PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FLORENCIO MILLA Y BAGAMASBAD, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
GARCIA-FERNANDEZ, J.:
The factual antecedents are as follows:
Accused-appellant was charged in three (3) separate informations for the crime of rape under Article 266-A, par.1(a), of the Revised Penal Code in relation to RA 7610, which read:
Criminal Case No. 5635-09[2]
That on or about the 13th day of September 2007, in the Municipality of Dasmarinas, Province of Cavite, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused, being the stepfather of one AAA[3], a fifteen (15) year-old minor, having been born on October 14, 1991, by means of violence, and intimidation, and by taking advantage of his moral ascendancy being the stepfather of the said minor, with lewd designs and actuated by lust, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of his said stepdaughter, against her will and consent, thus debasing, degrading and demeaning her intrinsic worth and dignity as a child, to her damage and prejudice.
Criminal Case No. 5636-09[4]
That on or about the 6th day of November 2007, in the Municipality of Dasmarinas, Province of Cavite, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused, being the stepfather of one AAA[5], a sixteen (16) year-old minor, having been born on October 14, 1991, by means of violence, and intimidation, and by taking advantage of his moral ascendancy being the stepfather of the said minor, with lewd designs and actuated by lust, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of his said stepdaughter, against her will and consent, thus debasing, degrading and demeaning her intrinsic worth and dignity as a child, to her damage and prejudice.
Criminal Case No. 5637-09[6]
That sometime during the year of 1999, in the Municipality of Dasmarinas, Province of Cavite, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused, being the stepfather of one AAA[7], an eight (8) year-old minor, having been born on October 14, 1991, by means of violence, and intimidation, and by taking advantage of his moral ascendancy being the stepfather of the said minor, with lewd designs and actuated by lust, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of his said stepdaughter, against her will and consent, thus debasing, degrading, and demeaning her intrinsic worth and dignity as a child, to her damage and prejudice.
Assisted by a counsel de officio, accused-appellant was arraigned on March 4, 2009 and he entered a plea of not guilty to all the charges.[8]
Evidence for the Prosecution
AAA identified accused-appellant in court as her stepfather[9]. She testified that accused-appellant started to molest her when she was ten (10) years old inside their house at night while her mother was selling porridge. While AAA was sleeping on the mat with her younger sister, accused-appellant would wake her up and told her to remain quiet while he removed her shorts and underwear. Accused-appellant would insert and withdraw his penis inside her vagina several times. Thereafter, accused-appellant would give back her underwear and shorts and told her to not tell her mother about that had transpired or else he would kill them. AAA stated that accused-appellant would repeat the process two to three nights per week until she reached third year high school. AAA told this incident to her boyfriend, who then told her mother, BBB[10]. BBB brought AAA and her sister to Manila. AAA submitted herself to medical examination.[11] She executed a sworn affidavit narrating the events that transpired, which she identified in open court.[12]
Dr. Merle P. Tan conducted AAA’s physical examination and prepared Medico-Legal Report No. 2007-4966[13]. During her testimony, Dr. Tan stated that she found that AAA’s hymen was possibly penetrated by a blunt object, which was possibly a sex organ[14]. During cross – examination, Dr. Tan testified that a hymen can heal as early as three to five days depending on how it was injured.[15]
Evidence for the Defense
For his part, accused-appellant denied AAA’s accusations against him. Accused-appellant testified that AAA filed charges against him because AAA and her boyfriend are angry with him because he was strict and did not allow AAA to enter into a relationship[16].
On March 3, 2010, the RTC rendered a decision[17] finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of rape as defined and penalized under Article 266-A, par.1(a), of the Revised Penal Code in relation to RA 7610, to wit:
“The evidence for the prosecution warrants the conviction of the accused for rape as charged in the three (3) criminal informations. The accused simply advanced denial and alibi that deserves no consideration; and the Court do not subscribe to the theory of the accused that the filing of this rape charge was motivated by the victim’s hate for him due to his manner to disciplining the victim, but such excuse cannot save the day for the accused, as it remained unsubstantiated. His alibi cannot stand agains thte positive identification and categorical testimony of the rape victime, hence, weak.
The award for moral damages in the amount of Php50,000.00 is warranted as moral damages are automatically awarded to rape victims without need of pleading or proof. The award of civil indemnity ex-delicto of Php50,000.00 is also warranted in the light of the ruling that civil indemnity, which is distinct from moral damages is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape. Exemplary damages of Php25,000.00 is likewise warranted, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence on the matter.”
In this appeal, accused-appellant contends that the RTC gravely erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape. Accused-appellant claims that AAA’s testimony is not credible because AAA slept with her mother and sister in a single mat. Accused-appellant also alleges that Dr. Tan’s testimony cannot be given weight considering that the presence of a “deep notch in AAA’s hymen” cannot be conclusively attributed to the alleged rape committed by him, especially that AAA cohabited with her boyfriend when she was sixteen (16) years old.
The appeal fails.
After careful review of the records, this Court finds no reason to doubt AAA’s credibility. This Court accords great weight and respect to the findings of the trial that her testimony[18] is consistent, candid, and straightforward, as follows:
Now, while he was staying with you, do you remember whether there was an unusual incident that happened inside your house between you and the accused in this case? A Opo. Q What was that? A Noong ginalaw niya po ako, Sir. Court Ilang taon ka ng una kang ginalaw ng taong yan? A Ten (10) years old, Ma’am. APJ And where did he molest you? A Sa bahay po. Q Aside from you and the accused, were there other persons inside the house? A Ang mama ko po. Q Where was your mother at that time? A Nagtitinda po ng lugaw tuwing gabi. Q And what time was that when the accused first molested you? A Tuwing matutulog po. Q During night time? A Opo. Court Anong buwan at araw ng unang panghahalay sayo? A Grade five (5) po ako. Court So that was the first rape when she was in grade 5. APJ How did he start to rape you? A Tuwing natutulog po kami. Q The first time, how did he start molesting you? A Tinatakot niya po ako. Q What were you doing at that time? A Sumusunod lang po ako. Court Ano ang hinihigaan niyo, kama o banig? A Banig po. APJ You said we, who was your companion? A Kapatid ko po. Q A younger sibling? A Opo. Q And when you were about to sleep, what happened if there was any? A Tulog na po ako tapos gigisingin niya po ako. Q Gigisingin ka? A Opo. Q What did he tell you when he was trying to wake you up? A Wag daw po ako maingay. Wag daw po ako magsusumbong sa mama ko. Q And then, what did you do next? A Natakot po ako. Court Sumiping ba sayo? A Opo. Q Pagkatapos tumabi sayo, ano ang ginawa niya? A Hinubad niya po ang short ko at panti ko. APJ You were totally nude? A Opo. Court Hinubuan ka lang ba or hinubaran ka? A Hinubaran po. Q Tinanggal pati pang taas mo? A Hindi po. Q Yon lang? A Tinanggal po yong short at panti ko. Court Proceed. APJ After he took off your short and panty, what happened next? A Pinasok niya po ang kanyang ari. Q What about the accused, what was he wearing during that time when he inserted his private organ? A Wala po. Hinubad niya rin po. Q And how long did it take for the accused to insert and remove his penis or organ from your organ? A Saglit lang po. Tapos inalis niya po. Q Immediately after inserting his organ to your organ, what did he do next? A He was pumping. Q Thereafter he withdraw [sic] his organ? A Opo. Q What happened next after that? A Ibinalik niya po sa akin yong short ko at panti ko. Q And what did he tell you if there was any? A Wag daw po ako magsusumbong sa nanay ko. Court May dala ba siang patalim? A Lagi po siyang may dalang patalim. Q Itinututok ba yan sayo? A Sabi lang niya na papatayin ako at nanay ko pag nagsumbog ako. APJ What was repeated again? A Minsan tuwing gabi. Minsan sa isang linggo. Q How many times a week? A Minsan gabi-gabi. Court Gabi-gabi ba yan ginagawa sayo? A Minsan po. Q Isang bises [sic] sa isang gabi. Halimbawa nangyari ngayon gabi, kinabukasan ginawa pa niya ulit sayo? A Minsan po ganon. Q Sa isang linggo, ilang araw na ginagawa yan sayo? A Mga dalawang bises [sic] po. Q Dalawang bises [sic] sa isang linggo? A Opo. Q Tapos titigil. Sa susunod na linggo, gagawin ulit sayo? Ilang bises [sic] sa susunod na linggo? A Minsan tatlong bises [sic]. Q So, nung sampong taon ka ginagawa niya sayo yan? A Opo. APJ Until when did he stop molesting you, how old were you? A Third year high school po. Q From that time until he stopped doing that to you, you did not mind telling this to your mother? A Natatakot po ako sabihin kasi sabi niya papatayin daw niya kami pag nagsumbong ako sa nanay ko.
As held by the Supreme Court in People of the Philippines vs. Dominguez, Jr[19]., jurisprudence has decreed that the issue of credibility of witnesses is a question best addressed to the province of the trial court because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses deportment on the stand while testifying which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts and absent any substantial reason which would justify the reversal of the trial court’s assessment and conclusion, the reviewing court is generally bound by the former’s findings, particularly when no significant facts and circumstances are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded which when considered would have affected the outcome of the case.
Article 266-A, par. 1(a) of the Revised Penal Code has the following elements: 1) The offender is a man; 2) The offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; 3) Such act is accomplished by using force or intimidation[20]. As clearly stated by AAA, she was forced by accused-appellant to have sexual intercourse with him on several occasions under threat or fear that she and her mother would be killed. However, since AAA failed to prove that accused-appellant is her stepfather, there being no document proving marriage between her mother BBB and accused-appellant, this Court thus finds accused-appellant to be guilty only of simple rape under Article 266-A par. 1(a) of the Revised Penal Code.
Accused-appellant’s bare denial, as opposed to AAA’s positive testimony, and accused-appellant’s uncorroborated allegation of ill motive on AAA’s part in filing the criminal charges, are bereft of evidentiary value. As ruled in Campos vs. People of the Philippines[21]:
“It must be emphasized that while denial and alibi are legitimate defenses in rape cases, bare assertions thereof cannot overcome the categorical testimony of the victim. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must not only prove his presence at another place at the time of the commission of the offense, but he must also demonstrate that it would be physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of the commission of the crime. In People v. Grefaldia, we held:
Alibi is one of the weakest defenses. It is easy to fabricate and difficult to disprove. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must establish with clear and convincing evidence not only that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed but also that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. Appellant failed to conclusively show that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.” [Citations omitted.]
Further, it has been held that ill motive is not an element of the crime of rape and the attribution of ill motive in rape cases cannot overturn the well-established essential elements of the crime charged.[22]
All in all, this Court affirms the RTC and finds the accused-appellant guilty of three (3) counts of rape as defined under Article 266-A, par. 1(a) of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Republic Act No. 7610.
Anent the penalty to be imposed, this Court finds that the RTC correctly imposed the indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua per count of rape, pursuant to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code.
Anent the civil liability of the accused-appellant, this Court affirms that the latter is liable to AAA for civil indemnity and moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 each as both are in line with prevailing jurisprudence[23]. However, the award for exemplary damages must be deleted since there is no aggravating circumstance in this case[24].
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The decision dated March 3, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court of Dasmarinas, Cavite Branch 90, finding accused-appellant Florencio Milla y Bagamasbad guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of rape as defined under Article 266-A, par. 1(a) of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Republic Act No. 7610 and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in each case is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. The award of civil indemnity of P50,000.00 and moral damages of P50,000.00 is affirmed. The award of exemplary damages is deleted.
SO ORDERED.
Lampas Peralta, (Chairperson), and Acosta, JJ., concur.
[*] Sitting in Imus, Cavite
[1] Rollo, pp. 8-12.
[2] Records, pp. 1-2.
[3] Names and personal circumstances are withheld, pursuant to Section 29, RA 7610, in relation to Section 40 & 44 of RA 9262 (The Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004); People vs. Melchor Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006.
[4] Records, pp. 17-18.
[5] Names and personal circumstances withheld, pursuant to Section 29, RA 7610, in relation to Section 40 & 44 of RA 9262 (The Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004); People vs. Melchor Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006.
[6] Records, pp. 36-37.
[7] Names and personal circumstances withheld, pursuant to Section 29, RA 7610, in relation to Section 40 & 44 of RA 9262 (The Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004); People vs. Melchor Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006.
[8] Records, p. 52.
[9] TSN dated September 1, 2009, pp.3-4.
[10] Names and personal circumstances are withheld, pursuant to Section 29, RA 7610, in relation to Section 40 & 44 of RA 9262 (The Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004); People vs. Melchor Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006.
[11] TSN dated September 1, 2009, pp. 8-16.
[12] Records, pp. 25-26.
[13] Records, p. 47.
[14] TSN dated May 13, 2009, pp. 5-6.
[15] TSN dated May 13, 2009, pp. 7-8.
[16] TSN dated November 24, 2009, pp. 4-6.
[17] Supra note 1.
[18] TSN dated September 1, 2009, pp. 8-14.
* Direct Examination conducted by Asst. Pros. Jarlos.
[19] G.R. No. 180914, November 24, 2010.
[20] Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code Book Two, Fifteenth ed., p. 519
[21] G.R. No. 175275, February 19, 2008.
[22] G.R. No. 181083, January 21, 2010.
[23] People vs. Pangilinan, G.R. No. 183090, November 14, 2011. See People vs. Padilla, G.R. No. 167955, September 30, 2009, citing People vs. Remeias Begino, G.R. No, 181246, March 20, 2009 and People vs. Baldo, G.R. No. 175238, February 24, 2009.
[24] People vs. Marcos, G.R. No. 185380, June 18, 2009.