THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 267834, December 03, 2025 ]
PEOPLE v. XXX267834 * +
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. XXX267834 [FORMERLY CRIMINAL CASE NO. 17-601 MAL]* ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
CAGUIOA, J.:
Before this Court is an ordinary appeal[1] filed by accused-appellant XXX267834 (accused-appellant) assailing the Decision[2] dated January 31, 2023 of the Court of Appeals-Manila, Special Second Division (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 15948, which affirmed the Judgment[3] dated October 22, 2021 of Branch 291, Regional Trial Court, Malabon City (RTC) in Criminal Case No. 17-601 MAL, finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape.
The Facts and Antecedent Proceedings
An Information was filed against accused-appellant for the rape of his mother-in-law AAA267834, which reads:
That on or about the 25th day of June 2017 in the City of Malabon, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with lewd design and by means of force and intimidation, did, then and there, willfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with one [AAA267834] (83 years old), against her will and without her consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. Pre-trial and trial thereafter ensued.
The prosecution's evidence can be summarized as follows:
Accused-appellant is the son-in-law of private complainant AAA267834, being married to the latter's daughter EEE267834. Accused-appellant and EEE267834, together with their children, have been residing at AAA267834's house for almost 28 years. AAA267834's house was divided into three (3) adjacent parts, as follows: (1) first door occupied by AAA267834; (2) second door occupied by accused-appellant and EEE267834 with their children; and (3) third door occupied by AAA267834's other daughter, CCC267834.[5]
At around 6:15 p.m. on June 25, 2017, BBB267834, another daughter of AAA267834, went to AAA267834's house to bring her food for her supper. As she approached the house, BBB267834 heard AAA267834 shouting "Aray! Aray!". BBB267834 tried to push open AAA267834's door, but she could not do so. Alarmed, BBB267834 shouted to her sister CCC267834 for help. Suddenly, accused-appellant emerged from AAA267834's house, holding his loose short pants and sweating profusely.[6]
BBB267834 asked accused-appellant to turn on the lights inside the house, but he refused. BBB267834 insisted and accused-appellant turned on the lights. BBB267834 then saw AAA267834 sitting naked on the floor, with her torn clothes scattered around her. A bottle of Red Horse beer and AAA267834's shorts and underwear were also on the floor. AAA267834 then exclaimed, "Yang putanginang [accused-appellant] nay an, pinaghahalikan ako. Sinira damit ko, ginahasa ako, hiniga ako sa semento." At that moment, CCC267834 also arrived and upon seeing the incident, asked AAA267834, "Bakit kayo nakaganyan?" AAA267834 replied, "Walanghiyang yan, hiniga ako sa semento, pinaghahalikan ako."[7]
AAA267834 was thereafter brought to the emergency room of Dalandanan Hospital in Valenzuela City for treatment. Upon learning what happened, the attending physician summoned SPO1 Diana C. Palmones (SPO1 Palmones) of the Women and Children Protection Desk, Malabon City Police Station.[8]
SPO1 Palmones then dispatched two police officers to arrest accused-appellant. Meanwhile, AAA267834 was brought to Tondo Medical Center where she was treated for multiple physical injuries.[9]
On the following day, June 26, 2017, AAA267834 was transferred to PNP Northern Police District Crime Laboratory Office, Caloocan City for medico-legal examination. The examination revealed that there was "clear evidence of recent blunt force trauma to the hymen."[10]
On the other hand, accused-appellant denied having committed the rape, claiming that he had a good relationship with his mother-in-law AAA267834 since he and his family had been living in AAA267834's house for 28 years. Accused-appellant claimed his sister-in-law BBB267834 had a possible motive to accuse him of rape due to her grudge against accused-appellant because of accused-appellant's domestic issues with his wife EEE267834.[11]
Accused-appellant testified that on June 25, 2017, he was inside their house (the middle door) resting when he heard BBB267834 arrive at AAA267834's house. Accused-appellant heard BBB267834 call out to AAA267834 and when the latter did not respond, BBB267834 called out to her sister CCC267834. Accused-appellant then got up to check what the commotion was about. Accused-appellant ran to AAA267834's door to try and open it. After exerting some effort, accused-appellant was able to open the door and found that the lights were off. Accused-appellant waited for BBB267834 to arrive and entered AAA267834's house together. Accused-appellant turned the lights on and found AAA267834 seated on the floor with her clothes torn. BBB267834 tried to ask AAA267834 what happened but she did not respond and just covered her chest. BBB267834 then glared at accused-appellant and stepped outside hysterically shouting that accused-appellant raped AAA267834.[12]
Accused-appellant then tried to ask AAA267834 why her clothes were torn, to which she replied, "Mainit, makati, marupok." AAA267834 then asked accused-appellant to leave and close the door. Accused-appellant thereafter learned of the accusations against him when he was arrested by the police.[13]
Ruling of the RTC
In its Judgment dated October 22, 2021, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape. The dispositive portion of the Judgment reads:
WHEREFORE, [accused-appellant] is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of reclusion perpetua with all its accessory penalties.
The period of his preventive imprisonment shall be credited in his favor if he has given written conformity to abide by the disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners in accordance with Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
[Accused-appellant] is also directed to indemnify [AAA267834] the following amounts:
All these amounts shall earn six percent (6%) interest per annum from finality of this Judgment until fully satisfied.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.[14]
Accused-appellant's conviction was anchored on the RTC's finding that AAA267834's testimony was clear, convincing, and otherwise consistent with human nature. The RTC did not dignify accused-appellant's defense of denial, holding that the same was unsubstantiated and uncorroborated.[15]
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA.
Ruling of the CA
In the questioned Decision dated January 31, 2023, the CA affirmed accused-appellant's conviction, and found no cogent basis to deviate from the factual findings of the RTC, including its assessment of the credibility of 83 year-old AAA267834 and her candid testimony in open court.[16] The CA also held that AAA267834's sworn statement was materially corroborated by her daughters BBB267834[17] and CCC267834. The CA further held that the testimonies of AAA267834, BBB267834, and CCC267834 were corroborated by the results of AAA267834's medical examination.[18]
Hence, the present appeal.
Instead of filing supplemental briefs, both the People of the Philippines (People) and accused-appellant filed their respective manifestations in lieu of supplemental briefs.[19]
Accused-appellant asserts that the prosecution failed to prove all the elements of the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt.[20] Specifically, accused-appellant insists that there was no carnal knowledge between him and AAA267834, as AAA267834 herself has consistently declared in her direct testimony that no carnal knowledge took place;[21] there was no evidence that accused-appellant used force or intimidation in order to make AAA267834 submit to the sexual congress;[22] and the prosecution witnesses BBB267834 and CCC267834 had no personal knowledge of what happened to AAA267834 as they only testified on what allegedly happened after the rape.[23]
The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), argues that the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant committed rape against AAA267834;[24] and that AAA267834's testimony was materially corroborated by the testimonies of BBB267834 and CCC257834, and the medical findings of the examining physician Police Chief Inspector Charyl Escaro.[25]
Issue
For resolution of the Court is whether accused-appellant is guilty of the of the crime of rape under Article 266-A(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
The Court's Ruling
After a thorough review of the rollo and records of the instant case, the Court denies the appeal. However, the Court modifies the conviction and declares accused-appellant guilty of the crime of Attempted Rape under Article 266-A(1), in relation to Articles 6 and 51 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353.[26]
In People v. XXX262846,[27] the Supreme Court En Banc clarified that an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review:
In criminal cases, an appeal opens the entire case for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial court's decision based on grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors. The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law.[28]
Guided by the foregoing, the Court finds accused-appellant guilty of attempted rape instead of rape.
Under Article 266-A(1) of the Revised Penal Code, the elements of rape are: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) such act was accomplished through force or intimidation; or when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or when the victim is under twelve years of age.[29]
In this case, the CA and the RTC gave credence to the statements in the Malaya at Kusang-loob na Salaysay dated June 26, 2017 of private complainant AAA267834, wherein AAA267834 narrated that on June 25, 2017, AAA267834 was inside her house when accused-appellant arrived; that accused-appellant pulled her legs and arms; that accused-appellant told AAA267834, "Tatabihan kita, putangina mo. Sasamahan kita!"; that accused-appellant raped AAA267834 by tearing her clothes and inserting his penis into AAA267834's vagina; and that accused-appellant also kissed AAA267834:
However, the CA and the RTC erred in disregarding the categorical denial of AAA267834 regarding the carnal knowledge. During the direct examination of AAA267834, AAA267834 denied on three separate occasions that there was carnal knowledge between her and accused-appellant. The first denial was made during the hearing held on August 22, 2017:
During the next hearing on September 5, 2017, AAA267834 again denied that accused-appellant was able to rape her:
Finally, during the hearing on October 5, 2017, AAA267834 denied for the third time that there was carnal knowledge:
Q: What were you wearing when [accused-appellant] raped you? A: Like this, sir. (Witness is pointing to her slacks). He was pulling my shorts. I kicked him. Q: Do you have underwear then? A: I have, sir. I have panties and short that was why he was not able to rape me. My short is like this. (Witness is pointing to her slacks). We live alone in our home because my husband is already dead. Q: How did you know that [accused-appellant] raped you? A: (no answer) Atty. Glaiza Pineda: Objection, Your Honor. There was no mention (interrupted) Court: Sustain. Q: What upper-garments were you wearing then, if you were wearing one? A: I was wearing white upper garments with rose and gold, sir. Q: Do you remember what time was that? A: 9:00 o'clock, sir. Q: 9:00 o'clock in the morning or in the evening? A: 9:00 o'clock in the evening, sir. I was alone and no one was with me but [accused-appellant] was there upstairs in the third floor and he went down and uttered, "Putang ina mo, tatabihan kita." . . . . Court to witness: Q: Was the accused able to pull down your short and underwear? A: He was trying to take it off from me but I was able to pull it up, Your Honor. Fiscal to witness: Q: Can you tell what was your position then when [accused-appellant] bit you? A: I was lying down on the third floor, sir. Q: What was the position of [accused-appellant] when he bit you? A: He was wearing a short, sir. Court to witness: Q: Is [accused-appellant] a good son-in-law? A: No, Your Honor. Q: Why not? A: He is getting my underwear and short. Everyday he will try to rape me (Araw-araw gagahasain ako) Fiscal to witness: Q: How many times did [accused-appellant] try to rape you? A: Two times, sir. Court to witness: Q: None of them successful? A: No, because I repeatedly kicked him that was why my legs hurt, Your Honor.[33] (Emphasis supplied)
In People v. Dolandolan,[34] the Court emphasized that the complainant's credibility is the single most important issue in a prosecution for rape.
In People v. Lagramada, the Court recognized that -
[M]inor variations between the affidavit and the testimony of the complainant are normally not enough to cast doubt upon her credibility and truthfulness. After all, errorless statements and testimonies cannot be expected, especially when she is recounting details of a harrowing experience. In accordance with human nature and experience, there can be honest inconsistencies on minor and trivial matters, but these serve to strengthen rather than destroy her credibility, especially when the crime is shocking to the conscience and numbing to the senses. Hence, she is ordinarily not deemed discredited by such discrepancies- for example, whether or not she was able to buy ice before the rape, or whether the accused held both of her hands or only one of them.
While inconsistencies and contradictions in the complainant's testimony do not necessarily impair her credibility, "for said inconsistencies to be dismissed so as to give full credence to the alleged victim, they must be minor, trivial and as far as practicable, few and far between."[35] (Citations omitted, emphasis in the original)
In this case, the transcripts of stenographic notes show that AAA267834 gave conflicting accounts in her Malaya at Kusang-loob na Salaysay[36] dated June 26, 2017 regarding the purported rape, as compared to her testimony during direct examination where AAA267834 categorically denied, under oath, that carnal knowledge took place. AAA267834 was adamant that accused-appellant was not able to consummate the rape as she repeatedly kicked accused-appellant.
Contrary then to the findings of the RTC and the CA, the discrepancies in AAA267834's testimony, taken as a whole, cannot be considered minor or trivial. On three separate hearing dates, AAA267834 gave a manifestly contradictory account of the circumstances surrounding the purported rape than what was stated in her Malaya at Kusang-loob na Salaysay dated June 26, 2017. This raises material doubt as to the accusation that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA267834. While there is reasonable doubt as to the consummation of the crime of rape, the Court finds that the evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant is guilty of attempted rape.
In People v. XXX262846,[37] the Court explained what constitutes attempted rape:
There is attempted rape where the offender commences the commission of rape directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution, which should produce the crime of rape by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. In attempted rape by carnal knowledge, there is no requirement that the offender's penis touch the victim's genitalia or any other part of her body. Instead, what is required are overt acts by the offender in commencing the direct commission of the crime. Jurisprudence has defined an overt act as some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried out to its complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the spontaneous desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense.[38] (Citations omitted)
Here, it was stipulated that accused-appellant had access to AAA267834's home. AAA267834 categorically and consistently testified that accused-appellant entered her house at around 9:00 p.m. on June 25, 2017, declared that he was going to rape her, and he pulled her clothes and tore them. On the other hand, accused-appellant merely invoked the defense of denial. In addition, he claimed that the complaint was filed because AAA267834's daughter BBB267834 held a grudge against him. Mere denial, however, without any strong evidence to support it, can scarcely overcome the positive declaration of the victim of the identity of the accused and his involvement in the crime attributed to him.
The Court thus finds that accused-appellant's actions indicate the clear intention to commit the crime of rape. Had it not been for AAA267834 being able to kick accused-appellant, accused-appellant would have logically and necessarily consummated the rape.
As regards the imposable penalty, the Revised Penal Code provides that an attempted felony carries a penalty two degrees lower than that provided for a consummated felony.[39] Thus, the penalty for attempted rape is prision mayor. Following the Indeterminate Sentence Law,[40] the minimum term shall be anywhere within the penalty next lower, i.e., prision correccional, which ranges from six months and one day to six years, while the maximum term, in the absence of any modifying circumstances, shall be anywhere within the medium period of prision mayor or from eight years and one day to ten years.
Thus, accused-appellant should be imposed the indeterminate penalty of four years, two months, and one day of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten years of prision mayor, as maximum.
Finally, following People v. Jugueta,[41] the award of PHP 25,000.00 as civil indemnity, PHP 25,000.00 as moral damages, and PHP 25,000.00 as exemplary damages, is proper.
ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is DENIED. The Judgment dated October 22, 2021 rendered by the Regional Trial Court in Criminal Case No. 17-601 MAL, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals Decision dated January 31, 2023, in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 15948 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as follows: accused-appellant XXX267834 is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Attempted Rape under Article 266-A(1) of the Revised Penal Code and is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four years, two months, and one day of prision correccional, as minimum, to 10 years of prision mayor, as maximum; and to pay AAA267834 the amounts of PHP 25,000.00 as civil indemnity, PHP 25,000.00 as moral damages, and PHP 25,000.00 as exemplary damages. All the amounts of damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Inting, Gaerlan, and Dimaampao, JJ., concur.
Singh, J., see dissenting opinion.
* In line with Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017, titled "Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders Using Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances," the names of the private offended parties, along with all other personal circumstances that may tend to establish their identities, are made confidential to protect their privacy and dignity.
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-5, Notice of Appeal (with Compliance).
[2] Id. at 9-35. Penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta and concurred in by Associate Justices Lorenza R. Bordios and Jaime Fortunato A. Caringal.
[3] Id. at 38-50. Penned by Presiding Judge Ma. Antonia L. Largoza-Cantero.
[4] Id. at 38.
[5] Id. at 10.
[6] Id.
[7] Id. at 11.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Id. at 12.
[12] Id.
[13] Id.
[14] Id. at 49.
[15] Id. at 28.
[16] Id. at 20.
[17] Id. at 22.
[18] Id. at 28-30.
[19] Id. at 55-63.
[20] CA rollo, p. 54, Brief for the Accused-Appellant.
[21] Id. at 54-56.
[22] Id. at 62, Appellant's Brief.
[23] Id. at 63, Appellant's Brief.
[24] Id. at 98-100, Brief for the Appellee.
[25] Id. at 101-103, Appellee's Brief.
[26] The Anti-Rape Law of 1997.
[27] G.R. No. 262846, February 18, 2025 [Per J. Kho, Jr., En Banc].
[28] Id. at 7. This pinpoint citation refers to the copy of the Decision uploaded to the Supreme Court website.
[29] People v. Tubillo, 811 Phil. 525 (2017) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
[30] Rollo, pp. 21-22.
[31] TSN, AAA267834, August 22, 2017, p. 6.
[32] TSN, AAA267834, September 5, 2017, pp. 3-4.
[33] TSN, AAA267834, October 5, 2017, pp. 3-4.
[34] 868 Phil. 291 (2020) [Per J. Caguioa, First Division].
[35] Id. at 316.
[36] RTC records, pp. 4-5.
[37] Supra note 27.
[38] Id. at 10. This pinpoint citation refers to the copy of the Decision uploaded to the Supreme Court website.
[39] REVISED PENAL CODE, art. 51.
[40] Act No. 4103 (1933), An Act to Provide for an Indeterminate Sentence and Parole for All Persons Convicted of Certain Crimes by The Courts of The Philippine Islands; to Create a Board of Indeterminate Sentence and to Provide Funds Therefor; and for Other Purposes.
[41] 783 Phil. 806 (2016) [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].