PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LILIO U. ACHAS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Achas

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecute Lilio Achas for two counts of rape committed against a girl of tender age, the daughter of his common-law wife. The trial court convicted him on both counts and sentenced him to death; the Court of Appeals affirmed but reduced the penalty in light of the law abolishing the death penalty. The case matters to a reviewee because it gathers, in one decision, the Court's settled rules on assessing the credibility of a child complainant, on the irrelevance of the absence of hymenal lacerations, on the weakness of alibi and denial, and on the damages and the parole disqualification that follow a conviction for qualified rape.

Procedural History

Two separate informations were filed before the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, each charging rape under Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. On March 11, 2004, the trial court rendered judgment finding Achas guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape and sentencing him to death for each count, with civil indemnity and moral damages. Because the penalty imposed was death, the records were elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review. Following the ruling in People versus Mateo, the Supreme Court ordered the transfer of the records to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review. On May 19, 2008, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, in light of the law prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty, and adjusted the damages. Achas filed a notice of appeal, and the parties manifested that they were willing to have the case resolved on the records and pleadings already on file. The case thus reached the Supreme Court on appeal.

Facts

In 1998, the victim, then barely eight years old, was staying with her mother and her mother's common-law spouse, Achas, in Misamis Oriental. One Sunday in June of that year, while she was watching over her two younger half-brothers at home, Achas grabbed her and led her into the adjoining store. Inside, he removed her short pants and underwear, mounted her, and succeeded in inserting his penis into her vagina, causing her excruciating pain.

Sometime in March 1999, the mother's sister saw the victim looking very pale and asked what was wrong. The child only placed her arms around her aunt, shivering. Sensing that something was amiss, the aunt had the child examined at a medical center, where she was found to be afflicted with gonorrhea.

The act was repeated in the same place sometime in July 1999, while the mother was out gathering firewood. This time Achas covered the child's mouth with a towel to keep her quiet, and, pointing a knife at the left side of her neck before and after the abuse, warned her that he would kill her mother should she tell. Achas denied the charges, claimed he was in another province on the dates in question, and pointed to the aunt as the mastermind of fabricated charges. His own son, the victim's half-brother, testified that it was not his father but two young boys who molested his sister.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused despite the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the failure of the victim to cry out for help, and the absence of hymenal lacerations and external physical injuries, destroy the credibility of her testimony and negate the commission of rape.
• Whether or not the defenses of alibi and denial, and the uncorroborated testimony of the accused's son, can overcome the positive identification and credible testimony of the victim.
• Whether or not the damages awarded and the eligibility of the accused for parole were correctly fixed.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, defines the crime and its elements:

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 is 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.

The Court uses this provision to frame the elements that the prosecution must prove, including carnal knowledge accomplished through force, threat, or intimidation, or with a victim under twelve years of age.

Section 3 of Republic Act Number 9346 provides:

Section 3. Persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act. No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.

This provision bears on the case because it is the basis for reducing the death penalty to reclusion perpetua and for declaring the accused ineligible for parole.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the conviction. In rape cases, conviction usually rests solely on the testimony of the victim, provided that such testimony is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. The Court reiterated the guiding principles: an accusation for rape can be made with facility, while the accusation is difficult to prove and even more difficult for an innocent accused to disprove; the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits. The credibility of the victim is the single most important issue, and the highest degree of respect is afforded to the findings of the trial court, which had the opportunity to observe her demeanor. The Court held that when the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account, considering her vulnerability and the shame to which she would be exposed if her testimony were untrue.

On the second issue, the Court held that the failure to cry out for help did not diminish the plausibility of the victim's story. Physical resistance need not be established when intimidation is brought to bear on the victim and she submits out of fear. Intimidation is addressed to the mind of the victim and is therefore subjective, and there is no stereotypical form of reaction for a woman facing a traumatic experience. As the Court put it, when a girl, especially a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. On the medical evidence, the Court held that the medical report is only corroborative, that the absence of external signs or physical injuries does not necessarily negate the commission of rape, and that hymenal laceration is not an element of the crime. A medical examination is not indispensable; the victim's testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict.

On the third issue, the Court rejected the alibi and denial. For alibi to prosper, the accused must show that he was somewhere else during the actual commission of the crime and that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the crime scene. Achas failed to show this physical impossibility, and his claim stood uncorroborated. Denial, like alibi, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is inherently weak and self-serving, and cannot be accorded greater weight than the positive declaration of credible witnesses. The testimony of his son deserved scant consideration, it being but natural for a son to testify for his father, and the son's version required a considerable stretch of the imagination.

On the fourth issue, the Court affirmed the damages awarded by the appellate court: civil indemnity of 75,000 pesos and moral damages of 75,000 pesos for each count. It increased the exemplary damages from 25,000 pesos to 30,000 pesos pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence. While the death penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua, the accused is no longer eligible for parole.

Doctrine

A conviction for rape may rest solely on the credible testimony of the victim, and where the victim is of tender age, her account is entitled to credit, subject to the rule that the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits. The absence of hymenal lacerations or external physical injuries does not negate rape, because hymenal laceration is not an element of the crime and the medical examination is merely corroborative. Physical resistance need not be shown when intimidation is employed, since intimidation is addressed to the mind of the victim and is subjective. Alibi must fail unless the accused shows that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene, and denial, like alibi, is inherently weak and cannot prevail over positive identification by credible witnesses. Under Section 3 of Republic Act Number 9346, a person convicted of an offense punished with reclusion perpetua by reason of that law is not eligible for parole.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals finding Achas guilty of two counts of rape, with the modification that he is ordered to pay 30,000 pesos as exemplary damages and that he is ineligible for parole.

Remember This

Memorize the line that when a girl, especially a minor, says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed, and that hymenal laceration is not an element of the crime. Examiners use this case to test the credibility of a child complainant, the sufficiency of the victim's lone testimony, the weakness of alibi and denial, and the effect of the abolition of the death penalty on parole eligibility.