ll\,epublicof tbe ~bilippine!
i
~upremeQl:ourt
:fflanila
THIRD DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE G.R. No. 257662
PHILIPPINES
Plaintiff-appellee, Present:
CAGU1OA, J., Chairperson,
INTING,
GAERLAN,
- versus - DIMAAMPAO, and
SINGH,**JJ.
Promulgated:
1
XXX257662, '
A..ccused-appellant.
x- - - - -·- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - \t\~,~\e:::~~tt.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
INTING, ./.:
Before the Court is an ordinary Appeal 1 of the Decision 2 dated
February 22, 2021, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC
The identity Gf th· victim or any informati,rn to establish or compro!11ise her identity, as ~veil as
those of her immediate far:~ily or household members, shall he withheld pursuant to Republic Act
No. (RA) 8505. ent:tled "f;.a,)e Victim Assista?1ce and Protection Act of 1998," approved on
February 13, 1998; and Ame;1d;c:dAdministrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017,
Subject: Protocols and Frocedures in the Prnmulgation, Publication, [Link] Posting on the Websites
of Decisions, Fined Resoiutions, and Finai Orders Using Fictitioi!s Names/Personal Circumstances.
.. On leav~.
Rollo, pp. 4-{i. See Notice of Appeal dated March 31, 2021.
Id. at I 0-24. i=>ennedby Associate Justice Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga and concurred in by
Associate Justices Gctbriel T. lngles and Bautista G. Corpin, Jr. ol'the Eighteenth Division, Court
of Appeals, Ceb~1C:ty.
(1)
Decision 2 G.R. No. 257662
No. 03486. The CA affinned the Judgment 3 dated June 17, 2019, of
Branch I,
Regional Trial Court (RTC), - City in Criminal Case
No. 2013-05-360 that found XXX257662 (accused-appellant) guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph l(a), in
relation to Article 266-B, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Republic Act No. 8353. 4
The Antecedents
The case stemmed from an Information 5 charging accused-
appeJlant with the crime of Rape:
That on or about the 25 [sic] day of August, 2012 in the
Municipality of_, Province of Leyte, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable court, the above-named accused, by
means of force and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully
and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one [AAA], then a 13 year-
old girl[,] 6 against her will and without her consent, which sexual abuse
is prejudicial to the development of the child.
ACT CONTRARY TO LAW. 7
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant entered a plea of "Not
Guilty" to the crime charged. 8
Trial on the merits ensued.
The Version of the Prosecution
On August 25, 2012, at around 3:00 p.m., AAA, then 12 years old,9
was outside the house of her neighbor, BBB; she was looking for her older
brother, who was having a drinking spree. While she was there, accused-
appellant approached AAA and asked if she wanted to learn how to drive
a motorcycle. 10 She agreed. Accused-appellant then gave her instructions
Id. at 27-37. Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Georgina Uy Perez.
The Anti-Rape Law of 1997, approved on September 30, 1997.
5 RTC records, pp. 7-8.
6 Rollo, p. 33. Per RTC Judgment, AAA was 12 years old at the time of the incident. Documentary
Exhibits, p. 18, Birth Ce1tificate of AAA; TSN, AAA, August 17, 2015, p. 3.
7 RTC records, p. 7.
8 Id. at 21. See RTC Order dated January 6, 2015.
9 Documentary Exhibits, p. 18. See Birth Certificate of AAA; TSN, AAA, August 17, 2015, p. 3.
10
Rollo, p. 30.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 257662
on how to drive the motorcycle. However, AAA told him that she was
hesitant to learn how to drive; thus, she asked him to drive the motorcycle
instead. 11 AAA then rode the motorcycle with accused-appellant as the
driver.
Upon reaching a grassy area, accused-appellant stopped the
motorcycle and disembarked. AAA asked why they stopped, but rather
than responding, accused-appellant punched her in the abdomen, causing
her to fall to the ground. While she was on the ground, he removed her
shorts. She begged the accused-appellant to let her stand, and the latter
agreed. As soon as she got up, she attempted to escape. Accused-appellant
quickly caught her, punched her again in the abdomen, and pushed her
back to the ground. 12
While she was lying on the ground, accused-appellant held her
knees, spread her legs, and forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina.
Following the assault, she experienced pain and felt a warm, sticky fluid
in her genital area. Accused-appellant then instructed her to put her clothes
back on and threatened to kill her if she disclosed the incident to her
parents. Thereafter, they rode the motorcycle back home. When she got
home, she did not tell anyone about what had transpired due to fear
brought about by accused-appellant's threats. 13
AAA's parents noticed a change in her behavior and observed that
she appeared to be in a state of "shock." When they confronted her, she
initially gave other explanations for her demeanor. However, after her
parents persisted on questioning her, AAA eventually told her parents
about the rape incident. 14 Subsequently, they proceeded to the police
station to report the rape. 15
On October 23, 2012, Dr. Ma. Teresa Lita (Dr. Lita) conducted a
physical and medical examination on AAA. Dr. Lita found that AAA had
an incompletely healed laceration at the 7 o'clock position of the hymen. 16
11
ld.at12.
12 Id.
13
Id. at 30.
14
ld.at41--42.
15 Documentary Exhibits, p. 17. See Certification dated December 3, 2012.
16 Id. at 16. See Medico-Legal Report dated October 23, 2012. Signed by Glenn Labnao, M.D.,
Surgery Department and Ma. Teresa L. Lita, M.D., O8-GYNE Department.
(fl
Decision 4 G.R. No. 257662
The Version of the Defense
Accused-appellant denied the allegations against him and asserted
that AAA's father is his cousin. He averred that on August 25, 2012, he
was at BBB 's house when one of his cousins, CCC, requested him to buy
tuba (coconut wine). Thereafter, he invited AAA to accompany him to run
the errand. AAA agreed because she also wanted to learn how to drive a
motorcycle. They were to purchase the tuba from a store located about 50
meters from BBB 's house. 17
Accused-appellant further asserted that on their way back, it was
AAA who was already driving the motorcycle. However, she lost control
and crashed the vehicle. He then immediately picked up the motorcycle
and drove it back to BBB 's house. 18
Lastly, accused-appellant averred that the allegation of rape was
fabricated. He argued that AAA may have been motivated by a desire for
revenge, as he had reprimanded her in May 2012, and had previously
inflicted physical harm on her brother back in 2010. 19
The Ruling of the RTC
In the Judgment 20 dated June 17, 2019, the RTC found accused-
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Simple Rape and decreed as
follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
rendered finding the accused [XXX257662] guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of Simple Rape. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua and to pay the private offended party [AAA]
[PHP] 75,000.00 as civil indemnity, [PHP] 75,000.00 as moral
damages[,] and [PHP] 75,000.00 as exemplary damages. All such
amounts will earn interest of 6% per annum from the finality of this
Judgment until full payment.
In the service of his sentence, accused shall be credited in full
of the time of his preventive imprisonment, if he agreed voluntarily to
abide by the rules imposed upon convicted prisoners.
17
Rollo, p. 13.
18
Id. at 13-14.
19
Id. at 14.
20
Id. at 27-37.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 257662
SO ORDERED. 21
The RTC held that the prosecution proved accused-appellant's guilt
of rape beyond reasonable doubt. It ratiocinated that: ( 1) accused-
appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA, as sufficiently established by the
latter's credible testimony, which was further corroborated by the medical
findings of Dr. Lita; and (2) the act was committed through the use of
force or intimidation. It held that accused-appellant's act of punching
AAA in the abdomen before removing her clothes demonstrated the
employment of force. 22
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA. 23
The Ruling of the CA
In the assailed Decision 24 dated February 22, 2021, the CA affirmed
the conviction of accused-appellant. It agreed with the RTC that the guilt
of the accused-appellant for rape was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The fallo of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Judgment
I
promulgated on June 17, 2019 of Branch (Family Court), Regional
Trial Comi of - City, convicting accused-appellant
[XXX257662] of the crime of Simple Rape in Criminal Case No. 2013-
05-360 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 25
Thus, accused-appellant filed an appeal. 26
When required by the Court to submit supplemental briefs, 27 both
the People, 28 through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), and
21
Id. at 37.
12 Id. at 36.
23 RTC records, pp. 145-146. See Notice of Appeal dated August 5, 2019.
14
Rollo, pp. I 0-24.
25 Id. at 23
16 Id. at 4-6. See Notice of Appeal dated March 31, 2021.
27 Id. at 43--44. See Resolution dated September 19, 2022.
28 Id. at 61-65. See Manifestation (In Lieu of Supplemental Brief) dated December I, 2023.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 257662
accused-appellant, 29 manifested that their Briefs filed before the CA
sufficiently argued their respective positions.
In his Brief, accused-appellant argued that: first, AAA's testimony
was doubtful. He averred that her emotions and facial expressions while
narrating the alleged rape incident negated the emotional distress typically
experienced by rape victims. 30 And second, AAA's allegation of being
punched in the abdomen was nothing but a self-serving and biased
testimony, as the prosecution failed to provide any other proof. Hence, the
court a quo erred in holding that the employment of force and intimidation
was sufficiently proven. 31
As for the OSG, it argued that the court a quo correctly convicted
accused-appellant of rape because his guilt was proved beyond reasonable
doubt through AAA's credible testimony. 32
The Issue
The core issue for the Court's consideration is whether accused-
appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape.
The Ruling of the Court
The Appeal is without merit.
Settled is the rule that the factual findings of the trial court
are entitled to great weight and respect, if not finality, especially
when they are affinned by the appellate court. 33 Such findings are
generally considered binding on the Court, provided that they are not
tainted by glaring errors, a gross misapprehension of facts, or conclusions
that are speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported by the evidence. 34 As the
Court is not a trier of facts, it will not reexamine the trial court's findings
and appreciation of the evidence except when the peculiar circumstances
29 Id. at 49-52. See Manifestation (In Lieu of Supplemental Brief) dated February 9, 2023.
3
° CA rollo, pp. 23-25. (Emphasis supplied)
31
Id. at 31. (Emphasis supplied)
32
Id. at 54.
33 Laconsay v. People of the Philippines, G .R. No. 259861, October 21, 2024, citing Villarba v. Court
of Appeals, 874 Phil. 84, I 08 (2020).
34 Villarba v. Court of Appeals, 874 Phil. 84, I 08 (2020), citing People v. Daramay, Jr., 431 Phil.
715, 727 (2002).
Decision 7 G.R. No. 257662
of the case so warrant. 35
In the case, the Court finds no cogent reason to overturm the
uniform factual findings of the RTC and the CA, as it was not shown that
the lower courts had overlooked, misunderstood, or misappreciated facts
or circumstances of weight that could have altered the result of the case. 36
Accused-appellant was charged with Rape under Article 266-A of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended, which provides as follows:
ARTICLE 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. - Rape is
committed:
I) 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
unconsc10us;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of
authority;
d) When the offended paiiy is under twelve (12) years of age
or is demented, even though none of the circumstances
mentioned above be present.
Thus, for a successful prosecution of the crime of Rape, the
prosecution must establish the following elements with moral certainty:
(a) the offender is a man who had carnal know ledge of a woman; and (b)
he accomplished this act under the circumstances mentioned under Article
266-A, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, 37 e.g., the act is committed
through force, threat, or intimidation.
Simply stated, the gravamen of the crime of Rape is carnal
knowledge of a man with a woman by force or without consent. 38
35 Senator Trillanes !Vv. Hon. Medialdea, G.R. Nos. 241494, 256660 & 256078, April 3, 2024. See
also Bautista v. Spouses Ba/along, 879 Phil. 53, 63 (2020). (Emphasis supplied)
36
People v. Bacyaan, 863 Phil. 656, 666 (2019). (Emphasis supplied)
37
Romero v. People, G.R. No. 267093, May 29, 2024, citing People v. Ejercito, 834 Phil. 837, 853
(2018). See also People v. Tubillo, 811 Phil. 525, 532-533(2017); People v. Court of Appeals, 755
Phil. 80, 103(2015); People v. Padigos, 700 Phil. 368, 376-377(2012); People v. Manjares, 677
Phil. 242, 258(2011 ); People v. limos, 465 Phil. 66, 77 (2004).
38 People v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 265754, February 5, 2024, citing People v. XXX, 944 Phil. 517,
525 (2023). (Emphasis supplied)
Decision 8 G.R. No. 257662
Here, the prosecution established that accused-appellant had carnal
knowledge of AAA. She testified that accused-appellant punched her in
the abdomen which caused her to fall to the ground, removed her shorts
and underwear, and took advantage of her by inserting his penis into her
vagina. She testified as follows:
Q: While [XXX257662] was driving, where were you positioned?
A: Behind him.
Q: While [XXX257662] was driving ... what happened if any?
A: He told me we would negotiate the road cemented.
Q: Did you in fact used that [c]emented road?
A: Actually no ...
Q: And what happened next if any?
A: He stopped in a grassy portion.
Q: When [XXX257662] stopped the motorcycle in a grassy
portion[,] what did you do if any?
A: I alighted from the motorcycle and distance [myself] from him
and asked why we were there.
Q: And what was the reply of [XXX257662]?
A: He did not reply[,] instead he punched my abdomen.
Q: You said you distance [from] [XXX257662] when you
embarked [sic], how did he punch your stomach?
A: He approached me.
Q: When he punched your abdomen[,] what happened to you?
A: I fall to the ground.
Q: Why did you fall?
A: Because of the impact of his punch.
Q: When you fall to the ground[,] what happened if any?
A: He removed my shorts.
Q: How about you[,] what did you do when he pulled your shorts
down?
A: I told him "Kuya let me stand first".
Q: And did he heed your plea?
A: Yes.
Q: And when you were standing up, what happened next if any?
Decision 9 G.R. No. 257662
A: When I was already standing[,] I ran fast to escape.
Q: And what happened while you were running to escape from
him?
A: He also ran and was able to hold my left hand.
Q: And when he [was] able to hold your left hand, what happened
next if any?
A: After he held my hand[,] he suddenly punch[ed] my abdomen.
Q: When he punched your abdomen again[,] what happened to
you?
A: He pushed me and I fell to the ground again.
Q: When you fell to the ground, what happened next if any?
A: When I fell to the ground[,] he was removing my clothes and I
shout[ ed] for he)p.
Q: Because you fell down again and he tried to pull off your clothes
and you shouted for help but no people around, what did he do
while he was pulling your clothes?
A: I was crying and kept pleading that he would not do what he
want me to do. [sic]
Q: What happened to your clothes?
A: He removed my shorts and panty.
Q: When you were already naked[,] what [XXX257662] do if any?
A: He forcibly inse1ied his penis into my vagina[.]
Q: [W]hat was your position at the point in time?
A: I was lying down, I was [profusely] crying. After he punched
my abdomen again[,] I fell to the ground[,] and he forcibly
removed my shorts and forced his penis to my vagina. While I
was lying on the ground[,] he tried to open my legs.
Q: Did you not resist?
A: I tried to resist[,] but because of the heavy punch he did to my
abdomen[,] I became weak. 39
39
TSN, AAA, August 17, 2015, pp. 5-11.
Decision G.R. No. 257662
Indeed, AAA categorically identified accused-appellant as the one
who raped her. Her candid and straightforward narration of the sexual
°
assault unmistakably deserves credence. 4 Further, it is settled that
"[y ]outh and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity." 41
Moreover, no woman, much less a child, would make a story of
defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and subject herself
to public trial. 42
To exculpate himself from criminal liability, accused-appellant
argued that: first, the medical findings of Dr. Lita should not be accorded
weight, as such findings do not conclusively establish that they were
caused by the sexual abuse that he allegedly committed against AAA. 43
And second, AAA was impelled by improper motives to file the rape
charge against him. 44
The Court, however, is not persuaded.
Pertinently, AAA's credible testimony is reinforced by the medical
findings of Dr. Lita, which revealed an incompletely healed laceration
located at the 7 o'clock position of her hymen at the time of the
examination. 45 While it is true that a medical examination of the victim is
not indispensable in the prosecution for Rape, it may serve to corroborate
the testimony of the victim, 46 as in this case.
Besides, as enunciated by the Court in People v. Olpindo, 47 "the
accused in a rape case may be convicted based solely on the testimony of
the victim, provided that such testimony is credible, natural, convincing,
and consistent with human nature and the nonnal course of things." 48 In
other words, even if the Court disregards the medical findings of Dr. Lita,
accused-appellant's conviction of the crime charged is still warranted
given AAA's credible testimony.
40 People v. Bersabe, 352 Phil. 521, 532 (1998); Peoplev. Gecomo, 324 Phil. 297, 312 (1996);
People v. Guibao, 291 Phil. 63, 72 (1993).
41
People v. ABC, 867 Phil. 996, 1010 (2019).
42 Id.
43
CA rollo, pp. 27-30. (Emphasis supplied)
44 Id. at 34-35. (Emphasis supplied)
45
Rollo, p. 20.
46 People v. Gapasan, 312 Phil. 964, 973 (1995). (Emphasis supplied)
47
919 Phil. 1024 (2022).
48 Id. at 1048-1049 (2022), citing People v. linsie, 722 Phil. 374, 382-383 (2013). (Emphasis
supplied)
Decision 11 G.R. No. 257662
Moreover, the accused-appellant's defense of denial is inherently
weak and constitutes self-serving negative evidence, which cannot prevail
over his positive identification as the perpetrator of the crime. 49 He also
failed to present any evidence to prove that the victim had any ill motive
to file a charge against him. 50 As enunciated in the case of People v.
Santos, 51 the Court ruled that:
Much less convincing is appellant's proposition that ill feelings
and ill motives of the victim's mother impelled the filing of the charges
against him. Ill-motives become inconsequential where there are
affinnative or categorical declarations establishing appellant's
accountability for the felony. We have, furthermore, observed not a few
persons convicted of rape have attributed the charges against them to
family feuds, resentment or revenge. However, as borne out by a
plethora of cases, family resentment, revenge or feuds have never
swayed us from giving full credence to the testimony of a complainant
for rape, especially a minor who remained steadfast and unyielding
throughout the direct and cross-examination that she was sexually
abused. It would take a certain degree of perversity on the part of a
parent, especially a mother, to concoct a false charge of rape and then
use her daughter as an instrument to settle her grudge. 52 (Citations
omitted)
Concomitantly, the prosecution was able to establish that the
element of force was present. It is not required that the force or
intimidation employed be so great that it is irresistible; it need only be
sufficient to accomplish the purpose of accused-appellant. 53 As narrated
by AAA, accused-appellant held her hand, punched her in the abdomen,
and pushed her to the ground. 54 These acts demonstrate that force was
present to consummate the crime of Rape.
In sum, accused-appellant's guilt of Rape was proved beyond
reasonable doubt. Thus, the Court finds no reversible error on the part of
the CA in affirming accused-appellant's conviction.
The proper nomenclature of the
crime is Rape, not Simple Rape
49
People v. Ybalzez, 902 Phil. 228, 238 (2021 ). (Emphasis supplied)
50 See People v. Bersabe, supra note 40.
51
532 Phil. 752 (2006).
52
Id. at 767.
53 Id.
54 Rollo, p. 12; TSN, AAA, August 17, 2015, pp. 5-11.
Decision 12 G.R. No. 257662
The Court takes this opportunity to clarify that the proper
nomenclature for crimes defined and penalized under Article 266-A of the
Revised Penal Code is Rape and not "Simple Rape. " After all, there is
nothing "simple" about Rape and referring to it in such a manner
downplays its severity and desensitizes the public to the harm it inflicts.
Notably, Rape was originally classified as a Crime Against Chastity
under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. However, with the
enactment of Republic Act No. 8353, or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, it
was reclassified as a Crime Against Persons, marking a paradigm shift in
the legal and societal understanding of the criminal offense. This
legislative reclassification affirms that Rape is a serious crime that directly
inflicts harm and trauma-both physical and psychological-upon the
victim. Viewed in this context, Rape must never be trivialized as
"simple, " least of all in the official nomenclature adopted in judicial
decisions.
The penalty and award of
damages
As it now stands, accused-appellant is criminally liable of Rape
under Article 266-A, paragraph l(a), penalized under Article 266-B of
the Revised Penal Code, viz.:
ARTICLE 266-B. Penalties. - Rape under paragraph 1 of the
next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
Thus, the lower courts aptly imposed the penalty of reclusion
perpetua against accused-appellant. As to the award of damages, the
courts a quo correctly imposed PHP 75,000.00 as civil indemnity;
PHP 75,000.00 as moral damages; and PHP 75,000.00 as exemplary
damages, all with legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum reckoned from
the date of the finality of this Decision, until fully paid. 55
Lastly, as part of the government's efforts to provide
comprehensive services to meet the needs of rape victims and their
families, the Court directs the Department of Social Welfare and
Development to refer AAA to the proper rape crisis center for necessary
assistance. Such assistance may include: (1) providing her psychological
55 People v. .Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 849 (20 I6).
Decision 13 G.R. No. 257662
counseling, medical and health services, including medico-legal
examination; (2) ensuring her privacy and safety; (3) providing
psychological counseling and medical services whenever necessary for
her family; and (4) adopting and implementing programs for her
recovery. 56
ACCORDINGLY, the Appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision
dated February 22, 2021, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C.
No. 03486 is AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant XXX:257662 is found
GUILTY of Rape. He is SENTENCED to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and ORDERED to PAY AAAPHP 75,000.00 as civil indemnity,
PHP 75,000.00 as moral damages, and PHP 75,000.00 as exemplary
damages. The amounts shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from
the date of the finality of this Decision until fully paid.
The Department of Social Welfare and Development is
DIRECTED to refer AAA to the appropriate rape crisis center for the
necessary assistance to be rendered to the victim and her family, in line
with Republic Act No. 8505 or the "Rape Victim Assistance and
Protection Act of 1998."
SO ORDERED.
HENR
WE CONCUR:
t INS. CAGUIOA
56 REPUBLICAcr No. 8505, sec. 3.
Decision 14 G.R. No. 257662
s:iiuELH~~
Associate Justice
(On leave)
MARIA FILOMENA D. SINGH
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the abo Decision had been reached
in consultation before the case was assig d to t writer of the opinion
of the Court's Division.
S. CAGUIOA
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 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.