PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. REYNALDO TECZON Y PASCUAL, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Teczon

The Case

People versus Teczon is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines, as plaintiff, prosecuted Reynaldo Teczon y Pascual for the crime of rape committed against a fourteen-year-old girl, identified in the record only as AAA to protect her privacy. The accused was convicted by the trial court, and the conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The case matters to the reviewee because the Supreme Court uses it to restate, cleanly and quotably, what the gravamen of rape really is: carnal knowledge through force, threat, or intimidation, where physical injury is not an essential element and where the reaction of a child victim is not to be measured by adult standards. It also matters because the Court corrects the award of damages, reminding us that civil indemnity is mandatory upon conviction and exemplary damages may be imposed as a public example.

Procedural History

An Information for rape was filed against the accused in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 30, in San Pablo City. After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered judgment on June 22, 2001, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape under Republic Act No. 8353 and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, with an award of fifty thousand pesos as moral damages and costs.

The accused filed a Notice of Appeal, and the records were forwarded to the Supreme Court. The case was originally docketed there, but in accordance with the ruling in People versus Mateo, the Supreme Court transferred it to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review. On March 31, 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court, finding the complainant credible and dismissing the defense. The case then returned to the Supreme Court on appeal, and the parties were required to submit supplemental briefs if they so desired. The accused signified that he would no longer file one, so the issues in his earlier brief were deemed adopted.

Facts

On October 10, 2000, AAA, then fourteen years old, accompanied her aunt to school for a Parents and Teachers' Association meeting. While the aunt was in the meeting, the girl left to get refreshments. On her way back she chanced upon the accused, who invited her to eat at his house. She declined despite his persistence. Failing to convince her, he pulled out a fan knife, pointed it at the left side of her neck, and warned her not to shout for help.

He then dragged her to a forested area. Still pointing the knife at her, he removed his clothes, undressed her, laid her on the ground, and kissed her lips, neck, and breasts. He then inserted his penis into her vagina and the assault lasted about twenty minutes. Afterwards he allowed her to dress and threatened to kill her if she revealed the incident.

While he was buttoning his pants, the girl ran back to her school. When schoolmates asked why she looked disheveled, she claimed she had fought with a girl who made fun of her. A student reported the matter to their class adviser, but she again concealed the truth. She slept at a schoolmate's house that night. The next day she revealed what happened to her mother, who shared it with the class adviser. She confirmed the report and pointed to the accused. Examined at the San Pablo District Hospital, the physician found her hymen no longer intact and a vaginal laceration at the six o'clock position. The accused denied the charge, claiming he had merely seen a young man on top of a girl behind tall plants, shouted at them, and reported the matter, and that boils near his groin made intercourse impossible.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in not giving weight to the accused's immediate report that he had seen the complainant engaging in sexual congress with a young man on the date and time in question.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in relying on the testimony of the complainant despite circumstances said to render her an incredible witness.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in faulting the accused for not presenting the alleged sexual partner of the complainant during trial.
• Whether or not the accused was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape despite the evidence offered by the defense.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, defines the crime and provides:

Article 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; 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.

This provision supplies the gravamen of the offense, which the Court uses to reject the argument that the absence of scratches or physical injury of resistance defeats the charge.

Article 2230 of the Civil Code, cited by the Court on exemplary damages, provides:

Article 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Such damages are separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended party.

The Court invokes this to justify exemplary damages, here imposed as a public example to protect young children from molestation by perverse elders.

Ruling

On the first and second issues, the Court held that the appeal had no merit. Infliction of physical injury is not an essential element of rape. Under Article 266-A, the gravamen is carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat, or intimidation against her will or without her consent. What must be proven is the element of force or intimidation, and force need not always produce physical injuries. Force, violence, or intimidation is a relative term, depending on the age, size, strength, and relationship of the parties. Here the prosecution established sufficient intimidation: the accused dragged the girl into a forested area with a knife pointed at her neck, and she submitted out of fear for her life. The trial court observed that she could not be expected to put up tenacious resistance against a man more than six feet tall, of heavy build, and armed with a knife.

The Court also held that the complainant could not be faulted for initially concealing the truth from her schoolmates and teacher, as she was then overcome by shock and fear. There is no standard form of reaction for a woman, much more a minor, when confronted with a horrifying experience such as a sexual assault, and the actions of children who have undergone traumatic experience should not be judged by the norms of behavior expected from adults. Absent a showing that facts of substance and value were plainly overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied, the trial court's finding of credibility prevails.

On the third and fourth issues, the Court rejected the defense. The fact that the accused remained in the area and reported an alleged misconduct by the complainant does not indicate his innocence; it does not establish the impossibility of his presence at the crime scene, much more of having committed the crime. His claim of inability to have intercourse was negated by his own physician-witness, who categorically stated that intercourse was possible despite the boils near his groin. Weighed against the positive and unequivocal statements of the complainant, his bare denial and alibi cannot stand. When the offended party is a young and immature girl between the ages of twelve and sixteen, courts are inclined to give credence to her version, considering her relative vulnerability and the public humiliation of a trial if her accusation were untrue.

On damages, the Court held that the award of moral damages is automatically granted without need of further proof, it being assumed that a rape victim has suffered moral damages. But the trial court failed to award civil indemnity and exemplary damages. Civil indemnity of fifty thousand pesos, in the nature of actual or compensatory damages, is mandatory upon a conviction for rape. Exemplary damages of twenty-five thousand pesos is proper, as a public example, to protect young children from molestation by perverse elders.

Doctrine

First, the gravamen of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code is carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat, or intimidation against her will or without her consent. Physical injury is not an essential element, and force need not always produce physical injuries; force, violence, or intimidation is a relative term depending on the age, size, strength, and relationship of the parties.

Second, there is no standard form of reaction for a woman, much more a minor, confronted with a sexual assault. Delay in reporting or initial concealment does not destroy credibility, and the actions of child victims are not judged by adult norms.

Third, denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive and unequivocal testimony of the complainant, especially where the offended party is a young and immature girl between twelve and sixteen years of age.

Fourth, on damages: moral damages are automatically granted without further proof; civil indemnity of fifty thousand pesos is mandatory upon conviction for rape; and exemplary damages may be awarded under Article 2230 of the Civil Code when the crime is attended by an aggravating circumstance, or as a public example to protect young children from molestation by perverse elders.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals with modifications, sentencing the accused to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay fifty thousand pesos as moral damages, fifty thousand pesos as civil indemnity, twenty-five thousand pesos as exemplary damages, and the costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge through force, threat, or intimidation, and physical injury is not an essential element. Examiners use this case to test the relative nature of intimidation, the credibility of a child victim's delayed revelation, and the mandatory awards of civil indemnity and exemplary damages upon conviction for rape.