Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 178323 March 16, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ARMANDO CHINGH y PARCIA, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
Armando Chingh y Parcia (Armando) seeks the reversal of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01119 convicting him of Statutory Rape and Rape Through Sexual Assault.
The factual and procedural antecedents are as follows:
On March 19, 2005, an Information for Rape was filed against Armando for inserting his fingers and afterwards his penis into the private part of his minor victim, VVV,2 the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or before March 11, 2004 in the City of Manila, Philippines, [Armando], with lewd design and by means of force, violence and intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly commit sexual abuse and lascivious conduct upon a ten (10) year old minor child, [VVV], by then and there pulling her in a dark place then mashing her breast and inserting his fingers in her vagina and afterwards his penis, against her will and consent, thereby causing serious danger to the normal growth and development of the child [VVV], to her damage and prejudice.
Contrary to law.3
Upon his arraignment, Armando pleaded not guilty to the charge. Consequently, trial on the merits ensued.
At the trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of the victim, VVV; the victim’s father; PO3 Ma. Teresa Solidarios; and Dr. Irene Baluyot. The defense, on the other hand, presented the lone testimony Armando as evidence.
Evidence for the Prosecution
Born on 16 September 1993, VVV was only 10 years old at the time of the incident. On 11 March 2004 at around 8:00 p.m., along with five other playmates, VVV proceeded to a store to buy food. While she was beckoning the storekeeper, who was not then at her station, Armando approached and pulled her hand and threatened not to shout for help or talk. Armando brought her to a vacant lot at Tindalo Street, about 400 meters from the store. While in a standing position beside an unoccupied passenger jeepney, Armando mashed her breast and inserted his right hand index finger into her private part. Despite VVV’s pleas for him to stop, Armando unzipped his pants, lifted VVV and rammed his phallus inside her vagina, causing her to feel excruciating pain.
Threatened with death if she would tell anyone what had happened, VVV kept mum about her traumatic experience when she arrived home. Noticing her odd and uneasy demeanor as well as her blood-stained underwear, however, her father pressed her for an explanation. VVV confessed to her father about her unfortunate experience. Immediately, they reported the matter to the police authorities. After his arrest, Armando was positively identified by VVV in a police line-up.
The genital examination of VVV conducted by Dr. Irene Baluyot (Dr. Baluyot) of the Philippine General Hospital’s Child Protection Unit, in the morning of 12 March 2004, showed a "fresh laceration with bleeding at 6 o’clock position" in the child’s hymen and "minimal bleeding from [said] hymen laceration." Her impression was that there was a "clear evidence" of "penetrating trauma" which happened within 24 hours prior to the examination. The photograph of the lacerated genitalia of VVV strongly illustrated and buttressed Dr. Baluyot’s medical report.4
Evidence for the Defense
Armando denied that he raped VVV. Under his version, in (sic) the night of 11 March 2004, he and his granddaughter were on their way to his cousin’s house at Payumo St., Tondo, Manila. As it was already late, he told his granddaughter to just go home ahead of him while he decided to go to Blumentritt market to buy food. While passing by a small alley on his way thereto, he saw VVV along with some companions, peeling "dalanghita." VVV approached him and asked if she could go with him to the market because she will buy "dalanghita" or sunkist. He refused her request and told VVV instead to go home. He then proceeded towards Blumentritt, but before he could reach the market, he experienced rheumatic pains that prompted him to return home. Upon arriving home, at about 8:30 o’clock in the evening, he watched television with his wife and children. Shortly thereafter, three (3) barangay officials arrived, arrested him, and brought him to a police precinct where he was informed of VVV’s accusation against him.5
On April 29, 2005, the RTC, after finding the evidence of the prosecution overwhelming against the accused’s defense of denial and alibi, rendered a Decision6 convicting Armando of Statutory Rape. The dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds accused ARMANDO CHINGH GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of Statutory Rape defined and penalized under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (d) of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 8353 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to indemnify private complainant [VVV] the amount of fifty thousand pesos (₱50,000) as moral damages and to pay the costs.
It appearing that accused is detained, the period of his detention shall be credited in the service of his sentence.
SO ORDERED.
Aggrieved, Armando appealed the Decision before the CA, which was docketed as CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01119.
On December 29, 2006, the CA rendered a Decision7 finding Armando not only guilty of Statutory Rape, but also of Rape Through Sexual Assault. The decretal portion of said Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS: accused-appellant is hereby found GUILTY of two counts of rape and is, accordingly, sentenced to suffer, for the crime of statutory rape, the penalty of reclusion perpetua and, for the offense of rape through sexual assault, the indeterminate penalty of 3 years, 3 months and 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum, to 8 years and 11 months and 1 day of prision mayor, as maximum. He is likewise ordered to pay the victim, a total of ₱80,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱80,000.00 as moral damages; and ₱40,000.00 as exemplary damages, or a grand total of ₱200,000.00 for the two counts of rape.
Costs against accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.8
In fine, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC, and considering that the appeal opened the entire case for judicial review, the CA also found Armando guilty of the crime of Rape Through Sexual Assault. The CA opined that since the Information charged Armando with two counts of rape: (1) by inserting his finger in the victim’s vagina, which is classified as Rape Through Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended; and (2) for inserting his penis in the private part of his victim, which is Statutory Rape, and considering that Armando failed to object thereto through a motion to quash before entering his plea, Armando could be convicted of as many offenses as are charged and proved.
The CA ratiocinated that coupled with the credible, direct, and candid testimony of the victim, the elements of Statutory Rape and Rape Through Sexual Assault were indubitably established by the prosecution.
Armando now comes before this Court for relief.
In a Resolution9 dated September 26, 2007, the Court required the parties to file their respective supplemental briefs. In their respective Manifestations,10 the parties waived the filing of their supplemental briefs, and instead adopted their respective briefs filed before the CA.
Hence, Armando raises the following errors:
I
The trial court gravely erred in finding the accused guilty of the crime of rape under article 266-a, paragraph 1 (d) of the revised penal code in spite the unnatural and unrealistic testimony of the private complainant.
II
The trial court erred in finding the accused guilty of the offense charged beyond reasonable doubt.
Simply stated, Armando is assailing the factual basis of his conviction, which in effect, mainly questions the credibility of the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution, particularly his victim, VVV.
Armando maintains that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence that will overcome the presumption of innocence. Likewise, Armando insists that the RTC gravely erred in convicting him based on the unrealistic and unnatural testimony of the victim. Armando claims that VVV’s testimony was so inconsistent with common experience that it deserves careful and critical evaluation. First, it was so unnatural for VVV to remain quiet and not ask for help when the accused allegedly pulled her in the presence of several companions and bystanders; second, VVV did not resist or cry for help while they were on their way to the place where she was allegedly abused, which was 300 to 400 meters away from where he allegedly pulled her; third, VVV could have run away while Armando was allegedly molesting her, but she did not; fourth, Armando could not have inserted his penis in the victim’s organ while both of them were standing, unless the victim did not offer any resistance.
Generally, the Court will not disturb the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, as it was in the better position to observe their candor and behavior on the witness stand. Evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court; it had the unique opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor, conduct, and attitude, especially under cross-examination. Its assessment is entitled to respect unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case.11
From the testimony of the victim, VVV, she positively identified Armando as the one who ravaged her on that fateful night of March 11, 2004. VVV clearly narrated her harrowing experience in the hands of the accused. Notwithstanding her innocence and despite the thorough cross-examination by Armando’s counsel, VVV never faltered and gave a very candid and truthful testimony of the traumatic events. VVV’s testimony was corroborated and bolstered by the findings of Dr. Irene Baluyot that the victim’s genital area showed a fresh laceration with bleeding at 6 o’clock position in her hymen.12 Dr. Baluyot concluded that an acute injury occurred within 24 hours prior to the examination and that the occurrence of rape within that period was very possible.13 Also, the age of VVV at the time the incident occurred, which was 10 years old, was duly established by her birth certificate,14 her testimony,15 and that of her father’s.16
Time and again, this Court has held that when the offended parties are young and immature girls, as in this case, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability, but also the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed if the matter about which they testified were not true.17 A young girl would not usually concoct a tale of defloration; publicly admit having been ravished and her honor tainted; allow the examination of her private parts; and undergo all the trouble and inconvenience, not to mention the trauma and scandal of a public trial, had she not in fact been raped and been truly moved to protect and preserve her honor, and motivated by the desire to obtain justice for the wicked acts committed against her.18 Moreover, the Court has repeatedly held that the lone testimony of the victim in a rape case, if credible, is enough to sustain a conviction.19
On the other hand, Armando admitted that he saw VVV on the date of the incident, but denied the accusations against him and merely relied on his defense that he was watching TV with his family when barangay officials arrested him.
Armando’s defenses were also unavailing. His contention that it was unnatural and unrealistic for VVV to remain quiet when he pulled her from her companions and why she did not cry for help or run away when he was allegedly ravaging her deserves scant consideration. Clearly, the reason why VVV did not shout for help was because Armando told her not to shout or talk.20 Likewise, the reason why VVV did not run when Armando was molesting her was because his finger was still inside her private part.21 Moreover, Armando’s argument that he could not have inserted his penis in the victim’s organ while both of them were standing is preposterous. It is settled that sexual intercourse in a standing position, while perhaps uncomfortable, is not improbable.22
Armando tendered nothing but his bare denial and contention that he was elsewhere when the crime was committed. Aside from this, he presented no more evidence to substantiate his claims. Jurisprudence dictates that denial and alibi are the common defenses in rape cases. Sexual abuse is denied on the allegation that the accused was somewhere else and could not have physically committed the crime. This Court has always held that these two defenses are inherently weak and must be supported by clear and convincing evidence in order to be believed. As negative defenses, they cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the complainant.23 Consequently, Armando’s bare denial and alibi must fail against the testimony of VVV and her positive identification that he was the perpetrator of the horrid deed. Unmistakably, it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that Armando had carnal knowledge of VVV.1awphil
Anent Armando’s conviction for the crime of Rape Through Sexual Assault.
The CA correctly found Armando guilty of the crime of Rape Through Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. (R.A.) 8353, or The Anti-Rape Law of 1997.24 From the Information, it is clear that Armando was being charged with two offenses, Rape under paragraph 1 (d), Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, and rape as an act of sexual assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A. Armando was charged with having carnal knowledge of VVV, who was under twelve years of age at the time, under paragraph 1 (d) of Article 266-A, and he was also charged with committing an act of sexual assault by inserting his finger into the genital of VVV under the second paragraph of Article 266-A. Indeed, two instances of rape were proven at the trial. First, it was established that Armando inserted his penis into the private part of his victim, VVV. Second, through the testimony of VVV, it was proven that Armando also inserted his finger in VVV’s private part.
The Information has sufficiently informed accused-appellant that he is being charged with two counts of rape. Although two offenses were charged, which is a violation of Section 13, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which states that "[a] complaint or information must charge only one offense, except when the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses." Nonetheless, Section 3, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure also states that "[w]hen two or more offenses are charged in a single complaint or information but the accused fails to object to it before trial, the court may convict the appellant of as many as are charged and proved, and impose on him the penalty for each offense, setting out separately the findings of fact and law in each offense." Consequently, since Armando failed to file a motion to quash the Information, he can be convicted with two counts of rape.
As to the proper penalty, We affirm the CA’s imposition of Reclusion Perpetua for rape under paragraph 1 (d), Article 266-A. However, We modify the penalty for Rape Through Sexual Assault.
It is undisputed that at the time of the commission of the sexual abuse, VVV was ten (10) years old. This calls for the application of R.A. No. 7610, or "The Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act," which defines sexual abuse of children and prescribes the penalty therefor in Section 5 (b), Article III, to wit:
SEC. 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. — Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:
x x x x
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse: Provided, That when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period.25
Paragraph (b) punishes sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct not only with a child exploited in prostitution, but also with a child subjected to other sexual abuses. It covers not only a situation where a child is abused for profit, but also where one — through coercion, intimidation or influence — engages in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child.26
Corollarilly, Section 2 (h) of the rules and regulations27 of R.A. No. 7610 defines "Lascivious conduct" as:
[T]he intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person.28
In this case, the offended party was ten years old at the time of the commission of the offense. Pursuant to the above-quoted provision of law, Armando was aptly prosecuted under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353,29 for Rape Through Sexual Assault. However, instead of applying the penalty prescribed therein, which is prision mayor, considering that VVV was below 12 years of age, and considering further that Armando’s act of inserting his finger in VVV’s private part undeniably amounted to lascivious conduct, the appropriate imposable penalty should be that provided in Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, which is reclusion temporal in its medium period.
The Court is not unmindful to the fact that the accused who commits acts of lasciviousness under Article 366, in relation to Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, suffers the more severe penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period than the one who commits Rape Through Sexual Assault, which is merely punishable by prision mayor. This is undeniably unfair to the child victim. To be sure, it was not the intention of the framers of R.A. No. 8353 to have disallowed the applicability of R.A. No. 7610 to sexual abuses committed to children. Despite the passage of R.A. No. 8353, R.A. No. 7610 is still good law, which must be applied when the victims are children or those "persons below eighteen (18) years of age or those over but are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition."30
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term of the indeterminate penalty shall be that which could be properly imposed under the law, which is fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal. On the other hand, the minimum term shall be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree, which is reclusion temporal in its minimum period, or twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months.
Hence, Armando should be meted the indeterminate sentence of twelve (12) years, ten (10) months and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
As to Armando’s civil liabilities, the CA correctly awarded the following damages: civil indemnity of ₱50,000.00 and another ₱50,000.00 as moral damages for Rape under paragraph 1(d), Article 266-A; and civil indemnity of ₱30,000.00 and moral damages also of ₱30,000.00 for Rape under paragraph 2, Article 266-A. In line, however, with prevailing jurisprudence, we increase the award of exemplary damages from ₱25,000.00 and ₱15,000.00, for Rape under paragraph 1 (d), Article 266-A and Rape under paragraph 2, Article 266-A, respectively, to ₱30,000.00 for each count of rape.31
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court of Appeals Decision dated December 29, 2006 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01119 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. For Rape under paragraph 1 (d), Article 266-A, Armando Chingh y Parcia is sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua; and for Rape Through Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A, he is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years, ten (10) months and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum. He is likewise ordered to pay VVV the total of ₱80,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱80,000.00 as moral damages, and ₱60,000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice |
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Second Division, Chairperson
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Footnotes
* Designated as an additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo Nachura, per Special Order No. 933, dated January 24, 2011.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador, with Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Ramon R. Garcia, concurring; rollo, pp. 2-26.
2 The identity of the victim or any information to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. 7610, "An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, and for Other Purposes"; Republic Act No. 9262, "An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, and for Other Purposes"; Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the "Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children," effective November 5, 2004; and People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419.
3 Records, p. 1.
4 Rollo, pp. 4-5.
5 Id. at 5-6.
6 CA rollo, pp. 51-59.
7 Rollo, pp. 2-26.
8 Id. at 25-26.
9 Id. at 29.
10 Id. at 30-31 and 33-34.
11 People v. Tormis, G.R. No. 183456, December 18, 2008, 574 SCRA 903.
12 TSN, (Dr. Irene Baluyot), June 27, 2004, p. 23.
13 Id. at 29-30.
14 Records, p. 63.
15 TSN, (VVV), August 23, 2004, p. 7.
16 TSN, September 13, 2004, p. 10.
17 Flordeliz v. People, G.R. No. 186441, March 3, 2010, 614 SCRA 225, 234.
18 People v. Matunhay, G.R. No. 178274, March 5, 2010, 614 SCRA 307, 316.
19 Id. at 317, citing People v. Quiñanola, 366 Phil. 390 (1999).
20 TSN, (VVV), August 23, 2004, pp. 6-7.
21 Id. at 10.
22 People v. Iroy, G.R. No. 187743, March 3, 2010, 614 SCRA 245, 250; People v. Castro, G.R. No. 91490, May 6, 1991, 196 SCRA 679.
23 Supra note 18, at 317.
24 Art. 266-A. Rape: When and How Committed. - Rape is committed –
x x x x
2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.
25 Emphasis supplied.
26 Supra note 17, at 240.
27 Rules and Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases (adopted on October 11, 1993).
28 Supra note 17, at 241, citing Navarrete v. People, 513 SCRA 509, 521-522 (2007); Olivarez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 163866, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA 465, 473-474; People v. Bon, 444 Phil. 571, 584 (2003).
29 R.A. No. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of (which took effect on October 22, 1997) reclassified rape as a crime against person and repealed Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. The new provisions on rape are found in Articles 266-A to 266-D of the said Code.
30 R.A. No. 7610. Art. I, Sec. 3 (a).
31 People v. Lindo, G.R. No. 189818, August 9, 2010, 519 SCRA 13.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
