Supreme Court E-Library
Information At Your Fingertips

  View printer friendly version

This resolves the appeal filed by the appellant Robert Balanza (Balanza) assailing the March 29, 2012 Decision^[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01087 which affirmed with modifications the September 25, 2009 Judgment^[2] of Branch 14, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City in Criminal Case No. CBU-81714, which found Balanza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape in relation to Republic Act No. 7610 (RA 7610) otherwise known as the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, and imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

Balanza, together with "BBB," was charged with rape of a 14-year-old girl, allegedly committed as follows:

That on or about the 7^th day of October, 2006, at around 8:00 P.M., in the City of Cebu, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, conniving and confederating together and mutually helping each other, with the use of force and intimidation upon the person of [AAA], a minor, 14 years of age, with deliberate intent, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take turns in having carnal knowledge [of] the latter, without her consent and against her will.

CONTRARY TO LAW.^[3]

The other accused, "BBB," was dropped from the Information since he was a 13-year-old minor and thus exempt from criminal liability pursuant to Section 6, in relation to Section 20, of RA 9344^[4] or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, as amended by RA 10630. Instead of being arraigned, the minor was subjected to an intervention program under the Department of Social Welfare and Development. As such, only Balanza was arraigned wherein he pleaded not guilty.

Version of the Prosecution

"AAA" testified that she knew Balanza since they were neighbors in Cebu. At about 8:00 p.m., on October 7, 2006, "AAA" was on her way home from work when Ronnel Fernandez (Ronnel) approached and told her that Balanza wanted to talk to her. Apparently, Balanza wanted to offer her the position of treasurer in their fraternity "Junior KKK," which stood for "Krist King Kappa." "AAA" refused Ronnel and Balanza's offer. Thereafter, Ronnel and another fraternity member, Rommel Inot (Rommel) held her hands and forced her to go with them towards a nipa hut owned by Balanza.

Inside the nipa hut, "AAA" saw Balanza and several other fraternity members, namely Vernie Tinapay, Jemerico Inot, and John John Taborada. Balanza offered "AAA" the position of treasurer in their fraternity. "AAA" was surprised since she was not even a member of their fraternity. After refusing the offer, members of the Junior KKK forcibly brought "AAA" to a cornfield nearby. At the cornfield, Balanza forcibly removed "AAA's" pants and inserted his penis inside her vagina. "AAA" felt helpless and cried while Balanza was raping her. After Balanza consummated his bestial act, another fraternity member, "BBB," followed Balanza's example and raped "AAA'' by inserting his penis into her vagina. After raping her, Balanza and "BBB" fled the cornfield leaving "AAA" by her miserable and helpless self. "AAA" went home thereafter feeling violated and ashamed.

Version of the Defense

For his defense, Balanza denied the charge of rape against him and claimed that on the night of the commission of the alleged crime, he was at his neighbor Joseph Antonio's (Joseph) house which is located 100 meters away from his house. Balanza insisted that at 7:00 p.m., he went straight to Joseph's house immediately after school and stayed there until 10:00 p.m. He claimed that the following persons were with him inside the house: Giovanne, Meve, and Joseph. Later that night, at around 9:00 p.m., Joseph's wife Rosa also joined them inside the house.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

On September 25, 2009, the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 14 rendered judgment finding Balanza guilty as charged.

The dispositive part of the RTC's Judgment reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, judgment is rendered finding the accused, ROBERTO BALANZA, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principal of Rape in relation to RA. 7610 and imposes upon him the indivisible penalty of imprisonment of reclusion perpetua

Accused is also ordered to pay the minor the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND (Php50,000.00) PESOS as his civil liability to the minor.

SO ORDERED.^[5]

Aggrieved by the RTC's Judgment, Balanza appealed to the CA.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On March 29, 2012, the CA affirmed with modification the RTC's Judgment and held as follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the 25 September 2009 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Cebu City, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. ROBERT BALANZA is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of RAPE and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Also, the accused-appellant is ORDERED to pay AAA P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.^[6]

On April 24, 2012, Balanza, through his counsel, filed a Notice of Appeal.^[7] In its Resolution^[8] dated May 21, 2013, the CA gave due course to Balanza's Notice of Appeal.

In a Resolution^[9] dated September 23, 2013, this Court directed the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired.

In its Manifestation^[10] dated November 20, 2013, the Office of the Solicitor General informed this Court that it would no longer file a supplemental brief because it had already substantially and exhaustively responded to and refuted Balanza's arguments raised in his brief.

Likewise, Balanza filed a Manifestation^[11] dated October 3, 2014, indicating that he had stated all his arguments in his Appellant's Brief and no longer intended to file a supplemental brief.

The lone issue raised in his Appellant's Brief is whether Balanza was positively identified by "AAA" as the culprit in the charge of rape. According to Balanza, his identity as the perpetrator of the crime was not sufficiently established by the prosecution through clear and convincing evidence. Balanza likewise maintained that the circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime cast doubt on the credibility of "AAA." Balanza thus prays for his acquittal.

Our Ruling

The appeal is unmeritorious.

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 8353 provides that rape is committed by having 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.

In the case at bar, both the RTC and CA found that the prosecution was able to sufficiently establish beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime of rape. This Court fmds no compelling reason to depart from these findings.

Balanza contends that he was not positively identified by "AAA" as the perpetrator of the crime.

We disagree.

During trial, "AAA" clearly and positively identified Balanza as the person who ravaged her in the cornfield. The relevant portions of her testimony provide as follows:

Q:	Now, Miss witness, how do you know Robert Balanza?
A:	We are neighbors, Sir.
Q:	How long have you been neighbors with Robert Balanza?
A:	Long time already, Sir.
x x x x
Q:	Now, last October 7, 2006, Miss witness, at about 8:00 P.M., where were you, if you remember?
A:	I came from my place of work on my way to my house, Sir.
Q:	And on your way to your house, Miss Witness, how were you going towards your house, were you walking or riding a car?
A:	By walking, sir.
Q:	And while you were walking, Miss Witness, what untoward incident did any [sic] occur?
A:	While walking towards our house x x x Ronel approached me and x x x told me that Robert Balanza wanted to see
Q:	What is the full name of this Ronel Fernandez?
A:	Ronel Fernandez, Sir.
Q:	What was your reply when Ronel Ferna[n]dez told you that Robert Balanza would want to meet with you?
A:	I refused, Sir, I told him I don't like.
Q:	If you know, [Ms.] Witness, what was the purpose of Robert Balanza in wanting to meet with you at that time?
A:	Ronel Fernandez told me that I would be given a rank.
Q:	What rank, Miss witness, rank in what, Miss witness?
A:	They wanted to appoint me as their treasurer.
Q:	Do you know what group or organization would you be a treasurer of?
A:	In Junior KKK.
Q:	And what if you know, Miss witness, is this Junior KKK all about?
A:	Krist King Kappa
Q:	Were you a member of this Junior KKK at that time?
A:	No, sir.
x x x x
Court to the Witness:
Q:	Why do you know the accused, Robert Balanza?
A:	We were neighbors, Sir.
Q:	And what does he do with this Junior KKK, if you know?
A:	He is the founder of Junior KKK, Your Honor.
Court to Pros. Carrillo: Proceed.
Pros. Carillo to the witness.
Q:	Now, you said that you refused Ronel Fernandez['] requests that you go with him and talk to Robert Balanza, what happened next, Miss Witness?
A:	They forced me to go with them since Rommel Inot also arrived, Sir.
Q:	Who do you [refer] as they?
A:	Ronel Fernandez and Rommel Inot, Sir.
Q:	How were you forced?
A:	They held my hands, Sir, and then they forced me to go with them to the nipa hut of Robert Balanza.
x x x x
Q:	Now, Miss Witness, this is the incident, which happened on October 7, 2006. Now, you said that you were forced by Ronel Fernandez and the others to go to the nipa hut of Robert Balanza, what time was that, Miss wilness?
A:	8:00 o'clock in the evening, Sir.
Q:	And how far was this from the place where Ronel Fernandez approached you?
A:	About 20 meters, Sir.
Q:	Now, how did they force you, Miss Witness, to go with them to the nipa hut of Robert Balanza?
A:	I resisted, Sir, and I don't like to go with them, but they forced me, they held my hands, they forced me to go with them to the nipa hut of Robert Balanza, Sir.
Q:	And while you were being forced to go to the nipa hut of Robert Balanza, what were you doing?
A:	I resisted, Sir, in order to keep free from them.
Q:	And were you able to get free :from Ronel Fernandez?
A:	No,sir.
Q:	And did you in effect [reach] the nipa hut of Robert Balanza?
A:	Yes, sir.
Q:	And what did you see upon arriving or reaching the house of Robert Balanza?
A:	I saw Robert Balanza sitting inside the nipa hut, Sir.
Q:	And then what happened after you saw Robert Balanza near the nipa hut?
A:	He talked to me, Sir, and he promised to give me a rank in Junior KKK, Sir.
Q:	And what was your reaction or reply when he said he was going to give you a rank?
A:	I was surprised why Robert Balanza [gave] me a rank when in fact I was not a member [of] their [organization].
Q:	By the way, Miss Witness, you said that you were forced by Ronel Fernandez and Rommel Inot to the house of Robert Balanza, aside :from Ronel Fernandez, Rommel Inot and Robert Balanza, were there other persons at the place?
A:	Yes, Sir.
Q:	Now, who were [they], Miss Witness?
A:	Vernie Tinapay, Jemerico Inot, John John Taborado, no other, Sir.
Q:	What were their relations to Junior KKK, if you know?
A:	They were members of the Junior KKK, Sir.
Q:	Now, after you were surprised why they would want to make you a treasurer not being a member, what happened next?
A:	Then they brought [me] to the cornfield, Sir.
x x x x
Q:	Now, Miss Witness, you mentioned in your affidavit that when you reached the cornfield Robert Balanza pulled down his shorts, how about you, Miss Witness, what were you wearing at that time?
A:	I was wearing a long short pants, Sir.
Q:	Now, you also mentioned that he inserted his sex organ [into] your sex organ, how was he able to insert his sex organ [into] your sex organ while you were still wearing your short?
A:	He removed my long short pants, Sir.
Q:	What was your reaction, Miss Witness, when Robert Balanza started to remove your shorts?
A:	I cried, Sir.
Q:	And why did you cry?
A:	I was afraid, because he [was] going to harm me during that time.
Q:	Now, you mentioned in your affidavit that he forcibly inserted his sex organ into your sex organ, what did you feel, Miss Witness, when Robert Balanza inserted his penis into your vagina?
A:	I felt pain, Sir.
Q:	And what were you doing while Robert Balanza was raping you?
A:	I cried, Sir.
Q:	And why were you crying?
A:	Because of the incident, I was afraid to tell x x x my mother and also I was ashamed of what happened to me, Sir.
Q:	And after him, Miss Witness, you mentioned that ["BBB"] also took off his short pants and also did the same thing to you, what do you mean, "also did the same"?
A:	He followed also what Robert Balanza did to me, Sir.
Q:	He also inserted his penis into your vagina?
A:	Yes, sir.[12]

It is clear from the above that Balanza was positively identified by "AAA" as the person who raped her in the cornfield. We have consistently held that positive identification prevails over the defense of denial and alibi especially when the victim was not actuated by any improper motive, as in this case. It is also a time-honored principle that, "no young and decent lass will publicly cry rape if such were not the truth."^[13]

It also bears stressing that testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit, for when a child "says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed."^[14] "AAA's" testimony that she was raped by Balanza was straightforward and trustworthy. The Court thus fmds no cogent reason to depart from the factual findings of the trial court concerning the rape and "AAA's" credibility, which were affirmed by the CA.

As for Balanza's defense that he was in Joseph's house at the time of the commission of the crime, the Court finds the same untenable. Well-settled is the rule that for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was present at another place at the time of the commission of the crime and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. In this case, Balanza testified that the house of Joseph is only about 100 meters more or less from his nipa hut.^[15] The element of physical impossibility is thus missing. The CA is thus correct in ruling that the said distance cannot conclusively preclude the possibility of Balanza's presence at the scene of the crime at 8:00 p.m. of October 7, 2006 when the crime was committed.

Finally, as to the award of damages, the Court increases the same, in line with the ruling enunciated in People v. Jugueta,^[16] where this Court held that where the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua, the proper amounts of awarded damages should be P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, regardless of the number of qualifying aggravating circumstances present. In addition, all damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of this Decision until full payment.^[17]

WHEREFORE, the March 29,2012 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01087 finding appellant Robert Balanza GUILTY of the crime of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS that the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages are increased to P75,000.00 each, all with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.

Sereno, C. J., Velasco, Jr.,^* Leonardo-De Castro, and Tijam, JJ., concur.

---

^* Per raffle dated September 6, 2017 vice Justice Francis H. Jardeleza who recused due to prior participation as Solicitor General.

^[1] CA rollo, pp. 66-73; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo L. De Los Santos and concurred in by Associate Justices Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and Abraham B. Borreta.

^[2] Records, pp. 55-56, penned by Presiding Judge Raphael B. Yrastorza, Sr.

^[3] Id. at 1-3.

^[4] SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. - A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act. x x x

SEC. 20. Children Below the Age of Criminal Responsibility. - If it has been determined that the child taken into custody is fifteen (15) years old or below, the authority which will have an initial contact with the child has the duty to immediately release the child to the custody of his/her parents or guardian, or in the absence thereof, the child's nearest relative. Said authority shall give notice to the local social welfare and development officer who will determine the appropriate programs in consultation with the child and to the person having custody over the child. If the parents, guardians or nearest relatives cannot be located, or if they refuse to take custody, the child may be released to any of the following: a duly registered non­governmental or religious organization; a barangay official or a member of the Barangay Council for the Protection of Children (BCPC); a local social welfare and development officer; or when and where appropriate, the DSWD. If the child referred to herein has been found by the Local Social Welfare and Development Office to be abandoned, neglected or abused by his parents, or in the event that the parents will not comply with the prevention program, the proper petition for involuntary commitment shall be filed by the DSWD or the Local Social Welfare and Development Office pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 603, otherwise, known as "The Child and Youth Welfare Code."

^[5] Records, p. 56.

^[6] CA rollo, p. 71.

^[7] Id. at 76.

^[8] Id. at 90-91.

^[9] Rollo, pp. 16-17.

^[10] Id. at 18-20.

^[11] Id. at 32.

^[12] TSN, August 1, 2008, pp. 4-10.

^[13] People v. Veluz, 593 Phil. 145, 161 (2008).

^[14] People v. Sobusa, 624 Phil. 533, 547 (2010).

^[15] TSN, February 13, 2009, p. 7.

^[16] G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331, 373.

^[17] Id. at 388.