G.R. No.

200157, August 31, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOERY DELIOLA Y BARRIDO,

A.K.A. "JAKE DELIOLA," Accused-Appellant.

DECISION

PEREZ, J.:

On appeal is the 29 June 2011 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC
NO. 00435, affirming the 22 December 2005 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 69, Silay City, Negros Occidental, in Criminal Case Nos. 5214-69 and 5215-69,
which found accused-appellant Joery Deliola y Barrido guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of two (2) counts of Statutory Rape, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua in both cases.

Accused-appellant was charged with two (2) counts of Statutory Rape. The accusatory
portions of the Informations narrate: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Criminal Case No. 5214-69

That sometime in the month of June, 2002, in the Municipality of Manapla, Province of
Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, 15 years old, with the use of a bladed weapon, through force,
threat and intimidation, with the attendant qualifying aggravating circumstances of
relationship and minority, the accused being the uncle of herein victim who was less
than eighteen (18) years of age, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
have carnal knowledge of one [MMM],3 a minor, 11 years old, against her will, to the
damage and prejudice.4 chanrobleslaw

Criminal Case No. 5215-69

That on or about the 1st day of July, 2002, in the Municipality of Manapla, Province of
Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, 15 years old, with the use of a bladed weapon, through force,
threat and intimidation, with the attendant qualifying aggravating circumstances of
relationship and minority, the accused being the uncle of herein victim who was less
than eighteen (18) years of age, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
have carnal knowledge of one [MMM], a minor, 11 years old, against her will, to the
damage and prejudice.5 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

On arraignment, accused-appellant entered a plea of NOT GUILTY.6 At the joint pre-

trial7 of the cases, the following stipulation of facts were admitted: (1) that the court
has jurisdiction over the case (2) the identity of accused-appellant as the accused in the
two criminal cases; (3) that accused-appellant is the uncle of MMM; (4) that MMM, was
11 years old when the incidents giving rise to the present criminal actions were
allegedly committed; (5) that at the time of the incidents on June and 1 July 2002,
accused-appellant and MMM were neighbors; (6) that MMM was then a grade school
pupil; and (7) that accused-appellant was not attending school at the time of the
submitted incidents giving rise to these criminal actions. Trial on the merits ensued
afterwards.
 The Facts

The facts culled from the records and as summarized by the Court of Appeals, are as
follows:

When the crime was committed, MMM was 11 years old,8 while the accused-
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

appellant, MMM's uncle,9 was 15 years old.10 The prosecution submits that sometime in

the first week of June 2002, at about three o'clock in the afternoon, MMM went to the
nipa plantation to defecate but before she was able to do so, accused-appellant, armed
with a knife, suddenly appeared. He approached MMM, poked a knife at her neck,
ordered h bend over, and took off her shorts and underwear. Fearing for her life, MMM
obeyed the orders of accused-appellant. MMM tried to resist but accused-appellant was
still able to force his penis inside MMM's vaginal MMM felt pain and cried. After
satisfying his lust, accused-appellant put on his briefs and shorts then left. When she
got home, MMM immediately took a bath and noticed bloodstain on her underwear.
Afraid of accused-appellant's threats of killing her, MMM kept mum and did not disclose
to anyone the tragedy that happened to her that day.11 chanrobleslaw

On or about the 1st day of July 2002, MMM was at the nipa plantation again when
accused-appellant suddenly arrived. He poked MMM's back with a knife and threatened
to stab her unless she followed accused appellant's orders. MMM was fearful and was
left with no choice but to submit to accused-appellant's commands. She was directed to
bend over and to lower down her shorts and underwear. While MMM was bending over
and half naked, accused-appellant held the victim's waist and inserted his penis into
MMM's private part. MMM could not do anything but cry. Before leaving, he again
threatened to kill MMM if she would reveal happened between them.12 chanrobleslaw

MMM still remained silent about her ordeal. However, about two weeks after the second
rape, MMM's grandmother noticed that there was something unusual in the way MMM
was walking. This prompted her to confront MMM.13 Upon learning of what happened to
MMM, the vie aunt, brought the former to the Municipal Health Office of Manapla,
Negros Occidental for examination,14 and thereafter to the police authorities, before
whom the victim executed her sworn statement.15 chanrobleslaw

Dr. Edbert Jayme (Dr. Jayme), the Municipal Health Officer who conducted a physical
and internal examination upon MMM, testified as an expert witness for the prosecution.
Dr. Jayme's internal findings showed that the victim had positive hyperemia of the
vulva or congestion, redness, and swelling around the area, which may have been
caused by a blunt object such as the finger of the human being or an erect penis. The
victim was also found to have a positive incomplete hymenal laceration at 3:00 and
7:00 positions, which was similarly caused by a blunt object such as the finger of the
human being or an erect penis.16 According to Dr. Jayme, the lacerations may have
been inflicted within two weeks prior to the examination since the lacerations were
fresh.17 Dr. Jayme also found that the victim's vagina could admit two (2) fingers with
ease, which is unusual for an 11-year old.18 A Medical Certificate19 dated 12 July 2002
was issued by the Municipal Health Center of Manapla.

As lone witness for the defense, accused-appellant denied raping the victim and claimed
that he was fishing with his grandfather during the times MMM was raped.20 He testified
that he is MMM's uncle and that he was only fifteen years old when the alleged crime
occurred.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

On 22 December 2005, the RTC rendered a Decision finding accused-appellant guilty of

two counts of Statutory Rape. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, in Criminal Cases Nos. 5214-69 and 5215-69,

this Court finds accused, JOERY DELIOLA Y BARRIDO, A.K.A. "JAKE DELIOLA", Guilty of
the crimes of Rape, as defined in Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B, paragraph 5,
sub-paragraph 1, of Republic Act No. 8353, as his guilts had been established by the
prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt.

Taking into consideration the privilege mitigating circumstance of minority, this Court,
in Criminal Case No. 5214-69, sentences accused, Joery Deliola y Barrido, a.k.a. Jake
Deliola, to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, the same to be served by him at
the National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa City, Province of Rizal, Philippines. Accused, Joery
Deliola y Barrido, a.k.a. Jake Deliola, is, further, ordered by this Court to pay minor,
[MMM], the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as Moral Damages, and the
sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00), all in Philippine Currency, as Exemplary
Damages.

In Criminal Case No. 5215-69, this Court likewise sentences accused, Joery Deliola y
Barrido, a.k.a. Jake Deliola, to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, the same to be
served by him at the National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa City, Province of Rizal,
Philippines. Accused, Joery Deliola y Barrido, a.k.a. Jake Deliola, is, likewise, ordered by
this Court to pay minor, [MMM], the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as
Moral Damages, and the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00), all in Philippine
Currency, as Exemplary Damages.

Accused, Joery Deliola y Barrido, a.k.a. Jake Deliola, is remanded to the custody of the
Jail Warden of the Provincial Jail of Negros Occidental, until he is finally committed to
the National Penitentiary at Muntinlupa City, Rizal.

In the service of the sentences imposed on him by this Court, accused named shall be
given full credit for the entire period of his detention pending trial.21
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals, in its assailed Decision dated 29 June 2011, affirmed the
judgment of conviction of the RTC. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision insofar as the finding of guilt beyond reasonable
doubt of accused-appellant Joery B. Deliola of the two crimes of rape in Criminal Cases
No. 5214-69 and 5215-69 is AFFIRMED. However, as accused-appellant Joery Deliola y
Barrido is a child in conflict with the law, the pronouncement of his sentence is hereby
SUSPENDED and the case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court, 6th Judicial Region,
Branch 69, Silay City, Negros Occidental, for appropriate disposition in accordance with
Section 38 of Republic Act No. 9344. Accused-appellant is CONDEMNED to pay the
victim MMM: 1) In Criminal Case No. 5214-69, the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P75,000.00 for moral damages, and P30,000.00 for exemplary damages;
and 2) In Criminal Case No. 5215-69, the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity,
P75,000 for moral damages and P30,000.00 for exemplary damages.22 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Accused-appellant timely filed a Notice of Appeal. In a Resolution23 dated 27 February

2012, we required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs. However,
both parties manifested24 that they dispensing with the filing of supplemental briefs
and, instead, adopting respective briefs as supplemental briefs in this case.

Our Ruling

We find no reason to deviate from the findings and conclusions of the trial court, as
affirmed by the Court of Appeals. His defenses of denial and alibi are bereft of merit.

Statutory Rape

Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 8353,25  define and punish Statutory Rape as follows:
cralawred ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Art. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed.- Rape is committed-

1) by a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman x x x:

chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary xxxx

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.

Art. 266-B. Penalties. — Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be
punished by reclusion perpetua.

xxxx

The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of
the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:

1) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent,
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third

civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim;

xxxx
Statutory rape is committed when the prosecution proves that: (1) the offended party
is under 12 years of age and (2) the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim,
regardless of whether there was force, threat or intimidation; whether the offended
party was deprived of reason or consciousness; or whether it was done through
fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority. It is enough that the age of the
victim is proven: and that there was sexual intercourse.26 chanrobleslaw

The two elements were proven in the present case. The age of MMM was uncontested.
In her Birth Certificate,27 presented and admitted in open court,28 it was indicated that
she was born on 5 March 1991 and, thus, only eleven years old when the crime was
committed. The only controversy left before us is whether or not accused-appellant had
carnal knowledge of the victim.
Credibility of Witness

Accused-appellant tried to dispute MMM's credibility by pointing out several

inconsistencies in her testimony. He argued that the victim testified that on the alleged
second incident of rape, on 1 July 2002, she felt no and her vagina did not bleed.
Accused-appellant maintains that such statement is inconsistent with MMM's
grandmother's claim that MMM was walking with great difficulty and pain. Accused-
appellant likewise argues that given the tender age of the victim, she could have felt
pain, if not suffered bleeding, even on the second incident of rape.

We disagree. It is carnal knowledge, not pain nor bleeding, which is essential to

consummate rape.29 It is also possible for physiological manifestations of rape, such as
pain, to appear only after the incident, more importantly, the testimony of MMM's
grandmother was just an observation on the victim's manner of walking. It is baseless
and unreasonable to put the victim's and the grandmother's testimonies side by side
and claim them to be inconsistent. Moreover, as consistently held by this Court,
discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimony of a witness referring to minor
details and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime, do not impair
her credibility. If at all, they serve as proof that the witness is not coached or
rehearsed.30chanrobleslaw

Accused-appellant also points out that Dr. Jayme's findings are not conclusive and that
the non-intact hymen of the victim could be congenital.

This argument is bereft of merit. The prime consideration in the prosecution of rape is
the victim's testimony, not necessarily the medical findings. Assuming arguendo that
the non-intact hymen of the victim is congenital, this Court has consistently held that
the absence of laceration in the hymen does not negate rape.31 Apart from the findings
of Dr. Jayme, MMM was steadfast in testifying that accused-appellant raped her twice.
When a rape victim's testimony is straightforward and consistent despite grueling
examination, it deserves full faith and confidence.32 The victim's testimony alone, if
credible, is sufficient to convict.33
chanrobleslaw

Accused-appellant likewise argues that the victim's claim that she was penetrated from
behind is contrary to human experience. We are not persuaded. As correctly cited by
the Court of Appeals, the animal in man may come out when he commits rape such
that it is not unlikely that in the process of his immersion and transformation into
another character, he would prefer to mate in the way lower creatures do.34 chanrobleslaw

Accused-appellant further questions the fact that the victim did not attempt to escape
from her captor or even shout or call for help, and that she did not report the alleged
rape to anyone after its occurrence. However, as held in the case of People v. Rosales:35
At any rate, it is an oft-repeated principle that not every witness to or victim of a crime
can be expected to act reasonably and conformably to the usual expectations of
everyone. People may react differently to the same situation. One person's
spontaneous, or unthinking or even instinctive, response to a horrible and repulsive
stimulus may be aggression, while another's may be cold indifference. Yet, it can never
be successfully argued that the latter are any less sexual victims than the former.36 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Given the nature of the crime of rape, the credible, natural, and convincing testimony
of the victim alone may be sufficient to convict the accused, more so, when the
testimony is supported by the medico-legal findings of the examining physician.37 chanrobleslaw

MMM's testimony, positively identifying accused-appellant as the person who raped her
is believable. We uphold the ruling of the trial court on the credibility of MMM and the
truthfulness of her testimonies, to wit:
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

[MMM], though a minor, thirteen (13) years old at the time she took the stand,
demonstrated to this Court her capacity of observation, recollection, and
communication. She showed that she can perceive, and perceiving, can make known
her perception to this Court as she clearly and capably related the details of her sad
and horrible experiences at the hands of the accused. She withstood a thorough and
exhaustive examination. There is no doubt that she is a competent witness. (Republic
vs. Court of Appeals, 349 SCRA 451, G.R. No. 116372 January 18, 2001; People vs.
Rama, 350 SCRA 266, G.R. No. 136304, January 25, 2001). [MMM] gave a clear,
straightforward, spontaneous, frank and consistent narrative. It was a positive and
credible account she presented before this Court. There was not a motive ascribed or,
in the very least, suggested by the defense that might have raised doubt on her
credibility and on the credibility of the statements she made before this Court.38 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

We find no reason to disturb the trial court's appreciation of MMM's testimony. Deeply
entrenched in our jurisprudence is the rule that the assessment of the credibility of
witnesses is a domain best left to the trial court judge because of his unique
opportunity to observe their deportment and demeanor on the witness stand, a vantage
point denied appellate courts; and when his findings have been affirmed by the Court of
Appeals, these are generally binding and conclusive upon this Court.39 chanrobleslaw

Furthermore, testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit, for when a
woman or a girl-child says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is
necessary to show that rape was indeed committed. Youth and immaturity are
generally badges of truth and sincerity.40 No young woman would admit that she was
raped, make public the offense and allow the examination of her private parts, undergo
the troubles and humiliation of a public trial and endure the ordeal of testifying to all
the gory details, if she had not in fact been raped.41 chanrobleslaw

Denial and Alibi as Inherently Weak Defenses

In contrast to MMM's direct, positive and categorical testimony identification of her

assailant, accused-appellant's bare denial and alibi could not prevail. This Court has
consistently held that: "denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be supported
by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. No jurisprudence in criminal
law is more settled than that alibi is the weakest of all defenses, for it is easy to
contrive and difficult to disprove and for which reason it is generally rejected. For the
alibi to prosper, it is imperative that the accused establishes two elements: (1) he was
not at the locus delicti at the time the offense was committed; and (2) it was physically
impossible for him to be at the scene at the time of its commission.42" Accused-
appellant failed to establish these elements. His claim that at the time of the alleged
crime, he was at sea fishing with his grandfather was uncorroborated. For some reason,
he did not even present his grandfather Clemente Gabayeron to testify in court. As.
opposed to MMM's convincing recital of facts, accused-appellant's denial and alibi will
not stand.
Time of commission not an essential element to establish rape

Lastly, accused-appellant argues that the Information43 stating that the first crime of
rape was committed "sometime in the month of June 2002" is not sufficiently explicit
and certain as to inform him of the date on which the criminal act was alleged to have
been committed.

Accused-appellant is mistaken. This Court has repeatedly held that it is not incumbent
upon the victim to establish the date when she was raped for purposes of convicting the
perpetrator.44 The date of commission is not an essential element of the crime of rape;
what is material is its occurrence. Thus, there is no need to prove the exact date of
commission; an approximation thereof will suffice.45 chanrobleslaw

Moreover, the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that accused-appellant's belated

objection to the Information cannot prosper, to wit: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Moreover, accused-appellant's counsel took active part in the trial by cross-examining

the prosecution witnesses on the particular dates and circumstances of the two offenses
of rape as alleged in the informations without prior objection to the validity or propriety
of the informations. It is now too late in the day for the accused-appellant to claim that
any of the Informations was defective. Objections relating to the form of the complaint
or information cannot be made for the first time on appeal. If the appellant had found
the Information insufficient, he should have moved before arraignment either for a bill
of particulars, for him to be properly informed of the exact date of the alleged rape, or
for the quashal of the Information, on the ground that it did not conform with the
prescribed form.46chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Penalty and Damages

To determine the appropriate penalty, we refer to the pertinent law on the matter.
According to R.A. No. 9344,47 as amended:48
SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. — x x x

A child is deemed to be fifteen (15) years of age on the day of the fifteenth anniversary
of his/her birthdate.

A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be
exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless
he/she has acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected to the
appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act.

The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption
from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws.
To reiterate, the law says that a minor is fifteen (15) years of age on the day of the
fifteenth anniversary of his/her birth date. In A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC49 dated November
24, 2009, the Supreme Court likewise defined the: age of criminal responsibility as the
age when a child, fifteen (15) years and; one, (1) day old or above but below eighteen
(18) years of age, commits an offense with discernment.

Accused-appellant testified that he was born on 14 April 1987,50 making him 15 years

and 2 months old when the crime was committed. We are now left with the question of
whether or not accused-appellant acted with discernment. In People v. Jacinto,51 we
explained that discernment is the mental capacity of a minor to fully grasp the
consequences of his act, known and determined by taking into account all the facts and
circumstances presented by the records in each case.

That the accused-appellant acted with discernment when he raped the victim is
demonstrated by the following surrounding circumstances: (1) the victim was a helpless
minor; (2) accused-appellant secured the consummation of the offense with a weapon;
(3) he satisfied his lust by penetrating the victim from behind; and (4) he threatened
the victim not to report what happened. Taking all these facts into consideration,
accused-appellant clearly knew that what he did was wrong.

Considering that the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship were alleged
and proven during trial,52 accused-appellant shall be criminally liable for the crime of
Qualified Statutory Rape. However, given that accused-appellant was only 15 years old
and 2 months when the crime was committed, the privileged mitigating circumstance of
minority should be appreciated; thus, the penalty next lower in degree than that
prescribed by law shall be imposed.53 In accordance with the controlling jurisprudence
on the matter,54 for purposes of determining the proper penalty because of the
privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, the penalty of death is still the penalty
to be reckoned with. Thus, we affirm the ruling of the lower courts and impose upon
accused-appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

Although it is acknowledged that accused-appellant was qualified for suspension of

sentence when he committed the crime, Section 40 of R.A. 934455 provides that the
same extends only until the child in conflict with the law reaches the maximum age of
twenty-one (21) years old. Nevertheless, in extending the application of RA No. 9344 to
give meaning to the legislative intent of the said law, we ruled in People v. Jacinto,56 as
cited in People v. Ancajas,57 that the promotion of the welfare of a child in conflict with
the law should extend even to one who has exceeded the age lirr it of twenty-one (21)
years, so long as he/she committed the crime when he/she was still a child. The
offender shall be entitled to the right to restoration, rehabilitation and reintegration in
order that he/she may be given the chance to live a normal life and become a
productive member of the community.58 Thus, accused-appellant is ordered to serve his
sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular penal institution, in an agricultural camp
and other training facilities, in accordance with Section 5159 of R.A. 9344.

Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence,60 we modify the award of damages of the lower

courts. Accused-appellant is hereby ordered to indemnify MMM, the amounts of
P75,000.00 as civil indemnity for each count of rape, P75,000.00 as moral damages for
each count of rape, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of rape. The
damages awarded shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per
annum from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.61
chanrobleslaw

WHEREFORE, the 29 June 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CR-
HC NO. 00435 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant JOERY DELIOLA Y
BARRIDO, A.K.A. "JAKE DELIOLA," is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two
(2) counts of Qualified Statutory Rape and is sentenced to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape. Appellant is ORDERED to indemnify MMM
the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity for each count of rape, P75,000.00 as
exemplary damages for each count of rape. All monetary awards for damages shall
earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of
this judgment until fully paid.

The case is hereby REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court, Silay City, Branch 69 for its
appropriate action in accordance with Section 51 of Republic Act No. 9344.

SO ORDERED. chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Peralta, Reyes, and Caguioa,*JJ., concur.