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

People versus XXX

The Case

This is a criminal case in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted XXX, the paternal uncle of the private complainant AAA, for two counts of rape committed against her — one in May 2002, when she turned eleven years old, and one in April 2003, when she was twelve. The accused-appellant assails his conviction for qualified rape and qualified statutory rape, arguing that the private complainant's testimony was contradicted by another witness and should not have been believed. The case matters because the Supreme Court uses it to settle two things every Bar candidate must know: the proper remedy for appealing a conviction carrying reclusion perpetua, and the correct nomenclature and damages for rape where the victim is a minor and the offender is a relative within the third civil degree.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 8, convicted XXX of qualified rape for the April 2003 incident and of qualified statutory rape for the May 2002 incident, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole for each offense and awarding damages. XXX appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's decision in its entirety, giving great weight to the trial court's factual findings and holding that the inconsistency between the private complainant and the witness BBB did not affect the conviction because all the elements of rape were proven. XXX then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The Supreme Court held that the proper remedy was an appeal under Rule 124, Section 13 of the Rules of Court, but in the interest of justice treated the petition as such an appeal. The Court dismissed the appeal and modified the Court of Appeals decision as to the nomenclature of the May 2002 offense and the damages awarded.

Facts

XXX is the paternal uncle of AAA, being the sibling of her father. On May 26, 2002, AAA's eleventh birthday, she was in her residence when XXX lay down beside her and threatened her with a knife. He undressed, inserted his finger inside her vagina, then inserted his penis and thrust three times, causing her pain. He masturbated and threatened her not to tell anyone.

The same thing happened again sometime in April 2003. XXX again inserted his finger inside AAA's vagina and thereafter his penis, and told her that he would kill her if she told her parents. AAA filed a complaint-affidavit only in 2008, narrating both instances of rape.

At trial, XXX presented BBB, who testified that she never witnessed XXX rape AAA, and raised the defense of alibi, claiming he was with his wife when the rapes were committed. He also claimed that AAA began accusing him only after a quarrel with her father. AAA explained the inconsistency, testifying that the police officer who took her statement must have misunderstood her and that she never claimed BBB witnessed the rape. Her birth certificate showed she was eleven years old in May 2002 and twelve in April 2003. Dr. Sonido examined AAA's vagina five years after the alleged rapes and still found healed hymenal lacerations.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 was the proper remedy against a conviction imposing reclusion perpetua.
• Whether or not the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in relying on the private complainant's testimony despite the inconsistency with the testimony of BBB.
• Whether or not the accused-appellant was correctly convicted of qualified rape and qualified statutory rape, and whether the nomenclature of the offenses and the damages awarded were proper.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 8353, provides:

Article 266-B. Penalty. — . . . . The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances: 1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.

This provision supplies the qualifying circumstance of relationship and minority that raises the crime to qualified rape, and fixes the penalty that, after Republic Act Number 9346, is reduced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.

Rule 124, Section 13 of the Rules of Court, as amended, provides:

Section 13. Certification or appeal of case to the Supreme Court. — (a) Whenever the Court of Appeals finds that the penalty of death should be imposed, the court shall render judgment but refrain from making an entry of judgment and forthwith certify the case and elevate its entire record to the Supreme Court for review. (b) Where the judgment also imposes a lesser penalty for offenses committed on the same occasion or which arose out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the more severe offense for which the penalty of death is imposed, and the accused appeals, the appeal shall be included in the case certified for review to the Supreme Court. (c) In cases where the Court of Appeals imposes reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or a lesser penalty, it shall render and enter judgment imposing such penalty. The judgment may be appealed to the Supreme Court by notice of appeal filed with the Court of Appeals.

This provision governs the proper mode of review and is the basis for treating the accused-appellant's petition as an appeal.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that under Rule 124, Section 13, paragraph (c), where the Court of Appeals imposes reclusion perpetua, the judgment may be appealed to the Supreme Court by notice of appeal filed with the Court of Appeals. Since the Court of Appeals affirmed a conviction carrying reclusion perpetua, the proper remedy was an appeal under Rule 124, not a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. In the interest of justice, the Court treated the petition as an appeal under Rule 124.

On the second issue, the Court denied the appeal. To convict an accused of rape, the prosecution must prove that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim, that the act was consummated, and that it was done through force or intimidation, or that the victim was deprived of reason or unconscious, or was below twelve years of age or demented. All these elements were proven. The private complainant's testimony was straightforward, categorical, and candid, and the trial court's findings, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive on the Supreme Court. The trial court had two instances to examine the private complainant's credibility and is in the best position to evaluate the probative value of the testimonies of witnesses, particularly that of the offended party. The accused-appellant's lone argument on the inconsistency with BBB's testimony therefore failed.

On the third issue, the Court modified the nomenclature and the damages. Under Article 266-B, rape is qualified when the offender is related to the victim who is below eighteen years old and is within the third degree of consanguinity. The penalty for qualified rape is death, but with the passage of Republic Act Number 9346, the appropriate penalty is reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. Following the guidelines in People versus ABC260708, the crime is denominated qualified rape of a minor, not qualified statutory rape, when a special qualifying aggravating circumstance is present and the victim is below the statutory age, with floor damages of 150,000 pesos each for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages. The crime is denominated qualified rape when the special qualifying circumstance is present but the victim is not below the statutory age, with floor damages of 100,000 pesos each. The Court also held that the allegation in the Information must be precise as to the age of the victim, because the age of the victim of qualified rape of a minor qualifies the crime and the accused must be informed of the nature of the charge. Since the Information for the April 2003 rape alleged that the private complainant was twelve years old, that rape could only be designated qualified rape, not qualified rape of a minor.

Doctrine

A conviction carrying reclusion perpetua is appealed to the Supreme Court by notice of appeal filed with the Court of Appeals under Rule 124, Section 13, paragraph (c); a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is the wrong remedy, though the Court may treat it as an appeal in the interest of justice. The elements of rape are carnal knowledge, consummation, and force or intimidation, or the victim's deprivation of reason or unconsciousness, or the victim being below twelve years of age or demented. Findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, especially the offended party, are binding on appeal when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Under Article 266-B, rape is qualified when the victim is under eighteen years of age and the offender is a relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree; the penalty is death, reduced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole by Republic Act Number 9346. The crime is denominated qualified rape of a minor, with floor damages of 150,000 pesos each for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, when a special qualifying aggravating circumstance is present and the victim is below the statutory age; it is denominated qualified rape, with floor damages of 100,000 pesos each, when the victim is not below the statutory age. The Information must precisely allege the age of the victim and the relationship, because these qualify the crime and the accused has the right to be informed of the nature of the charge against him.

Disposition

The appeal was dismissed, and the Court of Appeals decision was affirmed with modification: XXX was found guilty of qualified rape for the April 2003 rape and of qualified rape of a minor for the May 2002 rape, sentenced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole for each, and ordered to pay 100,000 pesos each for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages for the first, and 150,000 pesos each for the second, all with six percent legal interest per annum from finality of judgment until full payment.

Remember This

Memorize this line: when the victim is below the statutory age and a special qualifying aggravating circumstance under Article 266-B is present, the crime is qualified rape of a minor, not qualified statutory rape, and the floor damages are 150,000 pesos each. Examiners use this case to test the proper remedy for appealing a reclusion perpetua conviction, the binding effect of trial court credibility findings, and the precise pleading of age and relationship in the Information.