J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

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

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. GILBERT CASTRO Y AGUILAR (G.R. NO. 188901, 15 DECEMBER 2010, J. PEREZ) SUBJECTS: RAPE OF A MENTAL RETARDATE IS STATUTORY RAPE; INCONCISTENCIES IN TESTIMONY; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS. BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS. CASTRO.

X- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -x

DOCTRINES:

INCONCISTENCIES ON MINOR DETAILS DO NOT LESSEN VICTIM’S CREDIBILITY; ARE COMMON AND MAY BE EXPECTED FROM AN UNCOACHED WITNESS.

Appellant’s contention which essentially assails the credibility of the prosecution witnesses’ testimony is untenable.   It was observed that on the witness stand AAA remained steadfast and never wavered in her testimony.  She maintained even on cross-examination that it was appellant who defiled her.  The inconsistencies raised by appellant are insignificant matters which are not material ingredients of the crime of rape.  We maintain that inconsistencies on minor details do not lessen a victim’s credibility; are common and may be expected from an uncoached witness.^[1][19]

BARE DENIAL AND ALIBI ARE INHERENTLY WEAK DEFENSES BECAUSE THESE ARE SELF-SERVING AND EASY TO FABRICATE.

On the other hand, We give scant consideration on the defenses proffered by appellant.  This Court has consistently ruled that bare denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses because these are self-serving and easy to fabricate.  For not being substantiated by sufficient evidence, appellant’s defenses failed to overcome or undermine the positive and categorical declarations of AAA.  Notably, appellant contended that on 27 November 2002 at 12 in the afternoon, he was having lunch with his sister.  He, however, failed to present his sister to testify on the truthfulness of his allegation.  Moreover, the incident in question occurred in a place which was just a few meters from his house.  Thus, it was not impossible for him to be at the crime scene during the period alleged by the prosecution witnesses. 

TRIAL COURT IS IN BETTER POSITION TO DECIDE QUESTION OF CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS

We must reiterate that, ultimately, when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the finding of the trial court unless it has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case.  This is so because the trial court is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.^[2][20]

X- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -x

DECISION

PEREZ, J.:

          Before this Court is an Appeal,^[3][1] seeking the reversal and setting aside of the Decision^[4][2] dated 11 May 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the Decision^[5][3] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos City, Bulacan, Branch 12 convicting appellant Gilbert Castro y Aguilar (Castro) of the crime of rape, with modification as to the amount of damages awarded to the victim.

          In line with the ruling of this Court in People v. Cabalquinto,^[6][4] the real name and identity of the rape victim, is withheld and, instead, fictitious initials are used to represent her.  Also, the personal circumstances of the victim or any other information tending to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family, are not disclosed in this decision.  Instead, the rape victim shall herein be referred to as AAA; her mother XYZ; and her uncle, BBB.

THE FACTS

          The victim in this case is an 18-year old lass with a mental capacity akin to a 5-year old child.  Due to her poor learning capacity, she has not even finished Grade 1 and is unable to read and write. 

          The accused, on the other hand, was then 22 years old and a second cousin of the victim. He testified that he has known the victim for 3 years prior to 5 February 2002, the alleged first rape incident.^[7][5]  They are neighbors whose residences are just two meters apart.^[8][6]

          On 14 February 2003, Castro was charged with two counts of rape before the RTC in informations^[9][7] the accusatory portions of which read:     

Criminal Case No. 771-M-2003

               That on or about the 5^th day of February, 2002, in the municipality of San Ildefonso, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with the use of bladed weapon, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by means of force, violence and intimidation and with lewd designs, have carnal knowledge of the said AAA, a mentally retarded, a fact known to the accused, against her will and without her consent.

                        CONTRARY TO LAW.

Criminal Case No. 772-M-2003

               That on or about the 27^th day November, 2002, in the municipality of San Ildefonso, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by means of force, violence and intimidation and with lewd designs, have carnal knowledge of the said AAA, a mentally retarded, a fact known to the accused, against her will and without her consent.

                        CONTRARY TO LAW.

          Upon arraignment, Castro, with the assistance of counsel, entered separate pleas of not guilty to the charges. Thereafter, the cases were consolidated and trial on the merits ensued.  In the course of the trial, two versions arose.

Version of the Prosecution

          As summarized by the RTC and adopted for the most part by the CA, the version of the prosecution^[10][8] is as follows:

       This resolves the alleged rape committed twice on an 18-year old woman named AAA whose IQ & Projected Test concluded at the National Center for Mental Health by psychologist Nimia C. de Guzman resulted to a finding that “Level of intelligence is appraised under the Moderate Level of Mental Retardation (Imbecile) with a numerical IQ of 43 and mental age of 5 years 6 months. xxx Personality profile pictures an immature and inadequate person who has not achieved full development of her learning and social skills.” xxx (See Exh. “D,” Psychological Report) (at pp. 6-20; TSN, April 14, 2005).

        The medico-legal examination conducted on November 29, 2002, to determine the presence of physical signs of sexual abuse has shown that she “is in non-virgin state, physically,” although “there are no signs of application of any form of trauma at the time of examination” (See Exh. “A,” Medico-Legal Report) (at pp. 2-10; TSN, June 26, 2003).

               xxx

        The accused, Gilbert Castro y Aguilar, then 22 years old, single, was AAA’s neighbor whose house was just more than two (2) meters away.  Despite that proximity between their houses and knowing her for years, he denied on the witness stand ever talking to her or to any member of her family.  He was arrested at his house on November 28, 2002, where he contended to be on those dates and time he allegedly had carnal knowledge of the mentally retarded victim (at pp. 3-5, TSN, March 23, 2006; pp. 4-7, TSN, June 22, 2006).

         From the witness stand AAA pointed to accused Castro as the man who raped her for two times, first, during the wake for a deceased neighbor or supposedly on February 5, 2002, when he brought her under a mango tree where he made her lie down on banana leaves and stripped her off her clothings before inserting his penis inside her vagina, and, second, on November 27, 2002, when he did same things to her at the same place under the mango tree.  She said that before that happened the accused used to frequent her place, giving her peanuts and some money (at pp. 2-7, TSN, April 20, 2004).

        What they did on November 27, 2002, was discovered when prosecution witness BBB, their 55-year old neighbor who claimed on the stand to be their uncle and that the two of them were second cousins, caught them in the act of sexual intercourse behind the unoccupied house of her parents at that time under a mango tree, both fully naked.  He had been watching them for three (3) days before, suspicious that they were up to doing something bad.  So when he saw them from his house by the door outside, he approached them making the accused run off away as soon as he saw him coming.  Left behind in her nakedness AAA admitted that she was doing the act with the accused.  So, he covered her with her clothings and walked her to her house and left her parents at the market where they were vegetable vendors.  As soon as told of what he discovered, her parents went home with him and, together that afternoon of the following day, they reported their complaint to the local police where AAA and witness BBB gave their respective statements on the incident (Exhs. “C” and “E”) (at pp. 2-6, TSN, September 29, 2005; pp. 2-13, TSN, October 13, 2005).

Version of the Defense

          To exculpate himself from liability, accused Castro offered both denial and alibi as his defense.  He denied raping the private complainant.  He averred that on 5 February 2002, between 5:00 in the afternoon to 12:00 in the morning, he was attending a funeral wake of a neighbor.  During the alleged second rape, he contended that he was inside their house having lunch with his sister.  After lunch at around 2:00 in the afternoon, he allegedly went to the field to harvest palay.^[11][9]

Ruling of the RTC

          On 2 January 2007, the RTC rendered a decision acquitting Castro in Criminal Case No. 771-M-2003 for failure of the prosecution to clearly establish that accused, with the use of a bladed weapon, assaulted and had carnal knowledge of AAA on 5 February 2002.  The trial court, however, found Castro guilty of the crime of rape in Criminal Case No. 772-M-2003.  The dispositive portion of the latter decision reads:

       WHEREFORE, finding herein accused Gilbert Castro y Aguilar guilty as principal beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape as charged in Criminal Case No. 772-M-2003, without any circumstance, aggravating or mitigating, found attendant in its commission, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify victim AAA in the amount of P50,000.00, plus another P50,000.00 as moral damages subject to the corresponding filing fees as a first lien, and to pay the costs of the proceedings.

   xxx

          Aggrieved, Castro appealed to the CA,^[12][10] assigning the following error:

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

          Accused-appellant argued that the lower court failed to appreciate the fact that the testimony of private complainant was full of contradictions.  The trial court allegedly gave credence to the inconsistent statements made by AAA which when analyzed are highly illogical. 

          Accused Castro averred that the inconsistent statements of AAA were made apparent during the cross-examination.  She allegedly denied that the accused was courting her despite her previous statement in court that she was being courted by accused-appellant.   Accused also submitted that the failure of AAA to offer any resistance when she was allegedly being sexually molested belies the charge of rape.

 Ruling of the CA

         In its decision dated 11 May 2009, the CA affirmed with modification the findings of the RTC, to wit:

      WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Regional Trial Court dated January 2, 2007 and its subsequent Order dated March 2, 2007 finding accused-appellant Gilbert Castro guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as to the damages awarded.  Accordingly, accused-appellant is ordered to pay AAA the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; P75,000.00 as moral damages; and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.^[13][11]

          Hence, this appeal.

          In a resolution dated 1 February 2010, the Court required the parties to simultaneously file their supplemental briefs, if they so desire, within thirty (30) days from notice.  In their respective pleadings, both the appellee, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, and the appellant, represented by the Public Attorney’s Office, manifested that they will no longer be filing any supplemental briefs in support of their respective positions.  The appellant merely repleaded and adopted all the defenses and arguments raised in his Appellant’s Brief.

          The vital issue before this Court is whether the pieces of evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient to convict Castro beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape committed against AAA.  In fine, assailed in this recourse are the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses and the adequacy of its evidence. 

          This Court has painstakingly perused over the records as well as the transcripts of stenographic notes of this case and found no reason to reverse and set aside the findings of the trial court and the CA.  We affirm Castro’s conviction.

          Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides that 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.

          xxx      

          Clearly, “sexual intercourse with a woman who is a mental retardate with the mental age of a child below 12 years old constitutes statutory rape.”^[14][12]  Proof of force or intimidation is not necessary, as a mental retardate is not capable of giving consent to a sexual act.  What needs to be proven are the facts of sexual congress between the accused and the victim, and the mental retardation of the latter.^[15][13]

          In the case before us, the prosecution was able to establish through clinical and testimonial evidence that AAA is a mental retardate.  It presented and offered the psychological report of Dr. Nimia de Guzman of the National Center for Mental Health stating that AAA was suffering from moderate mental retardation (imbecile) with an IQ of 43 and a mental age equivalent to that of a five and a half year old child.^[16][14]  Likewise, the testimonies of XYZ^[17][15] and the psychologist^[18][16] confirmed the victim’s mental retardation.  

          The aforesaid facts support the allegation in the information that AAA is a mental retardate.  It was even noted by the appellate court that the defense admitted the fact that the victim is suffering from mental retardation, as stated in the accused-appellant’s Kontra Salaysay.^[19][17]

          The prosecution has likewise established beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA.  We have thoroughly examined the testimony of AAA and found no reason to cast doubt on her categorical and positive declarations of the sexual assault committed against her.   Her narration of the sexual act was straightforward and categorical.  We quote the pertinent portion of her testimony:

          Direct examination by Fiscal Geronimo

          Q:        Do you recall when was the first time that he raped you?

            A:         Yes, sir.

            Q:        Tell us.

            A:         Long time ago, sir.

            Q:        And immediately prior to that incident when you said he raped                                       you, tell us what did Castro do?

                                    xxx

            A:         He laid me down on a banana leaves (sic) on the ground under a                                               mango tree, sir.

                                    xxx

            Q:        Do you recall when was the second time that you said Castro                                        raped you?

            A:         I do not know, sir.

            Q:        When Castro raped you the second time around, before that                                         rape took place, what did Castro do to you?      

            A:         I was stripped of my clothes, sir. (Hinubuan)

            Q:        And where was that?  What place was that?

            A:         The same place, Your Honor.

            Q:        And after Castro stripped of your clothes, what did Castro do?

            A:         Hinipuan po.

            Q:        What part of your body was touched by Castro?
            A:         On my breast and my private organ, sir.

            Q:        After that, what did Castro do?

            A:         He laid down, sir.

            Q:        At that time were you also laying down?

            A:         Yes, sir.

            Q:        That is also under the mango tree?

            A:         Yes, sir.

            Q:        When Castro laid down, what did Castro do?

            A:         He came on top of me, sir.

            Q:        Was Castro at that time without clothes?          

            A:         He was wearing his short, sir.

            Q:        Was that short removed from his body when he went on top of             

                        you?

            A:         Yes, sir.

            Q:        When he came on top of you, what did you feel?

            A:         I feel pain, sir.

            Court:   Are you saying he again inserted his penis inside your                                                     vagina?

            A:         Yes, Your Honor.

            Fiscal:   After that, what did you do?     

            A:         I was the one who is being pushed, sir.

            Q:        Would you please show us the manner by which you were                                

                        pushed by Castro?

            A:         His body is being press (sic) over my body, sir.

            Q:        When you felt pain, after that, what transpired?

            A:         He left me, sir.

            Q:        What about you, what did you do?

            A:         I went home, sir.

            Q:        After that you said, was that after two days you reported the                                         two incidents to your mother?

            A:         Two days after I was raped, the second time, I reported the                             

                        matter to my mother and to the police, sir.^[20][18]

          Appellant’s contention which essentially assails the credibility of the prosecution witnesses’ testimony is untenable.   It was observed that on the witness stand AAA remained steadfast and never wavered in her testimony.  She maintained even on cross-examination that it was appellant who defiled her.  The inconsistencies raised by appellant are insignificant matters which are not material ingredients of the crime of rape.  We maintain that inconsistencies on minor details do not lessen a victim’s credibility; are common and may be expected from an uncoached witness.^[21][19]

          On the other hand, We give scant consideration on the defenses proffered by appellant.  This Court has consistently ruled that bare denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses because these are self-serving and easy to fabricate.  For not being substantiated by sufficient evidence, appellant’s defenses failed to overcome or undermine the positive and categorical declarations of AAA.  Notably, appellant contended that on 27 November 2002 at 12 in the afternoon, he was having lunch with his sister.  He, however, failed to present his sister to testify on the truthfulness of his allegation.  Moreover, the incident in question occurred in a place which was just a few meters from his house.  Thus, it was not impossible for him to be at the crime scene during the period alleged by the prosecution witnesses. 

          We must reiterate that, ultimately, when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the finding of the trial court unless it has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case.  This is so because the trial court is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.^[22][20]

          This Court likewise affirms the CA’s ruling on the penalty to be imposed on appellant Castro. 

          Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code as amended by The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 provides:

          xxx

                        The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is    committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying    circumstances:

            xxx

                        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.

          The information in this case alleges that AAA is a mental retardate and such fact was known to the appellant at the time of the commission of the crime.  These allegations were duly established by the prosecution during trial.  The trial court which had the opportunity to observe the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses during the trial ratiocinated the conviction of the accused with the following statement:

            The Court is convinced that indeed herein accused on 27 November 2002, had carnal knowledge of AAA, an 18-year-old woman with a weak mind that her mental age was only that of a five and a half (5 ½) year old child. Her abnormality as a retardate was known to their neighborhood, including the accused, an immediate neighbor. His obstinate denial of ever talking to her and her family is, therefore, a lie.^[23][21]

          We affirm the trial and appellate court’s findings that it was highly improbable for Castro not to have known that AAA was a mental retardate considering that they were cousins and their residences were just two meters apart.   The cause of the prosecution was further strengthened by the testimony of XYZ, the uncle of AAA and appellant.  Unlike other rape cases where the Court’s evaluation is limited to the testimony of the victim and the accused, the instant case had a witness who testified that he personally saw the commission of the crime.  Thus, the imposition of the death penalty would have been proper.

          With the enactment of R.A. 9346^[24][22] on 24 June 2006, however, the imposition of death penalty has been prohibited. Pursuant to Section 2 thereof, the property penalty to be imposed on appellant is reclusion perpetua.  RA 9346 should  be applied even if the crime was committed prior to the enactment of the law in view of the principle in criminal law that favorabilia sunt amplianda adiosa restrigenda.  Penal laws which are favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect.^[25][23]           

          In addition, appellant shall not be eligible for parole.  Under Section 3 of RA 9346, “persons convicted with reclusion perpetua, or those whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.”

          We likewise affirm the CA’s ruling with regard to the amount of civil indemnity and moral damages awarded.  We sustain the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity despite the reduction of the penalty imposed on appellant from death to reclusion perpetua.   As explained by this Court in People v. Victor,^[26][24] the said award does not depend upon the imposition of the death penalty; rather, it is awarded based on the fact that qualifying circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty attended the commission of the offense.^[27][25]

          We also find proper the CA’s ruling increasing the award of moral damages from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00.  Moral damages are awarded without need of proof for mental, physical and psychological suffering undeniably sustained by a rape victim because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such award.^[28][26] 

          We, however, increase the amount of exemplary damages awarded from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence^[29][27] on the matter.  The Court, in the case of People v. Lorenzo Layco, Sr.,^[30][28] awarded exemplary damages to set a public example, to serve as deterrent to elders

who abuse and corrupt the youth, and to protect the latter from sexual abuse. 

          WHEREFORE, the 11 May 2009 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02733 is hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION.   Appellant Gilbert A. Castro is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified rape committed against AAA for which he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole.  He is further ordered to pay AAA the amounts of  P75,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto; P75,000.00 as moral damages; and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.

          SO ORDERED.