THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 237349, February 27, 2019 ]PEOPLE v. MANUEL BASA +
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MANUEL BASA, JR., A.K.A. "JUN," ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
PEOPLE v. MANUEL BASA +
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MANUEL BASA, JR., A.K.A. "JUN," ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
For consideration of the Court is the appeal of the Decision[1] dated September 28, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 08164 which affirmed with modification the Decision[2] dated July 27, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City, Branch 194, finding Manuel Basa, Jr., a.k.a. "Jun," guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape under Article 266-A, paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), in relation to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
In two (2) separate Informations filed on August 19, 2003, Basa was charged with one violation each of Article 266-A, paragraphs (1) and (2) of the RPC, in relation to R.A. No. 7610, the accusatory portions of which read:
During arraignment, Basa, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charges. Subsequently, trial on the merits ensued. The prosecution presented four (4) witnesses, namely: (1) private complainant AAA;[5] (2) senior medico officer Dr. Alvin David; (3) AAA's teacher at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Veronica Malapad Francisco; and (4) a representative of the Local Civil Registrar, Josefina Villorant.[6] The defense, thereafter, presented the testimonies of: (1) accused Basa; and (2) a certain Alvin Modina.[7]
AAA testified that Basa raped her on two (2) occasions: the first incident, prior to December 25, 2002; while the second, about a week after the first. Both occasions took place inside the office of "Ka Eddie," an Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC) pastor, located at the second floor of the INC church xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, at Parañaque City. AAA had been a member of the INC for almost a year prior to the first incident. Basa, also a member of the INC, had been doing the task of cleaning the church.
On the first incident, AAA narrated that she went to the INC church at around 9:00 a.m. at the request of her cousin, BBB,[8] to check if their attendance card or what they refer to as "tarheta" had been overturned. Under the INC's practice, this signifies the presence of a person during the worship service. Wearing a skirt and a t-shirt, AAA saw Basa, whom she referred to as "Kuya Jun," cleaning the first floor of the church, near the area where the attendance cards were placed. Basa told AAA that he would show her a small fishpond at the back portion of the church. Trusting her Kuya Jun, AAA went with him. But instead, Basa held her right arm and dragged her to the office of Pastor Eddie at the second floor and locked the door behind them. The office is usually locked, but since Basa was in charge of cleaning the church, he had in his possession the key to the door thereof. There, AAA recounted that Basa began kissing her lips and mashing her breast. He then pulled up her skirt and, through the side of her underwear, inserted his finger into her private part, causing AAA to feel pain. Thereafter, Basa removed her skirt and underwear and started kissing her private part. AAA said that she could not resist because Basa threatened to kill her should she tell anybody of her ordeal.[9]
A week thereafter, the second incident occurred. AAA relayed that between 9:00 and 10:00 a.m., she went to the INC church to check the "tarheta." When Basa saw her, he immediately dragged her again and brought her to Pastor Eddie's office. As before, she could not do anything out of fear for her life. AAA recalled that apart from the security guards stationed outside the church, no other persons were inside the place of worship. In the office, Basa kissed her, pulled up her shirt, and mashed her breast. Afterwards, he removed her skirt and underwear and put his penis out of his denim pants. He then told her to lie down on the floor and inserted his penis inside her private part, causing her to feel pain. After the incident, AAA went home and swore never to tell anybody about what Basa did to her. It was in January 2003, when classes resumed in her school at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, that she found the courage to tell her teacher, Francisco, about the ordeal she went through during the vacation. Upon learning this, Francisco called AAA's grandmother, CCC. Then, when AAA's aunts found out about the incidents, they immediately reported the same to the National Bureau of Investigation where AAA submitted her Sinumpaang Salaysay dated January 20, 2003.[10]
AAA's testimony was corroborated by her teacher, Francisco, who stated that AAA was an average student. A week after the 2002 Christmas break, she noticed that AAA was quite withdrawn compared to her usual behavior. Bothered by what she observed, she asked AAA to stay in the classroom after class. Francisco recalled that AAA was first reluctant to confide in her but, after a while, she was able to convince AAA into sharing her harrowing experience. AAA then told her that her Kuya Jun, a caretaker in the INC church, fondled her twice and forced himself on her. Francisco added that as AAA was narrating the incident, she was trembling in fear, terribly shaking, and appeared to have been traumatized. Upon learning of said incident, Francisco immediately relayed the story to AAA's grandmother.[11]
In his defense, Basa denied the accusations against him. He narrated that on December 25, 2002, AAA was not yet a member of the INC and was still under probation or "sinusubok." Basa contended that on the alleged first rape incident, he was preparing the stage of the church for its afternoon program, while on the second rape incident, he was with several other persons preparing for the New Year's celebration and afternoon prayer. According to Basa, the only possible reason that could have impelled AAA to file cases against him was because of BBB. He recounted an instance wherein their "Pangulong Diakono" or Deputy Head Deacon told him to order those persons not included in the worship service, among them was BBB, to go outside of the church. This incident angered BBB. In addition, Basa revealed that BBB once admired him, but he turned her down.[12]
The defense also presented, as its witness, Alvin Modina, a member of the INC. Modina knew Basa as a "masiglang kaanib" of their religious segregation, while AAA as one of those being indoctrinated in their barangay. According to Modina, he was at the INC church from 8:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. on the alleged first incident when AAA was molested, but he did not notice the presence of AAA or Basa. He stated that AAA arrived only in the evening when the church was opened for the worship service. On the alleged second rape incident, Modina testified that he was at the INC church from 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. and saw Basa there preparing for the New Year celebration.[13]
On July 27, 2015, the RTC rendered its Decision finding Basa guilty of the crime charged, disposing of the cases as follows:
The RTC found that judging on the basis of the testimonies of both the prosecution and the defense in connection with which documentary pieces of evidence were formally offered, the prosecution sufficiently established the existence of the elements of the crime charged against Basa.[15]
In a Decision dated September 28, 2017, the CA affirmed with modification the RTC Decision in the following manner:
According to the appellate court, there is no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC, holding that AAA's credibility, by well-established precedents, is given great weight and accorded high respect.[17]
Now before us, Basa manifested that he is dispensing with the filing of a supplemental brief considering that he had exhaustively discussed the assigned errors in his Appellant's Brief.[18] The Office of the Solicitor General similarly manifested that it had already discussed its arguments in its Appellee's Brief.[19]
According to Basa, AAA's testimony is too incredible and full of inconsistencies to merit faith and credence. If she did go through such ordeal, she should have struggled or, at least, shouted for help considering that there was no mention of any fatal weapon and especially during the time when Basa was allegedly opening the door to Pastor Eddie's office. Moreover, her behavior after the first rape incident contradicts her claim of fear because she simply wore back her dress, fixed herself, and went home. Basa also points out that the report of the medico-legal officer shows "no evident sign of extragenital injuries and the hymen, intact and its orifice mall as to preclude complete penetration by an average sized adult Filipino male organ in full erection without producing any genital injury."[20] Thus, physical evidence belies AAA's claims that he inserted his finger and penis inside her vagina.
After a careful review of the records of this case, the Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the rulings of the RTC and the CA finding him guilty of the acts charged against him. In view of the circumstances of the instant case, however, a modification of the penalty imposed, the damages awarded, and the nomenclature of the offense committed is in order.
In Criminal Case No. 04-0200, instead of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph (2) of the RPC, in relation to R.A. No. 7610, Basa should be held liable for Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b),[21] Article III of R.A. No. 7610.
In Dimakuta v. People,[22] the Court held that in instances where the lascivious conduct is covered by the definition under R.A. No. 7610, where the penalty is reclusion temporal medium, and the act is likewise covered by sexual assault under Article 266-A, paragraph (2) of the RPC, which is punishable by prisión mayor, the offender should be liable for violation of Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, where the law provides for the higher penalty of reclusion temporal medium, if the offended party is a child victim. But if the victim is at least eighteen (18) years of age, the offender should be liable under Article 266-A, paragraph (2) of the RPC and not R.A. No. 7610, unless the victim is at least 18 years old and she is unable to fully take care of herself or protect herself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition, in which case, the offender may still be held liable for sexual abuse under R.A. No. 7610. The reason for the foregoing is that, aside from affording special protection and stronger deterrence against child abuse, R.A. No. 7610 is a special law which should clearly prevail over R.A. No. 8353, which is a mere general law amending the RPC. In People v. Chingh,[23] the Court noted that "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.'"
It is undisputed that at the time of the commission of the lascivious act in Criminal Case No. 04-0200, AAA was xxxxxxxxxx years old. Thus, based on the above discussion, Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610 finds application herein. The provision states:
To achieve uniformity in designating the proper offense, moreover, the Court, in People v. Caoili,[24] prescribed guidelines in case lascivious conduct is committed under the section cited above. On the one hand, when the victim is under 12 years of age at the time the offense was committed, the offense is designated as Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC, in relation to Section 5 of R.A. No. 7610. This finds support in the first proviso in Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610 which requires 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 [RPC], for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be[.]" On the other hand, when the victim, at the time the offense was committed, is aged twelve (12) years or over but under eighteen (18), or is eighteen (18) or older but unable to fully take care of herself/himself or protect himself/herself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition, the nomenclature of the offense should be Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610, since the law no longer refers to Article 336 of the RPC, and the perpetrator is prosecuted solely under R.A. No. 7610.[25]
However, before an accused can be held criminally liable for lascivious conduct under Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, the Court held in Quimvel v. People[26] that the requisites for Acts of Lasciviousness, as penalized under Article 336 of the RPC, must be met in addition to the requisites for sexual abuse under Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, namely:
A review of the evidence presented by the prosecution reveals that the elements enumerated above were sufficiently established. With respect to the first requisite, the prosecution was able to show, through the credible testimony of AAA, that Basa committed lascivious conduct against her when he dragged her to the room of Pastor Eddie, pulled up her skirt and, through the side of her underwear, inserted his finger into her private part, causing her to feel pain. During her direct examination, the trial court was wholly convinced by AAA's narration of her harrowing experience, to wit:
In view of the foregoing, the prosecution duly established the element of intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia of any person, with intent to abuse or gratify sexual desire. This act constitutes sexual abuse and lascivious conduct under the definition provided by Section 2, paragraphs (g) and (h)[28] of the rules and regulations of R.A. No. 7610, known as the Rules and Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases.
As regards the second requisite that the lascivious conduct be done under the enumerated circumstances, it has been said that "force and intimidation" are subsumed under "coercion and influence" and such terms are used almost synonymously. This can be gleaned from Black's Law Dictionary's definitions of "coercion" as "compulsion; force; duress," of "influence" as "persuasion carried over to the point of overpowering the will," and of "force" as "constraining power, compulsion; strength directed to an end"; as well as from jurisprudence which defines "intimidation" as "unlawful coercion; extortion; duress; putting in fear."[29] As AAA expressly testified, Basa grabbed her right arm and forcefully dragged her to the office of Pastor Eddie and threatened to kill her should she tell anybody of what he did to her.
Anent the third requisite, a child is deemed exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse when the child indulges in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct (a) for money, profit or any other consideration; or (b) under the coercion or any influence of any adult, syndicate or group.[30] In the case of Olivarez v. Court of Appeals,[31] the Court explained that the phrase "other sexual abuse," in the above provision. covers not only a child who is abused for profit, but also one who engages in lascivious conduct through the coercion or intimidation by an adult. In the latter case, there must be some form of compulsion equivalent to intimidation which subdues the free exercise of the offended party's will.[32] Again, AAA was clearly coerced, in fact dragged, by Basa into going with him to the room of their pastor, where he forcefully inserted his finger into her private part.
Fourth, as previously mentioned, it is undisputed that AAA was only xxxxxxxxxxx years old at the time of the commission of the offense. Under Section 3 (a) of R.A. No. 7610, "'children' refers to person[s] 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[.]"
In view of the presence of all the elements of the crime, Basa should be convicted of Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610. As duly found by the trial court, and affirmed by the appellate court, the prosecution, through the positive and categorical testimony of AAA, duly established that Basa succeeded in forceful inserting his finger into her vagina at a time when she was merely xxxxxxxxxxx years old. He must, therefore, be held liable therefor.
With respect to Criminal Case No. 04-0201, the Court affirms the rulings of the courts below finding that the prosecution was also able to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, all the elements of the crime of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph (1), in relation to R.A. No. 7610. In the instant case, the RTC aptly found that the prosecution sufficiently established the presence of the elements of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph (1) (a) of the RPC which provides that rape is committed: "1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a) Through force, threat, or intimidation; b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and d) When the offended pmiy is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present." During the trial, AAA vividly gave a detailed narration of what transpired a week after the occurrence of the first incident of molestation. In a sincere and convincing manner, she painstakingly recalled how she was once again dragged into the room of Pastor Eddie, where Basa kissed her and mashed her breast, and, thereafter, removed her skirt and underwear in order to insert his penis inside her vagina. She testified on the matter as follows:
In a long line of cases, the offended parties of which are young and immature girls, the Court found a considerable receptivity on the part of the trial courts to lend credence to the testimonies of said victims. This is in consideration of not only the offended parties' relative vulnerability, but also the shame and embarrassment to which such a grueling experience as a court trial, where they are called upon to lay bare what perhaps should be shrouded in secrecy, exposes them to. Indeed, no woman, much less a child, would willingly submit herself to the rigors, the humiliation and the stigma attendant upon the prosecution of rape, if she were not motivated by an earnest desire to put the culprit behind bars. Hence, AAA's testimony is entitled to full faith and credence.[34]
It bears stressing that all the arguments raised by Basa in his Appellant's Brief — which the Public Attorney's Office adopted instead of filing a supplemental appeal brief — have been properly addressed in full and in detail in the appealed CA decision. For one, AAA's failure to shout or immediately report the incident does not necessarily belie her claims because as the appellate court held, a rape victim's actions are oftentimes overwhelmed by extreme psychological terror that numbs her into silence and submissiveness. For another, the fact that the medico-legal report shows no evident sign of injuries is of no moment since laceration of the hymen, even if considered a telling evidence of sexual assault, is not always essential to establish the consummation of the crime of rape.[35] Indeed, when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally binding upon the Court, unless there is a clear showing that they were reached arbitrarily or it appears from the records that certain facts of weight, substance, or value are overlooked, misapprehended or misappreciated by the lower court which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the case. After a circumspect study of the records, the Court sees no compelling reason to depart from the foregoing principle.[36]
As for the penalties and damages for the crimes charged herein, the Court rules as follows. In Criminal Case No. 04-0200 for Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, the penalty imposed by the courts below must be modified. Section 5, Article III of R.A. No. 7610 provides that the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. Here, in the absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the maximum term of the sentence shall be taken from the medium period thereof.[37] Moreover, notwithstanding the fact that R.A. No. 7610 is a special law, Basa may still enjoy the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. In applying the provisions thereof, the minimum term shall be taken trom within the range of the penalty next lower in degree, which is prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period.[38] Thus, Basa shall suffer the indeterminate sentence of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, for violation of the said provision of R.A. No. 7610.[39] Likewise, and conformably with prevailing jurisprudence,[40] he is directed to pay AAA the amounts of P20,000.00 as civil indemnity, P15,000.00 as moral damages, P15,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P15,000.00 as fine, pursuant to Section 31 (f), Article XII of R.A. No. 7610, all of which shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until full payment.
With respect to Criminal Case No. 04-0201 for rape under Article 266-A, paragraph (1), the Court affirms the penalty imposed and the amount of damages awarded by the courts a quo. Thus, Basa is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and is ordered to pay AAA the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, pursuant to People v. Jugueta,[41] all of which shall likewise earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until full payment.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision dated September 28, 2017 of the Court of Appeals, affirming with modification the Decision dated July 27, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City, Branch 194, is likewise AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION:
1. In Criminal Case No. 04-0200, appellant Manuel Basa, Jr. is held guilty of one (1) count of Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the indek r.r1inate sentence of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Basa is likewise ordered to pay AAA the amounts of P20,000.00 as civil indemnity, P15,000.00 as moral damages, P15,000.00 as exemplary damages, and a fine of P15,000.00.
2. In Criminal Case No. 04-0201, Basa is held guilty of one (1) count of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph (1), and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay AAA the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages.
All damages awarded shall incur legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Leonen, A. Reyes, Jr., and Hernando, JJ., concur.
Perlas-Bernabe,* J., on official leave.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
In two (2) separate Informations filed on August 19, 2003, Basa was charged with one violation each of Article 266-A, paragraphs (1) and (2) of the RPC, in relation to R.A. No. 7610, the accusatory portions of which read:
Criminal Case No. 04-0200
That on or about a date prior to December 25, 2002 in Parañaque City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, actuated by lust, and by taking advantage of his moral ascendancy, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously insert his [finger] into the genitalia of [AAA], a xxxxxxxxxx minor, by means of force, threat or intimidation, against her will and consent, to the damage and prejudice of the latter.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]Criminal Case No. 04-0201
That on or about a date prior to December 31, 2002 in Parañaque City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, actuated by lust, and by taking advantage of his moral ascendancy, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of [AAA], a xxxxxxxxxx minor, through force, threat or intimidation, against her will and consent, to the damage and prejudice of the latter.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]
During arraignment, Basa, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charges. Subsequently, trial on the merits ensued. The prosecution presented four (4) witnesses, namely: (1) private complainant AAA;[5] (2) senior medico officer Dr. Alvin David; (3) AAA's teacher at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Veronica Malapad Francisco; and (4) a representative of the Local Civil Registrar, Josefina Villorant.[6] The defense, thereafter, presented the testimonies of: (1) accused Basa; and (2) a certain Alvin Modina.[7]
AAA testified that Basa raped her on two (2) occasions: the first incident, prior to December 25, 2002; while the second, about a week after the first. Both occasions took place inside the office of "Ka Eddie," an Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC) pastor, located at the second floor of the INC church xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, at Parañaque City. AAA had been a member of the INC for almost a year prior to the first incident. Basa, also a member of the INC, had been doing the task of cleaning the church.
On the first incident, AAA narrated that she went to the INC church at around 9:00 a.m. at the request of her cousin, BBB,[8] to check if their attendance card or what they refer to as "tarheta" had been overturned. Under the INC's practice, this signifies the presence of a person during the worship service. Wearing a skirt and a t-shirt, AAA saw Basa, whom she referred to as "Kuya Jun," cleaning the first floor of the church, near the area where the attendance cards were placed. Basa told AAA that he would show her a small fishpond at the back portion of the church. Trusting her Kuya Jun, AAA went with him. But instead, Basa held her right arm and dragged her to the office of Pastor Eddie at the second floor and locked the door behind them. The office is usually locked, but since Basa was in charge of cleaning the church, he had in his possession the key to the door thereof. There, AAA recounted that Basa began kissing her lips and mashing her breast. He then pulled up her skirt and, through the side of her underwear, inserted his finger into her private part, causing AAA to feel pain. Thereafter, Basa removed her skirt and underwear and started kissing her private part. AAA said that she could not resist because Basa threatened to kill her should she tell anybody of her ordeal.[9]
A week thereafter, the second incident occurred. AAA relayed that between 9:00 and 10:00 a.m., she went to the INC church to check the "tarheta." When Basa saw her, he immediately dragged her again and brought her to Pastor Eddie's office. As before, she could not do anything out of fear for her life. AAA recalled that apart from the security guards stationed outside the church, no other persons were inside the place of worship. In the office, Basa kissed her, pulled up her shirt, and mashed her breast. Afterwards, he removed her skirt and underwear and put his penis out of his denim pants. He then told her to lie down on the floor and inserted his penis inside her private part, causing her to feel pain. After the incident, AAA went home and swore never to tell anybody about what Basa did to her. It was in January 2003, when classes resumed in her school at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, that she found the courage to tell her teacher, Francisco, about the ordeal she went through during the vacation. Upon learning this, Francisco called AAA's grandmother, CCC. Then, when AAA's aunts found out about the incidents, they immediately reported the same to the National Bureau of Investigation where AAA submitted her Sinumpaang Salaysay dated January 20, 2003.[10]
AAA's testimony was corroborated by her teacher, Francisco, who stated that AAA was an average student. A week after the 2002 Christmas break, she noticed that AAA was quite withdrawn compared to her usual behavior. Bothered by what she observed, she asked AAA to stay in the classroom after class. Francisco recalled that AAA was first reluctant to confide in her but, after a while, she was able to convince AAA into sharing her harrowing experience. AAA then told her that her Kuya Jun, a caretaker in the INC church, fondled her twice and forced himself on her. Francisco added that as AAA was narrating the incident, she was trembling in fear, terribly shaking, and appeared to have been traumatized. Upon learning of said incident, Francisco immediately relayed the story to AAA's grandmother.[11]
In his defense, Basa denied the accusations against him. He narrated that on December 25, 2002, AAA was not yet a member of the INC and was still under probation or "sinusubok." Basa contended that on the alleged first rape incident, he was preparing the stage of the church for its afternoon program, while on the second rape incident, he was with several other persons preparing for the New Year's celebration and afternoon prayer. According to Basa, the only possible reason that could have impelled AAA to file cases against him was because of BBB. He recounted an instance wherein their "Pangulong Diakono" or Deputy Head Deacon told him to order those persons not included in the worship service, among them was BBB, to go outside of the church. This incident angered BBB. In addition, Basa revealed that BBB once admired him, but he turned her down.[12]
The defense also presented, as its witness, Alvin Modina, a member of the INC. Modina knew Basa as a "masiglang kaanib" of their religious segregation, while AAA as one of those being indoctrinated in their barangay. According to Modina, he was at the INC church from 8:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. on the alleged first incident when AAA was molested, but he did not notice the presence of AAA or Basa. He stated that AAA arrived only in the evening when the church was opened for the worship service. On the alleged second rape incident, Modina testified that he was at the INC church from 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. and saw Basa there preparing for the New Year celebration.[13]
On July 27, 2015, the RTC rendered its Decision finding Basa guilty of the crime charged, disposing of the cases as follows:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused MANUEL BASA, a.k.a. "Jun" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape under the following cases:
- GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt under Criminal Case No. 04-0200 for the crime of Rape under Article 266-A (2) in relation to Republic Act No. 7610 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty ranging from four (4) years of prision correccional as minimum, to ten (10) years of prision mayor as maximum and to pay private complainant [AAA] the amount of P30,000.00 as moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
- GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt under Criminal Case No. 04-0201 for the crime of Rape under Article 266-A (1) in relation to RA 7610 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay private complainant [AAA] the amount of P30,000.00 as moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
As the accused is a detention prisoner, the period of his detention shall be credited in the period of his sentence.
SO ORDERED.[14] (Emphases and italics in the original.)
The RTC found that judging on the basis of the testimonies of both the prosecution and the defense in connection with which documentary pieces of evidence were formally offered, the prosecution sufficiently established the existence of the elements of the crime charged against Basa.[15]
In a Decision dated September 28, 2017, the CA affirmed with modification the RTC Decision in the following manner:
Anent the damages awarded by the RTC, We find that modification of the amount of damages awarded is in order. For Criminal Case No. 04-[0200], in addition to the Php30,000.00 award as moral damages and Php30,000.00 as exemplary damages, the amount of Php30,000.00 shall also be awarded as civil indemnity. On the other hand, for Criminal Case No. 04-[0201], in line with recent jurisprudence, the amount of exemplary damages shall be modified and increased to P75,000.00. AAA shall likewise be entitled to civil indemnity of P75,000.00 and moral damages of P75,000.00.
In addition, all the monetary awards shall earn interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this decision until fully paid.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated July 27, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque, Branch 194 in Criminal cases No. 04-0200 and [No.] 04-0201, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.[16] (Citations omitted; emphases in the original.)
According to the appellate court, there is no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC, holding that AAA's credibility, by well-established precedents, is given great weight and accorded high respect.[17]
Now before us, Basa manifested that he is dispensing with the filing of a supplemental brief considering that he had exhaustively discussed the assigned errors in his Appellant's Brief.[18] The Office of the Solicitor General similarly manifested that it had already discussed its arguments in its Appellee's Brief.[19]
According to Basa, AAA's testimony is too incredible and full of inconsistencies to merit faith and credence. If she did go through such ordeal, she should have struggled or, at least, shouted for help considering that there was no mention of any fatal weapon and especially during the time when Basa was allegedly opening the door to Pastor Eddie's office. Moreover, her behavior after the first rape incident contradicts her claim of fear because she simply wore back her dress, fixed herself, and went home. Basa also points out that the report of the medico-legal officer shows "no evident sign of extragenital injuries and the hymen, intact and its orifice mall as to preclude complete penetration by an average sized adult Filipino male organ in full erection without producing any genital injury."[20] Thus, physical evidence belies AAA's claims that he inserted his finger and penis inside her vagina.
After a careful review of the records of this case, the Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the rulings of the RTC and the CA finding him guilty of the acts charged against him. In view of the circumstances of the instant case, however, a modification of the penalty imposed, the damages awarded, and the nomenclature of the offense committed is in order.
In Criminal Case No. 04-0200, instead of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph (2) of the RPC, in relation to R.A. No. 7610, Basa should be held liable for Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b),[21] Article III of R.A. No. 7610.
In Dimakuta v. People,[22] the Court held that in instances where the lascivious conduct is covered by the definition under R.A. No. 7610, where the penalty is reclusion temporal medium, and the act is likewise covered by sexual assault under Article 266-A, paragraph (2) of the RPC, which is punishable by prisión mayor, the offender should be liable for violation of Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, where the law provides for the higher penalty of reclusion temporal medium, if the offended party is a child victim. But if the victim is at least eighteen (18) years of age, the offender should be liable under Article 266-A, paragraph (2) of the RPC and not R.A. No. 7610, unless the victim is at least 18 years old and she is unable to fully take care of herself or protect herself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition, in which case, the offender may still be held liable for sexual abuse under R.A. No. 7610. The reason for the foregoing is that, aside from affording special protection and stronger deterrence against child abuse, R.A. No. 7610 is a special law which should clearly prevail over R.A. No. 8353, which is a mere general law amending the RPC. In People v. Chingh,[23] the Court noted that "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.'"
It is undisputed that at the time of the commission of the lascivious act in Criminal Case No. 04-0200, AAA was xxxxxxxxxx years old. Thus, based on the above discussion, Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610 finds application herein. The provision states:
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 subject[ed] 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. (Emphases and italics ours.)
To achieve uniformity in designating the proper offense, moreover, the Court, in People v. Caoili,[24] prescribed guidelines in case lascivious conduct is committed under the section cited above. On the one hand, when the victim is under 12 years of age at the time the offense was committed, the offense is designated as Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC, in relation to Section 5 of R.A. No. 7610. This finds support in the first proviso in Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610 which requires 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 [RPC], for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be[.]" On the other hand, when the victim, at the time the offense was committed, is aged twelve (12) years or over but under eighteen (18), or is eighteen (18) or older but unable to fully take care of herself/himself or protect himself/herself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition, the nomenclature of the offense should be Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610, since the law no longer refers to Article 336 of the RPC, and the perpetrator is prosecuted solely under R.A. No. 7610.[25]
However, before an accused can be held criminally liable for lascivious conduct under Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, the Court held in Quimvel v. People[26] that the requisites for Acts of Lasciviousness, as penalized under Article 336 of the RPC, must be met in addition to the requisites for sexual abuse under Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, namely:
- The offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness;
- That it be done under any of the following circumstances:
- Through force, threat, or intimidation;
- When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
- By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; or
- When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present;
- Through force, threat, or intimidation;
- That said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and
- That the offended party is a child, whether male or female, below 18 years of age.
A review of the evidence presented by the prosecution reveals that the elements enumerated above were sufficiently established. With respect to the first requisite, the prosecution was able to show, through the credible testimony of AAA, that Basa committed lascivious conduct against her when he dragged her to the room of Pastor Eddie, pulled up her skirt and, through the side of her underwear, inserted his finger into her private part, causing her to feel pain. During her direct examination, the trial court was wholly convinced by AAA's narration of her harrowing experience, to wit:
Where was this fishpond or [aquarium?]
In view of the foregoing, the prosecution duly established the element of intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia of any person, with intent to abuse or gratify sexual desire. This act constitutes sexual abuse and lascivious conduct under the definition provided by Section 2, paragraphs (g) and (h)[28] of the rules and regulations of R.A. No. 7610, known as the Rules and Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases.
As regards the second requisite that the lascivious conduct be done under the enumerated circumstances, it has been said that "force and intimidation" are subsumed under "coercion and influence" and such terms are used almost synonymously. This can be gleaned from Black's Law Dictionary's definitions of "coercion" as "compulsion; force; duress," of "influence" as "persuasion carried over to the point of overpowering the will," and of "force" as "constraining power, compulsion; strength directed to an end"; as well as from jurisprudence which defines "intimidation" as "unlawful coercion; extortion; duress; putting in fear."[29] As AAA expressly testified, Basa grabbed her right arm and forcefully dragged her to the office of Pastor Eddie and threatened to kill her should she tell anybody of what he did to her.
Anent the third requisite, a child is deemed exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse when the child indulges in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct (a) for money, profit or any other consideration; or (b) under the coercion or any influence of any adult, syndicate or group.[30] In the case of Olivarez v. Court of Appeals,[31] the Court explained that the phrase "other sexual abuse," in the above provision. covers not only a child who is abused for profit, but also one who engages in lascivious conduct through the coercion or intimidation by an adult. In the latter case, there must be some form of compulsion equivalent to intimidation which subdues the free exercise of the offended party's will.[32] Again, AAA was clearly coerced, in fact dragged, by Basa into going with him to the room of their pastor, where he forcefully inserted his finger into her private part.
Fourth, as previously mentioned, it is undisputed that AAA was only xxxxxxxxxxx years old at the time of the commission of the offense. Under Section 3 (a) of R.A. No. 7610, "'children' refers to person[s] 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[.]"
In view of the presence of all the elements of the crime, Basa should be convicted of Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610. As duly found by the trial court, and affirmed by the appellate court, the prosecution, through the positive and categorical testimony of AAA, duly established that Basa succeeded in forceful inserting his finger into her vagina at a time when she was merely xxxxxxxxxxx years old. He must, therefore, be held liable therefor.
With respect to Criminal Case No. 04-0201, the Court affirms the rulings of the courts below finding that the prosecution was also able to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, all the elements of the crime of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph (1), in relation to R.A. No. 7610. In the instant case, the RTC aptly found that the prosecution sufficiently established the presence of the elements of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph (1) (a) of the RPC which provides that rape is committed: "1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a) Through force, threat, or intimidation; b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and d) When the offended pmiy is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present." During the trial, AAA vividly gave a detailed narration of what transpired a week after the occurrence of the first incident of molestation. In a sincere and convincing manner, she painstakingly recalled how she was once again dragged into the room of Pastor Eddie, where Basa kissed her and mashed her breast, and, thereafter, removed her skirt and underwear in order to insert his penis inside her vagina. She testified on the matter as follows:
In a long line of cases, the offended parties of which are young and immature girls, the Court found a considerable receptivity on the part of the trial courts to lend credence to the testimonies of said victims. This is in consideration of not only the offended parties' relative vulnerability, but also the shame and embarrassment to which such a grueling experience as a court trial, where they are called upon to lay bare what perhaps should be shrouded in secrecy, exposes them to. Indeed, no woman, much less a child, would willingly submit herself to the rigors, the humiliation and the stigma attendant upon the prosecution of rape, if she were not motivated by an earnest desire to put the culprit behind bars. Hence, AAA's testimony is entitled to full faith and credence.[34]
It bears stressing that all the arguments raised by Basa in his Appellant's Brief — which the Public Attorney's Office adopted instead of filing a supplemental appeal brief — have been properly addressed in full and in detail in the appealed CA decision. For one, AAA's failure to shout or immediately report the incident does not necessarily belie her claims because as the appellate court held, a rape victim's actions are oftentimes overwhelmed by extreme psychological terror that numbs her into silence and submissiveness. For another, the fact that the medico-legal report shows no evident sign of injuries is of no moment since laceration of the hymen, even if considered a telling evidence of sexual assault, is not always essential to establish the consummation of the crime of rape.[35] Indeed, when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally binding upon the Court, unless there is a clear showing that they were reached arbitrarily or it appears from the records that certain facts of weight, substance, or value are overlooked, misapprehended or misappreciated by the lower court which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the case. After a circumspect study of the records, the Court sees no compelling reason to depart from the foregoing principle.[36]
As for the penalties and damages for the crimes charged herein, the Court rules as follows. In Criminal Case No. 04-0200 for Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, the penalty imposed by the courts below must be modified. Section 5, Article III of R.A. No. 7610 provides that the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. Here, in the absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the maximum term of the sentence shall be taken from the medium period thereof.[37] Moreover, notwithstanding the fact that R.A. No. 7610 is a special law, Basa may still enjoy the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. In applying the provisions thereof, the minimum term shall be taken trom within the range of the penalty next lower in degree, which is prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period.[38] Thus, Basa shall suffer the indeterminate sentence of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, for violation of the said provision of R.A. No. 7610.[39] Likewise, and conformably with prevailing jurisprudence,[40] he is directed to pay AAA the amounts of P20,000.00 as civil indemnity, P15,000.00 as moral damages, P15,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P15,000.00 as fine, pursuant to Section 31 (f), Article XII of R.A. No. 7610, all of which shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until full payment.
With respect to Criminal Case No. 04-0201 for rape under Article 266-A, paragraph (1), the Court affirms the penalty imposed and the amount of damages awarded by the courts a quo. Thus, Basa is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and is ordered to pay AAA the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, pursuant to People v. Jugueta,[41] all of which shall likewise earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until full payment.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision dated September 28, 2017 of the Court of Appeals, affirming with modification the Decision dated July 27, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City, Branch 194, is likewise AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION:
1. In Criminal Case No. 04-0200, appellant Manuel Basa, Jr. is held guilty of one (1) count of Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the indek r.r1inate sentence of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Basa is likewise ordered to pay AAA the amounts of P20,000.00 as civil indemnity, P15,000.00 as moral damages, P15,000.00 as exemplary damages, and a fine of P15,000.00.
2. In Criminal Case No. 04-0201, Basa is held guilty of one (1) count of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph (1), and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay AAA the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages.
All damages awarded shall incur legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Leonen, A. Reyes, Jr., and Hernando, JJ., concur.
Perlas-Bernabe,* J., on official leave.
March 14, 2019
Sirs / Mesdames:
Please take notice that on February 27, 2019 a Decision, copy attached hereto, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of which was received by this Office on March 14, 2019 at 1:45 p.m.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
Division Clerk of Court
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
Division Clerk of Court
* Designated as additional member, in lieu of Justice Rosmari D. Carandang, per Special Order No. 2624-0 dated February 20, 2019; on official leave.
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-18. Penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 107-120. Penned by Judge Marie Grace Javier Ibay.
[3] Id. at 107-108.
[4] Id. 108.
[5] 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 R.A. No. 7610, "An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, and for Other Purposes"; R.A. 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; People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703, 709 (2006); and Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017, Subject: Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders Using Fictitious Names/ Personal Circumstances.
[6] The witnesses' testimony was dispensed with after the submission of the certified true copy of AAA's Certificate of Live Birth.
[7] Rollo, p. 4.
[8] AAA referred to BBB as her cousin but Basa referred to BBB as AAA's aunt.
[9] Rollo, pp. 5-6.
[10] Id. at 6.
[11] CA rollo, p. 112.
[12] Rollo, pp. 6-7.
[13] CA rollo, pp. 114-115.
[14] Id. at 119-120.
[15] Id. at 116.
[16] Rollo, pp. 17-18.
[17] Id. at 17.
[18] Id. at 31.
[19] Id. at 26.
[20] CA rollo, p. 175.
[21] Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610 provides:
Section 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:
[22] 771 Phil. 641 (2015).
[23] 661 Phil. 208, 222-223 (2011).
[24] G.R. Nos. 196342 and 196848, August 8, 2017.
[25] People v. Caoili, supra.
[26] G.R. No. 214497, April 18, 2017, 823 SCRA 192.
[27] TSN, June 17, 2009, pp. 23-52.
[28] Section 2. Definition of Terms. — As used in these Rules, unless the context requires otherwise —
h) "Lascivious conduct" means the 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[.]
[29] People v. Macapagal, G.R. No 218574. November 22, 2017.
[30] Id.
[31] 503 Phil. 421 (2005).
[32] People v. Dagsa, G.R. No. 219889, January 29, 2018.
[33] TSN, September 16, 2009, pp. 23-29.
[34] People v. Macapagal, supra note 29.
[35] Rollo, pp. 14-15.
[36] People v. Macapagal, supra note 29.
[37] 17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years
[38] 8 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months.
[39] People v. Zamora, G.R. No. 229835, January 31, 2018 (Minute Resolution).
[40] Orsos v. People, G.R. No. 214673, November 20, 2017.
[41] 783 Phil. 806 (2016).