J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. RENE CELOCELO (G.R. NO. 173798, 15 DECEMBER 2010, J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO) SUBJECTS: QUALITY OF TESTIMONY IN RAPE CASE; TRIAL JUDGE IS IN BEST POSITION TO DECIDE. BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS. CELOCELO

x- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –  – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -x

DOCTRINES

A RAPE VICTIM MAY NOT BE ABLE TO NARRATE EXACT DETAILS

It is only human for AAA to not be able to readily narrate the exact details of her experience when questioned.  The Court has in the past observed that “[i]t would not really be unusual for one to recollect a good number of things about an eventful incident but what should be strange is when one can put to mind everything.”^[1][36]  As this Court has time and again declared:

Etched in our jurisprudence is the doctrine that a victim of a savage crime cannot be expected to mechanically retain and then give an accurate account of every lurid detail of a frightening experience – a verity born out of human nature and experience.  This is especially true with a rape victim who is required to utilize every fiber of her body and mind to repel an attack from a stronger aggressor. x x x.^[2][37]

This error cannot impair the credibility of AAA especially since first, the imputed inconsistency or incredible testimony was later explained and clarified by no less than the RTC itself, and second, the RTC, who was in the best position to determine if AAA were indeed credible, believed her to be so, to wit:

The Court had been observant of the demeanor of the complainant and the accused in the course of the trial and found that the complainant was straightforward in denouncing the accused while the accused appeared impishly smiling as the complainant denounced him.^[3][38]

TRIAL COURT’S ASSESSMENT IS ENTITLED TO HIGHEST RESPECT.

We once again reiterate the time-honored maxim that the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to the highest respect.  It was the trial court that had the opportunity to observe the witnesses’ manner of testifying, their furtive glances, calmness, sighs and the scant or full realization of their oath.^[4][39] 

x- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –  – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -x

D E C I S I O N

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

          For review is the Decision^[5][1] of the Court of Appeals dated February 28, 2006, which affirmed with modification the Decision^[6][2] rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 275, Las Piñas City, in Criminal Case No. 98-1079, finding accused-appellant Rene Celocelo (Celocelo) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape as defined and penalized under Article 266-A, paragraph 1, in relation to Article 266-B, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordering Celocelo to pay the offended party Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages.

On September 22, 1998, Celocelo was charged before the RTC for the crime of Rape.  The accusatory portion of the Information reads:

That on or about the 26^th day of July, 1998, in the City of Las Piñas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with knife and by means of force, violence and intimidation with lewd designs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one [AAA] against her will and consent thereby subjecting her to sexual abuse.^[7][3]

Celocelo pleaded not guilty to the charge when he was arraigned on December 1, 1999.^[8][4]  Trial on the merits followed the termination of the pre-trial conference.

          The prosecution offered three witnesses: (1) Dr. Aurea P. Villena, Medico Legal Officer II of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), who personally examined AAA;^[9][5] (2) Senior Inspector Marilyn N. Samarita, the police investigator who requested the NBI to conduct the medico-legal examination on AAA; and (3) private complainant AAA, the 19-year-old victim.  The defense had two witnesses:  (1) Rene Celocelo, the accused; and (2) Edgardo de Vera, the accused’s brother in law.

          The prosecution first presented Dr. Aurea P. Villena, the Medico Legal Officer II of the NBI who conducted the physical examination on AAA on July 26, 1998.  Her findings, as stated in the medico-legal report, are as follows:

FINDINGS

x x x x

PHYSICAL INJURIES:

            Contusion, purplish, 0.5 cm x 1.0 cm., right breast.

GENITAL EXAMINATION:

            Pubic hairs, fully grown, abundant. Labia majora and minora, gaping. Fourchette, lax. Vestibular mucosa, pinkish. Hymen, tall, thick, with an old healed complete laceration at 6:00 o’clock position corresponding to the face of a watch, edges rounded, non-coaptable.  Hymenal orifice admits a tube 2.0 cm. in diameter. Vaginal walls, lax. Rugosities, shallow.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.      The above-described physical injury was noted on the body of the subject at the time of the examination.

2.      Hymenal laceration present.^[10][6]

Dr. Villena also testified that after conducting a medico-legal examination on AAA, she took three vaginal smears from her and brought it to the laboratory for seminal examination.^[11][7]  The results were recorded in Laboratory Report No. S-98-267.^[12][8]  The report indicated that the vaginal smears gave a positive result for the presence of human spermatozoa.  When the prosecutor asked Dr. Villena what this meant, she testified that positive semenology is highly indicative of recent sexual intercourse.^[13][9]

The second witness presented was Marilyn N. Samarita.  She was the police investigator who requested the NBI to conduct a medico-legal examination on AAA.  She was assigned as Chief of the Women and Children’s desk at the Las Piñas City Police Station at the time AAA went to her office.  She testified that she made the request when AAA came to her office to file a complaint.^[14][10]  She also testified that AAA came back on July 29, 1998 to inform her that the results will be out the following day, July 30, but AAA will just come back on July 31 to give her statement as she was not yet ready.^[15][11]

The third witness who took the stand was the victim herself, AAA.  She testified that on July 26, 1998, at around two o’clock in the morning, while she was sleeping in their house with her siblings, she was awakened by Celocelo, who covered her mouth, and told her “not to make any scandal.”^[16][12]  She testified that Celocelo pulled her by her hair and dragged her out of the bedroom towards the comfort room which was located outside their house.  AAA said she pleaded to Celocelo not to abuse her but he ignored her pleas and told her to undress.  AAA claimed that Celocelo removed her jogging pants and panty while pointing a lansetang dipindot (automatic knife) at her.  She was then forced to sit on top of Celocelo, face to face, who by then positioned himself on the toilet bowl, and while holding a knife with his right hand and holding her arm with his left hand, proceeded to rape her by moving AAA up and down.  AAA said that after Celocelo raped her, he told her to dress herself and not to tell anybody or he will come back to kill her.  AAA said that after the incident, she found herself on her sister’s doorsteps, inconsolably crying.  AAA, together with her sister, her sister’s husband, and one of her brothers, went back to AAA’s house to tell their parents who became hysterical upon learning that AAA was raped.  They proceeded to the Barangay office to report the incident, and Celocelo was arrested that morning in his work place.

Celocelo, in his testimony, denied AAA’s claim that he raped her.  He said that he had been seeing and courting AAA for three months prior to the incident.  On July 25, 1998, he went to AAA’s house at around eight o’clock in the evening.  AAA allowed him to enter her house, and it was then when he told her that he liked her.  AAA favorably responded to his proposal with “Oo, sinasagot na kita,” and when he asked for a kiss, she willingly obliged.  However, after about 30 seconds of kissing, Celocelo said that AAA stopped for fear that her mother might catch them as they were in the living room.  She then took his hand and led him to the comfort room outside their house.  Celocelo said that it was AAA who undressed herself and it was she who sat on top of him to have sexual intercourse.  They agreed to meet again the following day as it was his pay day, but when he reported for work, he was arrested for allegedly raping AAA.^[17][13]

 Edgardo de Vera was also presented as a witness for Celocelo.  De Vera is Celocelo’s brother-in-law and he testified that he was the one who introduced Celocelo to AAA.  He claimed that AAA always watched Celocelo play basketball and she was particularly happy whenever the ball was in Celocelo’s hands.  He also claimed that AAA would hold Celocelo’s hands when congratulating him and would ask him to pass by their bench during time-outs.^[18][14]

On August 31, 2004, the RTC convicted Celocelo for the crime of rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the offended party the sum of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00).  The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered finding accused Rene Celocelo GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as charged and hereby sentenced to suffer the prison term of reclusion perpetua and likewise suffer the accessory penalty provided for by law and to pay the complainant, [AAA], the sum of P100,000.00 and to pay the costs.^[19][15]

The RTC, in its decision, said that the issue it was faced with was whether or not the sexual congress was attended with the use of force or intimidation.  The RTC resolved the issue in the affirmative and held that it believed that there was indeed force and intimidation when Celocelo poked a knife at AAA while having sexual intercourse with her.  The RTC said that it was but natural for AAA to not fight back or even make any noise for fear of what Celocelo might do to her and her family.  The RTC found AAA to be a credible witness as it had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of AAA and saw that she was “straightforward in denouncing the accused while [he] appeared [to be] impishly smiling as [AAA] denounced him.”^[20][16] 

          On intermediate appellate review before the Court of Appeals, Celocelo alleged that the RTC erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and assigned the following errors:

I

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE INCREDIBLE TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT.

II

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FAILURE OF [THE] PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

III

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT MAKING A FINDING OF FACTS IN ITS DECISION, WHICH IS A REVERSIBLE ERROR.^[21][17]

          Celocelo alleged that AAA’s “account of how she was raped by [Celocelo] is contrary to human experience”^[22][18] when she said that her jogging pants and panty were pulled down to her ankles and yet she was able to sit on top of him.  Celocelo also asserted that the RTC was not able to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt as it relied mainly on the testimony of AAA.  Moreover, Celocelo claimed that the RTC’s decision was constitutionally and procedurally infirm as it “did not bother to state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it was based,”^[23][19] as required by both the 1987 Constitution^[24][20] and the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure.^[25][21]

The Court of Appeals sustained Celocelo’s conviction and addressed each of the assigned errors.  With regard to the inconsistencies in AAA’s testimony, the Court of Appeals believed that the inconsistency Celocelo was pointing out was fully explained in the same testimony.

Next, the Court of Appeals defended the RTC’s reliance on the testimony of AAA, as the RTC found AAA’s demeanor consistent with her allegation that Celocelo raped her.  The Court of Appeals stated that the findings of the RTC “on the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies are generally accorded great respect by an appellate court,”^[26][22] and since Celocelo was unable to present proof of overlooked or misappreciated facts and circumstances that would alter the results of the case, there was no reason to disregard the RTC’s findings of facts.

On the last assignment of error, the Court of Appeals held that the fact that the judgment may not be satisfactory to Celocelo is not enough to convince it that the decision is flawed.^[27][23]  The Court of Appeals maintained that the conviction was based on facts on record and sound doctrines applicable to the case.  The Court of Appeals further noted the Solicitor General’s argument that, while the RTC’s decision may be short, it is neither constitutionally nor procedurally infirm as only the “essential ultimate facts” upon which the court’s conclusion is drawn are required to be stated in the court’s decision.^[28][24]

         In finding that the prosecution was able to establish Celocelo’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the Court of Appeals, on February 28, 2006, affirmed the RTC with clarification on the award, to wit:

            WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED with clarification that the award of “P100,000.00” should cover the (a) civil indemnity of P50,000.00 and (b) moral damages of P50,000.00.^[29][25]

          On March 23, 2006, Celocelo filed his Notice of Appeal and subsequently filed a Manifestation that he is adopting the arguments in his Appellant’s Brief in this appeal.

          This Court believes that the resolution of this case hinges upon whether or not Celocelo’s guilt for the crime of rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

It is doctrinal that the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal law does not mean such a degree of proof as to exclude the possibility of error and produce absolute certainty.  Only moral certainty is required or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. x x x.^[30][26]

In reviewing rape cases, this Court is guided by three settled principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the person accused, although innocent, to disprove; (2) considering the intrinsic nature of the crime, only two persons being usually involved, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.^[31][27]

Rape is a serious transgression with grave consequences for both the accused and the complainant.  Using the above guiding principles in the review of rape cases, this Court is thus duty-bound to conduct a thorough and exhaustive evaluation of a judgment of conviction for rape. ^[32][28]

This Court has made a painstaking scrutiny of the entire records of the case, including both parties’ exhibits and the transcript of stenographic notes, and finds no reason to reverse the Courts below.

Celocelo was charged in the information under Article 266-A, paragraph 1, in relation to Article 266-B, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353.^[33][29]

Carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following instances constitutes rape:  (1) when force or intimidation is used; (2) when the woman is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious; and (3) when she is under twelve (12) years of age.^[34][30]  In the case at bar, AAA gave categorical testimony that Celocelo was armed with a knife when he forced himself upon her, to wit:

Q:        How did you come to know that he is made, very mad?

A:         He pulled my hair.

Q:        What else, if any?

A:         He is also pointing to me a LANSETANG DIPINDOT on my right side.

Q:        Now, after pulling your hair and pointing a knife at the right side of your body, what else did Rene Celocelo do?

A:         He told me to undress myself.

Q:        What did you do when Rene Celocelo [told] you to undress yourself?

A:         Still I pleaded to him, continuosly pleading to him but he did the raped to me.

Q:        And what happened after that?

A:         And he removed my panty.

Q:        How did he remove your panty?

A:         While his left hand is pointing to me, at my right side of my body, he uses his other hand in removing the panty.

Q:        After removing the panty, what else did he do?

A:         GINALAW NA NIYA PO AKO, he inserted his private parts to my genital.^[35][31]

It is evident from the foregoing that force with the use of a deadly weapon was in fact employed by Celocelo on AAA to accomplish his depraved desires that dawn.  AAA pleaded for Celocelo to not abuse her but instead he threatened her and her family, to wit:

Q:        Why did you not, at the time that Rene was dragging you towards the bathroom, why did you not shout and ask for help from your housemate?

A:         Because, according to him if I will shout, he will not hesitate to kill me.

Q:        How did you feel, when he uttered those words to you?

A:         So, I kept silent fright and pleading to him.

Q:        Why did you cry?

A:         I only cried, sir, because I do not want that my brothers who are also inside the bedroom will be affected, or will be involved.

Q:        Now, how did you feel when Rene Celocelo uttered those words to you?

A:         PURO TAKOT NA PO. I am afraid, sir.

Q:        From the time that Rene Celocelo was removing your Jogging Pants, or pulling down your Jogging Pants as well as your panty, why did you not shout and ask for help?

A:         Because he is threatening me that he will kill me if I will shout including my brothers and sisters.^[36][32]

Celocelo insists that both the RTC and the Court of Appeals erred in giving full weight and credence to AAA’s testimony, claiming that her testimony was incredible as the “manner as to how she was allegedly raped by [Celocelo] is patently incredible and contrary to human experience and observation.”^[37][33]

Celocelo makes much of the fact that in one part of AAA’s testimony, she said that during the sexual intercourse, her jogging pants and panty were only pulled down up to her ankles, while she was sitting on top of Celocelo, with her legs spread wide open.^[38][34]  Celocelo however missed the more important fact that the RTC itself clarified this issue in the same testimony:

Court:   By the way, while the accused was pulling you up and down, were you facing him or your face backwards of him?

A:         I was facing.

Court:   And at that time, you had your jogging pants down to your ankle?

A:         Well, it was only the other pair of the jogging pants was not removed, the other one was completely removed.

Court:   Do I understand correctly, that while the accused was doing the push and pull movement, you legs were open?

A:         Yes, your Honor.^[39][35] (Emphasis ours.)

It is only human for AAA to not be able to readily narrate the exact details of her experience when questioned.  The Court has in the past observed that “[i]t would not really be unusual for one to recollect a good number of things about an eventful incident but what should be strange is when one can put to mind everything.”^[40][36]  As this Court has time and again declared:

Etched in our jurisprudence is the doctrine that a victim of a savage crime cannot be expected to mechanically retain and then give an accurate account of every lurid detail of a frightening experience – a verity born out of human nature and experience.  This is especially true with a rape victim who is required to utilize every fiber of her body and mind to repel an attack from a stronger aggressor. x x x.^[41][37]

This error cannot impair the credibility of AAA especially since first, the imputed inconsistency or incredible testimony was later explained and clarified by no less than the RTC itself, and second, the RTC, who was in the best position to determine if AAA were indeed credible, believed her to be so, to wit:

The Court had been observant of the demeanor of the complainant and the accused in the course of the trial and found that the complainant was straightforward in denouncing the accused while the accused appeared impishly smiling as the complainant denounced him.^[42][38]

We once again reiterate the time-honored maxim that the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to the highest respect.  It was the trial court that had the opportunity to observe the witnesses’ manner of testifying, their furtive glances, calmness, sighs and the scant or full realization of their oath.^[43][39] 

Celocelo also claims that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.  In rape cases, there are usually only two witnesses: the complainant and the accused.  It is a settled rule that rape may be proven by the uncorroborated testimony of the offended victim, as long as her testimony is conclusive, logical and probable.^[44][40]

As we have ascertained that AAA was a credible witness, it bears stressing that her lone testimony, which was also shown to be conclusive, logical, and probable, is enough to convict Celocelo of the crime of rape.

What is essential is that AAA categorically identified her attacker as Celocelo after she stated in open court and in her sworn statement that Celocelo dragged her by her hair into the comfort room outside her house, threatened her with a knife, undressed her, and then raped her.  These are the fundamental points in her testimonies constitutive of the crime of rape.^[45][41]

What AAA did after the rape is also telling.  Immediately after the incident, she mindlessly walked towards the house of her sister and just cried on her doorstep.  They then informed their parents about what happened, and without delay, they reported the incident to the Barangay office.  On the very same day, AAA subjected herself to a thorough medico-legal examination.  The foregoing actions of AAA, subsequent to the rape, overwhelmingly establish the truth of the charge of rape.  They were spontaneous, impulsive and unpretentious. 

Moreover, Celocelo has not shown any improper motive on the part of AAA for her to accuse him of rape.  This Court has in many cases held that no young Filipina would publicly admit that she had been criminally abused and ravished, unless it is the truth, for it is her natural instinct to protect her honor.^[46][42]

These facts were also found by the RTC, and stated in its decision, however short it may be.  Borrowing the Court of Appeals’ words:

The assailed decision may not be the kind of judgment rendered to the satisfaction of the accused.  But such is not enough to convince Us that it is flawed.^[47][43]

          The RTC based its decision on the transcript of stenographic notes, and all the documents collected during the course of the trial.  It explained why it believed AAA to be a credible witness and even described Celocelo’s demeanor during the trial.  It used settled principles, as established by this Court in its evaluation of the evidence and the records.  The RTC cannot be faulted for its desire to be brief, concise, and straight to the point in penning its decision.

In fine, the prosecution was able to discharge its burden of proving Celocelo’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt under Article 266-A, paragraph 1, in relation to Article 266-B, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code.

Civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of rape.^[48][44]  Moral damages are automatically awarded without need of further proof, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling the victim to such award.^[49][45]  Taking into account the fact that the rape was attended with the use of a deadly weapon, a qualifying circumstance under Article 266-B, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, an award of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages is justified.  This kind of damages is intended to serve as deterrent to serious wrongdoings, as a vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured, or as punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct. ^[50][46]

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 28, 2006 finding Rene Celocelo GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.  Appellant is further ordered to pay private complainant exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00 plus interest at the rate of 6% per annum on ALL damages from the date of finality of this judgment.  No Costs.

SO ORDERED.

                                                 TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

                                       Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

RENATO C. CORONA

Chief Justice

Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

RENATO C. CORONA

Chief Justice

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. MONTANO FLORES Y PARAS (G.R. NO. 177355, 15 DECEMBER 2010, J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO) SUBJECTS: ELEMENTS OF QUALIFIED RAPE; HOW TO PROVE THAT VICTIM IS MINOR. BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS. FLORES.

x- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –  – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -x

DIGEST:

FLORES WAS CHARGED WITH QUALIFED RAPE. HIS DEFENSE WAS THAT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE VICTIM WAS A MINOR. SC RULED THE PROSECUTION INDEED FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE VICTIM WAS A MINOR. BUT RAPE WAS COMMITTED BEFORE THE MOTHER OF THE VICTIM. THUS, IT WAS STILL QUALIFIED RAPE.

DOCTRINES

HOW TO PROVE THAT RAPE VICTIM IS A MINOR.

. . . .  this Court, in People v. Pruna,^[1][18] has set out 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.^[2][19]

In the case at bar, not only did the prosecution fail to present AAA’s birth certificate, but BBB, the victim’s mother herself, gave contradictory statements on the true age of her daughter.  At one time she said that AAA was 13 years old, and yet when asked about the year of AAA’s birthday, she declared that it was 1982.  AAA herself did not know the exact year she was born.  The Certification from the Municipal Civil Registrar^[3][20] of General Luna, Quezon that both parties offered as evidence of AAA’s age has no probative value because it was not a certification as to the true age of AAA but as to the fact that the records of birth filed in their archives included those registered from 1930 up to the time the certificate was requested, and that records for the period of 1930 – June 23, 1994 were razed by fire. 

RAPE IS QUALIFIED RAPE IF MADE IN THE VIEW OF THE PARENTS/MOTHER:

        However, as the Court of Appeals correctly ruled, Flores still cannot escape the penalty of death.  Flores forgot the important fact that aside from AAA’s minority, the qualifying circumstance that the rape was committed in full view of AAA’s mother was also alleged in the Information, . . .

        …..

        Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, when rape is committed in full view of the parent, the penalty to be imposed is death, to wit:

        ART. 266-B. Penalties.- Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

        x x x x

        The death penalty shall 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;

2)   When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities or any law enforcement or penal institution;

3)   When the rape is committed in full view of the spouse, parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third civil degree of consanguinity.

4)   When the victim is a religious engaged in legitimate religious vocation or calling and is personally known to be such by the offender before or at the time of the commission of the crime;

5)   When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old;

6)   When the offender knows that he is afflicted with Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus (HIV)/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or any other sexually transmissible disease and the virus or disease is transmitted to the victim;

7)   When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or para-military units thereof or the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency or penal institution, when the offender took advantage of his position to facilitate the commission of the crime;

8)   When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim suffered permanent physical mutilation or disability;

9)   When the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime and;

10)  When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime. (Emphases ours.)

X – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –  – – – – X

D E C I S I O N

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

Accused-appellant Montano Flores is now before us on review after the Court of Appeals, in its Decision^[1][1] dated November 21, 2006, in CA-G.R. CR No. 00502, affirmed in toto, the October 13, 2004 Decision^[2][2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 62, Gumaca, Quezon, in Criminal Case No. 7098-G, which found Flores guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Rape as defined and penalized under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code and imposed on him the penalty of DEATH and the payment of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity, Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages and Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) as exemplary damages.

On August 17, 2001, Flores was charged before the RTC of Rape.  The accusatory portion of the Information reads:

That on or about the 18^th day of June 2001, at Barangay Payte, Municipality of Pitogo, Province of Quezon, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd designs, armed with a bladed weapon, with force, threats and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one [AAA],^[3][3] a minor, 13 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense, against her will.

That the crime of rape was committed with the qualifying circumstances of victim being under 18 years of age, the accused is her stepfather, being the common-law spouse of her mother, and that the rape was committed in full view of the victim’s mother, [BBB].^[4][4]

Flores pleaded not guilty to the charge upon arraignment on February 12, 2002.  Trial on the merits ensued after the termination of the pre-trial conference.

          The prosecution’s first witness was Dr. Purita T. Tullas, the Medical Officer of Gumaca District Hospital who examined the victim AAA.  She produced the Medico-Legal Certificate dated June 19, 2001, wherein she made the following findings:

P.E.      *          No signs of external physical injury

            I.E.       :           Vulva – presence of moderate amount

 of pubic hair

                                    Labia majora and minora well coaptated

                                                Contusion labia minora, left

Vaginal orifice – admits 5^th finger

with resistance

Hymen – fresh lacerations at 3, 6,

and 9 o’clock

Vaginal smear – negative for sperm cells.^[5][5]

Dr. Tullas testified that the labia minora was slightly swollen and reddish which means that there was a forceful penetration probably by a male sex organ, and that the lacerations could have been inflicted within 24 hours before the examination.  The doctor also said that it was most likely AAA’s first sexual experience as the orifice of her vagina was still tight and AAA felt pain when she was examined.  Dr. Tullas said that the absence of sperm cells was probably because AAA had washed her organ before she went to the hospital for examination.  Dr. Tullas further testified that AAA was around 13 years old as her body only started to physically develop.^[6][6]

BBB, the victim’s mother, was presented next.  She testified that AAA was 13 years old at the time of the incident, and that AAA was her daughter with her late husband.  She confirmed that Flores was her live-in-partner for ten years prior to the incident and that they all lived together in one house.  BBB swore that on the fateful evening of July 18, 2001, at around eight o’clock, Flores ordered her to ask her daughter AAA to sleep with them.  Both AAA and BBB obeyed Flores for fear of his wrath.  At around ten o’clock in the evening, BBB was awakened by the pinch of her daughter,  BBB was then shocked to see that Flores was already on top of her daughter, who was shouting “Aray, Aray, Nanay, Aray.”  She felt angry but could not do anything because Flores not only had a bladed weapon poked at her neck, but he also threatened to kill her if she shouted.  BBB endured this horrifying episode for the next thirty minutes.  The following day, BBB accompanied her daughter AAA to the Barangay Captain to report the incident.  They went to the municipality’s Department of Social Welfare and Development then proceeded to the Gumaca District Hospital.^[7][7] 

The third witness for the prosecution was the victim herself, AAA.  She testified that she knew Flores because he was the common-law spouse of her mother.  She identified him in open court and said that she filed this case against him because he raped her.  She testified that on the night she was raped, she was sleeping between Flores and her mother, BBB, when she was awakened by Flores who removed her shorts and panty.  Flores then proceeded to insert his penis into her vagina, making a push and pull movement.  She shouted in pain and tried to wake her mother up by pinching her.  However, AAA realized that her mother will not be able to help her as she felt the bladed weapon Flores had poked at BBB’s neck.^[8][8]

Flores, for himself, denied raping AAA.  He claimed that BBB was his mother-in-law and not his live-in partner.  He alleged that he and AAA had been “sweethearts” for four years prior to the incident and that it was the first time he and AAA had sexual relations due to his enormous respect for her.  He also claimed that it was AAA who slept beside him and he was the one awakened by AAA, whom he found on top of him.  He averred that AAA was already 19 years old at the time of the incident and even produced a Certification from the Office of the Municipal Civil Registrar^[9][9] of General Luna, Quezon to prove that AAA was no longer a minor at the time of the sexual intercourse.  He also claimed that he and AAA talked after this case was filed and they agreed to get married, but AAA could not withdraw the case for fear of her mother.  Flores further claimed that the reason why this charge was filed against him was because he refused to live with BBB, who wanted Flores for herself.^[10][10]

On October 13, 2004, the RTC handed down a guilty verdict against Flores and imposed on him the supreme penalty of death:

            WHEREFORE AND IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court finds accused MONTANO FLORES guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Rape defined and punished under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 8353 and imposes upon him the penalty of DEATH, and in addition, to pay the amount of Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php50,000.00 as moral damages and Php25,000.00 as exemplary damages.^[11][11]

In its decision, the RTC debunked Flores’ “sweetheart defense.”  The RTC said that AAA’s testimony was frank, candid, and straightforward,^[12][12] and AAA was able to establish that Flores was able to have carnal knowledge of her, and his guilt for the crime of rape.^[13][13]  The RTC further held that AAA’s allegations were not only corroborated by her own mother’s testimony, but also by the medico-legal findings of Dr. Tullas.  The RTC found Flores’ imputation of ill motive on BBB was incredible as no mother would subject her own daughter to such humiliation and shame, just because she was shunned by the man she desires.  In sum, the RTC said that all the essential elements of rape were proven and duly established, and Flores’ blanket denial cannot overcome the categorical assertions of AAA.^[14][14]

          On intermediate appellate review, the Court of appeals was faced with the sole issue of whether or not the RTC erred in sentencing him to death:

LONE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN IMPOSING UPON THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT THE SUPREME PENALTY OF DEATH IN VIEW OF THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT’S MINORITY.^[15][15]

          Flores claimed that the RTC erred in sentencing him to death considering that AAA was already 18 years old at the time of the alleged rape.  Flores averred that although AAA was stated to be 13 years old in the Information, AAA was in fact no longer a minor, as shown in the Certification issued by the Office of the Municipal Civil Registrar of General Luna, Quezon.  The Court of Appeals agreed with Flores that AAA was indeed already 18 years old when she was raped.  However, this did not prevent the Court of Appeals from affirming the imposition of the death penalty as the rape was committed in full view of AAA’s mother, hence, under the Revised Penal Code, the death penalty shall still be imposed.  The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals’ decision reads:

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error, the appealed Decision dated October 13, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 62, Gumaca, Quezon, finding appellant MONTANO FLORES guilty of the crime of QUALIFIED RAPE is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.  However, in lieu of the death penalty imposed by the trial court, appellant is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346.  With regards to civil indemnity, the accused is hereby ORDERED TO PAY the victim the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity.

            And in addition, accused is also ORDERED to pay the victim P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.^[16][16]

On December 6, 2006, Flores filed his Notice of Appeal and subsequently filed a Manifestation that he is adopting the arguments in his Appellant’s Brief in this appeal.

Flores is now before this Court with the same lone assignment of error, wherein he questions the propriety of the imposition of the death penalty upon him in view of the fact that AAA’s minority was not conclusively proven by the prosecution.

This Court has made a thorough and exhaustive review of all the records of this case and has found no reason to reverse the judgment below.

We agree with Flores that AAA’s age was not proven with certainty.  This Court has held that for minority to be considered as a qualifying circumstance in the crime of rape, it must not only be alleged in the Information, but it must also be established with moral certainty.^[17][17]  Noting the divergent rulings on the proof required to establish the age of the victim in rape cases, this Court, in People v. Pruna,^[18][18] has set out 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.^[19][19]

In the case at bar, not only did the prosecution fail to present AAA’s birth certificate, but BBB, the victim’s mother herself, gave contradictory statements on the true age of her daughter.  At one time she said that AAA was 13 years old, and yet when asked about the year of AAA’s birthday, she declared that it was 1982.  AAA herself did not know the exact year she was born.  The Certification from the Municipal Civil Registrar^[20][20] of General Luna, Quezon that both parties offered as evidence of AAA’s age has no probative value because it was not a certification as to the true age of AAA but as to the fact that the records of birth filed in their archives included those registered from 1930 up to the time the certificate was requested, and that records for the period of 1930 – June 23, 1994 were razed by fire. 

          However, as the Court of Appeals correctly ruled, Flores still cannot escape the penalty of death.  Flores forgot the important fact that aside from AAA’s minority, the qualifying circumstance that the rape was committed in full view of AAA’s mother was also alleged in the Information, to wit:

That on or about the 18^th day of June 2001, at Barangay Payte, Municipality of Pitogo, Province of Quezon, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd designs, armed with a bladed weapon, with force, threats and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one [AAA], a minor, 13 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense, against her will.

That the crime of rape was committed with the qualifying circumstances of victim being under 18 years of age, the accused is her stepfather, being the common-law spouse of her mother, and that the rape was committed in full view of the victim’s mother, [BBB].^[21][21]

          Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, when rape is committed in full view of the parent, the penalty to be imposed is death, to wit:

           ART. 266-B. Penalties.- Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

           x x x x

           The death penalty shall 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;

2)   When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities or any law enforcement or penal institution;

3)   When the rape is committed in full view of the spouse, parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third civil degree of consanguinity.

4)   When the victim is a religious engaged in legitimate religious vocation or calling and is personally known to be such by the offender before or at the time of the commission of the crime;

5)   When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old;

6)   When the offender knows that he is afflicted with Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus (HIV)/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or any other sexually transmissible disease and the virus or disease is transmitted to the victim;

7)   When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or para-military units thereof or the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency or penal institution, when the offender took advantage of his position to facilitate the commission of the crime;

8)   When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim suffered permanent physical mutilation or disability;

9)   When the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime and;

10)  When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime. (Emphases ours.)

          Both the RTC and the Court of Appeals found that the prosecution was able to sufficiently prove the qualifying circumstance that Flores raped AAA in full view of her mother.  This Court has found the testimonies of both AAA and BBB to be candid, frank, and genuine.  Despite the fact that both daughter and mother did not know how to read nor write, they were able to narrate to the court their harrowing experience with the utmost openness, candor, and sincerity.  AAA’s mother recounted the painful details of that night in a straightforward manner, to wit:

Q         On that particular date and time, what were you doing then?

A         While Montano was doing that to the victim, I was lying and I was being pinched by my daughter, Mam.

INTERPRETER:

            The witness demonstrating gesture on her neck.

PROSECUTOR FLORIDO:

Q         Now, when you were awakened, when your daughter was pinching your neck, what did you see?

A         He was on top of her, Mam.

Q         Who was on top?

A         Montano, Mam.

Q         And who was under?

A         [AAA], Mam.

Q         And what was happening when this Montano was on top of [AAA]?

A         My daughter was crying, Mam.

Q         And while this Montano was on top of [AAA], what was Montano actually doing?

A         Iniiyot po niya. He was having sexual intercourse with her.

Q         And during the time that he was doing sexual intercourse with her, your daughter was crying?

A         Yes, Mam.

Q         So, when you have seen those incident, your live-in-partner was having sexual intercourse with your daughter while your daughter was crying, what did you do, if any?

A         I let, I just allowed them. “Nagpabaya na lamang.”

Q         Why did you say you let them allow?

A         Because he was poking a weapon on me, Mam.

Q         Who was poking a weapon? On you?

A         He, Mam.

Q         Are you referring to Montano?

A         Yes, Mam.

Q         What kind of weapon was that?

A         The one used in scalling fish, Mam.

Q         Was that a sharp object?

A         Yes, Mam.

Q         Do I get from you, while Montano Flores was having sexual intercourse with your daughter, your daughter was crying and this Montano Flores was poking a weapon a sharp instrument on you?

A         Yes, Mam.^[22][22]

It is indisputable that when Flores raped AAA, he committed such act in full view of BBB, AAA’s mother.  Hence, the RTC was correct in imposing upon Flores the penalty of death as it found Flores guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified rape.  However, although under the Death Penalty Law,^[23][23] the crime of qualified rape is punishable by death, Republic Act No. 9346,^[24][24] which took effect on June 24, 2006, prohibits the imposition of the death penalty.  Under this Act, the proper penalty to be imposed upon Flores in lieu of the death penalty is reclusion perpetua,^[25][25] without eligibility for parole.^[26][26]

Civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of rape.^[27][27]  Moral damages are automatically awarded without need of further proof, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling the victim to such award.^[28][28]  Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence,^[29][29] the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages must be increased to Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00), and exemplary damages increased from Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00)

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 00502, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.  Accused-appellant Montano Flores y Paras is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of QUALIFIED RAPE, and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, in lieu of death, without eligibility for parole.  He is ordered to pay the victim AAA Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity, Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages and Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages, ALL with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.

                                                 TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

                                       Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

RENATO C. CORONA

Chief Justice

Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

RENATO C. CORONA

Chief Justice

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ANDRES C. FONTILLAS (G.R. NO. 184177, 15 DECEMBER 2010, J. LEONARDO DE CASTRO) SUBJECTS: INCONSISTENCIES AND IMPROBABILITIES IN TESTIMONY; INTOXICATION; DAMAGES IN RAPE CASE. BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS. FONTILLAS.

x- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –  – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -x

DOCTRINES

IMPROBABILITIES OR INCONSISTENCIES MAY BE SET ASIDE IF THEY REFER TO MINOR DETAILS

Neither do we give much weight to the alleged inconsistency between the physical evidence and AAA’s version of the rape incident.  We note that Dr. Edaño was able to examine AAA only on December 10, 2001, two days after the rape.  During cross-examination, Dr. Edaño explained that the two old lacerations she found on AAA’s vagina could have happened several weeks or days before the examination.  Hence, the old lacerations could still have been caused by and is not irreconcilably inconsistent with the rape of AAA two days earlier.  As the Court of Appeals observed, the improbabilities or inconsistencies cited by accused-appellant refer to minor details that do not directly pertain to the elements of the crime of rape or to the identification of accused-appellant as the rapist; and do not detract from the proven fact that accused-appellant had sexual intercourse with AAA through force, intimidation, and grave abuse of authority.    

BARE DENIAL CANNOT OVERTURN POSITIVE TESTIMONY

Accused-appellant’s bare denial cannot overturn AAA’s positive testimony.  As we fittingly ruled in People v. Mendoza^[1][22]:

It is well-settled that denial is essentially the weakest form of defense and it can never overcome an affirmative testimony particularly when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness.  Accused-appellant’s bare assertion that private complainant was just “using” him to allow her to freely frolic with other men, particularly with a certain Renato Planas, begs the credulity of this Court.  This is especially true in the light of our consistent pronouncement that “no decent and sensible woman will publicly admit being a rape victim and thus run the risk of public contempt – the dire consequence of a rape charge – unless she is, in fact, a rape victim.”  More in point is our pronouncement in People v. Canoy [G.R. Nos. 148139-43, 15 October 2003, 413 SCRA 490], to wit:

… It is unthinkable for a daughter to accuse her own father, to submit herself for examination of her most intimate parts, put her life to public scrutiny and expose herself, along with her family, to shame, pity or even ridicule not just for a simple offense but for a crime so serious that could mean the death sentence to the very person to whom she owes her life, had she really not have been aggrieved.  Nor do we believe that the victim would fabricate a story of rape simply because she wanted to exact revenge against her father, appellant herein, for allegedly scolding and maltreating her.^[2][23]

RULE ON INTOXICATION: IT  CAN BE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE WHEN THE OFFENDER HAS COMMITTED A FELONY IN A STATE OF INTOXICATION, IF THE SAME IS NOT HABITUAL OR SUBSEQUENT TO THE PLAN TO COMMIT SAID FELONY; BUT WHEN THE INTOXICATION IS HABITUAL OR INTENTIONAL, IT SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS AN AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE.

The Court of Appeals correctly rejected the accused-appellant’s assertion that his extreme intoxication from alcohol on the night of the rape should be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance.  Section 15 of the Revised Penal Code, on alternative circumstances, provides:

ART. 15.  Their concept. – Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its commission.  They are the relationship, intoxication and the degree of instruction and education of the offender.

x x x x

The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstance when the offender has committed a felony in a state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit said felony; but when the intoxication is habitual or intentional, it shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.

Accused appellant did not present any evidence that his intoxication was not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the rape.  The person pleading intoxication must likewise prove that he took such quantity of alcoholic beverage, prior to the commission of the crime, as would blur his reason.^[3][24]  Accused-appellant utterly failed to present clear and convincing proof of the extent of his intoxication on the night of December 8, 2001 and that the amount of liquor he had taken was of such quantity as to affect his mental faculties.  Not one of accused-appellant’s drinking buddies testified that they, in fact, consumed eight bottles of gin prior to the rape incident. 

RULE ON DAMAGES IN RAPE CASE:

Hence, the conviction of the accused-appellant of qualified rape without any mitigating circumstance by the Court of Appeals must be affirmed.  Regarding the penalty imposed for the crime committed by the accused-appellant, the appellate court properly imposed upon accused-appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, instead of death, pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346.  We also affirm the order of the appellate court that accused-appellant pay AAA the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity and another Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages, for being consistent with current jurisprudence on qualified rape.  However, we increase the award of exemplary damages from Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) in line with recent case law.^[4][25] 

x- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –  – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -x

D E C I S I O N

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

On appeal is the Decision^[1][1] dated January 29, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01792, which affirmed with modification the Decision^[2][2] dated October 28, 2005 of Branch 69 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iba, Zambales, convicting accused-appellant Andres Fontillas, also known as “Anding,” of qualified rape as defined and penalized under Articles 266-A(1)(c) and 266-B(1) of the Revised Penal Code. 

The real name 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 her identity, are withheld pursuant to People v. Cabalquinto^[3][3] and People v. Guillermo.^[4][4]  Thus, the initials AAA represent the private offended party while the initials BBB, CCC, DDD, and EEE refer to her relatives.

Accused-appellant was indicted for rape qualified by his relationship with and the minority of AAA.  The criminal information filed with the RTC read:

That on or about the 8^th day of December 2001 at [Barangay] Bamban, Municipality of Masinloc, Province of Zambales, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with lewd design and with grave abuse of authority, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have sexual intercourse with and carnal knowledge of his own daughter, 13-year old [AAA], without her consent and against her will, to the damage and prejudice of said [AAA].^[5][5]

        Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty on June 24, 2002.  After the pre-trial conference on September 23, 2002, trial ensued.

        The prosecution presented the testimonies of AAA, the private offended party; Dr. Liezl dela Llana Edaño (Dr. Edaño), the medico-legal who physically examined AAA for signs of sexual abuse; and Narcisa Cubian, a social worker from the Department of Social Welfare and Development, formerly assigned at the Home for Girls in Olongapo City, who testified that AAA was referred and placed under the protective custody of said institution.  The prosecution dispensed with the testimonies of Senior Police Officer 3 Zaldy Apsay, the police officer who investigated AAA’s complaint; and Ana A. Ecle (Ecle), the social worker who referred AAA for protective custody at the Home for Girls in Olongapo City, as the defense admitted the subject matter of their testimonies.  The documentary exhibits for the prosecution consisted of Dr. Edaño’s Medico-Legal Report;^[6][6] AAA’s “Sinumpaang Salaysay” and Verified Complaint;^[7][7] Ecle’s Letter and Social Case Study Report;^[8][8] and AAA’s Certificate of Live Birth.^[9][9] 

The defense, on the other hand, presented the testimonies of accused-appellant who denied AAA’s accusation; and EEE, accused-appellant’s relative and neighbor, who testified that at around 8:30 p.m. on December 8, 2001, he saw accused-appellant under a tamarind tree, drunk, with his head bowed down. 

        In its Decision dated October 28, 2005, the RTC decreed:

IN VIEW THEREOF, accused Andres Fontillas y Calpo is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Incestuous Rape and is hereby sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH.  Accused is ordered to pay the victim P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.^[10][10]

The RTC transmitted the records of the case to the Court of Appeals for automatic review.  Accused-appellant filed his Brief^[11][11] on July 18, 2006 while the plaintiff-appellee, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed its Brief^[12][12] on November 16, 2006.

The Court of Appeals summarized the evidence of the parties as follows:

In the evening of 08 December 2001, while private complainant was sleeping in their house in Bamban, Masinloc, Zambales with her younger brother [BBB], she was awakened by the arrival of their father, appellant Andres Fontillas, whom she heard coughing.  She stood up and helped appellant enter their house because he was drunk.  She let him sleep beside them.  After a while, she was roused by appellant who was then taking off her short pants.  She cried but he warned her not to make any noise.  After removing his own pants, appellant pressed down (“inipit”) both her hands and feet and covered her mouth with his hands.  She kept quiet because she was afraid of him.  Then he inserted his penis into her vagina causing complainant to feel pain in her private part.

After satisfying his lust, appellant went out of the house and proceeded to a store nearby while his daughter stayed in their house pretending that she was washing their clothes.  When appellant left, she went to report the incident to her Aunt [CCC] who lived nearby.  After hearing her story, her Aunt [CCC] did not allow her to go back to their house.  Complainant also informed her Uncle [DDD] about the incident.  He then brought her to the police station where she executed a sworn statement.  After the investigation, complainant was brought to the Home for Girls where she still presently resides.

Dr. Liezl Dela Llana Edaño, the municipal health officer of the Rural Health Unit of Masinloc, Zambales, conducted the physical examination on the victim and made the following findings:

“Pertinent Findings: Conscious, coherent, ambulatory not in any form of cardio respiratory distress.

Genitalia: (+) old hymenal laceration at 6 & 8 o’clock position.  Admits one finger with ease.

No other physical injuries noted at the time of the examination.

Laboratory Exam done: attached”

Denying the charge that he ravished his own daughter, [accused-appellant] testified that he worked as a fisherman and mango sprayer seven days a week because he did not want to waste any opportunity to earn.  On cross-examination, he admitted that he had a drinking spree with friends on the night of 07 December and that he got too drunk.  He likewise testified that he could not remember what happened that evening but only recalled that he woke up at 6:00 in the morning lying beside the door of their shanty.

The defense also presented [EEE] who testified that in the evening of 08 December 2001, he saw his cousin, accused-appellant herein, under a tamarind tree with his head bowed resting on a bench.  He approached appellant and found him very drunk so he left him there.  He recounted that in the morning of 09 December 2001, his niece, the private complainant, went to his house and informed him that she was raped by her father.^[13][13]

After its evaluation of the evidence, the Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of guilt by the RTC but modified the penalty imposed, thus:

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 69) of Iba, Zambales, in Criminal Case No. RTC 3360-I finding accused-appellant Andres Fontillas y Calpo alias “Anding” GUILTY of the crime of incestuous rape is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.  As modified, the penalty of death is hereby reduced to reclusion perpetua.^[14][14]

Thereafter, accused-appellant appealed his conviction before us.  In a Minute Resolution^[15][15] dated October 6, 2008, we required the parties to file their respective supplemental briefs.  The plaintiff-appellee filed a Manifestation^[16][16] dated November 17, 2008, informing the Court that it was no longer filing a supplemental brief since it had already substantially and exhaustively refuted accused-appellant’s arguments in its Brief before the Court of Appeals.  On the other hand, accused-appellant filed his Supplemental Brief^[17][17] dated December 5, 2008.

The Accused-Appellant’s Brief assigns the following errors on the part of the RTC:

I

The trial court gravely erred in finding that the accused-appellant’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

II

The trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant despite the weak evidence presented by the prosecution.

III

On the assumption that the accused-appellant committed the acts complained of, the trial court erred in not considering the severe state of intoxication of the accused-appellant.^[18][18]

Accused-appellant asserts that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.  He puts AAA’s credibility into question considering AAA’s failure to defend herself or to resist the assault, even when accused-appellant supposedly had no weapon.  The threat accused-appellant supposedly made was not even directed at AAA.  In addition, it would have been impossible that BBB, AAA’s brother, was not awakened during the rape, and that their close neighbors, who also happen to be their relatives, did not notice anything unusual on the night of December 8, 2001.

Accused-appellant further argues that his severe intoxication from consuming eight bottles of gin with two drinking buddies on the night of December 8, 2001 was corroborated by EEE, who saw accused-appellant drunk under a tamarind tree, and even by the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses themselves.  The RTC and the Court of Appeals should have at least appreciated accused-appellant’s intoxication as an extenuating circumstance that would absolve accused-appellant from any criminal liability.

Accused-appellant lastly points out that the physical evidence is irreconcilably inconsistent with AAA’s version of the rape incident.  Dr. Edaño’s medical examination reveals that the lacerations on AAA’s vagina were old, which may have been acquired weeks before.

Plaintiff-appellee, for its part, maintains that the prosecution had duly proven accused-appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of qualified rape.  AAA convincingly detailed in court how, when, and where she was raped by her own father.  Accused-appellant’s moral and physical dominion over AAA is sufficient to submit her to his bestial desire.  Moreover, accused-appellant failed to present the required proof that his claim of extreme intoxication from alcohol seriously deprived him of his reasoning, and that such intoxication was not habitual nor intentional, i.e., intended to fortify his resolve to commit the crime.

We affirm accused-appellant’s conviction.

The prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant, through force, threat or intimidation, had carnal knowledge of his daughter, AAA, who was only 13 years old at that time.  AAA’s birth certificate shows that she was born on August 15, 1988 and that accused-appellant is her biological father. 

AAA was consistent, candid, and straightforward in her narration that she was raped by her own father, to wit:

Q:      In the evening of December 8, 2001, what were you doing inside your house [AAA]?

A:      I was sleeping, ma’am.

Q:      About what time when you went to sleep?

A:      I could not remember, ma’am.

Q:      What about your brother [BBB], did he go to sleep with you?

A:      Yes, ma’am.

Q:      What part of the house did you sleep?

A:      Inside of the bedroom, ma’am.

Q:      So, how long did you sleep that night of December 8, 2001?

A:      I have a long slept, ma’am.

Q:      Did you wake-up?

A:      Yes, ma’am.

Q:      What made you wake-up?

A:      When my papa arrived, ma’am.

Q:      When you said “papa” you are referring to the accused in this case, Andres Fontillas?

A:      Yes, ma’am.

Q:      How did you come to know that he arrive in your house at that night?

A:      I heard that he was coughing, ma’am.

Q:      When you heard him coughing, what did you do?

A:      I woke-up ma’am.

Q:      What did you do next?

A:      I stood up, ma’am.

Q:      Where did you go?

A:      I helped him enter the house because he was drunk, ma’am.

Q:      Why, did you know that he was drunk?

A:      Because he went to have drinking spree with his friends, ma’am.

Q:      So, you helped him entered the house.  Where did you bring him?

A:      I let him slept, ma’am.

Q:      Where did you bring him to sleep?

A:      Beside us, ma’am.

Q:      So, when you brought your father to your bedroom to sleep, what did you do next?

A:      I continued my sleep, ma’am.

Q:      And did you wake-up?

A:      Not anymore, ma’am.

Q:      What time did you wake-up [AAA]

A:      Early in the morning, ma’am.

Q:      What made you [wake- up]?

A:      My papa, ma’am.

Q:      What did your papa do that make you wake-up?

A:      He was taking off my short pants, ma’am.

Q:      What did you do when you heard him taking off your short pants?

A:      I cried, ma’am.

Q:      What happened next?

A:      He took off his short pants, ma’am.

Q:      Was he saying anything to you [AAA] while he was doing that to you?

A:      Yes, ma’am.

Q:      What were these words?

A:      He told me not to create any noise, ma’am.

Q:      And did you obey him?

A:      Yes, ma’am.

Q:      Why did you obey him?

A:      Because I was afraid, ma’am.

Q:      Why were you afraid of him?

A:      Because he threatened me that if I will report the incident he will kill the person whom I reported the incident ma’am.

Q:      And did you believe him that he will kill the person to whom you reported the incident [AAA]?

A:      Yes, ma’am.

Q:      Was he able to remove his short pants?

A:      Yes, ma’am.

Q:      What happened after that?

A:      He clasped both of my hands and my feet then covered my mouth, ma’am.

Q:      With what hand did he cover your mouth?

A:      With his hand, ma’am.

Q:      And what did he use in “iniipit” your hands and feet?

A:      His feet and his body, ma’am. (Witness demonstrating by crossing her arms over his chest.)

Q:      What happened after that [AAA]?

A:      He did what he wanted to me, ma’am.

Q:      What did he do?  Will you please tell us [AAA]?

A:      He raped me, ma’am.

Q:      When you said “he raped me” in what particular did he do?

A:      He inserted his penis, ma’am.

Q:      Where?

A:      To my vagina, ma’am.

Q:      And how did you feel when he was able to insert his penis to your vagina?

A:      I felt pain, ma’am.

Q:      In what part of your body did you feel the pain?

A:      To my hips, ma’am.

Q:      Where else?

A:      My vagina, ma’am.

Q:      And how many times [AAA] was he able to put inside his penis to your vagina?

A:      Once, ma’am.^[19][19]

The lack of evidence that AAA tried to fight off accused-appellant’s sexual assault does not undermine AAA’s credibility.  Jurisprudence on incestuous rape of a minor has oft-repeated the rule that the father’s abuse of his moral ascendancy and influence over his daughter can subjugate the latter’s will thereby forcing her to do whatever he wants.^[20][20]  In People v. Orillosa,^[21][21] we held that actual force or intimidation need not be employed in incestuous rape of a minor because the moral and physical dominion of the father is sufficient to cow the victim into submission to his beastly desires. 

The absence of any struggle on AAA’s part while she was being raped may also be due to accused-appellant’s threat that he will kill the person to whom AAA would report the incident.  It is of no moment that the threat was not directed at AAA.  The threat still instilled in AAA the fear that someone might be harmed because of her.

Neither do we give much weight to the alleged inconsistency between the physical evidence and AAA’s version of the rape incident.  We note that Dr. Edaño was able to examine AAA only on December 10, 2001, two days after the rape.  During cross-examination, Dr. Edaño explained that the two old lacerations she found on AAA’s vagina could have happened several weeks or days before the examination.  Hence, the old lacerations could still have been caused by and is not irreconcilably inconsistent with the rape of AAA two days earlier.  As the Court of Appeals observed, the improbabilities or inconsistencies cited by accused-appellant refer to minor details that do not directly pertain to the elements of the crime of rape or to the identification of accused-appellant as the rapist; and do not detract from the proven fact that accused-appellant had sexual intercourse with AAA through force, intimidation, and grave abuse of authority.   

Accused-appellant’s bare denial cannot overturn AAA’s positive testimony.  As we fittingly ruled in People v. Mendoza^[22][22]:

It is well-settled that denial is essentially the weakest form of defense and it can never overcome an affirmative testimony particularly when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness.  Accused-appellant’s bare assertion that private complainant was just “using” him to allow her to freely frolic with other men, particularly with a certain Renato Planas, begs the credulity of this Court.  This is especially true in the light of our consistent pronouncement that “no decent and sensible woman will publicly admit being a rape victim and thus run the risk of public contempt – the dire consequence of a rape charge – unless she is, in fact, a rape victim.”  More in point is our pronouncement in People v. Canoy [G.R. Nos. 148139-43, 15 October 2003, 413 SCRA 490], to wit:

… It is unthinkable for a daughter to accuse her own father, to submit herself for examination of her most intimate parts, put her life to public scrutiny and expose herself, along with her family, to shame, pity or even ridicule not just for a simple offense but for a crime so serious that could mean the death sentence to the very person to whom she owes her life, had she really not have been aggrieved.  Nor do we believe that the victim would fabricate a story of rape simply because she wanted to exact revenge against her father, appellant herein, for allegedly scolding and maltreating her.^[23][23]

The Court of Appeals correctly rejected the accused-appellant’s assertion that his extreme intoxication from alcohol on the night of the rape should be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance.  Section 15 of the Revised Penal Code, on alternative circumstances, provides:

ART. 15.  Their concept. – Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its commission.  They are the relationship, intoxication and the degree of instruction and education of the offender.

x x x x

The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstance when the offender has committed a felony in a state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit said felony; but when the intoxication is habitual or intentional, it shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.

Accused appellant did not present any evidence that his intoxication was not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the rape.  The person pleading intoxication must likewise prove that he took such quantity of alcoholic beverage, prior to the commission of the crime, as would blur his reason.^[24][24]  Accused-appellant utterly failed to present clear and convincing proof of the extent of his intoxication on the night of December 8, 2001 and that the amount of liquor he had taken was of such quantity as to affect his mental faculties.  Not one of accused-appellant’s drinking buddies testified that they, in fact, consumed eight bottles of gin prior to the rape incident. 

Hence, the conviction of the accused-appellant of qualified rape without any mitigating circumstance by the Court of Appeals must be affirmed.  Regarding the penalty imposed for the crime committed by the accused-appellant, the appellate court properly imposed upon accused-appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, instead of death, pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346.  We also affirm the order of the appellate court that accused-appellant pay AAA the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity and another Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages, for being consistent with current jurisprudence on qualified rape.  However, we increase the award of exemplary damages from Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) in line with recent case law.^[25][25] 

        WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision dated January 29, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01792, which affirmed with modification the Decision dated October 28, 2005 of the RTC, Branch 69, of Iba, Zambales, is AFFIRMED with further MODIFICATION to read as follows:

(1)             Accused Andres C. Fontillas is held GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of QUALIFIED RAPE and he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, and ordered to pay the private offended party civil indemnity in the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00), moral damages also in the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00), and exemplary damages in the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00); and

(2)             Accused Andres C. Fontillas is further ordered to pay the private offended party interest on all damages awarded at the legal rate of Six Percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this judgment. 

No costs.

        SO ORDERED.

                                         TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

                                       Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

RENATO C. CORONA

Chief Justice

Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

RENATO C. CORONA

Chief Justice