PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RICHARD O. SARCIA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Sarcia

The Case

This is a criminal case in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Richard Sarcia for the crime of rape committed against a child. The case matters to every Bar candidate because it gathers, in one decision, the rules on statutory rape, the credibility of child witnesses, the effect of delay in reporting, the weight of a medical report, the weakness of denial and alibi, and the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority. It is a compact review of the law of rape and of the penalty that follows from it.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court of Ligao City, Branch 13, tried the case and, on January 17, 2003, found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape. It sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay 50,000 pesos as civil indemnity, 50,000 pesos as moral damages, and the costs.

The accused filed a notice of appeal, and the records were forwarded to the Supreme Court. In view of the ruling in People versus Mateo, which modified the rules on direct appeals from the Regional Trial Court in cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, the case was transferred to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty, imposing death, increasing civil indemnity to 75,000 pesos, awarding 25,000 pesos as exemplary damages, and retaining 50,000 pesos as moral damages. It then elevated the records to the Supreme Court for review under the amendments to the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure governing death penalty cases. The Supreme Court required supplemental briefs; the accused filed his, while the Office of the Solicitor General was deemed to have waived its own.

Facts

On December 16, 1996, five-year-old AAA was playing in the yard of Saling Crisologo near a mango tree, together with her cousin and other playmates. The accused appeared and invited AAA to the backyard of the house. She agreed, and her cousin secretly followed them.

In the backyard, the accused removed AAA's shorts and underwear and his own trousers and brief. He ordered her to lie on her back, lay on top of her, and inserted his penis into her private organ, making an up-and-down movement. AAA felt severe pain and said "aray." Her cousin, watching from about five meters away, rushed to the house of AAA's mother and told her what she had seen, but the mother answered that they were still too young to be talking about such matters. After the accused left, the cousin found AAA crying and accompanied her home. AAA did not tell her mother out of fear of being slapped.

AAA's father was working in Manila at the time. Almost four years later, on July 7, 2000, he filed a complaint for acts of lasciviousness. Upon review of the evidence, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor upgraded the charge to rape, and an Information dated September 5, 2000 was filed. The accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented AAA, her cousin, her father, and Dr. Joana Manatlao, who interpreted the medico-legal certificate showing a perforated hymen but negative for introital vulvar laceration or scars. The defense presented the accused, who denied the charge and claimed the case was instigated by Salvacion Bobier to strengthen a murder case against him, and Manuel Casimiro, Clerk of Court, who testified on the records of a related rape case.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt despite the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
• Whether or not the failure of the victim to recall the exact date of the crime and the delay in filing the case destroy the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
• Whether or not proof of force, threats, or intimidation is necessary where the victim is below twelve years of age.
• Whether or not the absence of lacerations in the medical report negates the fact of rape.
• Whether or not the defense of denial and alibi can prevail over the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses.
• Whether or not the accused is entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority.

Applicable Provisions

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 7659, was the governing law at the time of the commission of the rape. It provides:

Article 335. When and how rape is committed. Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: 1. By using force or intimidation; 2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and 3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. Whenever the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. When the victim is under eighteen 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; 2. When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities or any law enforcement or penal institution; 3. When the rape is committed in full view of the spouse, parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third civil degree of consanguinity; 4. When the victim is a religious engaged in legitimate religious vocation or calling and is personally known to be such by the offender before or at the time of the commission of the crime; 5. When the victim is a child below seven years old; 6. When the offender knows that he is afflicted with the Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus or Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome or any other sexually transmissible disease and the virus or disease is transmitted to the victim; 7. When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or para-military units thereof or the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency or penal institution, when the offender took advantage of his position to facilitate the commission of the crime; 8. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation or disability; 9. When the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime; and 10. When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime, the penalty shall be death.

This provision defines the crime and, because the victim was below seven years old, authorizes the death penalty.

Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code governs the penalty when the offender is a minor. It provides:

Article 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person under eighteen years of age. When the offender is a minor under eighteen years and his case is one coming under the provisions of the paragraph next to the last of Article 80 of this Code, the following rules shall be observed: 1. Upon a person under fifteen but over nine years of age, who is not exempt from liability by reason of the court having declared that he acted with discernment, a discretionary penalty shall be imposed, but always lower by two degrees at least than that prescribed by law for the crime which he committed; 2. 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 entitles the accused, who was eighteen years old at the time of the crime, to a penalty one degree lower than that prescribed by law.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the alleged inconsistencies referred only to minor details and collateral matters and did not affect the veracity of the testimonies. The two prosecution witnesses were one in saying that the accused sexually abused AAA, and their positive, candid, and straightforward narrations deserved full faith and credence. The Court noted that AAA was five years old at the time of the incident and barely nine when she testified, and that young witnesses may be overwhelmed by the courtroom atmosphere.

On the second issue, the Court held that failure to recall the exact date of the crime is not an indication of false testimony, because the date is not an essential element of rape. The gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge. The Court also held that delay in reporting does not destroy the truth of the charge, as it is common for a rape victim to prefer silence for fear of the aggressor and the public stigma of having been sexually abused.

On the third issue, the Court held that where the girl is below twelve years old, the only subject of inquiry is whether carnal knowledge took place. Proof of force, intimidation, or consent is unnecessary, since none of these is an element of statutory rape. There is a conclusive presumption of absence of free consent when the victim is below the age of twelve.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the presence of lacerations is not necessary to prove rape and its absence does not negate the fact of rape. A medical report is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape; what is important is that the victim's testimony meets the test of credibility.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that denial, like alibi, is the weakest of all defenses because it is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove. It cannot prevail over the positive and unequivocal identification of the accused by the offended party and other witnesses.

On the sixth issue, the Court held that the accused was entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority. When he testified in 2002, he admitted he was twenty-four years old, which means he was eighteen in 1996. Since the prosecution failed to prove the exact date of the rape, it was not certain that the crime was committed on or after he reached eighteen. All doubts should be resolved in favor of the accused. Under Article 68, the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but the death penalty is still the penalty to be reckoned with. Thus, the proper imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate must retain these rules. In statutory rape, where the victim is below twelve years of age, the only element to be proved is carnal knowledge; force, intimidation, and consent are irrelevant because the law conclusively presumes the absence of free consent. The exact date of the crime is not an element of rape, and failure to recall it does not discredit the victim. Delay in reporting does not destroy the charge, as silence is common for victims who fear their aggressor and public stigma. The absence of lacerations does not negate rape, and a medical report is not indispensable. Denial and alibi cannot prevail over positive identification. Finally, under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, an offender over fifteen and under eighteen years of age at the time of the crime is entitled to the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law, and any doubt as to his age at the time of the crime must be resolved in his favor.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Richard Sarcia for rape but modified the penalty, imposing reclusion perpetua instead of death, and affirmed the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages.

Remember This

Remember that in statutory rape, carnal knowledge is the only element, and that minority, when doubtful, lowers the penalty by one degree. Examiners use this case to test the rules on child witnesses, delay in reporting, the weight of medical evidence, and the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority.