict the accused-appellant. x x x:
[AAA gave a detailed testimony that she was still wearing her school uniform when the accused-
appellant entered the room, undressed and went on top of her, then made pumping motions,
which caused her to feel pain in her vagina.]

The victim’s testimony, taken in its entirety, revealed a clear picture of the consummation of the
crime of rape and that the accused-appellant was the author thereof. Notwithstanding this, the
accused-appellant harps on the fact that the medical examination of the victim did not show fresh
lacerations inthe victim’s private part but only incomplete hymenal laceration at 3 o’clock position
and completely healed lacerations at 5, 6,8 and 9 o’clock positions.

In People v. Evangelio[,] the Supreme Court reiterated the rule that the absence of fresh
lacerations does not prove that the victim was not raped. x x x [T]he presence of healedhymenal
lacerations the day after the victim was raped does not negate the commission of rape by the
accused-appellant when the crime was proven by the combination of highly convincing pieces of
evidence. In addition, a medical examination and a medical certificate are merely corroborative
and are not indispensable to the prosecution of a rape case.

In this case, the medical finding that [the] complainant had a [sic] incomplete hymenal lacerations
at 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 o’clock positions clearly corroborated the victim’s truthful admission that she
had been sexually abused by the accused-appellant.

xxxx

x x x We have long adhered to the rule that findings of the trial court on the credibility of
witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great respect unless it overlooked substantial facts
and circumstances, which if considered, would materially affect the result of the case.26 (Citations
omitted)

Issue

Unperturbed, the accused-appellant is insisting anew that he is innocent.

Both the accused-appellant and the OSG dispensed with the filing of supplemental briefs and
adopted instead the same arguments they had presented before the CA.

Ruling of the Court

The Court sustains the CA’s verdict convicting the accused-appellant of two counts of rape, but
modify the amount of damages imposed. Additionally, in accord with the prevailing jurisprudence,
the Court imposes interests upon the damages awarded to AAA.

Article 266-A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC),as amended, substantially states that rape
is committed by a man, who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under 12 years of age or is
demented. To be liable under the above provision, it is not necessary that the commission of the
crime is attended by the use of force, threat, intimidation, fraudulent machination or grave abuse
of authority,or that the victim is deprived of reason or unconscious.

Article 266-B of the same code, on the other hand, provides that the imposable penalty for acts
falling under Article 266-A(1)(d) is reclusion perpetua. However, the death penalty shall be
imposed if rape is committed with aggravating or qualifying circumstances enumerated in Article
266-B therein, among which is when the victim is below 18 years of age and the offender is a
common-law spouse ofthe parent of the victim.

The People of the Philippines v. Guillermo B. Cadano, Jr.27 discussed as follows the elements of
statutory rape:
Statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below 12 years of age
regardless of her consent, or the lack of it, to the sexual act. Proof of force, intimidation or
consent is unnecessary as they are not elements of statutory rape, considering that the absence
of free consent is conclusively presumed whenthe victim is below the age of 12. At that age, the
law presumes that the victim does not possess discernment and is incapable of giving intelligent
consent to the sexual act. Thus, to convict an accused of the crime of statutory rape, the
prosecution carries the burden of proving: (a) the age of the complainant; (b) the identity of the
accused; and (c) the sexual intercourse between the accused and the complainant.28 (Citation
omitted and italics ours)

Records show that the elements of statutory rape are present in the case under review. First,
1âwphi1

AAA was 11 years old when the sordid crimes were committed. Her birth certificate was
presented as evidence by both the prosecution and the defense. Second, AAA positively,
categorically and resolutely testified thatthe accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of her on
two separate occasionsin May and on August 5 of 2002. Dr. Nieva-Bolor’s findings of hymenal
lacerations, both healed and not, in AAA’s vagina corroborated the latter’s claims.

"The eloquent testimony of the victim, coupled with the medical findings attesting to her non-
virgin state, should be enough to confirm the truth of her charges."29 This is especially true in the
case of AAA, a girl of tender age, who is not likely to fabricate a story of her own defloration
which may expose her and her family tohumiliation. The accused-appellant denied the charges
and in his defense posited that AAA filed the complaints in anger after the former drove BBB and
the children away from the house. The RTC declared this ascribed motive as too flimsy and
insignificant, and we find no reason to depart from the said finding.

It is an oft-repeated doctrine thatthe uniform factual findings of the trial court and the CA are
generally not to be disturbed unless certain substantial facts have been plainly overlooked, which
if considered, might alter the result of the case.30

In the appeal before us, we find the RTC and CA’s conviction of the accused-appellant for two
counts of statutory rape as amply supported by both evidence and jurisprudence. It bears
clarifying though that in view of the fact that the accused-appellant is BBB’s common-law
husband, the two counts of rape committed upon AAA shall be considered as qualified. For each
count, the proper imposable penalty is death as provided for in Article 266-B of the RPC, as
amended. However, consequent to the passage of Republic Act No. 9346,31 the imposable
penalty herein is lowered to reclusion perpetua, with the offender being rendered ineligible for
parole.32

While no compelling grounds exist toreverse the accused-appellant’s conviction, to conform to

prevailing jurisprudence, the Court finds it proper to modify the civil indemnity and exemplary
damages imposed by the courts a quo.For each of the two counts of rape, the Court awards in
AAA’s favor ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delictoand ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages. The
courts a quo’saward of ₱75,000.00 as moral damages in each count of rape is, on the other,
hand sustained.33 Lastly, the Court imposes an interest of six percent (6%) per annumon all the
damages awarded, to be computed from the date of the finality of this judgment until fully paid.34

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING,the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated July 10, 2013 in CA-
G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04374 is AFFIRMEDwith the following MODIFICATIONS:

(a) The accused-appellant Charles Reyes yMarasigan shall be ineligible for parole;

(b) For each of the two counts of qualified statutory rape, the accused-appellant shall pay
AAA ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity, and ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
 (c) The accused-appellant is also directed to pay interest at the rate of six percent (6%)
per annumon all the damages awarded, to be computed from the date of the finality of
this judgment until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ELADIO B. LUMAHO alias
"ATTUMPANG"

G.R. No. 208716 September 24, 2014

PEREZ, J.:

This is an appeal filed by herein accused Eladio B. Lumaho alias "Attumpang" (Lumaho) from the
Decision1 of the Court of Appeals, affirming with modification the decision of conviction rendered
by the Regional Trial Court of Lagawe, Ifugao, and finding the accused guilty of rape under
Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code.

The Facts

Before the Regional Trial Court of Lagawe, Ifugao, Lumaho was charged with one count of the
crime of rape under Art. 266-A and B of the Revised Penal Code as amended in relation to
Republic Act No. 7610.

Criminal Case No. 1765

That sometime in the morning of December, 2007, at Nuntiguing, Panubtuban, Asipulo, Ifugao,
hence, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused DID then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously by force and intimidation have sexual intercourse with
one [AAA],2 a minor, seven (7) years of age, at the time of the commission of the offense and a
daughter of the accused, against her will and consent.3

When arraigned on 20 April 2010, hepleaded not guilty to the offense charged.4

Version of the Prosecution

The victim, AAA, then 7-years-old,narrated that her father, accused Lumaho, raped her
sometime in December 2007. She narrated that she was staying in her grandfather’s house in
Panubtuban, Asipulo, Ifugao, when she decided to visit her father Lumaho in his house located
also in Panubtuban. Upon reaching his house, she narrated that Lumaho brought her to a shanty
and he removed her shirt, pants and panty. He then had carnal knowledge of AAA by inserting
his penis inside her vagina. The victim felt pain and cried after the wrongful deed of her father.
Lumaho warned AAA not to tell anybody about the incident. However, the crime eventually came
to the knowledge of BBB (distant grandmother), prompting BBB and AAA to go to the police
station to report the crime. Afterwards, AAA was brought to the hospital5 for medical examination.
Though the victim failed to recall the exact date of the commission of rape, she remembered that
it happened in December because she was on a school vacation and Christmas carols were
being played during that time.6

On cross-examination, AAA narrated that after the death of her mother, she stayed with her
grandfather’shouse as she did not like to stay with her father. While on school break sometime in
December 2007, she visited her father, but such visit led to the commission of rape.7

The prosecution likewise presented Dr. Mae Codamon-Diaz (Dr. Diaz), the medico-legal expert
assigned at Ifugao Provincial Hospital who examined AAA. Dr. Diaz narrated thaton 28 January
2008, she examined AAA in relation to her complaint of sexual abuse against her father. Upon
receipt of such information, she interviewed AAA and elicited from her that she was sexually
abused by her fatherone month ago. Upon examining AAA’s genitalia, Dr. Diaz found out that
there was a month-old healed laceration on the part of the victim’s hymen.8
During Dr. Diaz’s cross-examination, the defense emphasized that a healed laceration on a
genitalia can likewise indicate that a sexual abuse may have happened earlier thanDecember
2007. It was also highlighted that laceration can also be caused by other means such as sexual
manipulation and insertion of a blunt object.9

Finally, the prosecution presented its last witness, BBB. BBB testified that she is the first cousin
ofthe grandmother of AAA. She testified that sometime in March 2008, AAA’s cousin, CCC, went
to her and told her about the rape incident committed against AAA. Out of pity, she brought AAA
to the police station to report the crime. In her presence, AAA narrated to the investigating
officers that she (AAA) was sexually abused by her own father Lumaho. Thereafter, CCC
accompanied AAA to the hospital to be medically examined.10 During cross-examination,
however, BBB clarified that the first part of her testimony was narrated to her by CCC while the
last part was what she heard during the investigation in the police station.11

Aside from the testimonies of AAA, Dr. Diaz and BBB, the prosecution likewise offered as
evidence a certificate issued by the Office of the Civil Registry of Asipulo, Ifugao that AAA was
born on 12 January 200012 to prove that she was a minor whenthe incident of rape happened.
The medical certificate13 issued by Dr. Diaz was also presented.14

Version of the Defense

The defense presented its lone witness Roland Bennog (Bennog) to prove that the accused
Lumaho was notpresent in his house in Nuntiguing, Asipulo when the alleged rape happened. He
testified that from August 2007 until 3 January 2008, Lumaho was with him in his house located
at Naddug, Panubtuban, Asipulo, Ifugao. He stated that it would take at around 20 to 30-minutes
to travel from Naddug to Nuntiguing through hiking. He identified AAA as the daughter of Lumaho
and remembered that she usually goes to her father’s house toeat and ask for money. However,
he denied that AAA was able to meet Lumaho on December 2007.15

During the pre-trial, both parties stipulated that the victim AAA is the daughter of accused
Lumaho and AAA was only seven years of age at the time the alleged rape was committed.16 The
Ruling of the Trial Court

The trial court on 5 September 2011 found Lumaho guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of rapeand imposed upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetuawithout the benefit of parole in
lieu of the non-imposition of the death penalty under Republic Act No. 9346 or the Anti-Death
Penalty Law. The dispositive portion reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court finds accused guilty of rape under Article 266-A
and 266-B beyond reasonable doubt and hereby sentences the accused of reclusion perpetua
without the benefit of parole. The accused is further ordered to pay the private complainant AAA
the amount of Seventy Five Thousand (₱75,000.00) Pesos as indemnity; Fifty Thousand
(₱50,000.00) Pesos as Moral Damages and Twenty Five Thousand (₱25,000.00) Pesos as
Exemplary Damages.17

In its ruling, the trial court found more credible the positive and straightforward testimony of AAA
than the testimony of the defense’s witness Bennog. It concluded that the alibi presented cannot
stand against the categorical statement of AAA, that, it was her own father who sexually abused
her when she went to visit him in his house.

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On 30 May 2013, the appellate court modified the ruling of the trial court as to the imposition of
amount of moral and exemplary damages. The dispositive portion reads:
FOR THE STATED REASONS, the September 5, 2011 Decision of the Regional Trial Court is
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that accused-appellant ELADIO B. LUMAHO alias
"ATTUMPANG" is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without the benefit of
parole and is ordered to pay the offended party civil indemnity of Php75,000.00, moral damages
of Php75,000.00 and exemplary damages of Php30,000.00.18

The appellate court sustained the finding of credibility of AAA in her full recollection of the rape.
AAA recounted the events vividly and narrated in open court how the accused Lumaho
committed the bestial act of rape against her. Further, it dismissed the argument that the victim’s
responses in open court were elicited from leading questions, thus, must be disregarded. The
appellate court emphasized that the victim was only 7 years of age when the crime of rape was
committed and was only 10-years-old when she testified in open court, thus, a leeway must be
accorded in her narration. Nevertheless, the answers propounded failed to diminish her credibility
especially as against the alibi presented by the defense. As to the penalty, the appellate court
affirmed the imposition of the trial court of reclusion perpetua without the benefit of parole
pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346. Finally, the award of moral and exemplary damages was
increased to ₱75,000.00 and ₱30,000.00, respectively, in view of the prevailing jurisprudence.

Our Ruling

After a careful review, we affirm with modification the rulings of the trial court and Court of
Appeals.

Before this Court, the accused asserts alibi as its main argument. The accused likewise avers
error on the part of the appellate court when it found the testimonies of AAA and BBB as credible
and trustworthy to render the verdict of conviction against him.

We find no merit in the appeal.

Article 266-A, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code describes how rape is committed:

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;

b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or is 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. (Emphasis
ours).

Rape is qualified if 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.19

In this case, the prosecution established all the elements to constitute as qualified rape.

In open court, AAA positively identified her father Lumaho as the person who had carnal
knowledge of her in his shanty. She narrated that when she visited her father, he brought her to a
shanty and while inside, he removed all her pieces of clothing, from her shirt up to her panty. He
then successfully had a carnal knowledge ofher by inserting his penis into her vagina. Without
any other recourse, AAA did nothing but cry. Before she left, Lumaho threatened her to
keepsilent about what happened.

AAA’s narration of the crime of rape was strengthened by the testimony of Dr. Diaz, who narrated
that upon her examination of AAA’s genitalia sometime in January 2008, she found that there
was a month-old healed laceration on the victim’s hymen.The period was held to consistent with
the allegation of rape which happened on December 2007.

In People v. Manigo,20 where a victim’s testimony is corroborated by the physical findings of

penetration, there is sufficient basis for concluding that sexual intercourse did take place. A rape
victim’s account is sufficient to support a conviction for rape ifit is straightforward, candid and
corroborated by the medical findings of the examining physician, as in the present case.21 The
accused tried to raise doubt on the victim’s credibility due to the answers propounded because of
leading questions.

We are unconvinced.

While the Court noticed that someof AAA’s responses were elicited from leading questions, we
find no fault on the part of the trial court in accepting the testimony of AAA as credible evidence.
It must be emphasized that the liberality in this case is acceptable in order to serve the ends of
justice. We are not obliviousto the circumstances of the case, a child testifying in open court at
the age of ten to narrate that she was raped by her father at the young age of age seven. Truly,
liberality is more of an exception. And in this case, we find that exception meritorious.

The liberality of the trial court is notequated to diminished credibility. In straightforward, positive
narration, she was able to convey, despite her tender age, the essential details to convict the
accused. 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.22 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.23

In the same way, we also dismiss the argument of hearsay evidence.

The defense is trying to suggest that BBB’s knowledge of AAA’s sexual abuse is only hearsay. It
emphasized BBB’s answer during crossexamination that the first part of her testimony was
related only by CCC.

An evidence is considered hearsay if its probative value is not based on personal knowledge of
the witness but on the knowledge of some other person not on the witness stand.24 A witness can
testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge and derived from his own
perception.25

Upon review of the records, BBB indeed testified that the first portion of her statement was
related only by CCC. However, the defense failed to specify with particularity which of the first
portion was hearsay. Contrary to the allegation of the defense, what isapparent is the narration of
BBB that she personally heard from AAA herself, during police investigation, that she was
abused by her father. And this statement obviously does not fall within the ambit of hearsay.

As final argument, Lumaho advanced the defense of alibi that he and Bennog were together in
the latter’shouse when the alleged incident happened.

Time and again, this Court has consistently held that alibi is an inherently weak defense because
it is easy to fabricate and highly unreliable.26
In his narration, Bennog testified that Lumaho was not in his house at Nuntiguing, Panubtuban
when the alleged rape incident happened as the accused was in his house at Naddug, also in
Panubtuban,from August 2007 until the summer of 2008. However, it was revealed upon further
inquiries that Naddug, where he supposedly was,is only three hundred meters away from
Nuntiguing, where the rape was done.

For Lumaho’s alibi to be given consideration, he (Lumaho) must be able to establish by clear and
convincing evidence that he was in a place other than the situs criminisat the time when the
crime was committed, such that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of
the crime when it was committed.27 Undoubtedly, he failed to do so because his own witness said
that the distance between the two places was only three hundred meters away.

In criminal law jurisprudence, alibi cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony and
identification of the complainant. For alibi to prosper, it must be supported by credible
corroboration from disinterested witnesses.28 Evidently, Bennog is not a disinterested witness as
he is a friend of the accused. Aside from Bennog, no additional witness was presented by the
defense to corroboratethe physical absence of Lumaho in the scene of the crime. It is worth
stressing that even Lumaho himself failed to testify in court to personally deny the accusations
against him.

Positive and categorical identification of AAA, without any showing of ill-motive on her part,
prevails over an unsubstantiated alibi. An alibi, without any clear and convincing evidence, is
1âwphi1

negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. It cannot be given greater
evidentiary value over the testimony ofAAA who testified on affirmative matters.29

The penalty prescribed for qualified rape is death. As prescribed under Art. 266-B of the Revised
Penal Code, death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed by a parent against
his child under eighteen (18) years of age. As conclusively proven by the prosecution, accused
Lumaho had carnal knowledge of his 7-year-old child AAA through force and intimidation.
However, in viewof Republic Act No. 9346 or the AntiDeath Penalty Law, the penalty of reclusion
perpetuawithout the eligibility of parole30 shall be imposed in lieu of the imposition of death
penalty.31

Following the new jurisprudential ruling of People v. Gambao32 on damages, we increase the
amounts of indemnity and damages to be imposed as follows: ₱100,000.00 as civil indemnity;
₱100,000.00 as moral damages; and ₱100,000.00 as exemplary damages.33 In addition, we
impose six percent (6%) interest from finality of judgment until fully paid.34 WHEREFORE, the
appeal is DENIED. The 30 May 2013 Decision or the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No.
05214 modi rying the judgment of conviction dated 5 September 2011 of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 14 of Lagawe, lfugao is hereby AFFIRMED with FURTHER MODIFICATION on
the amounts of civil indemnity and damages, and imposition of six percent (6%) interest from
finality or judgment until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RICHARD RAMIREZ y TULUNGHARI

G.R. No. 219863 March 6, 2018

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

Assailed in this appeal is the October 30, 2014 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
CR-HC No. 05176 which affirmed the February 3, 2011 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 254, Las Piñas City, finding appellant Richard Ramirez y Tulunghari guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crimes of rape and acts of lasciviousness.

The Antecedent Facts

Appellant was charged with the crime of rape in two separate Informations which read:

Criminal Case No. 07-0589

That sometime on or about February 24, 2007, in the City of Las Piñas Philippines, and within
1he jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge [of] one ["AAA"],3 a six (6) year old minor,
through force, or intimidation, and against her will and consent, thereby subjecting her to sexual
abuse and that the act complained of is prejudicial to the physical and psychological
development of the complainant-minor.4

Criminal Case No. 07-0284

That on or about the 18111 day of March 2007, in the City of Las Piñas, Philippines and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one ["AAA"], six (6)
year[s] old and below 7 years of age, minor, through force and intimidation against her will and
consent by licking the vagina and thereafter inserting his penis into the vagina of said ["AAA"],
thereby subjecting her to sexual abuse, and that the act complained of is prejudicial to the
physical and psychological development of the complainant-minor.5

During his arraignment, appellant entered a plea of not guilty.6 Trial thereafter ensued.

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution’s version of the incidents is as follows:

AAA, born on September 7, 2000, was then only six (6) years old when she was raped and
molested by the accused.

The victin1 and the accused [were] neighbors in Las Piñas City. Accused. a stay-in construction
worker in Baliwag, Bulacan, [was] also a friend of AAA's uncle who would usually sleep over at
the victim’s house.

On Febniary 24, 2007, at or about 12:00 a.m., AAA was awakened by the accused when he
removed her pajama and panty and placed himself on top of her. The accused licked her vagina
before inserting his penis into it. She felt pain and cried. Since the accused threatened her with
harm if she [told] the incident to anybody, she kept mum about it.
[O]n March 18, 2007, during the wee hours of the morning, or about 2:00 a.m., AA/\ was
awakened by the shout of her uncle, CCC. There, she saw accused standing at the corner of the
house with her panty at the latter’s feet Realizing that she was naked, she instantly wore her
short pants and ran and embraced her uncle. Thereafter, AAA, together with her grandparents
and uncles, went to the police to report what happened. The medico legal examination of the
private organ of AAA revea1ed no laceration in her hymen.7

Version of the Defense

Appellant raised the defenses of denial and alibi, viz.:

x x x On February 24, 2007, he was working as a construction worker at NFA, Baliwag,

Bulacan. He worked there from Monday to Saturday. [On said date,] he was working until 5:00
1âwphi 1

o’clock in the afternoon in Bulacan.

On March 18, 2007, he was at home resting. At around 8:00 o'clock in the evening of that day,
he went out to join his friends, Jonas Rabosa, Aron Rabosa, Jomari Magondayao, Randy
Ramirez, Erma Bergancia and Bongbong in a drinking spree in front of the house of AAA's aunt,
BBB, where AAA a1so lived. The drinking spree lasted until 12:00 o'clock midnight when he
started vomiting. They slept at BBB's house. He, together with his friends, slept, side by side with
each other in the living room, but before he fell asleep he noticed that AAA was sleeping on the
sofa.

At around 2:00 o’clock in the morning, [he] was awakened by the punches thrown at him by
AA.A's uncle, CCC, who claimed to have seen him molesting the girl. He was surprised. Another
uncle, DDD, followed suit and both clobbered him. His cousin, Randy Ramirez, intervened to
pacify, and brought him home. At home, he narrated to his mother what [bad] happened, and she
cried. Then, policemen arrived at their house to arrest him, although without showing any warrant
of arrest.8

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

In its Decision dated February 3, 2011, the RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of rape under Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 07-0284 and acts of
lasciviousness under Article 336 in Criminal Case No. 07-0589.9 It held that:

On the first rape, AAA narrated that she was roused from sleep when accused was removing her
pajama and panty. After removing he[r] pajama and panty, accused licked her vagina, [and]
inserted something hard into [it]. [She later clarified that it was appellant's penis that was inserted
into her vagina.] She did not disclose this to anybody because accused told her not to tell it to
anybody.10

xxx

On the alleged [second rape incident], AAA narrated that she wm; roused from sleep when her
uncle[,] CCC[,] was shouting angry words at the accused when they saw the latter lying on top of
AAA. x x x It is clear from AAA's testimony that when the accused carried out the lecherous
intent on March 18, 2007, he did not commit rape, consummated nor attempt[ed]. TI1ere [was]
no indication that accused successfully penetrated, at least the labia of AAA. Accused should
only be held liable for acts of lasciviousness.11

Accordingly, the RTC sentenced appellant to suffer the penalty of a) reclusion perpetua and to
pay "AAA" ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱75,000.00 as moral damages and ₱50,000.00 as
exemplary damages in Criminal Case No. 07-0284; and b) imprisonment of six (6) months
of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as
maximum, and to pay "AAA" ₱30,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱30,000.00 as moral damages and
₱20,000.00 as exemplary damages in Criminal Case No. 07-0589.12

Appellant thereafter appealed the RTC Decision before the CA.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The CA affirmed the RTC Decision in toto. Like the RTC, the CA found "AAA’s" testimony worthy
of credence.13 It also noted that "AAA" had "positively identified appellant as her abuser and her
statements under oath were sufficient to convict appellant for [his misdeeds]."14

In addition, the CA held that appellant's defense of denial cannot prevail over "AAA’s" testimony
as it was not properly corroborated or substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. It likewise
reiterated that the defense of denial could not prevail over "AAA’s" positive identification of
appellant as the perpetrator of the c1imes charged.15

Aggrieved, appellant filed the present appeal.

The Issues

Appellant raises the following issues for the Court's resolution:

First, whether "AAA’s" testimony was credible and straightforward, given that: (a) she simply
answered "yes" to almost all of the trial prosecutor’s leading questions;16 and (b) the defense was
able to prove that the alleged acts of rape could not have been perpetrated by appellant, as there
were other persons present when said acts were supposedly committed;17 and,

Second, whether the absence of hymenal lacerations on "AAA" casts doubt on appellant’s guilt.18

The Court’s Ruling

After due consideration, we resolve to (a) affirm appellant's conviction in Criminal Case No. 07-
0589, but modify the designation of the crime committed; and (b) grant his appeal in Criminal
Case No. 07-0284.

Elements of Rape in Criminal Case No. 07-0589 Established

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code provides:

ART. 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;

b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious;

c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;

d. When theoffended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even
though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present. (Emphasis supplied)

xxxx
"Statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below 12 years of age
regardless of her consent, or the lack of it, to the sexual act."19 Notably, the absence of free
consent in cases of statutory rape is conclusively presumed and as such, proof of force,
intin1idation or consent is immaterial.20

To convict an accused of statutory rape, the prosecution must prove: 1) the age of the
complainant; 2) the identity of the accused; and 3) the sexual intercourse between the accused
and the complainant.21

In this case, the prosecution successfully established that the first rape incident on February 24,
2007 indeed took place when "AAA" was only 6 years old,22 and that appellant was the
pe1petrator of the crime. The pertinent portion of "AAA’s" testimony detailing said rape incident is
quoted below:

[PROS. JACOB M. MONTESA II]

Q: You said you were raped by Kuya Richard, is this true or not?

A: That's true, Sir.

Q: How did he rape you?

A: He placed himself on top of me, Sir.

Q: And what else did he do?

A: He inserted his penis into my vagina, Sir.

Q: What else?

A: He licked my vagina, Sir.23

xxxx

Q: This Kuya Richard who raped you, is he here today?

A: Yes, Sir.

Q: Can you point to him?

A: That one, Sir. (Witness pointing to a person who when asked, answered by the name of
Richard Ramirez.)

Q: Can you tell us what you felt when Kuya Richard was doing this? What was your reaction?

A: I was hurt, Sir.

Q: Did you cry?

A: Yes, Sir.24

Notably, both the RTC and the CA found "AAA’s" testimony credible and convincing. We, too,
see no reason to disbelieve "AAA’s" testimony as regards the first rape incident, since it was not
shown that the lower courts had overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated facts or
circumstances of weight and substance which, if properly considered, would have altered the
result of the case.25

We reject appellant’s contention that the presence of other persons during the commission of the
first rape incident rendered "AAA’s" testimony unbelievable. "It is not impossible or incredible for
the members of the victim's family to be in deep slumber and not to be awakened while a sexual
assault is being committed."26 After all, "[i]t is settled that lust is not a respecter of time or place
and rape is known to happen [even] in the most unlikely places."27

We are likewise not persuaded by appellant's claim that the absence of lacerations on "AAA’s"
hymen negated sexual intercourse. "The rupture of the hymen is not an essential and material
fact in rape cases; it only further confirms that the vagina has been penetrated and damaged in
the process."28 Besides, as the CA correctly pointed out, the Initial Medico-Legal Report29 itself
stated that although there was "no evident injury at the time of examination," the "medical
evaluation cannot exclude sexual abuse."

Acts of lasciviousness not proven

beyond reasonable doubt

At this juncture, we draw attention to the unique nature of an appeal in a criminal case - the
appeal throws the whole case open for review and it is the duty of the appellate court to correct,
cite and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or
unassigned.30 It is on the basis of such review that we find the present
appeal partially meritorious.

The Information in Criminal Case No. 07-0284 alleged that appellant had carnal knowledge of
"AAA" "on or about the 18th day of March, 2007." For precision and clarity, we quote "AAA’s"
testimony on the incident that transpired on March 18, 2007 as follows:

[COURT:]

Q: You mentioned that you did not see the person who took off your pants, you mean you
are not sure who he is?

A: No, [y]our Honor.

Q: You said you did not see him?

A: Because I was asleep at that time. l was awakened when my Uncle shouted.

Q: You did not wake up because somebody took off your shorts but because of the shouting of
your Uncle?

A: Yes, [y]our Honor.

xxxx

Q: When you heard your uncle shouting, did you learn why he shouted?

A: Yes, [y]our Honor.

Q: Why?

A: According to him, BBB [(AAA’s aunt)] saw Richard on top of me, [y]our Honor.
Q: So when he was on top of you, you were not awakened?

A: No, [y]our Honor.31 (Emphasis supplied)

Unfortunately, "AAA’s" testimony as regards the second rape incident is not sufficient to convict
appellant of rape or even acts of lasciviousness sans the testimonies of "BBB" and "CCC"
("AAA’s" uncle) who supposedly witnessed firsthand what happened on that fateful night. "AAA’s"
narrative thereto clearly consisted of hearsayevidence which, "whether objected to or not, has
no probative value unless the proponent can show that the evidence falls within the exceptions to
the hearsay evidence rule x x x."32

On this point, we deem it appropriate to reiterate our ruling in People v. Mamalias33 where we
emphasized that the admission of hearsay evidence in a criminal case would be tantamount to a
violation of the rights of the accused, viz.:

x x x We have held that in criminal cases, the admission of hearsay evidence would be a
violation of the constitutional provision that the accused shall enjoy the right to confront the
witnesses testifying against him and to cross-examine them. A conviction based alone on
proof that violates the constitutional right of an accused is a nullity and the court that
rendered it acted without jurisdiction in its rendition. Such a judgment cannot be given any
effect whatsoever especially on the liberty of an individual.-34 (Emphasis supplied)

Clearly, the RTC committed a grave mistake when it relied on hearsay evidence to convict
appellant of the crime of acts of lasciviousness. We also note the error in the fallo35 of the RTC
Decision where the trial court convicted appellant of rape in Criminal Case No. 07-0284 (the
second rape incident) and acts of lasciviousness in Criminal Case No. 07-058936 (the first rape
incident), when it should have been the other way around, based on the discussion in the body of
said Decision.

The CA, too, is equally at fault for failing not only to recognize the glaring flaw in the
prosecution's evidence, but also to correct the mistake in the fallo of the RTC Decision when the
case was elevated on appeal.

The Crime Committed and the Proper

Penalty in Criminal Case No. 07-0589

As earlier discussed, sexual intercourse with a woman who is below 12 years of age constitutes
statutory rape.37 Moreover, Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides that
the death penalty shall be imposed "when the victim is a child below seven (7) years old."38

In this case, "AAA" was only six years old at the time of the incident, as evidenced by her
Certificate of Live Birth39 showing that she was born on September 7, 2000. Consequently, the
crime committed by appellant is qualifiedstatutoryrape under Article 266-B. Since the death
penalty cannot be imposed in view of Republic Act No. 9346, or An Act Prohibiting the Imposition
of Death Penalty in the Philippines, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua without eligibility for
parole.40

We likewise modify the amounts awarded to "AAA" in view of our ruling in People v.
Gaa41 imposing a minimum amount of ₱100,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱100,000.00 as moral
damages, and ₱100,000.00 as exemplary damages "in cases where the proper penalty for the
crime committed by accused is death but where it cannot be imposed because of the enactment
of RA 9346," as in this case.

Thus we increase the award of civil indemnity from ₱75,000.00 to ₱100,000.00; moral damages
from ₱75,000.00 to ₱100,000.00; and exemplary damages from ₱50,000.00 to ₱100,000.00.
Moreover, "a legal interest of 6% per annum will be imposed on the total amount of damages
awarded to "AAA" counted from the date of the finality of this judgment until fully paid."42

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision dated October 30, 2014 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05176 convicting appellant Richard
Ramirez y Tulunghari is AFFIRMEDwiththefollowingMODIFICATIONS:

(a) appellant is found GUILTY of QUALIFIED STATUTORY RAPE in Criminal Case No.
07-0589, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for
parole;

(b) the amounts of the civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages in
Criminal Case No. 07-0589 are increased to ₱100,000.00, respectively; and,

(c) appellant is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. 07-0

SO ORDERED.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RAMON BAY-OD

G.R. No. 238176 January 14, 2019

PERALTA, J.:

At bench is an appeal1 from the Decision2 dated October 20, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08666, which affirmed in toto the conviction of herein appellant Ramon Bay-
od for qualified statutory rape.

The antecedents:

On April 11, 2014, a criminal information for statutory rape under Article 266-A(l)(d)3 as qualified
by item 5 of the fifth paragraph of Article 266-B4 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended,
was filed against the appellant before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lagawe, Ifugao. The
Information accused the appellant of having carnal knowledge of AAA,5 a lass then only six (6)
years old:

That on or about the year 2011, at CCC, hence within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
[appellant], DID then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have carnal knowledge of
AAA, a minor, 6 years of age at the time, by inserting his penis into the vagina of the victim.

CONTRARY TO LAW and to the damage and prejudice of the victim.6

The Information was raffled to Branch 14 of the Lagawe RTC and was docketed as Criminal
Case No. 2224.

After being apprised of the accusation against him, the appellant entered a plea of not guilty.
During the pre-trial conference, the prosecution and the defense stipulated on the fact that AAA
was only 6 years old in 2011 - the year when the supposed rape took place. Trial thereafter
ensued.

The prosecution mainly hinged their cause on the testimonies of AAA and the latter's mother,
BBB. The prosecution's version, as culled from said testimonies, were summarized by the CA as
follows:

Sometime in the year 2011, AAA, who was then 6 years old, was looking for playmates along
their neighborhood when [appellant] called her to go inside the latter's house at "CCC." Once
inside, [appellant] forcibly had sex with AAA by removing the latter's clothes and by inserting his
penis into AAA's vagina. AAA felt pain and cried and so [appellant] stopped. Afterwards, AAA put
on her clothes and went home but decided not to tell her parents about the incident because she
was afraid of the [appellant] who warned her not [to] tell the incident to anybody. However, she
told her brother about what [appellant] did to her.

Sometime in October 2013, while AAA and her brother were having an argument, BBB, the
victim's mother, heard her son teasing AAA saying "op-opya ah te iniyut da-ah eh Lamon," which
means "shut up because you were sexually abused by Lamon." Upon hearing such words, BBB
immediately confronted AAA about the veracity of her brother's statement to which AAA
confessed that she was indeed raped by the [appellant].7

Aside from the testimonies of AAA and BBB, the prosecution also called to the witness stand one
Dr. Florilyn Joyce Bentrez (Dr. Bentrez) - the medical officer who conducted a physical
examination on AAA on November 15, 2013 and who also issued a corresponding medical
certificate detailing the results of such examination. The CA captured the substance of Dr.
Bentrez's testimony in this wise:

On November 15, 2013, [Dr. Bentrez], medical officer of the Municipal Health Office of Lagawe,
Ifugao, conducted a physical examination on AAA and issued a medical certificate attesting that
upon examination of the victim, she found no noted laceration, hematoma and bleeding on the
victim's genital area. Nevertheless, she testified that despite the absence of laceration on the
victim's vagina and that even if the vagina remains intact, it is still possible that AAA was raped
because not all patients have the same shape of hymen and not: all penetrations injure the
hymen.8

The defense, on the other hand, relied on the sole testimony of the appellant. The appellant flat
out denied having raped AAA. He claims that the charge against him was merely fabricated by
the family of AAA - his distant relatives - out of envy.

Ruling of the RTC

On July 1, 2016, the RTC issued a Decision9 finding the appellant guilty of qualified statutory
rape as charged. In so finding, the R TC accorded full weight and credence on the version of the
prosecution, as relayed by the testimonies of AAAand BBB.

The RTC noted that, given the particular nature of the rape for which he was convicted, the
appellant would have merited the death penalty under Article 266-B of the RPC) The trial court,
however, was quick to observe that the imposition of the death penalty is presently outlawed by
virtue of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9346.10

Hence, instead of meting the death sentence, the RTC imposed upon the appellant the penalty
of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole, pursuant to Sections 2(a) and 3 of R.A. No.
9346.11 With respect to the appellant's civil liabilities, on the other hand, the RTC directed the
appellant to pay the following amounts to AAA: (a) ₱100,000.00 by way 'of civil indemnity, (b)
₱100,000.00 by way of moral damages, (c) ₱100,000.00 by way of exemplary damages and (d)
interest on the said monetary obligations at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of the
decision until satisfaction. The dispositive part of the decision of the RTC accordingly reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this [C]ourt finds [appellant] GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of rape defined in paragraph l (d), Article 266-A and penalized under Article
266- B of the [RPC], as amended by [R.A.] 8353, and hereby sentenced [appellant] to suffer the
penalty of imprisonment of reclusion perpetua [without eligibility for parole], in lieu of the
death penalty, pursuant to [RA] 9346. The [appellant] is, likewise, ordered to pay [AAA] the
amount of One Hundred Thousand ([₱]100,000.00) Pesos as moral damages, One Hundred
Thousand ([₱]100,000.00) Pesos as exemplary damages and One Hundred Thousand
([₱]100,000.00) Pesos as civil indemnity with an interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the
finality of this Decision until satisfaction of the award.

SO ORDERED.12

Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal with the CA.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On October 20, 2017, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision dismissing the appellant's
appeal and affirming in toto the decision of the RTC. Thus:
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the appeal is DISMISSED and the Decision dated July 1,
2016 of the [RTC] of Lagawe, Ifugao, Branch 14, in Criminal Case No. 2224 is
hereby AFFIRMED in toto

SO ORDERED.13

Undeterred, appellant filed the present appeal before this Court.

The Present Appeal

The appellant claims that the R TC and the CA erred in according full weight and credence to the
version of the prosecution, particularly to the accusation of rape by AAA. He argues that such
1âшphi1

accusation was actually disproved by the results of the medical examination conducted by Dr.
Bentrez on AAA.

The appellant points out that AAA's hymen was medically found to be still intact. On this end, he
relies on and cites Dr. Bentrez's testimony wherein the latter stated that she, in her medical
examination of AAA, found no laceration or scar in the latter's hymen.14 Such findings, the
appellant posits, are actually inconsistent with the conclusion that he had carnal knowledge of
AAA and, hence, should be considered fatal to the charge of statutory rape.

In view of the apparent incredibility of AAA's testimony, the appellant, thus, urges this Court to
instead give recognition to his alternate version of the events as the truth of what happened in
this case and, ultimately, to acquit him of the crime charged.

Our Ruling

We deny the appeal.

It is elementary that the assessment of a trial court in matters pertaining to the credibility of
witnesses, especially when already affirmed by an appellate court on appeal, are accorded great
respect - if not binding significance - on further appeal to this Court.15 The rationale of this rule is
the recognition of the trial court's unique and distinctive position to be able to observe, first hand,
the demeanor, conduct and attitude of the witness whose credibility has been put in issue.16

While conformity to the foregoing rule is concededly not absolute, it must be underscored that
any deviation therefrom had only been allowed in light of highly meritorious circumstances, such
as when it is clearly shown that the trial court had "overlooked certain facts of substance and of
value which, if considered, might affect the outcome of the case."17

The appellant, in this appeal, insists that such a circumstance obtains in this case. He, in
essence, claims that the RTC and the CA had overlooked the significance of the testimony of Dr.
Bentrez that, if considered, would cast serious doubt on the veracity of AAA's accusation of rape.
In this context, the appellant urges this Court to take a second look at the testimony of AAA and
recalibrate the weight accorded it by the RTC and the CA.

We do not agree.

AAA 's Claim of Rape Not Negated By

Medical Finding that Her Hymen is

Intact
The medical finding of Dr. Bentrez that AAA has no injury in her hymen is not fatal to the
accusation of rape against the appellant. AAA's narration that appellant had intercourse with her
is not, in and of itself, inconsistent with such finding. Indeed We, in not a few cases already, have
affirmed convictions for rape despite the absence of injury on the victim's hymen in view of
the medical possibility for a hymen to remain intact despite history of sexual
intercourse.18 In People v. Opong,19 We ran down some ofthese cases:

In People v. Gabayron, we sustained the conviction of accused for rape even though the victim's
hymen remained intact after the incidents because medical researches show that negative
findings of lacerations are of no significance, as the hymen may not be torn despite
repeated coitus. It was noted that many cases of pregnancy had been reported about
women with unruptured hymens, and that there could still be a finding of rape even if,
despite repeated intercourse over a period of years, the victim still retained an intact
hymen without signs of injury.

In People v. Capt. Llanto, citing People v. Aguinaldo, we likewise affirmed the conviction of the
accused for rape despite the absence of laceration on the victim's hymen since medical
findings suggest that it is possible for the victim's hymen to remain intact despite
repeated sexual intercourse. We elucidated that the strength and dilatability of the hymen
varies from one woman to another, such that it may be so elastic as to stretch without
laceration during intercourse; on the other hand, it may be so resistant that its surgical
removal is necessary before intercourse can ensue.

In People v. Palicte and in People v. Castro, the rape victims involved were minors. The medical
examination showed that their hymen remained intact even after the rape. Even then, we held
that such fact is not proof that rape was not committed.20

Moreover, in People v. Pamintuan,21 We recognized that the absence of injuries in a rape victim's
hymen could also be attributed to a variety of factors that do not at all discount the fact that
rape has been committed. As Pamintuan observed:

The presence or absence of injuries would depend on different factors, such as the
forcefulness of the insertion, the size of the object inserted, the method by which the
injury was caused, the changes occurring in a female child's body, and the length of
healing time, if indeed injuries were caused. Thus, the fact that AAA did not sustain any injury
in her sex organ does not ipso facto mean that she was not raped.22

Accordingly, We find the medical finding of Dr. Bentrez regarding the absence of laceration in
AAA's hymen to be, by itself: insufficient to disprove AAA's claim of rape against the appellant.
The absence of laceration or injury to AAA's hymen during the time she was examined may have
been caused by a number of reasons - none of which, however, would have any definitive
bearing on whether appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA or not.

It should be emphasized at this point that carnal knowledge, as an element of rape under Article
266-A(l) of the RPC, is not synonymous to sexual intercourse in its ordinary sense; it implies
neither the complete penetration of the vagina nor the rupture of the hymen.23 Indeed,
jurisprudence has held that even the slightest penetration of the victim's genitals
- i.e., the "touching" by the penis of the vagina's labia - is enough to satisfy the
element.24 As People v. Bormeo25 held:

Carnal knowledge has been defined as the act of a man having sexual bodily connections with a
woman; sexual intercourse. An essential ingredient thereof is the penetration of the female
sexual organ by the sexual organ of the male. In cases of rape, however, mere proof of the
entrance of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum or lips of the female organ is
sufficient to constitute a basis for conviction.26
And in People v. Quiñanola:27

In the context it is used in the Revised Penal Code, carnal knowledge, unlike its ordinary
connotation of sexual intercourse, does not necessarily require that the vagina be penetrated or
that the hymen be ruptured. The crime of rape is deemed consummated even when the
man's penis merely enters the labia or lips of the female organ or, as once so said in a
case, by the mere touching of the external genitalia by a penis capable of consummating
the sexual act.28

Here, the fact that the appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA had been clearly established by
the latter's testimony. Such testimony stands independently of the medical findings of Dr.
Bentrez.

AAA 's Testimony is Credible and AAA is a

Credible Witness; Appellant's Denial is
Unavailing

Our review of AAA's testimony revealed the same to be a clear and categorical account of how
the appellant had carnal knowledge of her. AAA bluntly recalled:

PROS. TILAN ON DIRECT EXAMINATION:

Q: What did [the appellant] do to you?

A: He forcibly had sex with me.

Q: Could you describe to the court how [the appellant] had sex with you.

A: He removed m[y] upper garment and panty and he undress himself.

Q: Prior to that, he removed your garment and your clothes, what did he do?

A: He inserted his penis into my vagina.

Q: When he inserted his penis into your vagina, what did you feel?

A: Painful, so I cried.29

It must also be considered that AAA was only six (6) years old when she was raped and only
nine (9) years old when she took the witness stand. In People v Piosang,30 We held that
testimonies of child victims, such as AAA, are in general ought to be accorded full weight and
credit:

Testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl,
particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is
necessary to show that rape has in fact been committed. 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.

Though the appellant tried to cast aspersions on the motives of AAA in testifying so - the former
claiming that AAA was just influenced by her family who, in turn, was only envious of him - the
same falls flat for being utterly unsubstantiated. In this regard, We agree with the CA in
dismissing such aspersions in light of the failure of the appellant to adduce any evidence
supporting the same:

[Appellant] attributes ill motive against AAA's family and claims that they are envious of him
although he does not know of any reason why they should envy him. However, as the OSG
correctly observed, [appellant] did not adduce any evidence on record showing any ill-motive on
the part of AAA and her family as to why she would testify adversely against him. In a litany of
cases, it has been ruled that -- "when there is no showing of any improper motive on the part of
the victim to testify falsely against the accused or to falsely implicate the latter in the commission
of the crime, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists, and that the testimony
is worthy of full faith and credence." Stated otherwise, where no compelling and cogent reason[s]
[are] established that would explain why the complainant was so driven as to blindly implicate an
accused, the testimony of a young girl of having been the victim of a sexual assault cannot be
discarded.31

All in all, We found no error on the part of the RTC and the CA in according AAA's testimony full
weight and credence. The testimony is categorical and, in conjunction with the other evidence on
record, positively establishes the guilt of the appellant for the crime charged. Against such
testimony, the unsubstantiated denial of the appellant must certainly fail.32

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated
October 20, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08666 is hereby AFFIRMED in
toto.

SO ORDERED.
 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. XXXXXXXXXXX

G.R. No. 229836 July 17, 2019

LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:

Prefatory

This appeal assails the Decision1 dated August 11, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR
HC No. 01915 entitled "People of the Philippines v. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx," affirming appellant's
conviction for two (2) counts of statutory rape.

The Proceedings Before the Trial Court

The Charges

Appellant xxxxxxxxxxx was indicted for violation of Section 266-A in relation to 266-B of the
Revised Penal Code in forty-two (42) separate Informations docketed Criminal Case Nos. DNO-
3393 through DNO-3434. Except for the material dates, the Informations alleged, thus:
That on or about (date of commission) in xxxxxxxxxxx, Danao City, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused being a step-father of AAA, and
by means of force and intimidation, as well as his moral ascendancy, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with AAA, a virgin under 12 years of age
against the latter's will.

CONTRARY TO LAW.2
Additionally, in eleven (11) separate Informations docketed Criminal Case Nos. DNO-3435
through DNO-3445, appellant was indicted for simple rape. Again, except for the material dates,
the Informations uniformly alleged:
That sometime in (date of commission) xxxxxxxxxxx, Danao City, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being a step-father of AAA, and
by means of force and intimidation, and as well as his moral ascendancy, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with AAA, a virgin over 12 years old
but under 18 years of age against the latter's will.

CONTRARY TO LAW.3
All fifty-three (53) cases got consolidated before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, Danao City,
Cebu.

On arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to all fifty-three (53) counts of rape.4

During the pre-trial, the parties stipulated on the following: 1) AAA was still a minor in January
2000; 2) AAA is the daughter of BBB; and 3) BBB was the live-in partner of appellant.5 The cases
were, thereafter, jointly tried.

Prosecution's Evidence

AAA testified that since 1995, she had been living with her mother BBB and appellant in a rented
house in Danao City. From 1999, when she was only eight (8) years old, to 2004 when she was
already thirteen (13) years old, appellant had sexually ravished her several times over.6

As charged in Criminal Case No. DNO-3393,7 the first rape incident happened in 1999 when her
mother had left for work. At noontime, she was taking a nap when she felt appellant had come up
to her. He removed her underwear, kissed and touched her, and made her touch his penis. He,
thereafter, inserted his penis in her vagina. She got so scared and felt so much pain in her
vagina. After it was over, appellant warned her to keep silent about the incident, then, left her
alone in the house. When BBB came home, she tried to tell her what happened but BBB did not
believe her.8

Then, the second rape, as charged in Criminal Case No. DNO-3394,9 happened three (3) days
later. He did the same things to her and, afterwards, inserted his penis into her vagina. She was
scared and again felt pain in her vagina. The same sexual abuse happened once or twice a day
from 1999 to 2004. When the sexual abuse thereafter became even more frequent than before,
she could bear it no longer.10

She wanted to report the rape incidents to the police but shame and fear restrained her from
doing so. In July 2004, appellant threatened to shave off her hair if she went out with her friends.
Then one day, she finally mustered the courage to narrate her ordeal to her friend Portia, who in
turn, told her aunt Lucia Lawas. She later on recounted her ordeal to Lucia Lawas.11

Lucia Lawas took her first to a priest for confession and then to a social worker at the
Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). The social worker recommended that
she undergo physical examination at the Danao General Hospital, after the doctor in the Danao
General Hospital found hymenal lacerations on her vagina, she was advised to go to the "Pink
Room" of the Vicente Sotto Memorial Medical Center (VSMMC), Cebu City. There, she was
again examined by Dr. Liwayway Reyes who confirmed that she did sustain hymenal lacerations.
She stayed with DSWD for ten (10) months.12

The Defense's Evidence

Appellant denied the charges. He professed to love AAA very much, she being the daughter of
his live-in partner. He was saddened when the DSWD took AAA from his custody. Lucia Lawas
orchestrated the whole thing to get back at him when he stopped working for her.13

The Trial Court's Ruling

By Decision14 dated May 28, 2012, the trial court ruled that the prosecution was only able to
prove two (2) counts of statutory rape, i.e. the first one (Criminal Case No. DNO-3393) which
happened sometime in 1999 when AAA was only eight (8) years old; and the second one
(Criminal Case No. DNO-3394), which happened three (3) days later. But as for the remaining
fifty-one (51) counts, the trial court found that the prosecution utterly failed to prove how each of
these supposed rape incidents was committed. Thus, the trial court decreed:
WHEREFORE, FOR ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, this Court finds
accused xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx GUILTY of two (2) counts of statutory rape under Criminal Cases
(sic) No. DNO-3393 and DNO-3394 and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of
RECLUSION PERPETUA under paragraph 3, Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by R.A. 7659 for each of the two (2) counts of rape committed.

The accused is hereby directed to pay the victim the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex
delicto and the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages, conformably to current jurisprudence
for each of the two (2) crimes of rape committed.

For lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt, accused xxxxxxxxxxx is hereby ACQUITTED of the
charges against him in Criminal Cases (sic) No. DNO-3395 through DNO-3445.

SO ORDERED.15
The Proceedings before the Court of Appeals

On appeal, appellant faulted the trial court for giving credence to AAA's testimony despite its
alleged inconsistencies and improbabilities: 1) on direct, she testified that in 1999, appellant
raped her in the afternoon, but on cross, she claimed it happened in the morning; and 2) her
allegation that appellant did not remove his penis from her vagina for about an hour was
impossible. Further, the date and time when the two (2) rape incidents supposedly occurred were
not proven by the prosecution, thus, creating serious doubt as to their occurrence.16

On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), through Assistant Solicitor General
Herman Cimafranca and State Solicitor Sharon Millan-Decano riposted that the trial court's
assessment of the credibility of AAA's testimony should be given much weight. Too, the exact
dates and time of the rape incidents are not essential elements of rape. Besides, a victim of
tender age is not expected to recall the exact date and time when her traumatic experience took
place. Lastly, AAA gave positive and categorical testimony on how the two (2) rape incidents
occurred and who the perpetrator was.17

The Court of Appeals' Ruling

By its assailed Decision18 dated August 11, 2016, the Court of Appeals affirmed with
modification, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed 28 May
2012 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, of Danao City is AFFIRMED WITH THE
MODIFICATIONS that:

(1) Accused-appellant is hereby ordered to pay AAA PhP30,000.00 as exemplary damages for
each count of Statutory Rape; and

(2) All monetary awards for damages shall earn interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from
the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.19
The Present Appeal

Appellant now seeks affirmative relief from the Court and prays anew for his acquittal. For the
purpose of this appeal, the OSG20 and appellant21 both manifested that in lieu of supplemental
briefs, they were adopting their respective briefs in the Court of Appeals.

Issue

Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the trial court's verdict of conviction against appellant for
two (2) counts of statutory rape?

Ruling

We affirm appellant's conviction in Criminal Case Nos. DNO-3393 and DNO-3394 but for
qualified rape, not for statutory rape.

When she took the witness stand in 2011, AAA recalled the following details on how appellant
sexually ravished her way back sometime in 1999 (Criminal Case No. DNO-3393), thus:
Q: Can you describe before this court what are you referring to us he was molesting you while
you were still young?
A: I was still in grade one, eight years old.

Q: The question is what did he do when you said he was molesting you?
A: I was sleeping at that time and he removed my panty.

Q: Can you still recall what date wherein you were first molested by your stepfather?
A: What I can remember is that I was still eight years old at that time.

Q: Now you said you were born in the year 1991, will you please add eight years to 1991 and
inform this court what is the year?
A: 1999.

xxx

Q: Can you still remember the exact time by which you were molested the first time in the year
1999?

xxx

A: Perhaps it's 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon because at 5:00 o'clock my mother would arrive.

Q: Now, aside from undressing yourself during that time, what else did accused xxxxxxxxxxx do?
A: That's then he kissed me and touched me.

Q: Aside from those things, what else did he do?

A: That's then he raped or molested me.

xxx

Q: Can you tell the court and elaborate what do you mean by he raped you?
A: He caused me to touch his sex organ.

Q: Aside from that what other else did he do?

A: He inserted his penis into my vagina.

Q: What have you felt when his penis was inserted in your vagina?
A: Pain.

Q: For how long in terms of minutes did he insert his penis into your vagina?
A: For a long time.

Q: Can you estimate before this court that long time you are mentioning?
A: Around one hour.

Q: During that one hour period, what have you felt when he was then in the act of inserting his
penis in your womanhood?
A: I was afraid.

Q: Aside from fear, what other else have you felt?

A: Pain.

Q: What part of your body have you felt pain?

A: My vagina sir.22
AAA recounted that sometime in 1999 appellant woke her up, undressed her, and proceeded to
touch and kiss her. He made her touch his penis then inserted it in her vagina. She was so
scared when appellant was about to penetrate her vagina. She endured the pain in her vagina
because appellant was inside her for a long time. She spoke of appellant's carnal knowledge of
her when she was only eight (8) years old.

On the second rape incident (Criminal Case No. DNO-3394), AAA recalled:
Q: Now, going back to those rape instances, now after the first incident in the year 1999, can you
still recall how many days had elapsed before the second rape incident happened?
A: Around three days later.

Q: And what have you felt when that second incident happened?
A: I was then sick.
Q: The question is what have you feel (sic) when the second rape happened?
A: I was also afraid sir.

Q: And again describe before this court of what do you mean you were rape (sic) the second
time, what action did he do towards you?
A: The same thing happened sir he inserted his penis (in) my organ.

Q: What have you felt when that organ of him was placed inside to (sic) your organ?
A: I felt also pain sir.23
AAA stated that the second rape incident happened three (3) days after the first. She said
appellant did the same things to her. As in the first, she was scared and felt pain when appellant
entered her. She specifically said appellant "inserted his penis (in) my organ."

Indeed, the spontaneity and consistency by which AAA had detailed out the incident dispel any
insinuation of a rehearsed testimony. Her eloquent testimony should be enough to confirm the
veracity of the charge.24 After all, the nature of the crime of rape entails reliance on the lone, yet
clear, convincing and consistent testimonies25 of the victim herself.

Notably, AAA was only eight (8) years old when the first and second rape incidents occurred.
She took the stand twelve (12) years later. Surely, she is not expected to recount with exactitude
every detail of the incidents which happened twelve (12) years ago. 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.26

Also, the alleged inconsistency in AAA's testimony pertaining to whether the first rape incident
happened in the morning or in the afternoon refers to a trivial matter which does not affect AAA's
credibility as a witness. The fact remains that the first rape incident occurred on the day AAA
testified it happened. Surely, if the testimonial inconsistencies do not hinge on any essential
element of the crime, such inconsistencies are deemed insignificant and will not have any
bearing on the essential fact or facts testified to. These inconsistencies, if at all, even indicate
that the witness was not rehearsed.27

As for AAA's supposed improbable statement that appellant's penis was in her vagina for about
an hour, we keenly note that she was only eight (8) years old at the time of the incident. A child's
perception of time is different from that of an adult. Besides, since human memory is fickle and
prone to the stresses of emotions, accuracy in one's testimonial account has never been used as
a standard in testing the credibility of a witness.28

AAA's failure to specify the exact time and date when the first rape occurred does not, standing
alone, cast doubt on appellant's guilt. Neither date nor time of the commission of rape is a
material element of the crime. The essence of rape is carnal knowledge of a female through
force or intimidation against her will. Precision as to the time when the rape is committed has no
bearing on its commission.29

We also note that the respective Informations in Criminal Case Nos. DNO-3393 and DNO-3394
allege that the dates of commission of the two rape incidents were "on or about January 4, 2000"
and "sometime in the month of February, 2000," respectively. Yet, the discrepancy of the dates
of commission in the twin Informations and AAA's testimony that both rape incidents happened in
1999, is not fatal. People v. Nazareno30 teaches:
The argument is specious. An information is intended to inform an accused of the accusations
against him in order that he could adequately prepare his defense. Verily, an accused cannot be
convicted of an offense unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or information. Thus, to
ensure that the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him is not violated, the information should state the name of the accused; the
designation given to the offense by the statute; a statement of the acts or omissions so
complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate time
and date of the commission of the offense; and the place where the offense has been committed.
Further, it must embody the essential elements of the crime charged by setting forth the facts
and circumstances that have a bearing on the culpability and liability of the accused, so that he
can properly prepare for and undertake his defense.

However, it is not necessary for the information to allege the date and time of the
commission of the crime with exactitude unless time is an essential ingredient of the
offense. In People v. Bugayong, the Court held that when the time given in the information
is not the essence of the offense, the time need not be proven as alleged; and that the
complaint will be sustained if the proof shows that the offense was committed at any time
within the period of the statute of limitations and before the commencement of the
action. (Emphasis supplied)
More, AAA was physically examined twice: first by a doctor at Danao General Hospital, and
second by Dr. Liwayway Reyes of VSMMC. Dr. Reyes found that AAA sustained deep notches at
3, 7, 10, and 12 o'clock positions. Medical expert Dr. Naomi Poca of VSMMC testified that a
finding of 7 o'clock notch is suggestive of an injury caused by a blunt instrument. Dr. Poca further
opined that if the subject had no history of operation or accident, said notch could have been
caused by sexual abuse.31

Verily, therefore, AAA's assertion that she had been sexually ravished at least twice in 1999, as
charged in Criminal Case Nos. DNO-3393 and DNO-3394, solidly conforms with the medical
certificate and Dr. Poca's expert testimony. Indeed, where the victim's testimony is corroborated
by physical findings of penetration, there is sufficient basis for concluding that sexual intercourse
did take place.32

As against AAA's positive and categorical testimony, appellant only interposes denial and alibi.
But denial is the weakest of all defenses. It easily crumbles in the face of positive identification by
accused as the perpetrator of the crime.33 Appellant's claim that the complaints against him were
orchestrated by Lucia Lawas out of spite, deserves scant consideration. Alleged motive of family
feud, resentment, or revenge is not an uncommon defense, the same has never swayed the
Court from lending full credence to the testimony of a complainant who remained steadfast
throughout her direct and cross-examinations.34

We hold, however, that appellant is guilty of two (2) counts of qualified rape, not statutory rape in
Criminal Case Nos. DNO-3393 and DNO-3394.

Statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below twelve (12) years of age
regardless of her consent, or the lack of it, to the sexual act. Proof of force, intimidation or
consent is unnecessary as they are not elements of statutory rape. For the absence of free
consent is conclusively presumed when the victim is below the age of twelve (12). At that age,
the law presumes that the victim does not possess discernment and is incapable of giving
intelligent consent to the sexual act. Thus, to convict an accused of the crime of statutory rape,
the prosecution carries the burden of proving: (a) the age of the complainant; (b) the identity of
the accused; and (c) the sexual intercourse between the accused and the complainant.35

Here, the prosecution offered AAA's testimony that she was born on July 1, 199136 and an
unauthenticated photocopy of her certificate of live birth37 to prove she was below twelve (12)
years old when appellant, by asserting his moral ascendancy, succeeded in having carnal
knowledge of her against her will in 1999. People v. Pruna38 enumerates the guidelines in
proving the victim's age:
In order to remove any confusion that may be engendered by the foregoing cases, we hereby set
the following guidelines in appreciating age, either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying
circumstance.

1. The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of
the certificate of live birth of such party.

2. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents such as baptismal
certificate and school records which show the date of birth of the victim would suffice to prove
age.

3. If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been lost or destroyed or
otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of the victim's mother or a member of
the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting
pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule
130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the following circumstances:
a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is
less than 7 years old;
b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is
less than 12 years old;
c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she
is less than 18 years old.
4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the testimony of the victim's
mother or relatives concerning the victim's age, the complainant's testimony will suffice provided
that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused.

5. It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the offended party. The failure of
the accused to object to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken against him.

6. The trial court should always make a categorical finding as to the age of the victim.
On the basis of Pruna, we hold that AAA's testimony on her date of birth and the
unauthenticated photocopy of her birth certificate do not constitute sufficient proof of her exact
age during the two rape incidents. In People v. Lastrollo,39 the victim's testimony on her age
was considered insufficient since it was not clearly and expressly admitted by the accused, as in
this case. Also, in People v. Belen,40 a photocopy of the victim's birth certificate was not
accorded probative weight.

To recall, the prosecution and the defense stipulated that AAA was still a minor in January 2000.
But was she below twelve (12) years old when the twin counts of rape happened? The evidence
on record do not say so. Surely, minority does not mean one is below twelve (12) years old. It
only means one has not reached the age of majority (eighteen [18] years old).

In other words, appellant cannot be convicted of statutory rape. But, he is guilty of qualified rape
in accordance with Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, which ordain:
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;

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.

2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall
commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice,
or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.

Article 266-B. Penalty. - Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished
by reclusion perpetua.
 xxx

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;

xxx

Under the foregoing provisions, rape 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. But, in order for an accused to be convicted of qualified rape, the Information itself must
allege that the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age at the time of rape and the accused is
the victim's parent, ascendant, step parent, guardian, or relative by consanguinity or affinity
within the third civil degree, or common-law spouse of the victim's parent. These are special
qualifying circumstances which alter the nature of the crime of rape and warrant the increase of
the imposable penalty.41

In Criminal Case Nos. DNO-3393 and DNO-3394, it was uniformly alleged therein that appellant
was AAA's stepfather and AAA was "a virgin under 12 years of age." The parties stipulated only
on her minority, which means below eighteen (18) years old and not below twelve (12) years old.
In any event, in view of the concurrence of the elements of relationship and age (below eighteen
[18] years old), appellant indubitably committed qualified rape which warrants the imposition of
the death penalty. Albeit by virtue of RA 9346, the death penalty has been reduced to reclusion
perpetua.

As for appellant's civil liability, the award of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as
moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of qualified rape should
be granted in conformity with prevailing jurisprudence.42

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. In Criminal Case No. DNO-3393 and Criminal Case No.
DNO-3394, appellant xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is found GUILTY of QUALIFIED RAPE and
sentenced to RECLUSION PERPETUA without eligibility of parole in each case.

He is further required TO PAY AAA for each count of QUALIFIED RAPE P100,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. All
monetary awards are subject to six percent (6%) interest from finality of this decision until fully
paid.

SO ORDERED.