PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARIO MATUGUINA Y IMAS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
BUESER, J.:
of the crime of statutory rape, as defined and penalized under Article
266-A, in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, the dispositive portion of which reads in this wise:
“WHEREFORE, finding the accused MARIO MATUGUINA y
IMAS, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Statutory Rape
under Article 266-A par. 1 (d) in relation to Article 266-B 1st
par. of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R. A. 8353 in relation to
Secs. 5 (b) of R. A. 7610 and Sec. 5 (a) of R. A. 8369 he is hereby
ordered to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay the
amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.SO ORDERED.”[2]
The Facts
The pertinent facts and antecedents of this case, as borne by the records, are as follows:
On 15 June 2002, AAA[3]
who was then only nine (9) years of age, accompanied her sister BBB to
the latter’s house in Boso-Boso, Antipolo City. While in the yard of her
sister’s house, AAA saw appellant opening the door and windows of his
house. AAA saw appellant waving at her thus she approached him. AAA
thought that appellant’s daughter, who was her playmate, was there. AAA
then entered appellant’s house when the latter invited her in.
Upon entering the house, appellant closed the windows and
removed his short pants. Appellant then removed AAA’s shorts and lifted
her and inserted his penis into her vagina. While AAA was facing him,
appellant lifted her up. AAA felt appellant’s penis penetrating her
private organ. AAA did not do anything until fluid came out of
appellant’s penis. Appellant then placed AAA down to put up his shorts.
Afterwards, AAA went home to BBB’s house. AAA did not report the
incident to her parents that time.
Consequently, AAA executed an
Affidavit and filed the present rape complaint against appellant.
Appellant was charged with the crime of statutory rape as defined under
Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B, the accusatory portion of
the Information reads:
“That on or about the 15th day of June 2002, in
the City of Antipolo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design, and by means
of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously had sexual intercourse with one AAA, a nine
(9) year old minor against the latter’s will and consent.CONTRARY TO LAW”
During his arraignment, appellant entered a plea of not guilty to
the charges hurled against him. Trial on the merits then ensued.
Aside from documentary exhibits, the prosecution presented in evidence
the testimonies of complainant AAA and P/SR. Insp. Ruby Grace
Sabino-Dianson (“Police Inspector Dianson”), the medico-legal officer of
the Philippine National Police Women’s Crisis and Children Protection
Center at Camp Crame, Quezon City.
Police Inspector Dianson testified that on 3 November 2003,
she received a request for the genital examination of AAA. The duty
investigator conducted the preliminary interview while she conducted the
forensic examination. There was a disclosure on the part of AAA that
she had been sexually abused. In her Medico-Legal Report, Police
Inspector Dianson indicated that there was a shallow healed laceration
at the 6 o’clock position in AAA’s hymen.[4]
She explained that the laceration was labeled as shallow since it did
not go beyond fifty percent of the total hymen rim. She further opined
that the laceration can be caused by a blunt penetrating trauma.
On cross-examination, Police Inspector Dianson confirmed that
according to the disclosure of AAA, the rape incident allegedly happened
sometime in the year 2002. She added that it is possible that the blunt
penetrating trauma was caused by the insertion of a finger or a
vibrator.
AAA, in turn, testified that she was born on 1 March 1993.[5]
She was nine (9) years old at the time the rape incident happened. When
she took the witness stand for the first time, AAA was already twelve
(12) years old, a first year high school student and a resident of
Olandes, Marikina City.
Continuing with her testimony, AAA narrated that in the
morning of 15 June 2002, she had been brought by BBB to Boso-Boso,
Antipolo City. She was at the yard of BBB’s house when she saw
appellant, who called and waved at her. She approached him thinking that
appellant’s daughter, who was her playmate, was home. Upon entering the
house, the appellant closed the windows and removed her shorts. After
removing his shorts, appellant lifted her and inserted his penis into
her vagina.[6] She felt
appellant’s penis penetrate her. She did nothing until fluid came out of
appellant’s penis. After the incident, she went home but did not report
the incident to BBB and her parents. Subsequently, she filed the
present complaint and executed the affidavit on record. She identified
the appellant as a neighbor and as the one who abused her in 2002.
On cross-examination, AAA, who was then already fourteen (14)
years old, recounted that after the 15 June 2002 incident, appellant
had raped her again on three (3) separate instances. She cannot remember
the exact date of the second rape. She noted however that it happened
also in 2002 but in a different place. The third and fourth rape
incidents happened in the same place although she could also not recall
the exact dates except that the fourth rape happened sometime in July
2002. Despite the other three rape incidents, she only filed the present
rape case against appellant.[7]
For the defense, appellant did not take the witness stand.
Instead, the defense presented the testimony of Loreta Palmones
(“Palmones”), sixty-eight (68) years old, a housewife and a resident of
Project 4, Quezon City. Appellant was her neighbor since 1991. AAA and
her mother were likewise her neighbors in Quezon City. She is also the
mother of BBB’s live-in partner. She explained that the supposed house
of BBB in Boso-Boso actually belongs to her.[8]
Witness Palmones testified that in 2002, appellant’s house was
a mere skeleton of a house with only a roof made of G.I. sheets. There
were no walls, doors or windows. It was only completed sometime in 2004.
She further testified that on 12 June 2002, she was at her Antipolo
house with her husband. She noted that it was the birthday of both
appellant and his father-in-law, Onofre Nava.[9]
She did not see AAA in her house on 15 June 2002. She also did not see
AAA in her house in 2003 and 2004. On cross, she admitted that she
is the overseer of the property of Onofre Nava.
In its Decision dated 4 April 2011, the court a quo, in the
manner as afore-quoted, found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of statutory rape of AAA and imposed upon him the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. Appellant was also ordered to pay AAA civil indemnity in the
amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00).
Aggrieved, appellant filed the instant appeal.
The Issue
The main issue to be resolved in this appeal is whether the
evidence on record supports the conviction of the appellant for the
crime of statutory rape.
The Court’s Ruling
We find the instant appeal bereft of merit.
Questioning the factual findings and legal conclusions of the trial
court, the appellant relies on the testimony of his witness to
substantiate his defenses of denial and alibi. Appellant asserts that
Palmones, a witness that should be deemed to favor AAA given her
relationship with BBB, categorically contradicts the allegations of
rape. Aside from the fact that the witness has proven that appellant’s
house was a mere skeleton at the time of the rape, thus refuting AAA’s
testimony and rendering the commission of the rape implausible, Palmones
attested to the fact that AAA was nowhere near appellant on 15 June
2002.
Appellant further faults the credence given by the court
to the testimony of AAA. He even puts into issue the failure of BBB to
corroborate said testimony. He likewise undermines the probative value
of the Medico-Legal Report positing that the laceration could have been
caused by anything. To the appellant, AAA offered nothing but bare
allegations of rape and that no concrete evidence has been presented to
support his conviction.
We are not persuaded.
Axiomatic is the rule that in reviewing rape cases, courts are
guided by three settled principles, to wit: (1) an accusation of rape
can be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to
prove, it is even more difficult for the person accused, although
innocent, to disprove; (2) considering the intrinsic nature of the
crime, only two persons being usually involved, the testimony of the
complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the
evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit, and
cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for
the defense.[10]
Verily, this rule finds relevance in the present case
considering that as gleaned from the evidence, the determination of the
veracity of the charges vis-à-vis the guilt of the person who stands
accused thereof primarily rests on the conflicting versions of events
respectively proffered by the complainant on one hand and the appellant
on the other.
Guided by the foregoing considerations and after a
review of the records of this case, there is no question that the guilt
of the appellant has been established by the prosecution beyond
reasonable doubt. While it may be said that the crux of the present
charges rests solely on the complainant’s testimony, the prosecution
nevertheless established with moral certainty that appellant had carnal
knowledge of AAA against her will.
Contrary to the assertions of
appellant, AAA’s testimony bears the hallmarks of credibility. In no
uncertain terms, AAA, a nine (9) year old child, narrated in detail her
ordeal, from how appellant had summoned her to the manner by which the
latter was able to have carnal knowledge of her. Though subjected to the
rigors of cross-examination, AAA’s testimony was clear, straightforward
and unwavering in proving that appellant had in fact abused her. AAA,
despite her innocence and unawareness, was able to give a detailed
account from how appellant penetrated her to the latter’s ejaculation.
Given her innocence, for AAA to be able to testify on these matters is
telling proof of appellant’s beastly acts.
A fortiori, the settled rule that rape may be proven
by the lone uncorroborated testimony of the offended victim, as long as
her testimony is clear, positive, and probable[11]
evidently applies in the present case. While appellant insists that BBB
should have corroborated the testimony of her sister, the fact that AAA
has given a straightforward and credible testimony that passed scrutiny
and rigid cross-examination clearly warrants the finding of guilt
against him.
Emphatically, under Article 266-A(1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353,[12]
the crime of rape is committed by a man having 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.
Pertinent to the present case, rape under Article 266-A (1)
(d) is termed statutory rape as it 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. The law presumes that the victim
does not and cannot have a will of her own on account of her tender
years; the child’s consent is immaterial because of her presumed
incapacity to discern good from evil.[13]
Unfortunate as it is, the evidence on record establishes
beyond reasonable doubt the miserable fate of AAA in the hands of her
depraved aggressor. This Court finds no persuasion in appellant’s dire
attempt to discredit her credibility. AAA was a mere nine (9) year old
child and her harrowing account of the rape cannot simply be undermined
by appellant’s specious assertions.
It is settled jurisprudence that testimonies of child victims
are given full weight and credit, because when a woman, more so if she
is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is
necessary to show that rape was committed. Youth and immaturity are
generally badges of truth and sincerity.[14]
Truth be told, the testimony of appellant’s witness fails to
establish a credible and concrete alibi for him. What said testimony
proves is that appellant was in his Boso-Boso house on 12 June 2002.
Said witness attempts to discredit AAA by claiming that the latter was
not in her house on 15 June 2002. However, compared to the clear and
straight testimony of AAA, the vague and unsubstantiated recollection of
witness Palmones lacks persuasion. In the same vein, aside from her
mere say so, there is no other proof to her claim that appellant’s house
was a mere skeleton in 2002. Appellant himself could not corroborate
said testimony.
Time and time again, this Court has ruled that denial and
alibi are the weakest of all defenses, because they are easy to concoct
and fabricate. Furthermore, said defenses cannot prevail over the
positive and unequivocal identification of the appellant by his victim
AAA. Suffice it to say that denial and alibi are practically worthless
against the positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses,
especially by the rape victim.[15]
What is more, appellant cannot belittle the Medico-Legal
Report on mere conjecture that AAA’s laceration could have been caused
by any blunt object. Coupled by physical evidence of assault, the
testimony given by AAA is sufficient to warrant appellant’s conviction.
All told, considering that the elements of the crime of
statutory rape are duly proven by the evidence on record beyond
reasonable doubt, the conviction of the appellant should stand. The
trial court committed no reversible error is its factual findings.
Certainly, when the question arises as to which of the conflicting
versions of the prosecution and the defense is worthy of belief, the
assessment of the trial court is generally given the highest degree of
respect, if not finality.[16]
This notwithstanding, this Court finds legal basis to modify
the assailed Decision in so far as the trial court omitted the award of
moral and exemplary damages in favor of AAA. Pursuant to recent
jurisprudence, there is no longer any debate that the victim in
statutory rape is entitled to a civil indemnity of P50,000.00, moral
damages of P50,000.00, and exemplary damages of P30,000.00. The award of
civil indemnity of P50,000.00 is mandatory upon the finding of the fact
of rape. Similarly, the award of moral damages of P50,000.00 is
mandatory, and made without need of allegation and proof other than that
of the fact of rape, for it is logically assumed that the victim
suffered moral injuries from her ordeal. In addition, exemplary damages
of P30,000.00 are justified under Article 2229 of the Civil Code to set
an example for the public good and to serve as deterrent to those who
abuse the young.[17]
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the assailed Decision dated 4 April 2011 is hereby is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION
that appellant is ordered to pay AAA the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity; P50,000.00 as moral damages; and P30,000.00 as exemplary
damages, plus interest on all damages awarded at the legal rate of 6%
per annum from the date of finality of this decision.
SO ORDERED.
Zalameda[*] (Acting Chairperson) and Sempio Diy,[**] JJ., concur.
[*] vice J. Rebecca De Guia-Salvador, per Office Order No. 184-14-ABR dated May 5, 2014.
[**] vice J. Ramon R. Garcia, per Office Order No. 187-14-ABR dated May 6, 2014.
[1] Original Records, pp. 163-169.
[2] Id. at 169.
[3] Pursuant to the
provisions of Republic Act Nos. 7610 and 9262, the real name of the
victims and other personal circumstances or information tending to
establish or compromise their identities, as well as those of their
immediate family or household members, shall not be disclosed. Instead,
the Court shall use fictitious initials to represent them in accordance
[4] Transcript of Stenographic Records, 17 October 2005, pp. 10-12.
[5] Transcript of Stenographic Records, 14 November 2006, p. 8.
[6] Transcript of Stenographic Records, 8 November 2005, pp. 8-11.
[7] Transcript of Stenographic Records, 2 October 2007, p. 4-13.
[8] Transcript of Stenographic Records, 2 December 2008, p. 8.
[9] Transcript of Stenographic Records, 10 November 2008, pp. 14-19.
[10] People vs. Ogarte, G.R. No. 182690, 30 May 2011.
[11] People vs. Celocelo, G.R. No. 173798, 15 December 2010.
[12] An Act Expanding
the Definition of the Crime of Rape, Reclassifying the Same as a Crime
Against Persons, Amending for the Purpose Act No. 3815, As Amended,
Otherwise Known as the Revised Penal Code, and for Other Purposes.
[13] People vs. Teodoro, G.R. No. 172372, 4 December 2009.
[14] People vs. Oliva, G.R. No. 187043, 18 September 2009.
[15] People vs. Ayade, G.R. No. 188561, 15 January 2010.
[16] People vs. Espino, Jr., G.R. No. 176742, 17 June 2008.
[17] People vs. Manalili, G.R. No. 191253, 28 August 2013.