PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. TITO AMOC Y MAMBATALAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
PEREZ, J.:
Accused-appellant was charged with two (2) counts of Rape in two separate Informations:
For Criminal Case No. 16705:
“That on or about July 12, 2009, in the Municipality of Talaingod, Province f Davao del Norte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one AAA,[2] his step-daughter, a thirteen (13) year old minor, against her will.”[3]
For Criminal Case No. 16961:
“That sometime in April 2009, in the Municipality of Talaingod, Province of Davao del Norte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one AAA, his step-daughter, a thirteen (13) year old minor, against her will.”[4]
During arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded “not guilty” to both accusations. Trial ensued thereafter.
The Facts
The prosecution presented three (3) witnesses, which include the minor private complainant AAA, her aunt CCC, and Dr. Maureen Dazo (Dr. Dazo).
AAA averred that at around 6:00 o’clock in the morning of April 2009, when she was thirteen (13) years of age, accused-appellant Amoc (Amoc) called her into the bedroom of their house and undressed her. Amoc took off all her clothes, tied AAA’s legs with a rope, undressed himself, and proceeded to have carnal knowledge of AAA. When AAA tried to shout, Amoc covered her mouth. AAA could not flee because her legs were tied. She was likewise petrified with fear because Amoc pointed a knife at her and tried to stab her.[5] AAA could not tell her mother of what Amoc did to her then because he was always tailing her.[6]
AAA further alleged that Amoc sexually abused her again on 12 July 2009. Amoc once again brought her inside the room, undressed her, tied her feet, and had carnal knowledge of her. AAA’s resistance was futile in the face of Amoc’s bestial desire to corrupt her. Amoc also warned her not to tell her aunt about the incident, otherwise the two of them will be incarcerated.[7]
Prior to July 2009, AAA’s mother BBB (BBB) had noticed that AAA was growing thin, and this worried her. BBB relayed her apprehensions to her sister CCC, a barangay health worker. On 13 June 2009, CCC went to BBB’s house to check on AAA. Noticing that AAA’s stomach had a slight bulge, she examined it with her hands and suspected that AAA was pregnant. After conducting a pregnancy test on her, it was confirmed that AAA was indeed pregnant.[8]
BBB and CCC both interrogated AAA as to who was the father of the child she was carrying. Upon persistent interrogation of the two women, AAA divulged that Amoc had been raping her and that he is the father of her baby. AAA gave birth to a baby girl in December 2009.[9]
AAA was brought to the Davao Regional Hospital on 4 July 2009 for medical examination. In the Medical Certificate issued by the aid hospital through Dr. Maureen Dazo (Dr. Dazo), AAA was found to have “Notching at 3:00, 6:00, 9:00 and 11:00 o’clock positions” and that “Pregnancy uterine, Unknown age of gestation, Not in labor, G1PO”. Dr. Dazo confirmed these findings when she testified in court.[10]
Appalled, BBB and CCC decided not to immediately disclose the incident to their relatives knowing that in the Ata-Manobo tribe, the same is taboo and the rule is that the offender must be killed. CCC wanted time to refer the matter to police authorities so that Amoc may be proceeded against in accordance with laws.[11]
On 14 July 2009, the women brought the matter to the Women’s Desk of the Talaingod Police Station, which investigated the matter and filed the appropriate complaint with the Prosecutor’s Office of the Province of Davao del Norte.[12]
For his defense, accused-appellant admitted that he had sexual congress with AAA but insisted that the same was consensual. Amoc claimed that it was an accepted practice among the Ata-Manobo, an indigenous cultural group, to take one’s daughter as a second wife.[13]
On 23 July 2012, the lower court rendered a Judgment[14] finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of rape. The dispositive portion of the Judgment reads:
WHEREFORE, by his own admission, there being proof beyond reasonable doubt, accused TITO AMOC Y MAMBATALAN is hereby found GUILTY of the rape of AAA as charged in both of the above-entitled cases and is:
1. Sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape; and
2. Likewise for each count of rape, he is ordered to pay the victim P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Aggrieved, appellant raises before Us the following assignment of errors:
THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE THE ELEMENT OF FORCE AND INTIMIDATION; AND
APPELLANT’S ADMISSION OF CARNAL KNOWLEDGE WITH AAA DOES NOT AMOUNT TO RAPE.
The Court’s Ruling
The appeal is without merit.
Rape through force and intimidation, established
Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code defines the crime of rape by sexual intercourse as follows:
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:
a. Through force, threat or intimidation;
xxx
Appellant argues in the main that his sexual intercourse with AAA was with her consent, and no amount of force or intimidation was employed by him.
We are not convinced.
A careful scrutiny of the evidence on records would show that appellant employed force, threat and intimidation in carrying out his sexual advances upon the person of AAA.
Contrary to appellant’s allegations that AAA did not offer any amount of resistance, AAA was actually constrained from doing the same because appellant tied her legs, went on top of her, and covered her mouth to prevent her from asking help.[15] Appellant likewise verbally threatened her that she and her aunt will be incarcerated should she divulge her ordeal to her, and that he will be killed if she reports the incident.[16] We agree with the Solicitor General’s contention that the thought of a stepfather being incarcerated and the burden of carrying the guilt of knowing that he may even be killed because you reported his misdoings were effective threats to seal AAA’s lips and bear the repeated rape in silence.[17] Appellant also pointed a knife at her neck and even attempted to stab AAA so she will yield to his demands.[18]
Human experience will validate that it is plausible that a thirteen-year old girl like AAA, beset with such fragility and immaturity, can easily succumb to an aggressor’s attack on her person, honor and dignity when faced with the foregoing circumstances. The fact that she tried to resist appellant’s attack on her is well-supported by the evidence on record.
Even assuming arguendo that AAA failed to resist, the same does not necessarily amount to consent to appellant’s criminal acts on her part, and is inconsequential in view of AAA’s clear and positive testimony about the incident and the identity of her aggressor.
It bears stressing that lack of resistance is not an element of rape and the law does not impose on the prosecution the burden of establishing the same. Lack of physical resistance cannot be considered consent. Failing to resist the advances of her malefactor is not a manifestation of consent, but rather an indication of involuntary submission or helpless surrender to the inevitable.[19]
Moreover, We accord credence to the trial court’s ruling that even assuming that the force or intimidation employed by Amoc against AAA could not have been to such a degree that she could not have offered stiff resistance to it, the fact that appellant was exercising parental authority over AAA substitutes for intimidation, considering the moral ascendancy of Amoc over AAA. In People v. Arpon y Juntilla,[20] the Supreme Court espoused that:
That the carnal knowledge in this case was committed through force, threat or intimidation need no longer be belabored upon. “[I]n rape committed by close kin, such as the victim’s father, step-father, uncle, or the common-law spouse of her mother, it is not necessary that actual force or intimidation be employed. Moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence and intimidation. [Emphasis Supplied]
AAA’s account on what appellant did to her was straightforward, candid and has the disturbing ring of sordid truth. Her account deserves full faith and credit. She vividly recounted how appellant forced himself on her and succeeded in inserting his penis into her vagina. We quote the pertinent portions of her testimony, to wit:
Q: After he called you, where did you go? A: He was at home, he was calling me. Q: After he called you, where did you go? A: I went upstairs. Q: Once you were already upstairs, what happened if any? A: He undressed me. Q: What were those clothes that were removed from your body? A: He took off all my clothes. Q: And after he undressed you, what else did he do? A: He tied my legs. Q: And after he tied your legs, what else did he do? A: Then he inserted his penis into my vagina. Q: Why did you not shout for help when he undressed you? A: I attempted to shout but he covered my mouth. Q: Can you recall if he also undressed himself? A: Yes, he also undressed himself. Q: While he was removing his clothes, why did you not run away? A: I tried to run away but my legs were tied. xxx Q: After he tied your feet and covered your mouth, what else did he do? A: He executed the push and pull movement. Q: What was your position when he executed the push and pull movement? A: He was on top of me. Q: And how about you, what was your position during that time? A: I was laying on my back. Q: How did accused insert his penis inside your vagina when your feet were tied? A: He spread my legs. Q: And what did you feel when his penis was inserted inside your vagina? A: He attempted to stab me. Q: And what did you use in attempting to stab you? A: A knife. Q: And where was the knife placed at that time before it was pointed to you? A: It was on his back. Q: What particular part of your body was the said knife pointed? A: On the neck. Q: And what did you feel when the knife was pointed to your neck? A: It was hurt. Q: You said that the accused inserted his penis inside your vagina, what did you feel once the penis was inserted into your vagina? A: I felt pain.[21] xxx Q: How old were you sometime in April 2009? A: I was twelve (12) years old. Q: Again on July 12, 2009 at around 10:00 o’clock, where were you? A: I was at home. Q: At Talaingod? A: Yes, ma’am. Q: What were you doing during this time? A: I was sweeping the house. Q: While you were sweeping, what happened, if any? A: He took me from downstairs. Q: Where did you go? A: Inside the room. Q: While you were inside the room, what did the accused do, if any? A: He undressed me. Q: And after you were undressed, what happened next, what did he do, if any? A: He also undressed himself. Q: While he was undressing you, why did you not run away from him? A: I attempted to push him but I was able to go out. Q: While he was undressing you, he was already undressed and he also removed, what did he do to you? A: He inserted his penis into my vagina.[22]
It is a settled rule that the foremost even sometimes, the only consideration in the prosecution for rape is the victim’s testimony. The victim’s testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict.[23] In rape cases, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound determination by the trial court, whose conclusion deserves much weight and respect.[24] Matters affecting credibility are best left to the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the demeanor and deportment of the witnesses while testifying.[25] In the present case, We defer with the trial court in according full credence on AAA’s testimony to prove her case.
Furthermore, the alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of AAA (i.e., Amoc inserted his penis when AAA’s legs were tied together, AAA pressed her hands on the back and her prior statement that she tried to push him) can hardly affect the credibility and veracity of her story considering that they pertain only to minor and collateral matters that have no substantial bearing on the elements of the crime charged.
In People v. Tubat[26] citing People v. Laog[27], the Supreme Court, assessing the discrepancies in the victim’s testimony, ruled, to wit:
“Discrepancies referring only to minor details and collateral matters — not to the central fact of the crime — do not affect the veracity or detract from the essential credibility of witnesses’ declarations, as long as these are coherent and intrinsically believable on the whole. For a discrepancy or inconsistency in the testimony of a witness to serve as a basis for acquittal, it must establish beyond doubt the innocence of the appellant for the crime charged. It cannot be overemphasized that the credibility of a rape victim is not diminished, let alone impaired, by minor inconsistencies in her testimony.” [Emphasis Supplied]
The Supreme Court has ruled in a plethora of cases that it would be unfair to expect a flawless recollection from one who is forced to relieve the gruesome details of a painful and humiliating experience such as rape.[28] An errorless testimony cannot be expected especially when a witness is recounting the details of a harrowing experience.[29] When a woman testifies that she had been raped and if her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis of the woman’s testimony alone for a rape victim is not expected to remember every ugly detail of her ordeal.[30]
It must also be noted that AAA was barely thirteen (13) years old when she was molested by appellant. At such age, she is not expected to be able to recount her harrowing experience in minute details. A child of her tender years cannot be expected to be able to recount the details of her torment with exactitude.[31] In People v. Nequia[32], the Supreme Court resonated that:
“x x x in rape cases where the offended parties are young and immature girls from the ages of twelve to sixteen, there is considerable receptivity on the part of this Court to lend credence to their testimonies, considering not only their relative vulnerability but also the shame and embarrassment to which such a grueling experience as a court trial, where they are called upon to lay bare what perhaps should be shrouded in secrecy, did expose them to.”
Appellant’s attribution that the trial court erred in concluding that appellant’s mere admission of his carnal knowledge with AAA already amounted to rape is without basis and deserves scant consideration. In finding for appellant’s guilt of the crime charged, the trial court did not rely solely on appellant’s admission of carnal knowledge with AAA, but on the existence of physical evidence that AAA has sexually been violated.
In view of the foregoing disquisition, We find AAA’s testimony credible to convince the court a quo and this Court of the commission of the crime by appellant.
No qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship proven
One of the aggravating circumstances that would qualify the crime and raise the penalty to death is:
ART. 266-B. Penalties –
x x x
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
“l) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim;
xxx
In the present case, the Informations alleged that appellant was the step-father of AAA. The evidence shows, however, that he was merely the common-law husband or live-in partner of AAA’s mother. Appellant admitted that he was never married to BBB.[33] AAA’s birth certificate disclosed that her father was a certain DDD.[34] No evidence was adduced to establish that appellant was legally married to BBB.
As to the circumstance of being the common-law husband of BBB, such fact was not specifically alleged in the informations. Thus, notwithstanding evidence that appellant is the common-law partner of BBB, the same cannot be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance because in turn, he would be deprived of his right to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him.
In order that the accused may be convicted of qualified rape, the circumstances of relationship and minority must be jointly alleged in the information and proved during trial. Thus, appellant can only be convicted of simple rape.[35]
Civil indemnity and moral damages, reduced; Award of support for his offspring, proper
Since appellant can only be convicted of simple rape, the civil indemnity should only be in the amount of P50,000.00. The award of moral damages should also be reduced to P50,000.00, being in consonance with prevailing jurisprudence.[36]
Considering that appellant himself admitted and acknowledged that he is the father of the baby born by AAA,[37] an award of support for the child is thus warranted. Under Article 345 of the Revised Penal Code,[38] appellant is civilly liable for the support of his offspring. Hence, he is directed to provide support to the victim’s child born out of the rape, subject to the amount and conditions to be determined by the trial court, after due notice and hearing, in accordance with Art. 201 of the Family Code.[39]
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Tagum City, Branch 2, dated 23 July 2012, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS.
The award of civil indemnity is decreased to P50,000.00 and the award of moral damages is likewise decreased to P50,000.00, for each count of rape.
Appellant Tito Amoc is also ordered to support the offspring born as a consequence of the rape. The amount of support shall be determined by the trial court after due notice and hearing, with support in arrears to be reckoned from the date the appealed decision was promulgated by the trial court.
SO ORDERED.
Camello, J., Ch., and Inting, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 36-40.
[2] People v. Tubat, G.R. No. 183093. February 1, 2012. In People v. Cabalquinto (G.R. No. 167693, 19 September 2006, 502 SCRA 419), the real name and the personal circumstances of the victim, and any other information tending to establish or compromise her identity, including those of her immediate family or household members were withheld in order to maintain the confidentiality of information on child abuse cases, and consistent with the application of: (1) the provisions of Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act) and its implementing rules; (2) Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004) and its implementing rules; and (3) this Court’s Resolution dated 19 October 2004 in A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC (Rule on Violence Against Women and their Children).
[3] Records, p. 26.
[4] Id. at 1.
[5] TSN, 21 February 2011, pp. 6-9.
[6] TSN, 21 February 2011, p. 9.
[7] TSN, 21 February 2011, pp. 10-11.
[8] TSN, 21 February 2011, pp. 20-25.
[9] TSN, 21 February 2011, pp. 21-22.
[10] Rollo, p. 37.
[11] Id. at 21.
[12] Id. at 37.
[13] TSN, 4 July 2011, pp. 6-8.
[14] Supra note 1.
[15] TSN, 21 February 2011, pp. 7-8.
[16] TSN, 21 February 2011, p. 11-12.
[17] Rollo, p. 58.
[18] TSN, 21 February 2011, pp. 8-9.
[19] People v. Durano, G.R. No. 175316, 28 March 2007.
[20] G.R. No. 183563, 4 December 2011.
[21] TSN, 21 February 2011, pp. 7-9.
[22] TSN, 21 February 2011, pp. 10-11.
[23] People v. Baring, G.R. No. 137933, 28 January 2002.
[24] People of the Philippines v. Valdez, G.R. No. 175602, 18 January 2012.
[25] People v. Dahilig, G.R. No. 187083, 13 June 2011.
[26] Supra note 2.
[27] G.R. No. 178321, 5 October 2011.
[28] People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 140278, 3 June 2004.
[29] People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, 19 September 2006.
[30] People v. Camacho Torreja, G.R. No. 1322330, 4 February 2002.
[31] Supra note 23.
[32] G.R. No. 146569, 6 October 2003.
[33] TSN, 4 July 2011, p. 14.
[34] Records, p. 63.
[35] People v. Arcillas, G.R. No. 181491, 30 July 2012.
[36] Ibid.
[37] TSN, 4 July 2011, p. 11.
[38] Article 345. Civil liability of persons guilty of crimes against chastity. Persons guilty of rape, seduction or abduction shall also be entitled: xxx= 3. In every case to support the offspring. xxx
[39] Madsali v. People, G.R. No. 179570, 4 February 2010.