PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ARNEL TENIZO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Tenizo

The Case

This is the case of the People of the Philippines against Arnel Tenizo, a criminal prosecution for rape by sexual assault under the second paragraph of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code. The victim, a boy referred to as AAA, was six years old at the time of the acts, and the accused was fifteen. The case matters for three reasons a reviewee should hold onto: it shows how the Supreme Court treats the credibility of a child witness, it shows how the age of a victim is proved when the birth certificate turns out to be spurious, and it shows how the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority is applied to a child in conflict with the law even after he has grown past the age of majority.

Procedural History

Arnel Tenizo was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Taguig City, Branch 69. Because he was a minor at the time of the offense, the court conducted a case study on him, and the Social Case Study Report recommended that he be released under the care and custody of his biological parents. He entered a plea of not guilty, and trial on the merits followed. The defense moved to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, insisting that the acts happened in Makati City and not in Taguig. The trial court conducted an ocular inspection, received the report of the Clerk of Court, and ruled that it had jurisdiction because one of the places of the alleged rape lay within Taguig. The trial court then rendered its decision of conviction on 3 September 2012, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified rape by sexual assault and imposing an indeterminate penalty, together with civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages.

From that judgment, Arnel Tenizo brought the matter to the Supreme Court by ordinary appeal, assigning as errors the trial court's failure to consider exculpatory facts, the failure of the prosecution to prove the age of the victim beyond reasonable doubt, the lack of jurisdiction, and the supposed violation of the constitutional presumption of innocence.

Facts

AAA was a young boy living near the family of Arnel Tenizo, whom the neighborhood also called Bruno. Sometime in the year 2001, when AAA was six years old, Arnel called him over and told him to suck his penis. AAA could not fight back because Arnel was older and stronger. He moved his mouth up and down until he stopped because the penis was salty. Arnel then asked him to eat the whitish substance that came out, and later removed the child's shorts and inserted his penis into the child's anus.

Arnel threatened to hurt AAA if he told anyone, and he repeated the assaults on many occasions, often giving the child three pesos after each act. AAA finally found the courage to tell his mother. The medico-legal report showed a perianal scar on AAA.

At trial, Arnel denied the charges and said he could think of no reason why AAA would accuse him. His father, Arnold, insisted that AAA's mother was in the habit of filing cases to collect settlement money, and claimed she had asked for thirty thousand pesos in an unjust vexation case against him. A neighbor testified that it was AAA's own uncle who had assaulted him. The defense also presented a letter from the National Statistics Office stating that it did not issue AAA's birth certificate and that the document had been tampered with. The trial court nonetheless convicted Arnel, and he appealed.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving full weight and credence to the testimony of the child victim AAA.
• Whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the age of AAA as a child below seven years of age.
• Whether or not the trial court had jurisdiction over the crime, given the claim that the acts were committed in Makati City and not in Taguig.
• Whether or not the conviction violated the constitutional presumption of innocence.
• Whether or not the accused, a minor at the time of the offense, is entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority and to the appropriate disposition under the law on children in conflict with the law.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266-A, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code defines rape by sexual assault, and the Court quotes its operative language:

That the offender commits an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.

This is the provision that supplies the very gravamen of the crime charged, so the Court anchors the conviction on the insertion of the penis into the mouth and anal orifice of the child.

Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9344 fixes the minimum age of criminal responsibility, and the Court quotes it in full:

SECTION 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. — A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act. A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act. The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws.

Because Arnel was fifteen years old at the time of the offense, this provision determines whether he is exempt from criminal liability or must answer for the crime, and the Court resolves that question by asking whether he acted with discernment.

Article 68, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code provides for the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority:

Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years of age, the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period.

This provision lowers the penalty that would otherwise be imposed on Arnel, since he was fifteen years of age when he committed the assault.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court sustained the conviction. A rape charge is a serious matter, and the resolution of the charge frequently hinges on the credibility of the victim's testimony. The Court gives the highest respect to the trial court's assessment of credibility, because the trial judge has the peculiar opportunity to observe the deportment and demeanor of the witnesses while they testify, unlike the appellate court which depends on the mute pages of the records. The Court found that AAA's narration bore the earmarks of truth, and that the trial court, having personally heard him under exhaustive interrogation, was in the better position to pass judgment on his credibility.

On the second issue, the Court held that the age of AAA was sufficiently established. The birth certificate could no longer be used because of the irregularities confirmed by the National Statistics Office, so the Court applied the jurisprudential guidelines on proving age. The mother of AAA categorically declared that she gave birth to him on 30 November 1995, and the Court held that even if the birth certificate turned out to be spurious, this does not detract from the fact that the mother can establish pedigree, for she has firsthand knowledge of the date she gave birth to her child. AAA was therefore six years of age at the time of the crime.

On the third issue, the Court held that the trial court had jurisdiction. The ocular inspection and the report of the Clerk of Court categorically declared that the sexual assault was committed in areas within the territorial jurisdiction of Taguig, and a barangay zone leader confirmed that one of the places pointed to by the victim was in Taguig. The voter's identification card and the business registration presented by the defense could hardly be considered proof of the official boundaries of Makati and Taguig at the vicinity of the compound.

On the fourth issue, the Court rejected the claim that the mother had fabricated the charge to extort money. It is quite unthinkable for a mother to teach her child to fabricate a story and expose him to a rape trial with all its scandal and humiliation just to extort money, and a mother would not subject her child to the stigma of a rape trial if the charges were not true.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that Arnel acted with discernment. The Social Case Study Report revealed that he was able to distinguish right from wrong, and his denial, in which he alleged that AAA had a bad reputation, supported the finding that he understood the difference between right and wrong and the consequences of a wrongful act. Because he was fifteen years of age at the time of the assault, he is entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority under Article 68, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty should be within the range of prision mayor as minimum and reclusion temporal as maximum. The Court also accepted the submission of the Office of the Solicitor General that, since he was a child at the time he committed the crime, he should be allowed to serve his sentence in an agricultural camp or other training facility, because the age of the child at the time of the promulgation of the judgment is not material.

Doctrine

First, the gravamen of rape by sexual assault is the insertion of the penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object into another person's genital or anal orifice, as Article 266-A, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code provides.

Second, the factual findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, especially a child witness, are accorded the highest respect, because the trial judge has the peculiar opportunity to observe their deportment and demeanor while they testify.

Third, when the birth certificate is shown to be spurious, the age of the victim may be established through the clear and credible testimony of the mother, who has firsthand knowledge of the date she gave birth to her child.

Fourth, a child above fifteen years but below eighteen years of age is exempt from criminal liability unless he acted with discernment, in which case he is subjected to the appropriate proceedings under Republic Act No. 9344, and the exemption from criminal liability does not include exemption from civil liability.

Fifth, a child in conflict with the law who committed the offense while still of tender age is entitled to the right to restoration, rehabilitation, and reintegration even after he has exceeded the age limit, and the age at the time of the promulgation of the judgment is not material.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, modified the penalty to reflect the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority and the proper indeterminate sentence, and ordered that the accused serve his sentence in an agricultural camp or other training facility in accordance with the law on children in conflict with the law.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the age of a child victim may be proved by the clear and credible testimony of the mother when the birth certificate is spurious, and that a child in conflict with the law who acted with discernment is still entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority and to rehabilitation even after he has grown past the age of majority. Examiners like to use this case on the credibility of child witnesses, on the proof of age under the guidelines laid down in People versus Pruna, and on the application of Republic Act No. 9344 to a child in conflict with the law.