FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 177152, January 06, 2010 ]PEOPLE v. MANUEL BAGOS +
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MANUEL BAGOS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
PEOPLE v. MANUEL BAGOS +
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MANUEL BAGOS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
On appeal is the Decision[1] dated December 19, 2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01669 which affirmed with modification an earlier decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Burgos, Pangasinan, Branch 70 in Criminal Case No. B-130, finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Consistent with our decision in People v. Cabalquinto,[3] the real name of the rape victim in this case is withheld and, instead, fictitious initials are used to represent her. Also, the personal circumstances of the victim or any other information tending to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, are not disclosed in this decision.
In the RTC, accused-appellant was charged with the crime of rape in an Information[4] dated July 27, 1998. The crime was alleged to have been committed as follows:
When arraigned on November 25, 1998, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. In the course of the trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of AAA, the victim; BBB, the victim's mother; Dr. Maribel Lazo, Municipal Health Officer of Mabini, Pangasinan; and PO2 Alonzo Bagua, member of the Philippine National Police in Mabini, Pangasinan.
The prosecution's version of the incident is succinctly summarized by the Office of the Solicitor General in its Appellee's Brief,[5] to wit:
On the other hand, the defense relied on the lone testimony of accused-appellant himself. The CA summarized the defense's version as follows:
In a decision[8] dated December 15, 1999, the RTC rendered its decision convicting accused-appellant of the crime of rape, the dispositive portion of which stated:
Accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal dated January 26, 2000 with this Court.[10]
On September 20, 2004, conformably with our pronouncement in People v. Mateo[11] which modified the provisions of the Rules of Court insofar as they provide for direct appeals from the RTC to this Court in cases where the penalty imposed by the trial court is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the Court resolved to refer the case to the CA for appropriate action and disposition.[12]
In the assailed Decision dated December 19, 2006, in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01669, the CA upheld the conviction of accused-appellant and affirmed with modification the decision of the RTC. The CA added an award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.
From the CA, the case was then elevated to this Court upon filing by accused-appellant of a notice of appeal on January 8, 2007.[13] In its Resolution[14] of June 27, 2007, the Court required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desire. Both parties, however, manifested that they were dispensing with the filing of a supplemental brief as their arguments have already been substantially discussed in their respective briefs filed before the CA.[15]
In support of his appeal, accused-appellant assigns the following errors:
Accused-appellant contends that the testimony of AAA is incredible, unconvincing and inconsistent with human nature. He particularly points out the part of her testimony where accused-appellant allegedly pulled her panty down to her knees, removed his pants while standing, made her sit on his lap while in the water and inserted his penis into her vagina. Accused-appellant claims that this is incredulous, considering that he had a slight physical defect on his leg and could not have inserted his penis into AAA's vagina with ease and without ripping her panty if the same had been pulled down only to AAA's knees. According to accused-appellant, that AAA did not shout for help during the incident was likewise contrary to common experience. AAA could have done so since she knew fully well that her companions were fishing nearby and could have heard her.
Accused-appellant's contentions essentially assail the credibility of AAA's testimony. We must reiterate that, ultimately, when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the finding of the trial court unless it has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case. This is so because the trial court is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[17] Accused-appellant miserably failed to convince us that his case presents an exception to this established rule. The observation of the RTC on this point is worth quoting here:
It should not be forgotten that the victim in the present case was only ten (10) years old when the rape happened. Despite her very young age, her narration of her ordeal on the witness stand was straightforward, spontaneous and candid. Under rigid cross-examination, she was steadfast in the telling of her tragic tale of defilement and openly narrated in court her nightmarish experience at the hands of accused-appellant. We reproduce the relevant portions of AAA's testimony here:
From the foregoing narration, sexual intercourse was clearly proven. Moreover, the prosecution has adequately established that the complainant was only 10 years old at the time of the rape incident, as evidenced by her Certificate of Live Birth.[20] Undeniably, the instant case is one of statutory rape, the gravamen of which is the carnal knowledge of a woman below 12 years old. Sexual congress with a girl under 12 years is always rape. Thus, force, intimidation or physical evidence of injury is immaterial.[21]
The victim's testimony that accused-appellant inserted his organ into her vagina is further corroborated by the medical findings of Dr. Maribel Lazo, the health officer who examined her. The fact that Dr. Lazo found healed hymenal lacerations about three or four weeks old, when she examined the victim on June 17, 1998, confirmed the victim's claim that she was raped sometime in May 1998. Dr. Lazo explained that these lacerations could have been caused by a male sexual organ or any blunt instrument. She further testified that the victim was no longer a virgin at the time of her examination. When a rape victim's account is straightforward and candid, and is corroborated by the medical findings of the examining physician, the same is sufficient to support a conviction for rape. Where a rape victim's testimony is corroborated by the physical findings of penetration, there is sufficient basis for concluding that sexual intercourse did take place.[22]
Accused-appellant's belabored attempt to characterize the complainant's testimony as being contrary to human experience for failing to shout for help must also fail. The victim's failure to shout for help does not vitiate the credibility of her account. She was only 10 years old at the time of the rape, thus, inexperienced in the ways of the world. This Court has noted in several cases that minors could be easily intimidated and cowed into silence even by the mildest threat against their lives.[23] Although an older person may have shouted for help under the same circumstances, the young victim in the instant case might have been overcome by fear and was not able to shout for help. Indeed, AAA declared in open court that she was afraid when asked why she failed to shout when accused-appellant pulled down her underwear.[24] Be that as it may, the absence of struggle or an outcry from the victim is immaterial to the rape of a child below 12 years of age. The law presumes that such a victim, on account of her tender age, does not and cannot have a will of her own.[25]
The theory of accused-appellant that that it was not possible for him to rape the complainant in a sitting position because of his physical defect was properly rejected by the RTC in this wise:
Accused-appellant resorted to imputing ill-motives on the part of complainant's family and tried desperately to impress upon the Court that the case was instituted against him because of family grudge and in order to force him to shell out money to settle the instant case. We are unconvinced. Pertinently, we held in People v. Monteron[27] that:
It must be remembered that among the witnesses for the prosecution was AAA's mother. A mother would not sacrifice the honor of her daughter to give vent to a grudge that would tarnish the latter's reputation forever. It is a natural fact that mothers are protective of their children and they are willing to give up their lives to spare them from any threat or from any embarrassment, ridicule and any taint on their reputation.[28] Moreover, courts usually give greater weight to the testimony of a girl who is a victim of sexual assault, especially a minor, as in this case, because no woman would be willing to undergo a public trial and put up with the shame, humiliation and dishonor of exposing her own degradation were it not to condemn an injustice and have the offender apprehended and punished.[29]
Anent accused-appellant's objection to the purported lack of corroboration of AAA's testimony, we find the same unmeritorious. The testimonies of complainant's companions at the river were dispensable and the absence thereof does not weaken the stand of the prosecution. The crime of rape is essentially one committed in secrecy, hence it is usually only the victim who can testify with regard to the fact of forced coitus. As a result, conviction may be based solely on the plausible testimony of the private complainant.[30]
In the present case, the conviction of accused-appellant was premised on the testimonies of complainant, her mother, and the physician who conducted a medical examination on her, as well as the medico-legal report[31] presented by the prosecution which the trial court found sufficient. The judgment of conviction cannot, therefore, be regarded as unfounded or baseless.
We, thus, sustain the conviction of accused-appellant for the crime of statutory rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(d)[32] of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).[33] The penalty of reclusion perpetua was likewise correctly imposed in accordance with Article 266-B of the RPC.[34] The penalty for statutory rape is reclusion perpetua, which being a single indivisible penalty, is imposable regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.[35]
In line with prevailing jurisprudence, the victim, in a case for simple statutory rape, is entitled to P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages[36] and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.[37] In addition to the damages awarded, we also impose on all the amounts of damages an interest at the legal rate of 6% from this date until fully paid.[38]
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated December 19, 2006 of the CA in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01669 is hereby AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant Manuel Bagos is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is also ordered to pay complainant civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00, moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00, and exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00, plus interest on all damages awarded at the legal rate of 6% from this date until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, C.J., (Chairperson), Carpio Morales, Bersamin, and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid, with Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes and Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo, concurring; rollo, pp. 3-18.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 13-29.
[3] G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419.
[4] CA rollo, p. 4.
[5] Id. at 108-128.
[6] Id. at 111-114.
[7] Rollo, p. 8.
[8] Supra note 2.
[9] CA rollo, p. 29.
[10] Id. at 30.
[11] G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
[12] Rollo, p. 2.
[13] Id. at 19.
[14] Id. at 22.
[15] Id. at 23-28.
[16] CA rollo, p. 65.
[17] People v. Laceste, G.R. No. 127127, July 30, 1998, 293 SCRA 397, 407.
[18] CA rollo, p. 24.
[19] TSN, January 21, 1999, pp. 5-11.
[20] Records, p. 40.
[21] People v. Ligotan, G.R. No. 119219, September 30, 1996, 262 SCRA 602, 607.
[22] People v. Suarez, G.R. No. 153573, April 15, 2005, 456 SCRA 333, 350.
[23] People v. Clado, G.R. Nos. 135699-700 and 139103, October 19, 2000, 343 SCRA 729, 740.
[24] TSN, January 21, 1999, p. 7.
[25] People v. Malones, G.R. Nos. 124388-90, March 11, 2004, 425 SCRA 318, 336.
[26] CA rollo, pp. 28-29.
[27] G.R. No. 130709, March 6, 2002, 378 SCRA 340, 348.
[28] People v. Funesto, G.R. No. 143432, April 9, 2003, 401 SCRA 158, 165.
[29] People v. De Guzman, G.R. Nos. 140333-34, December 11, 2001, 372 SCRA 95, 109-111.
[30] People v. Ranido, G.R. Nos. 116450-51, March 31, 1998, 288 SCRA 369, 377-378.
[31] Records, p. 3.
[32] Art. 266-A. Rape; when and how committed.-Rape is committed.
[33] Previously Article 335, par. 3 of the RPC which has been amended by Republic Act No. 8353 (the Anti-Rape Law of 1997).
[34] Art. 266-B. Penalties. - Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
[35] People v. Andaya, G.R. No. 126545, April 21, 1999, 306 SCRA 202, 216.
[36] People v. Olaybar, G.R. Nos. 150630-631, October 1, 2003, 412 SCRA 490, 502.
[37] People v. Antivola, G.R. No. 139236, February 3, 2004, 421 SCRA 587, 603.
[38] People v. Guevarra, G.R. No. 182192, October 29, 2008, 570 SCRA 288, 313.
Consistent with our decision in People v. Cabalquinto,[3] the real name of the rape victim in this case is withheld and, instead, fictitious initials are used to represent her. Also, the personal circumstances of the victim or any other information tending to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, are not disclosed in this decision.
In the RTC, accused-appellant was charged with the crime of rape in an Information[4] dated July 27, 1998. The crime was alleged to have been committed as follows:
That on or about the month of May, 1998, along the river bank of Baling-caguing River, at sition Camanggaan, barangay Caranglaan, municipality of Mabini, province of Pangasinan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with lewd design, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously grab, pull and force [AAA], 10 years old, a minor to sit on his lap, thereafter removed her panty and his pants, inserted his penis to her vagina and have carnal knowledge to the said victim, to her damage and prejudice. (Words in bracket ours)
xxx xxx xxx
When arraigned on November 25, 1998, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. In the course of the trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of AAA, the victim; BBB, the victim's mother; Dr. Maribel Lazo, Municipal Health Officer of Mabini, Pangasinan; and PO2 Alonzo Bagua, member of the Philippine National Police in Mabini, Pangasinan.
The prosecution's version of the incident is succinctly summarized by the Office of the Solicitor General in its Appellee's Brief,[5] to wit:
Sometime in the month of May 1998, [AAA], her older brother [CCC], younger sister [DDD] and friend Michael (surname not on record) went to Baling-Caguing River, sitio Camanggaan, barangay Caranglaan, Mabini, Pangasinan from their house to take a bath.
While they were bathing, [CCC] and Michael decided to fish at a different location in the river about fifty (50) meters from where the sisters were bathing. Thereafter, [DDD] left [AAA] to join the two (2).
Later, [AAA] prepared to leave and follow her companions. However, appellant Manuel Bagos who was bathing nearby suddenly pulled her left leg causing her to slip towards him. He then lowered the panty of [AAA] up to the level of her knees and, thereafter, removed his pants.
Appellant sat down and seated [AAA] on his lap while they were in the water which was neck-deep in that position. [AAA] boxed the thighs of the appellant saying: "no uncle." Despite [AAA's] protestations, appellant placed his left hand over her stomach and used his right hand to insert his penis inside her vagina which caused her pain. After satisfying his lust, appellant threatened to shoot [AAA] if she reported the incident to anybody.
[AAA] was frightened by the threat of appellant because she had seen his gun when they played in his house one time prior to the incident. [AAA] then went to the river bank and waited for her companions after getting dressed.
[BBB], [AAA's] mother, testified that [AAA] was ten (10) years old when the incident happened since she was born on July 18, 1987 as shown by her birth certificate which was identified and marked as Exhibit B. On June 17, 1998, she was troubled by the unusual questions of her daughter such as: "Mama, is my stomach getting bigger?"; and "Mama, is my neck beating faster?" She then confronted [AAA] and asked her if somebody molested her. [AAA] answered in the affirmative and identified appellant as the culprit.
[AAA] underwent physical examination on June 18, 1998 which was conducted by Dr. Maribel Lazo who prepared the medico-legal report with the following findings:
Healed laceration of the hymen with non-coaptable borders and retraction of the edges indicating that the laceration took place long before the day of the physical examination.
Dr. Lazo explained that the report meant that the hymen had been ruptured and that the laceration took place longer than two weeks before the day of the physical examination or that [AAA] was no longer a virgin at the time of the physical examination.[6] (Words in bracket ours)
On the other hand, the defense relied on the lone testimony of accused-appellant himself. The CA summarized the defense's version as follows:
For the defense, accused-appellant was the sole witness. He denied swimming or bathing in the river near his house in May 1998, and claimed that he only went near the river to gather coconuts. While gathering coconuts, he noticed that a number of children were bathing in the river, including [AAA], as well as her brother and sister. Accused-appellant has known [AAA's] parents for approximately ten years because they were neighbors. [AAA's] grandmother and accused-appellant's father are also first cousins. He insisted that he stayed at the river bank while gathering coconuts, but never went near [AAA]. He denied that he raped [AAA], much less squatted on the river while raping [AAA], explaining that he is inflicted with a physical defect that renders him incapable of squatting down. He recounted that when he went to their barangay hall, the barangay captain asked him if he could afford to settle the case. Accused-appellant answered that he would not settle because he was innocent of the crime charged against him.
He speculated that [AAA's] family accused him of raping [AAA] due to a family misunderstanding. According to him, [AAA's] family cut a tamarind tree in a parcel of land owned by his deceased grandfather, made lumber out of the said tamarind tree, and used it to build a house. Upon instruction from his father, accused-appellant then told the family of [AAA] to stop cutting the tree. The rape charge could also have been spawned by a boundary dispute between [BBB's] father and accused-appellant himself. The father of [BBB] allegedly did not observe the correct boundaries in fixing his fence; thus, accused-appellant advised him to build his fence farther so as not to intrude on accused-appellant's own land.[7] (Words in bracket ours)
In a decision[8] dated December 15, 1999, the RTC rendered its decision convicting accused-appellant of the crime of rape, the dispositive portion of which stated:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds accused Manuel Bagos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape as charged and hereby sentences him to suffer Reclusion Perpetua. As regards the accused pecuniary liabilities, he is ordered to indemnify the complainant [AAA] the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity in addition to another P50,000.00 as moral damages. (Words in bracket ours)
SO ORDERED.[9]
Accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal dated January 26, 2000 with this Court.[10]
On September 20, 2004, conformably with our pronouncement in People v. Mateo[11] which modified the provisions of the Rules of Court insofar as they provide for direct appeals from the RTC to this Court in cases where the penalty imposed by the trial court is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the Court resolved to refer the case to the CA for appropriate action and disposition.[12]
In the assailed Decision dated December 19, 2006, in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01669, the CA upheld the conviction of accused-appellant and affirmed with modification the decision of the RTC. The CA added an award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.
From the CA, the case was then elevated to this Court upon filing by accused-appellant of a notice of appeal on January 8, 2007.[13] In its Resolution[14] of June 27, 2007, the Court required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desire. Both parties, however, manifested that they were dispensing with the filing of a supplemental brief as their arguments have already been substantially discussed in their respective briefs filed before the CA.[15]
In support of his appeal, accused-appellant assigns the following errors:
I
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN GIVING DUE WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE UNRELIABLE AND UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY OF THE COMPLAINING WITNESS, THEREBY CASTING GRAVE DOUBTS AS TO THE CRIMINAL CULPABILITY OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
II
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[16]
Accused-appellant contends that the testimony of AAA is incredible, unconvincing and inconsistent with human nature. He particularly points out the part of her testimony where accused-appellant allegedly pulled her panty down to her knees, removed his pants while standing, made her sit on his lap while in the water and inserted his penis into her vagina. Accused-appellant claims that this is incredulous, considering that he had a slight physical defect on his leg and could not have inserted his penis into AAA's vagina with ease and without ripping her panty if the same had been pulled down only to AAA's knees. According to accused-appellant, that AAA did not shout for help during the incident was likewise contrary to common experience. AAA could have done so since she knew fully well that her companions were fishing nearby and could have heard her.
Accused-appellant's contentions essentially assail the credibility of AAA's testimony. We must reiterate that, ultimately, when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the finding of the trial court unless it has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case. This is so because the trial court is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[17] Accused-appellant miserably failed to convince us that his case presents an exception to this established rule. The observation of the RTC on this point is worth quoting here:
It can be deduced from the foregoing testimony of [AAA] that she was credible, straightforward, categorical and logical and that she was not motivated by ill will and malice in testifying against Manuel Bagos, notwithstanding the vigorous and extensive cross-examination by the defense. She wants justice in this case.[18] (Words in bracket ours.)
It should not be forgotten that the victim in the present case was only ten (10) years old when the rape happened. Despite her very young age, her narration of her ordeal on the witness stand was straightforward, spontaneous and candid. Under rigid cross-examination, she was steadfast in the telling of her tragic tale of defilement and openly narrated in court her nightmarish experience at the hands of accused-appellant. We reproduce the relevant portions of AAA's testimony here:
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
From the foregoing narration, sexual intercourse was clearly proven. Moreover, the prosecution has adequately established that the complainant was only 10 years old at the time of the rape incident, as evidenced by her Certificate of Live Birth.[20] Undeniably, the instant case is one of statutory rape, the gravamen of which is the carnal knowledge of a woman below 12 years old. Sexual congress with a girl under 12 years is always rape. Thus, force, intimidation or physical evidence of injury is immaterial.[21]
The victim's testimony that accused-appellant inserted his organ into her vagina is further corroborated by the medical findings of Dr. Maribel Lazo, the health officer who examined her. The fact that Dr. Lazo found healed hymenal lacerations about three or four weeks old, when she examined the victim on June 17, 1998, confirmed the victim's claim that she was raped sometime in May 1998. Dr. Lazo explained that these lacerations could have been caused by a male sexual organ or any blunt instrument. She further testified that the victim was no longer a virgin at the time of her examination. When a rape victim's account is straightforward and candid, and is corroborated by the medical findings of the examining physician, the same is sufficient to support a conviction for rape. Where a rape victim's testimony is corroborated by the physical findings of penetration, there is sufficient basis for concluding that sexual intercourse did take place.[22]
Accused-appellant's belabored attempt to characterize the complainant's testimony as being contrary to human experience for failing to shout for help must also fail. The victim's failure to shout for help does not vitiate the credibility of her account. She was only 10 years old at the time of the rape, thus, inexperienced in the ways of the world. This Court has noted in several cases that minors could be easily intimidated and cowed into silence even by the mildest threat against their lives.[23] Although an older person may have shouted for help under the same circumstances, the young victim in the instant case might have been overcome by fear and was not able to shout for help. Indeed, AAA declared in open court that she was afraid when asked why she failed to shout when accused-appellant pulled down her underwear.[24] Be that as it may, the absence of struggle or an outcry from the victim is immaterial to the rape of a child below 12 years of age. The law presumes that such a victim, on account of her tender age, does not and cannot have a will of her own.[25]
The theory of accused-appellant that that it was not possible for him to rape the complainant in a sitting position because of his physical defect was properly rejected by the RTC in this wise:
His allegation that he cannot rape [AAA] in that sitting position because of his physical defect was disproved when the Court required him to sit by placing his buttocks on the floor. With more reason then that he can sit under water which is easier to perform. This Court found to be credible and reliable the testimony of [AAA] on how she was raped by Manuel Bagos in the river.[26] (Words in bracket ours)
Accused-appellant resorted to imputing ill-motives on the part of complainant's family and tried desperately to impress upon the Court that the case was instituted against him because of family grudge and in order to force him to shell out money to settle the instant case. We are unconvinced. Pertinently, we held in People v. Monteron[27] that:
...Not a few accused in rape cases have attributed the charges brought against them to family feud, resentment, or revenge. But such alleged motives have never swayed this Court from lending full credence to the testimony of the complainant where she remains steadfast in her direct and cross examination. Besides, no parent would expose his or her own daughter to the shame and scandal of having undergone such debasing defilement of her chastity if the charges were not true. It is unnatural for a parent to use his own offspring as an engine of malice, especially if it will subject a daughter to embarrassment and even stigma.
It must be remembered that among the witnesses for the prosecution was AAA's mother. A mother would not sacrifice the honor of her daughter to give vent to a grudge that would tarnish the latter's reputation forever. It is a natural fact that mothers are protective of their children and they are willing to give up their lives to spare them from any threat or from any embarrassment, ridicule and any taint on their reputation.[28] Moreover, courts usually give greater weight to the testimony of a girl who is a victim of sexual assault, especially a minor, as in this case, because no woman would be willing to undergo a public trial and put up with the shame, humiliation and dishonor of exposing her own degradation were it not to condemn an injustice and have the offender apprehended and punished.[29]
Anent accused-appellant's objection to the purported lack of corroboration of AAA's testimony, we find the same unmeritorious. The testimonies of complainant's companions at the river were dispensable and the absence thereof does not weaken the stand of the prosecution. The crime of rape is essentially one committed in secrecy, hence it is usually only the victim who can testify with regard to the fact of forced coitus. As a result, conviction may be based solely on the plausible testimony of the private complainant.[30]
In the present case, the conviction of accused-appellant was premised on the testimonies of complainant, her mother, and the physician who conducted a medical examination on her, as well as the medico-legal report[31] presented by the prosecution which the trial court found sufficient. The judgment of conviction cannot, therefore, be regarded as unfounded or baseless.
We, thus, sustain the conviction of accused-appellant for the crime of statutory rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(d)[32] of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).[33] The penalty of reclusion perpetua was likewise correctly imposed in accordance with Article 266-B of the RPC.[34] The penalty for statutory rape is reclusion perpetua, which being a single indivisible penalty, is imposable regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.[35]
In line with prevailing jurisprudence, the victim, in a case for simple statutory rape, is entitled to P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages[36] and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.[37] In addition to the damages awarded, we also impose on all the amounts of damages an interest at the legal rate of 6% from this date until fully paid.[38]
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated December 19, 2006 of the CA in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01669 is hereby AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant Manuel Bagos is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is also ordered to pay complainant civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00, moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00, and exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00, plus interest on all damages awarded at the legal rate of 6% from this date until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, C.J., (Chairperson), Carpio Morales, Bersamin, and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid, with Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes and Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo, concurring; rollo, pp. 3-18.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 13-29.
[3] G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419.
[4] CA rollo, p. 4.
[5] Id. at 108-128.
[6] Id. at 111-114.
[7] Rollo, p. 8.
[8] Supra note 2.
[9] CA rollo, p. 29.
[10] Id. at 30.
[11] G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
[12] Rollo, p. 2.
[13] Id. at 19.
[14] Id. at 22.
[15] Id. at 23-28.
[16] CA rollo, p. 65.
[17] People v. Laceste, G.R. No. 127127, July 30, 1998, 293 SCRA 397, 407.
[18] CA rollo, p. 24.
[19] TSN, January 21, 1999, pp. 5-11.
[20] Records, p. 40.
[21] People v. Ligotan, G.R. No. 119219, September 30, 1996, 262 SCRA 602, 607.
[22] People v. Suarez, G.R. No. 153573, April 15, 2005, 456 SCRA 333, 350.
[23] People v. Clado, G.R. Nos. 135699-700 and 139103, October 19, 2000, 343 SCRA 729, 740.
[24] TSN, January 21, 1999, p. 7.
[25] People v. Malones, G.R. Nos. 124388-90, March 11, 2004, 425 SCRA 318, 336.
[26] CA rollo, pp. 28-29.
[27] G.R. No. 130709, March 6, 2002, 378 SCRA 340, 348.
[28] People v. Funesto, G.R. No. 143432, April 9, 2003, 401 SCRA 158, 165.
[29] People v. De Guzman, G.R. Nos. 140333-34, December 11, 2001, 372 SCRA 95, 109-111.
[30] People v. Ranido, G.R. Nos. 116450-51, March 31, 1998, 288 SCRA 369, 377-378.
[31] Records, p. 3.
[32] Art. 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: xxx xxx xxx
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.
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.
[33] Previously Article 335, par. 3 of the RPC which has been amended by Republic Act No. 8353 (the Anti-Rape Law of 1997).
[34] Art. 266-B. Penalties. - Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
[35] People v. Andaya, G.R. No. 126545, April 21, 1999, 306 SCRA 202, 216.
[36] People v. Olaybar, G.R. Nos. 150630-631, October 1, 2003, 412 SCRA 490, 502.
[37] People v. Antivola, G.R. No. 139236, February 3, 2004, 421 SCRA 587, 603.
[38] People v. Guevarra, G.R. No. 182192, October 29, 2008, 570 SCRA 288, 313.