PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BERNARDINO BIALA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Biala versus People

The Case

This is People of the Philippines versus Bernardino Biala, a criminal appeal in which the accused was charged with three counts of rape against a child, AAA, whom he had raised as his own ward. The trial court convicted him of attempted rape, statutory rape, and qualified rape; the Court of Appeals affirmed the two rape convictions but reduced the first charge to acts of lasciviousness. The case matters because it gathers, in one decision, the rules a bar candidate must command: the deference given to the trial court's assessment of a child witness, the elements of statutory rape as distinguished from qualified rape, the effect of a threat that silences a young victim, the sufficiency of an information that does not fix the exact date of the offense, and the strict requirement that the qualifying circumstance of guardianship be both alleged and proved.

Procedural History

Biala was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Tacurong City, Sultan Kudarat, in three separate Informations for rape committed in November 1999, on the following night, and in June 2001. He pleaded not guilty, pre-trial was terminated, and trial on the merits followed. On February 6, 2011, the trial court rendered a Joint Judgment convicting him of attempted rape in the first case, statutory rape in the second, and qualified rape in the third, and imposing reclusion perpetua in the two rape cases.

Biala appealed to the Court of Appeals. That court affirmed the convictions for statutory rape and qualified rape, but held that the prosecution had not proved the commencement of penetration in the first case; it instead convicted him of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code and modified the penalties and damages accordingly. Biala elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by appeal, and both parties adopted their earlier briefs as their supplemental briefs.

Facts

AAA was born on December 5, 1988, as shown by her Certificate of Live Birth. She lived with Biala, who had taken her in as a child and whom she regarded as her guardian. On two successive nights in November 1999, while she was already in bed, Biala undressed her, kissed her, and, when she resisted or shouted, punched her in the abdomen. She felt pain in her vagina and saw blood. On the second night he held her arm, pushed her onto the bed, forced her legs apart, and inserted his penis into her vagina, keeping a gun nearby and threatening to kill her if she told anyone.

In June 2001, while she was then twelve years old, Biala again pulled her dress, pushed her onto the bed, undressed her, and had carnal knowledge of her, threatening her life should she reveal what happened. Terrified, AAA washed herself and cried through the night.

AAA kept silent for a time, then ran away and stayed with the spouses Sotelo, to whom she finally disclosed her ordeal. They accompanied her to the police station. Dr. Efraim Collado examined her and found a healed hymenal laceration at the nine o'clock position, more than ten days old, which could have been caused by one or several acts of sexual intercourse. Biala denied the charges and claimed alibi, suggesting that the Sotelos had instigated AAA because of an unpaid debt.

Issues

• Whether or not the testimony of the child victim AAA deserves full weight and credit despite her conduct after the abuse and her delay in reporting it.
• Whether or not the Information in the second rape case was defective for failing to state the precise date of the offense.
• Whether or not the defenses of denial and alibi can overcome the positive testimony of the victim.
• Whether or not Biala is guilty of qualified rape in the second and third cases.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, defines rape and provides:

Rape is committed by a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: 1. Through force, threat, or intimidation; 2. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; 3. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and 4. When the offended party is under twelve years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.

This provision supplies the elements of the crime and explains why, for a child under twelve, force need not be proved.

Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, lists the qualifying circumstances, and provides:

The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating or qualifying 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.

This is the circumstance of guardianship that the Court requires to be alleged in the Information and proved at trial.

Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, which the Court of Appeals applied to the first charge, provides:

The abominable acts or practices mentioned in the preceding article shall likewise be punished by arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods, if the offense is committed against a person of either sex under twelve years of age, or against a person of either sex under eighteen years of age, if the offender is a person who has authority or moral ascendancy over the offended party.

This provision supports the conviction for acts of lasciviousness where the evidence showed lewd acts but not the commencement of penetration.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the credibility of witnesses is best left to the trial court, which observed their deportment on the stand, and that this deference is even stronger where the Court of Appeals has sustained the findings. AAA testified in a simple, convincing, and consistent manner, and her testimony was corroborated by the medical findings of Dr. Collado. The Court stressed that the testimony of a child victim is given full weight and credit, because youth and immaturity are badges of truth and sincerity. Her conduct after the abuse, living as though nothing happened, did not discredit her, for victims of rape cannot be expected to react according to society's expectations; and her delay in reporting was explained by Biala's threats to kill her, which instilled fear in a young girl's mind.

On the second issue, the Court held that the objection to the Information was raised for the first time on appeal and could no longer be entertained. In any event, the argument was specious, because it is not necessary for the Information to allege the date and time of the commission of the crime with exactitude unless time is an essential ingredient of the offense. In rape, the date is not an essential element; what is material is its occurrence, which was sufficiently established.

On the third issue, the Court rejected denial and alibi. Denial is negative evidence that pales in comparison with a positive testimony asserting the commission of the crime and identifying the accused. Alibi requires proof that it was impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime, which Biala failed to discharge, and his alibi was uncorroborated.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that for one to be convicted of qualified rape, at least one of the qualifying circumstances in Article 266-B must be alleged in the Information and duly proved during trial. Here, the circumstance that the offender is the guardian of the victim was properly alleged in the two Informations and sufficiently established during trial. The Court thus affirmed the convictions for statutory rape and qualified rape.

Doctrine

The testimony of a child victim of rape is given full weight and credit, and youth and immaturity are badges of truth and sincerity. The trial court's assessment of credibility binds the reviewing court absent substantial reason to reverse it, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

For statutory rape, the victim being under twelve years of age, force, threat, or intimidation are not elements, because the absence of free consent is conclusively presumed; what must be proved is sexual intercourse. For qualified rape, the qualifying circumstance, such as guardianship under Article 266-B, must be both alleged in the Information and proved during trial.

An Information need not allege the exact date of the commission of rape, because time is not an essential ingredient; what is material is the occurrence of the crime. Objections to the form or substance of an Information cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

Delay in reporting rape does not prove fabrication, especially where the offender threatened the victim's life, and denial and alibi cannot prevail over positive testimony.

Disposition

The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed, sustaining Biala's convictions for statutory rape and qualified rape and the conviction for acts of lasciviousness in the first case.

Remember This

The single line to memorize: in qualified rape, the qualifying circumstance of guardianship must be alleged in the Information and proved at trial, while in statutory rape the victim's age substitutes for force. Examiners use this case to test the elements of statutory rape, the sufficiency of an Information that omits the exact date, and the treatment of a child victim's delay and conduct.