CERTIFIED [RUE COPY

- , v~
Divi:fnon Clerk of Court
Third Division

'JUL 2 4 2019
l\epublic of tbe Jlbilippines
BY:
TIME:
,- ·
/0; .S-3
$>upreme QCourt
;Jflilan ila

THIRD DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 229862

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Present:

PERALTA,* J,
LEONEN, Acting Chairperson,
-versus- REYES, A., JR.,
HERNANDO,** and
INTING, JJ
zzz,
Accused-Appellant.

DECISION

LEONEN, J.:

Recantations are viewed unfavorably especially in rape cases.

Circumstances in which the recantation was made are thoroughly examined
before the evidence of retraction can be given any weight.

Before this Court is a criminal case for rape committed by the

common-law spouse of the victim's mother. Accused-appellant ZZZ assails
the September 30, 2016 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-
HC No. 01769, which affirmed his conviction in the June 25, 2013
Judgment2 of the Regional Trial Court.
f
• On official leave.
•• On official leave.
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 Comt, Bayawan City, Negros Oriental.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 229862

On May 23, 2006, an Information3 was filed against ZZZ charging

him with the crime of rape:

That on or about 11:00 o'clock (sic) on t h e ~

of the 12th day of April, 2006, in the City of 1.-,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the said accused, the live-in partner of the mother of
the victim, by means of force and intimidation, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
knowledge of the victim [AAA], a minor fourteen (14)
years old, against her will.

Contrary to Article 266-A, in relation to 266-B of the Revised

Penal Code. 4

ZZZ pleaded not guilty to the crime charged during his arraignment
on July 19, 2006. Pre-trial was held on October 25, 2006. Trial on the
merits then ensued. 5

The prosecution presented AAA6 and Dr. Edalin Dacula (Dr. Dacula)
as its witnesses. 7

AAA narrated that in the afternoon of April 12, 2006, she had fallen
asleep after doing laundry, while her stepfather, ZZZ, was doing carpentry
works. Suddenly, she woke up and found ZZZ on top of her, his lower body
naked. He then sat on the floor with his penis showing and removed her
short pants and underwear, after which he went back on top of her and
masturbated. He took AAA' s hands and put them on his penis, 8 telling her
that if she became pregnant, "he [would] be happy." 9 ZZZ then inserted his
penis into her vagina "and sat, kissed her face, touched her vagina[,] and
kissed her breast." 10

AAA later reiterated on cross-examination that ZZZ put his penis into
her vagina. She failed to see the act, but felt it. She also felt pain on her
vagina's side, caused by the penis' insertion. 11

4
Id. at 39.
Id.
Rollo, p. 5.
J
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.
Id.
9
Id.
IO Id.
11 Id.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 229862

Dr. Dacula, who conducted the medical examination on AAA,

testified that she had found redness and abrasion on the right side of the
victim's labia minora, "caused by a smooth, soft objecf'' 12 as indicated in the
Medico-Legal Report. 13

Meanwhile, the defense presented as witnesses: (1) AAA's mother

BBB; (2) ZZZ; and (3) AAA, on her affidavit of recantation. 14

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
17
AAA's physical examination.

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. f
12 Id.
13 Id.
14
Id. at 42-43.
15
Id. at 42.
16 Id.
i1 Id.
is Id.
19 Id.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 229862

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

f
20
Id. at 43.
21 Id.
22 Id.
23 Id.
24 Id.
2s Id.
26 Id.
27
Id.
28
Id. at 43 and rollo, p. 6.
29
Id. at 43.
30 Id.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 229862

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

The dispositive portion of the Regional Trial Court Judgment read:

WHEREFORE, based on the prevailing facts, evidences, law and

jurisprudence applicable, the court finds accused [ZZZ] GUILTY
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of simple statutory rape
and hereby sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of
reclusion perpetua. He is hereby ordered to pay to the victim civil
indemnity in the amount of PS0,000.00 and moral damages in the amount
of PS0,000.00 without proof of its basis.

SO ORDERED. 36

ZZZ appealed37 before the Court of Appeals. In tum, the People of

the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, filed its /
Brief. 38

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.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 229862 .

In its September 30, 2016 Decision, 39 the Court of Appeals denied the
appeal and affirmed the trial court Judgment with modification. 40 It declared
that the trial court erroneously used the word "statutory" since it was not
established that AAA was below 12 years old when the crime was
committed. Nonetheless, the error was harmless because the penalty meted
and the monetary awards granted were for the crime of simple rape. 41 It
sustained ZZZ's conviction based on AAA's "vivid recollection" 42 of how
rape was committed against her. 43

The Court of Appeals did not give merit to ZZZ's argument that the
prosecution failed to prove the presence of force, intimidation, threat, fraud,
or grave abuse of authority. 44 Citing People v. Arpon, 45 it held that the moral
influence or ascendancy of the common-law spouse of the victim's mother
replaced the elements of violence and intimidation. 46

Likewise, the Court of Appeals gave no merit to either AAA' s

recantation or the argument that her lack of hymenal laceration negated the
crime of rape. 47

The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals Decision read:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Judgment dated June

25, 2013, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 63, Bayawan City, in
Criminal Case No. 529 is hereby AFFIRMED, but with modification only
in that the word "statutory" in the dispositive portion thereof is
DELETED.

SO ORDERED. 48

Hence, ZZZ appealed his case before this Court. 49

On April 5, 201 7, this Court issued a Resolution 50 requiring the parties

to file their supplemental briefs. The parties filed their respective
51
Manifestations, stating that they would no longer file their supplemental

39
40
Rollo, pp. 4-13.
J
Id. at 13.
41
Id.at8-10.
42
Id. at 10.
43
Id. at 8-10.
44
Id.atl0.
45
678 Phil. 752 (2011) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
46
Rollo, p. I 0.
47
Id. at I 0-12.
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.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 229862

briefs as they had sufficiently exhausted their arguments in their Briefs

before the Court of Appeals. 52

Accused-appellant argues that the crime of statutory rape was not

proven because the prosecution failed to sufficiently establish AAA's
minority, which the trial court also noted. 53

Assuming that the prosecution established her age, accused-appellant

contends that he was still wrongly convicted of statutory rape. Pointing out
that AAA's alleged age in the Information was 14 years old, he argues that
under the law and jurisprudence, the victim must be below 12 years old for
the crime to be statutory rape. 54

Accused-appellant avers that since the case does not involve statutory
rape, the presence of force, intimidation, threat, fraud, or grave abuse of
authority must be established in the alleged crime's commission. He
contends that the prosecution failed to show these circumstances. 55

Moreover, accused-appellant alleges that AAA's "[i]nconsistent and

improbable statements[,]" 56 particularly on direct examination and on her
Affidavit of Recantation and Desistance, raised doubts on the credibility of
her allegations. 57

Accused-appellant also points out that Dr. Dacula only found redness
and abrasion, and not hymenal laceration, which should have been present
had there been sexual intercourse. 58 These manifestations "could have been
easily caused by pinching, scratching, or wearing very tight underwear." 59

Lastly, accused-appellant argues that the prosecution should not draw

its strength on the alleged weakness of the defense. 60 He maintains that he
should be acquitted considering that his guilt was not proven beyond
reasonable doubt. 61

Plaintiff-appellee counters that accused-appellant was actually

convicted not of statutory rape, but of simple rape, and was meted with the tJ
penalty of simple rape. Hence, even if the trial court erroneously included ;{

52
Id. at 22 and 27.
53
CA ro/lo, 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.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 229862

the word "statutory" in describing the crime, there was no effect in the
imposed penalty. 62

Plaintiff-appellee insists that accused-appellant's guilt was proven

beyond reasonable doubt. 63 It was able to establish the following elements:

First. [AAA] was then 14-year old when appellant had sexual
intercourse with her.

Second. Appellant who is the common-law husband of [AAA's]

mother exercises moral ascendancy and authority over her.

Third. [AAA] testified that appellant had carnal knowledge of her

on April 12, 2006 at about 11 :00 o'clock (sic) in the morning while her
mother went to the Barangay Hall to do an errand for appellant. 64
(Emphasis in the original)

Plaintiff-appellee maintains that AAA' s narration of the incident

proves that accused-appellant raped her. 65 It adds that recantations are
usually viewed unfavorably since it can be secured by intimidating the
witness or in exchange of monetary consideration. 66 It alleges that AAA's
recantation was doubtful because BBB and accused-appellant continued
their common-law relationship and AAA's new claim "was a mere legal
conclusion, bereft of any details or other indicia of credibility, much less
truth." 67

Finally, plaintiff-appellee contends that AAA's intact hymen is not

fatal to its cause. In the crime of rape to be consummated, it is sufficient
that the penis touched the pudendum or the labia. 68

The sole issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not accused-
appellant ZZZ' s guilt for the crime of rape has been proven beyond
reasonable doubt.

In arguing for his innocence, accused-appellant maintains that the

element of force, intimidation, threat, fraud, or grave abuse of authority in
the crime of rape was not established, and that the element of the victim's
minority in the crime of statutory rape was not proven. Moreover, AAA's
recantation and her intact hymen both negate the allegation of rape.
I
62
Id. at 72-76.
63
Id. at 70-72.
64
Id. at 72.
6s Id.
6
6 Id. at 76-78.
67
Id. at 77.
68
Id. at 78-79.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 229862

Accused-appellant's contentions have no merit.

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code defines rape as:

Article 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:

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 party is under twelve (12) years of age or is

demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be
present.

2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in

paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his
penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or
object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.

After a careful examination of the case records, this Court holds that
the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that accused-
appellant is guilty of raping AAA. The trial court also found AAA's
testimony credible and supported by evidence:

The candid, straightforward and unrehearsed testimony of victim

[AAA] who declared against the bestial acts of the accused on her person
and maintained that she was required to hold his penis and thereafter,
again, rode on top of her placing his penis on her vagina is corroborated
by the unrefuted findings of Dr. Edalin L. Dacula who found that the
abrasion and redness in color on the right side of the labia minora is
caused by a smooth, soft object. A smooth, soft object is a penis and that
the abrasion and redness in color on the right side of the labia minora is
caused probably by the friction of the hardened and erected penis of the
accused. That was why the victim complained that she felt pain on her
vagina. 69

The Court of Appeals, likewise, found that AAA' s testimony during /

the direct examination showed that she clearly remembered how accused-
appellant committed the crime:

69
Id. at 46.
Decision 10 G.R. No. 229862

PROS. BALBUENA ON DIRECT EXAMINATION:

(COURT INTERRUPTED)

COURT . .. Which come (sic) first, the raping or the masturbating?

WITNESS The raping.

Q How did he rape --- How did the accused rape you?

A First, he positioned himself on top of me and then he

undressed me, and then he sat on the floor and masturbated.
He let me hold his penis, kissed me. On top of me, he
kissed me, and he undressed me, sat on the floor and
masturbated, and then he let me hold his penis, and then he
again positioned himself on top of me.

Q Court. Tell in straight words; answer 'yes' or 'no'. Did he

place his penis inside your vagina?

A Yes.

[ON CROSS EXAMINATION]

(COURT INTERRUPTED)

Q Did you feel?

A Yes.

Q And what was your feeling?

A Pain

Q What was painful'?

A At the side

Q Of what?

A The side of my vagina.

Q Why?

A Because his penis [was) in my vagina. 70 (Emphasis in the

original) I
70
Rol/o,pp.9-10.
Decision 11 G.R. No. 229862

This Court finds no reason to disturb the findings of the trial court and
the Court of Appeals. In People v. Quintos: 71

The observance of the witnesses' demeanor during an oral direct

examination, cross-examination, and during the entire period that he or she
is present during trial is indispensable especially in rape cases because it
helps establish the moral conviction that an accused is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime charged. Trial provides judges with the
opportunity to detect, consciously or unconsciously, observable cues and
microexpressions that could, more than the words said and taken as a
whole, suggest sincerity or betray lies and ill will. These important
aspects can never be reflected or reproduced in documents and objects
used as evidence.

Hence, "[t]he evaluation of the witnesses' credibility is a matter

best left to the trial court because it has the opportunity to observe the
witnesses and their demeanor during the trial. Thus, the Court accords
great respect to the trial court's findings," more so when the Court of
Appeals affirmed such findings. 72 (Citations omitted)

There is also no ment m accused-appellant's argument that force,

intimidation, threat, fraud, or grave abuse of authority was not present. In
People v. Gacusan, 73 this Court reiterated that "[t]he abuse of moral
influence is the intimidation required in rape committed by the common-law
father of a minor. " 74

As to the inclusion of the word "statutory" in the dispositive portion of

the trial court Judgment, this Court holds that it was erroneously added by
the trial court judge.

In People v. Dalan: 75

The gravamen of the offense of statutory rape, as provided for in

Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is
the carnal knowledge of a woman below 12 years old. To convict an
accused of the crime of statutory rape, the prosecution must prove: first,
the age of the complainant; second, the identity of the accused; and last
but not the least, the carnal knowledge between the accused and the
complainant. 76 (Citation omitted)

Here, the Information against accused-appellant did not allege AAA to

be below 12 years old, but 14 years old, when the crime was committed
upon her. The trial court even held that without documentary or testimonial

71
746 Phil. 809 (2014) [Per J. Leone11, 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.
Decision 12 G.R. No. 229862

evidence, the prosecution failed to substantiate the qualifying circumstance

of minority. Despite this, it still found him guilty of simple statutory rape
and imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

Nonetheless, this Court finds that the penalty imposed on accused-

appellant is correct as it is the penalty for offenders who were found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of simple rape under Article 266-B 77 of the Revised
Penal Code. 78

II

As a rule, affidavits of desistance are viewed with skepticism and

reservation because they can be "easily obtained for monetary consideration
or through intimidation. " 79

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.
f
77
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 266-8 provides:
ARTICLE 266-B. Penalties. - Rape under paragraph I of the next preceding article shall be
punished by reclusion perpetua.
78
See People v. Gacusan, 809 Phil. 773, 789 (2017) [Per J. Leanen, 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].
Decision 13 G.R. No. 229862

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.

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

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].
Decision 14 G.R. No. 229862

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 shalll 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. 87

WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals' September 30, 2016 Decision

in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01769 is AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant ZZZ is
found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of rape, as punished under Article
266-B of the Revised Penal Code. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua.

Accused-appellant is further DIRECTED to pay AAA: (1) Seventy-

Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages; (2) Seventy-Five
Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity; and (3) Seventy-Five
Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as exemplary damages.

All damages awarded shall be subject to interest at the rate of six

percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Decision until its full
satisfaction.

SO ORDERED.

Associate Justice

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].
Decision 15 G.R. No. 229862

WE CONCUR:

On official leave
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
Chairperson

On official leave
ANDRE~YES, JR. RAMON PAULL. HERNANDO
Ass~ci;:~ustice Associate Justice

HENRI . INTING

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.

Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

Third Division
JUL 2 4 2019