PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ZZZ - J.LEONEN
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ZZZ - J.LEONEN
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ZZZ - J.LEONEN
DECISION
LEONEN, J : p
BBB testified that ZZZ had been her common-law spouse for four (4)
years. At 10:00 a.m. on April 12, 2006, she and her stepdaughter, CCC, went
for a 30-minute walk to the barangay hall to request a toilet bowl, as instructed
by ZZZ. They went back home after being told that the toilet bowl was not yet
available. 15
When she arrived at their house, BBB was surprised to see that the
door and window were shut. Upon opening the door, she saw AAA sitting and
ZZZ standing, both silent. BBB got mad and whipped ZZZ with a plastic hose,
but he remained silent. 16
Thinking that her daughter was raped, BBB brought AAA to the
barangay hall. Then, with the assistance of the Department of Social Welfare
and Development and the police, they went to __________ City for
AAA's physical examination. 17
On cross-examination, BBB stated that she brought AAA to the
barangay hall "because her vision at that time was blurred as if she cannot
notice a person[.]" 18 Maintaining that their house was closed when she first
arrived from the barangay hall, she reiterated seeing ZZZ and AAA inside
when she opened the door and thinking that her daughter was raped. 19
ZZZ testified that he was BBB's common-law spouse. He took AAA as
his stepdaughter, supporting her since childhood. He narrated that at 6:00
a.m. on April 12, 2006, he was working on the kitchen in their house while
AAA and DDD did the laundry. Meanwhile, BBB proceeded to the barangay
hall to check if the toilet bowl they requested was already available.
ZZZ further narrated that at around 10:00 a.m. on April 12, 2006, DDD
and AAA were eating breakfast after they had finished washing clothes. AAA
then went up the second floor of their house and slept, while he was then
installing an electric bulb in the kitchen. When BBB arrived, she opened the
door at once. 20 AAA "was surprised because [BBB] was shouting as if she
was dreaming." 21 BBB asked ZZZ if he raped AAA, which he denied. He was
around 12 meters away from AAA, holding a hammer on the window. BBB
then went to AAA and pinched her "bulog[.]" 22 Afterwards, BBB grabbed a
hose and whipped ZZZ, who was able to parry the strike. BBB then went out
with AAA only to return the following morning. 23
ZZZ claimed that BBB was influenced by her cousins to accuse
him. 24 The cousins were allegedly mad at him and wanted BBB and him to
separate since he was "not a useful person." 25
On cross-examination, ZZZ stated that the house's window and door
were always shut because the house was still unfinished. He restated that
when BBB arrived, she saw him standing by the window and AAA sitting at a
corner of their house. He reiterated that BBB whipped him with a hose. 26 He
added that when he saw AAA crying, he thought that she would not pinpoint
him as her rapist "because her conscience [was] bothered." 27
On August 8, 2008, AAA executed her Affidavit of Recantation and
Desistance, 28 praying that the rape case be dismissed. She claimed that her
declarations during the direct and cross-examinations "were done under
duress and that she was afraid of the authorities at that time[.]" 29 Maintaining
that ZZZ did not rape her, she claimed that she was forced by a certain EEE
to file the rape case.
On cross-examination, AAA testified that she was not compelled by the
prosecutor to testify. Contrary to her Affidavit, she also admitted that she was
not under duress when she was presented as a witness. She recalled crying
during the direct examination and pointing to ZZZ as her rapist when she was
asked. EEE, she added, was their neighbor. 30
In its June 25, 2013 Judgment, 31 the Regional Trial Court found ZZZ
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of simple statutory rape. 32
The trial court found that the prosecution failed to establish AAA's
minority. It did not present documentary evidence, such as her birth
certificate, or even testimonial evidence to prove that AAA was a minor when
the crime was committed. 33
The trial court further gave weight to AAA's declaration that she was
raped. It noted her sincerity during trial and her candid and straightforward
manner in giving her testimony. It held that her allegations were corroborated
by Dr. Dacula's findings and BBB's subsequent acts in bringing AAA to the
barangay officials, the Department of Social Welfare and Development, and
the police. 34
The trial court did not give merit to ZZZ's denial for
being unsubstantiated. It further held that instead of discrediting the
prosecution's evidence, AAA's Affidavit of Recantation and Desistance
bolstered her earlier statements by reaffirming that: (1) ZZZ sexually molested
her; (2) the prosecutor did not force her to testify; and (3) she was not put
under duress. 35 HEITAD
Based on the circumstances here, this Court cannot give any weight to
AAA's Affidavit of Recantation and Desistance.
If the crime did not really happen, AAA would have made the Affidavit at
the earliest instance — but she did not. Instead, she executed it more than
two (2) years after the crime had been committed. If the crime did not really
happen, she would not have submitted herself to physical examination or
hours of questioning — but she did.
Moreover, her recollection on how accused-appellant committed the
crime was detailed; her testimony, consistent. There was no evidence that
AAA was forced or pressured by the prosecutor to take the witness stand, as
manifested by her answer during the cross-examination:
PROS. BALBUENA ON CROSS EXAMINATION:
Q: Now, Mrs. (sic) Witness, can you recall having testified in this case?
A: Yes.
Q: In fact, it was I who presented you as our witness, Mrs. (sic) Witness?
A: Yes.
Q: And when you testified Mrs. (sic) Witness, of course, this Fiscal did
not force you to testify, is that not right?
A: I was not forced.
Q: So, in your testimony when you were presented by the prose[cu]tion
as our witness[,] you were not under duress then,
Mrs. (sic) Witness?
ATTY. CABUSAO:
Objection Your honor. What has be[e]n testified by the witness, Your
Honor, it is not the Prosecutor who forced her, Your Honor.
PROS. BALBUENA:
I am on cross examination, Your Honor and the credibility of this
witness is questioned, Your Honor.
COURT:
Okay, let her answer.
xxx xxx xxx
WITNESS:
A: I was not forced by the Fiscal. 80 (Emphasis in the original, citation
omitted)
Likewise, the absence of hymenal laceration fails to exonerate
accused-appellant. As explained in People v. Osing: 81
[M]ere touching, no matter how slight of the labia or lips of the female
organ by the male genital, even without rupture or laceration of the
hymen, is sufficient to consummate rape. The absence of fresh
hymenal laceration does not disprove sexual abuse, especially when
the victim is a young girl[.] 82 (Citation omitted)
This Court has consistently held that an intact hymen does not negate
the commission of rape. 83 The element of rape does not even include
hymenal laceration:
The absence of external signs or physical injuries on the complainant's
body does not necessarily negate the commission of rape, hymenal
laceration not being, to repeat, an element of the crime of rape. A
healed or fresh laceration would of course be a compelling
proof of defloration. What is more, the foremost consideration in the
prosecution of rape is the victim's testimony and not the findings of the
medico-legal officer. In fact, a medical examination of the victim is not
indispensable in a prosecution for rape; the victim's testimony alone, if
credible, is sufficient to convict. 84 (Citations omitted)
The guilt of accused-appellant having been proven beyond reasonable
doubt for the crime of rape, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly
imposed. However, in line with prevailing jurisprudence, 85 this Court increases
the amount of civil indemnity to P75,000.00 and moral damages to
P75,000.00. Exemplary damages of P75,000.00 shall also be awarded to
AAA. 86
Finally, a six percent (6%) per annum legal interest shall be imposed on
all the damages awarded to AAA from the date of finality of the judgment until
fully paid. 87AaCTcI
Footnotes
*On official leave.
**On official leave.
1.Rollo, pp. 4-13. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Edward B.
Contreras, and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos
and Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig of the Nineteenth Division, Court of Appeals,
Cebu City.
2.CA rollo, pp. 40-47. The Judgment, in Crim. Case No. 529, was penned by
Executive/Presiding Judge Ananson E. Jayme of Branch 63, Regional Trial
Court, Bayawan City, Negros Oriental.
3. Id. at 39.
4.Id.
5.Rollo, p. 5.
6.In People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 (2006) (Per J. Tinga, En Banc], this Court
discussed the need to withhold the victim's real name and other information
that would compromise the victim's identity, applying the confidentiality
provisions of: (1) Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children against
Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act) and its Implementing Rules
and Regulations; (2) Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence against Women and
their Children Act of 2004) and its Implementing Rules and Regulations; and (3)
this Court's October 19, 2004 Resolution in A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC (Rule on
Violence against Women and their Children).
7.CA rollo, p. 41.
8.Id.
9.Id.
10.Id.
11.Id.
12.Id.
13.Id.
14.Id. at 42-43.
15.Id. at 42.
16.Id.
17.Id.
18.Id.
19.Id.
20.Id. at 43.
21.Id.
22.Id.
23.Id.
24.Id.
25.Id.
26.Id.
27.Id.
28.Id. at 43 and rollo, p. 6.
29.Id. at 43.
30Id.
31.Id. at 40-47.
32.Id. at 47.
33.Id. at 44.
34.Id. at 44-46.
35.Id. at 45.
36.Id. at 47.
37.Id. at 18-37.
38.Id. at 67-81.
39.Rollo, pp. 4-13.
40.Id. at 13.
41.Id. at 8-10.
42.Id. at 10.
43.Id. at 8-10.
44.Id. at 10.
45.678 Phil. 752 (2011) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
46.Rollo, p. 10.
47.Id. at 10-12.
48.Id. at 13.
49.Id. at 14-16.
50.Id. at 20-21.
51.Id. at 22-25, Manifestation for plaintiff-appellee, and 27-28, Manifestation for
accused-appellant.
52.Id. at 22 and 27.
53.CA rollo, p. 26.
54.Id.
55.Id. at 27.
56.Id.
57.Id. at 27-34.
58.Id. at 34.
59.Id.
60.Id. at 35.
61.Id. at 34.
62.Id. at 72-76.
63.Id. at 70-72.
64.Id. at 72.
65.Id.
66.Id. at 76-78.
67.Id. at 77.
68.Id. at 78-79.
69.Id. at 46.
70.Rollo, pp. 9-10.
71.746 Phil. 809 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
72.Id. at 819-820.
73.809 Phil. 773 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
74.Id. at 774.
75.736 Phil. 298 (2014) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
76.Id. at 303.
77.REV. PEN. CODE, art. 266-B provides:
ARTICLE 266-B. Penalties. — Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding
article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
78.See People v. Gacusan, 809 Phil. 773, 789 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second
Division] and People v. Corpuz, G.R. No. 208013, July 3, 2017, 828 SCRA 565,
600 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
79.People v. Bertulfo, 431 Phil. 535, 550 (2002) [Per C.J. Davide, Jr., First Division].
80.Rollo, p. 11.
81.402 Phil. 343 (2001) [Per J. Melo, Third Division].
82.Id. at 354.
83.People v. Francica, G.R. No. 208625, September 6, 2017, 839 SCRA 113, 135
[Per J. Leonen, Third Division]; People v. Austria, G.R. No. 210568, November
8, 2017, 844 SCRA 523, 543-544 [Per J. Leonen, Third Division]; and People v.
Opong, 577 Phil. 571, 592-593 (2008) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
84.People v. Araojo, 616 Phil. 275, 288 (2009) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Third Division].
85.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 851 (2016) [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].
86.Id.
87.Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013) [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].
||| (People v. ZZZ, G.R. No. 229862, [June 19, 2019])