Republic of the
SUPREME COURT
THIRD DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Present:
- versus - CARPIO MORALES,*
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA,
and
MENDOZA,
JJ.
CRIZALDO PACHECO y
VILLANUEVA, Promulgated:
Accused-Appellant.
April
20, 2010
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
VELASCO, JR., J.:
This
is an appeal from the November 18, 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA)
in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02796, which affirmed the Decision in Criminal Case No.
26020-MN of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 169 in
The Facts
An Information
charged accused-appellant as follows:
That on or about the 7th day of January, 2002, in the City of Malabon, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being the step-father of [AAA],[1] with lewd design and by means of force and intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with the said [AAA], a minor of nine (9) years old against her will and without her consent, which act debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of [AAA].[2]
During
his arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded “not guilty.”
The Prosecution’s Version of Facts
At the trial, the prosecution
presented the victim, AAA, and Police Senior Inspector (P/SInsp.) Ruby Grace
Sabino as witnesses. Likewise presented were: a machine copy of AAA’s Sworn Statement (Exhibits “A” to “A-3”),
original copies of Official Medico-Legal
Report No. 0011-01-08-02 (Exhibit “B”), Social Case Study Report
(Exhibit “C”), Joint Affidavit of Arrest (Exhibit “D”),
Photo Documents (Exhibits “F” to “F-5”), and AAA’s Certificate of Live Birth (Exhibit “G”).
AAA
lived with her mother, BBB, and accused-appellant, BBB’s live-in partner, in
AAA
eventually revealed accused-appellant’s lechery to one of her teachers, who
accompanied her to Bantay Bata
ABS-CBN to ask for help. AAA then gave
the police a statement of what had happened to her.[4]
P/SInsp.
Sabino testified in her capacity as Medico-Legal Officer of the Philippine
National Police (PNP) Women’s Crime and
The Version of the Defense
The
defense offered the sole testimony of accused-appellant. He testified that
there were nine of them living in the same house measuring around three by
eight meters. On the day of the rape
incident, he said AAA had a grudge against him because he spanked her for
failing to return home at lunchtime. He
also alleged that he once caught his brother-in-law Bernabe Peralta molesting
AAA inside the bathroom.
During
cross-examination, accused-appellant said that on January 6, 2002, he slept
uninterrupted the whole night. He remarked that they were packed like sardines
in their small dwelling, with him asleep next to his wife while AAA slept on
the extreme opposite side.[6]
The Ruling of the Trial Court
The
RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of raping AAA. It viewed AAA’s testimony as positive and
straightforward and supported by clear corroborative evidence. It gave no credence to the argument that
accused-appellant could not have raped AAA in the presence of other family
members.
The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision
reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused CRIZALDO PACHECO y VILLANUEVA is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE and he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is further ordered to pay the offended party in the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php 50,000.00) as civil indemnity and Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php 50,000.00) as moral damages.
SO ORDERED.[7]
Accused-appellant challenged his conviction before the CA.
His appeal centered on certain circumstances that allegedly affected AAA’s
credibility. Her actions during and
after the rape, the defense argued, were inconsistent with that of a rape victim. Moreover, it was claimed that the alleged
molestation of AAA at the hands of her uncle created serious doubt as to who
the real rapist was.
The Ruling of the Appellate Court
On appeal, accused-appellant faulted the trial court for
erroneously ruling against him even if (1) the rape could not have been
committed inside a room where AAA’s mother and other siblings were also
sleeping; (2) AAA belatedly reported the rape; (3) the prosecution failed to
establish with certainty that the hymenal laceration was the direct result of
his raping AAA; (4) AAA could have shouted or resisted if she was really raped;
and (5) AAA was motivated by ill feelings in accusing accused-appellant of
rape.
The
CA affirmed in toto the RTC
Decision. It found the testimony of AAA
credible and given in a clear and straightforward manner. The appellate court
found that her testimony was bolstered by the medical findings on AAA. On the
other hand, the CA found accused-appellant’s defenses weak and unavailing.
Hence, we have this appeal.
On August 3, 2009, this Court required the parties to submit
supplemental briefs if they so desired.
The parties manifested that they were foregoing the submission of
supplemental briefs. The issue raised before the appellate court is, therefore,
deemed adopted in this appeal.
The Issue
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
The Ruling of the Court
The
defense maintains that the demeanor of AAA was inconsistent with that of a girl
who had been ravaged. She did not do
anything to stop accused-appellant from committing the rape. She also did not shout for help or try to get
the attention of her mother and other siblings who were sleeping beside her.
She likewise did not report the rape to her family or the authorities at once
and went back to sleep instead. While
the defense acknowledges that people react differently in such a situation, they
argue that it is unnatural for AAA to not even make a feeble attempt to free
herself or make some kind of noise when she had the opportunity to do so.
Since
the brother-in-law of accused-appellant also allegedly raped AAA, the defense
points out that there was serious doubt as to who the real offender was.
The prosecution, on the other hand, argues
that the healing of AAA’s hymenal laceration does not negate the fact that she
had been raped.
The
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) relies on the doctrine that positive
identification prevails over denials and alibis. It maintains that it is especially difficult
to believe that a child of tender years would accuse someone of sexual
maltreatment, permit a medical examination of her private parts, and withstand
a public trial if she were not honestly seeking justice. Citing jurisprudence,
it counters accused-appellant’s argument by saying that the presence of
lacerations in the victim’s vagina is not necessary in proving rape.
We
affirm accused-appellant’s conviction.
The
arguments raised by the defense are overused and insubstantial. These have been rejected by this Court in the
past.
Elements of the Crime of Rape
The
Revised Penal Code defines statutory rape as sexual intercourse with a girl
below 12 years old. The two elements of
statutory rape are: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman; and
(2) that the woman was below 12 years of age.[8]
People v. Teodoro[9] explains that statutory rape departs
from the usual modes of committing rape:
What the law punishes in statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve (12) years old. Thus, force, intimidation and physical evidence of injury are not relevant considerations; the only subject of inquiry is the age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge took place.
In
prosecuting rape cases, we reiterate from previous rulings that the eloquent
testimony of the victim, coupled with the medical findings attesting to her
non-virgin state, should be enough to confirm the truth of her charges.[10] We find this applicable to the instant case.
Demeanor of Rape Victim
There are those charged with the
serious crime of rape who try to escape liability by questioning why the
alleged rape victim did not struggle against the rapist or at least shout for
help. They attempt to shift blame on the
victim for failing to manifest resistance to sexual abuse. This Court, however, has repeatedly held that
there is no clear-cut behavior that can be expected of one who is being raped
or has been raped.
In People v. Ofemiano,[11] we thus ruled:
Jurisprudence holds that the failure of the victim to shout for help does not negate rape. Even the victim’s lack of resistance, especially when intimidated by the offender into submission, does not signify voluntariness or consent. In People v. Corpuz, we acknowledged that even absent any actual force or intimidation, rape may be committed if the malefactor has moral ascendancy over the victim. We emphasized that in rape committed by a close kin, such as the victim’s father, stepfather, uncle, or the common-law spouse of her mother, moral influence or ascendancy substitutes for violence or intimidation.
Ofemiano
applies to this case. While AAA may not have exerted effort to free herself
from her rapist, her actions can be explained by the fear she already had of
accused-appellant, who had beat her up on more than one occasion.
Accused-appellant’s moral ascendancy over AAA, combined with memories of
previous beatings, was more than enough to intimidate AAA and rendered her
helpless while she was being victimized.
Moreover, in People v. Bagos,[12] we held that the lack of a struggle or
an outcry from the victim is immaterial to the rape of a child below 12 years
of age. The law presumes that such a
victim, on account of her tender age, does not and cannot have a will of her
own. On this score, accused-appellant’s
defense is wanting.
Accused-appellant
cannot as well count on the much-abused line that rape is not committed when
others are present. Sadly, the presence
of family members in the same room has not discouraged rapists from preying on
children, giving this Court to observe before that “lust is no respecter of
time and place.”[13] Rape has been shown to have been committed
even in places where people congregate, in parks, along the roadside, within
school premises, inside a house where there are other occupants, and even in
the same room where other members of the family are also sleeping.[14]
Grudge against Accused-Appellant
Accused-appellant claims that AAA
bears a grudge against him. He theorizes that he was wrongfully charged of rape
after he spanked AAA and earned her resentment.
This Court, however, finds AAA’s version more believable. As the trial
court noted, she bore a grudge against accused-appellant for raping her
repeatedly. Yet this grudge was not the
basis of the rape complaint. As the
lower court observed, it was natural for AAA to harbor ill feelings against
accused-appellant but that factor alone would not affect her credibility. It is quite incredible for a young girl to
publicly and falsely accuse her stepfather of rape in retaliation for a minor
disciplinary measure. The burden of
going through a rape prosecution is grossly out of proportion to whatever
revenge the young girl would be able to exact. The Court has justifiably thus
ruled, as the OSG noted, that a girl of tender age would not allow herself to
go through the humiliation of a public trial if not to pursue justice for what
has happened.[15]
Alleged Commission of Rape by Victim’s Uncle
The healed lacerations on the
victim’s hymen do not disprove that accused-appellant raped the victim and
cannot serve to acquit him. Proof of hymenal
laceration is not even an element of rape, so long as there is enough proof of
entry of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum of the
female organ.[16] Moreover, as the appellate court noted, the
finding of healed lacerations does not prove that it was AAA’s uncle who raped
her and not accused-appellant. No corroborating evidence was presented to back
up the claim that AAA was raped by someone else. Unfortunately, the argument
only suggests that if accused-appellant’s defense is to be believed, AAA was
raped by two different men.
As this Court has previously ruled, accused-appellant can
still be convicted of rape on the sole basis of the testimony of the victim.
Hence, even if the medical findings are disregarded, in the end, the
prosecution has successfully proved the case of rape against accused-appellant
on the basis of AAA’s testimony.[17]
The
use by accused-appellant of the defenses of denial and alibi cannot exculpate
him from liability as these were not substantiated by clear and convincing
evidence. His testimony was negative,
self-serving evidence, which cannot be given greater evidentiary weight than
the testimony of the complaining witness who testified on affirmative matters.[18]
We
find no reason to reverse the factual findings of the lower court, especially
since the CA affirmed such findings. It was in the best position to weigh the
evidence presented during trial and ascertain the credibility of the witnesses
who testified. There is no showing that the lower court overlooked,
misunderstood, or misapplied facts or circumstances of weight which would have
affected the outcome of the case.[19]
Penalty Imposed
The Revised Penal Code punishes
statutory rape with reclusion perpetua.[20] The
CA thus correctly affirmed the sentence imposed. The amount of PhP 50,000 as
civil indemnity and PhP 50,000 as moral damages awarded are in accordance with
current jurisprudence.[21] Additionally, we award exemplary damages of
PhP 30,000 to serve as a public example to deter molesters of hapless
individuals.[22]
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED.
The CA Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02796 finding accused-appellant Crizaldo Pacheco y Villanueva guilty is AFFIRMED, with the
modification that he is further ordered to pay PhP 30,000 in exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
I attest 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.
Pursuant to Section 13,
Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, 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.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
[1] Per People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419-420, and Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004), the real name of the victim and her personal circumstances and other information tending to establish her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, are withheld.
[14] People v. Cabral, G.R. No. 179946, December 23, 2009; citing People v. Cura, G.R. No. 112529, January 18, 1995, 240 SCRA 234, 242.
[15] People v. Achas, G.R. No. 185712, August
4, 2009; citing People v. Nazareno, G.R. No. 167756, April 9, 2008, 551
SCRA 16, 41.
[16] People v. Cruz, G.R. No. 186129, August 4, 2009; citing People v. Jumawid, G.R. No. 184756, June 5, 2009.
[19] People v. Estrada, G.R. No. 178318,
January 15, 2010; citing People v.
Dalisay, G.R. No. 188106, November 25, 2009.
[20] Art. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed.—Rape is committed –
1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
x x x x
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.
Art. 266-B. Penalties.—Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. x x x