PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BRICCIO BACULANTA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Baculanta

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Briccio Baculanta, a criminal appeal from a conviction for rape. The accused, a man in his seventies whom the child victim treated as a close relative because he was her mother's godfather, was charged with having carnal knowledge of a seven-year-old girl by means of force and intimidation. The case matters for the bar because it gathers in one decision the rules every examinee needs on the rape of a child under twelve: the elements of rape under the Revised Penal Code as amended by the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, the credibility owed to the testimony of a child victim, the weight of a bare denial against a positive identification, and the civil liability that follows conviction.

Procedural History

The accused was indicted before the Regional Trial Court of Carigara, Leyte, Branch 36. Upon arraignment he pleaded not guilty, and after pre-trial, trial on the merits followed. On March 2, 2007, the trial court rendered judgment finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to pay 50,000 pesos as civil indemnity, 50,000 pesos as moral damages, and 25,000 pesos as exemplary damages.

Feeling aggrieved, the accused appealed to the Court of Appeals. On June 28, 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modification: it increased the exemplary damages to 30,000 pesos and expressly imposed legal interest on all damages at six percent per annum from the finality of the decision until full payment. The accused then brought the present appeal to the Supreme Court, which resolved it in this decision.

Facts

At around noon on February 27, 2005, the victim, then seven years old, was left at the family home in Capoocan, Leyte with her younger brother by their mother. The accused was in the house with them. He ordered the child to fetch water from a river four to five meters away, and she obeyed. He followed her there, pushed her into the water, and ordered her to get up and lie down on a rock. He undressed her, removed his shorts, went on top of her, and told her to keep quiet because, in his words, this would be done in a short time. She cried in pain when he inserted his penis into her vagina. Afterwards he made her hand over her underwear, which he threw into the river, and threatened to kill her should she report the incident.

On the evening of February 28, 2005, the mother discovered the rape after the victim's brother mentioned that the child was already menstruating. Finding blood on her daughter's shorts, the mother examined the child's genitals, and the child confided that the accused had raped her. On March 1, 2005, a physical examination was conducted at the Eastern Visayas Medical Center in Tacloban City. The medicolegal report noted redness and swelling of the labia minora on both sides, with an intact hymen, and the examining physician testified that this finding was indicative of penetration by a penis and that the child's resistance to an internal examination was due to pain from the swelling.

Only the accused testified for the defense. He admitted being at the victim's house on February 27, 2005, but denied the rape. He claimed he left only briefly at around ten in the morning to clean a butchered dog at the river, returned, resumed drinking with the victim's stepfather, got drunk, fell asleep, and was awakened at around eleven that night by policemen. He supposed that it was the victim's stepfather who raped the child. No one corroborated his defense.

Issues

• Whether or not the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 8353.
• Whether or not the testimony of the seven-year-old victim is credible, despite her failure to escape or cry for help during the assault.
• Whether or not the accused's bare denial can overcome the positive testimony of the victim.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 8353, 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; 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 is the provision under which the accused was charged and convicted, and its fourth paragraph is decisive because the victim was under twelve years of age.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the prosecution established the elements of rape under Article 266-A. The testimony of the victim in court, corroborated by the other prosecution witnesses and supported by the records, sufficiently established the fact of carnal knowledge by the accused. The Court stressed that the findings of the trial court, its calibration of witnesses, and its assessment of probative weight are accorded respect if not conclusive effect, and all the more so when affirmed by the appellate court. The trial court had the best opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness on the stand and was in the best position to discern whether she was telling the truth. The medical report, identified by the physician who personally examined the child, supported her claim of sexual abuse.

The Court also held that the victim's age was sufficiently established by her Certificate of Live Birth, which forms part of the records. She was born on December 9, 1997, and was therefore only seven years old when the crime happened. The Court explained that this circumstance is material because a man commits rape by having carnal knowledge of a child under twelve years of age even in the absence of force, threat or intimidation, deprivation of reason or unconsciousness, or fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority.

On the second issue, the accused attacked the victim's credibility by pointing to her failure to attempt escape or to cry for help. The Court rejected this, holding that people react differently under emotional stress and that there is no standard form of behavior when one is confronted by a shocking incident, especially if the assailant is physically near. Children who are victims of rape, the Court added, should not be expected to act the way mature individuals would when placed in the same situation.

On the third issue, the Court held that the accused's bare denial, unsupported by any corroborating witness, could scarcely overcome the positive declaration of the victim identifying him. He failed even to suggest any ground for the victim and her mother to falsely testify against him, and absent evidence of an improper motive, the logical conclusion is that no such motive exists and the testimony should be accorded full faith and credit. Between the positive and categorical testimony of the rape victim on one hand and the accused's bare denial on the other, the former generally prevails.

Doctrine

Rape is committed by a man who has carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the circumstances listed in Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Where the offended party is under twelve years of age, carnal knowledge is rape even though none of the other circumstances, such as force, threat or intimidation, is present. The age of the victim is an element in this form of rape and must be established, here by the Certificate of Live Birth.

The findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are accorded respect, if not conclusive effect, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, because the trial judge observed the demeanor of the witnesses on the stand. The testimony of a child victim of tender age is credible, more so when she has no motive to falsely testify, and her failure to escape or cry for help does not destroy her credibility, since there is no standard form of behavior for a person confronted by a shocking incident, and child victims are not expected to act as mature individuals would.

A bare denial, unsupported by strong evidence, cannot overcome the positive and categorical testimony of the rape victim identifying the accused. Absent evidence of any reason or motive for a witness to falsely testify, no such improper motive is presumed, and the testimony is accorded full faith and credit.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed in full the decision of the Court of Appeals finding Briccio Baculanta guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to pay 50,000 pesos as civil indemnity, 50,000 pesos as moral damages, and 30,000 pesos as exemplary damages, plus legal interest on all damages at six percent per annum from finality of the decision until full payment.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that when the offended party is under twelve years of age, carnal knowledge is rape even without force, threat or intimidation, and a bare denial can never outweigh the positive testimony of a child victim. Examiners use this case to test the elements of statutory rape under Article 266-A, the credibility of child witnesses, and the hierarchy between positive testimony and denial.