843 Phil. 473
PERALTA, J.:
That on or about and since December 30, 2012, on several occasions, at more or less 8:00 o'clock in the evening, along the seashore of XXX, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously force and intimidate AAA, 15 years old, minor, and then forcibly committed sexual intercourse by forcibly inserting his penis to the vagina of the said minor for several occasions, against her will. With the qualifying/aggravating circumstance of (sic) that the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender/accused is the father of the victim.During his arraignment on February 5, 2013, appellant, with the aid of a counsel, entered a plea of "not guilty."
Contrary to and in violation of Article 266-A, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to R.A. 7610.[4]
Wherefore, premises considered, the Court finds accused [CCC] is GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt [of] the crime of Rape and sentences him to an imprisonment of RECLUSION PERPETUA. He is directed to pay AAA the following sums: Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php50,000.00 as moral damages, and Php30,000.00 as exemplary damages in each count.The CA affirmed the Decision of the RTC with modification that appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of Qualified Rape under Article 266-A(1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8353, in relation to R.A. No. 7610 and ordered appellant to pay AAA the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, thus:
It is further ordered that his preventive detention at BJMP-Gingoog City is fully credited in the service of his sentence. He shall serve sentence at [the] Davao Penal Farm at Dujali, Davao Del Norte.
SO ORDERED.[5]
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, this ordinary appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The 08 October 2014 Judgment rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, Gingoog City, Misamis Oriental, in Criminal Case No. 2013-5130 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant [CCC] is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) Counts of Qualified Rape under Article 266-A(1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, in relation to R.A. No. 7160 (sic).Hence, the present appeal.
Accordingly, appellant [CCC] is SENTENCED to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each case, in lieu of the abolition of death penalty under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. No. 8353, in relation to R.A. No. 7160 (sic). Moreover, Appellant [CCC] is hereby ORDERED to pay AAA the amount of Seventy Thousand Pesos (sic) (P75,000) as civil indemnity; Seventy Thousand Pesos (sic) (P75,000) as moral damages; and Seventy Thousand Pesos (sic) (P75,000) as exemplary damages for each case.
All damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.[6]
Q: Do you remember when was that when you were raped by yours (sic) father?According to appellant, AAA harbored ill-feelings towards him which motivated her to file charges for rape, hence, her testimony is not credible. Through the testimony of AAA, it was clearly proven that appellant committed the crime, and as such, an attack on her credibility is futile. In People v. Malana,[10] this Court ruled that when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court, thus:
A: November 27, 2011.
x x x x
Q: That was the first rape incident with your father?
A: That was the first time that I (sic) molested by my father.
Q: And then you were raped on November 27, 2011 what time was this?
A: Eight o'clock in the evening.
Q: Where did this happen?
A: In our house.
Q: How did it happen?
A: At that time I was asleep and he carried me.
Q: Where did he carry you?
A: Towards his bed downstairs.
Q: What happened there?
A: He held my hand.
Q: What happened after that?
A: He kissed me.
Q: What part of your body was kissed?
A: Lips, neck, down to my stomach.
Q: And then what happened?
A: He undressed himself.
Q: And then what happened?
A: He undressed me.
Q: What did you do when he undressed you?
A: I just followed him because he will kill me if I would not follow his order.
Q: What happened after that?
A: He rode (sic) on top of me.
Q: What did he do to you after he rode (sic) on top of you?
A: He kissed me. He inserted his penis into my vagina.
Q: Was this the first time?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: Was that the (sic) first experience with a man?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: What did you feel?
A: Pain.
Q: You said that there were several times that he molested you, could you remember what happened on December 30, 2012?
A: That was the last time he raped me.
Q: What time was (sic) this that was (sic) happened?
A: I could not remember.
Q: Was it in the evening?
A: Night time.
Q: Where did it happen?
A: XXX
Q: Why were you at XXX?
A: He brought me to fish.
Q: Is this XXX located in YYY?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: How was that he was able to bring you to XXX, how is (sic) this happen?
A: He would go on fishing and the place where the [boat] will be (sic) dock.
Q: Did you not object?
A: No, because he would threat (sic) to kill me because he is bringing a knife.
Q: Did you actually arrive at XXX?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: When you said XXX, you mean the seashore?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: Who was there aside from you and [CCC]?
A: The two of us.
Q: What happened when you arrived in (sic) the seashore?
A: He molested me.
Q: How did he do this?
A: He would make a push-and-pull movement.
Q: When you arrived there, could you tell us the details how did it happen?
A: He made me lie on the sand.
Q: And then what happened after that?
A: He rode on top of me.
Q: And then?
A: He kissed me. He inserted his penis into my vagina.
Q: Every time that your father does this, what was your reaction?
A: I cried.
Q: Did you not tell him to stop?
A: No, ma'am, because he tell (sic) me to shot (sic) up.
Q: How did he tell you to shot (sic) up?
A: He told me to shot (sic) up because he would kill me if I will not heed his order.
Q: Was there a time that he physically hit you when you protested?
A: Yes, Ma'am.
Q: How did he hurt you?
A: He would box my stomach.
Q: How many times did he box your stomach?
A: Many times.
Q: On December 30, 2012, did he box your stomach?
A: Yes; Ma'am.
Q: How many times?
A: Many times.
Q: Why did he box you, did you protest?
A: Yes, Ma'am.
Q: How did you fight back?
A: I also boxed him, but he was strong.
Q: You said that your father would kiss you before having sexual intercourse with you, how did he kiss you?
A: He would suck my neck and stomach.
Q: You have many kiss mark[s] in your body?
A: Yes, Ma'am.
Q: How many?
A: Many.
Q: When you said many in your body that you have kissed (sic) mark?
A: In my neck, around my nipple, my breast and my stomach.
Q: How did this kiss mark[s] appear, could you describe the appearance?
A: Reddish.
Q: They are not injured?
A: No, Ma'am.
Q: On your neck, including your breast?
A: Yes, Ma'am.
Q: Did you tell anybody about your painful experience?
A: To my twin sister.[9]
In reviewing rape cases we are guided by the following well-entrenched principles: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility: it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove it; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[11]Therefore, the CA did not err in finding merit to the findings of the RTC, thus:
The determination of the credibility of the offended party's testimony is a most basic consideration in every prosecution for rape, for the lone testimony of the victim, if credible, is sufficient to sustain the verdict of conviction.[12] As in most rape cases, the ultimate issue in this case is credibility. In this regard, when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court, considering that the latter is in a better position to decide the question as it heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during trial.[13] The exceptions to the rule are when such evaluation was reached arbitrarily, or when the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstance of weight and substance which could affect the result of the case.[14] None of these circumstances are present in the case at bar to warrant its exception from the coverage of this rule.
It is well-established that when a woman says that she has been raped, she says, in effect, all that is necessary to show that she has indeed been raped.[15] A victim of rape would not come out in the open if her motive were anything other than to obtain justice. Her testimony as to who abused her is credible where she has absolutely no motive to incriminate and testify against the accused,[16] as in this case where the accusations were raised by private complainant against her own father.[17]
We find no reason to deviate from the ruling of the RTC that the victim was able to describe in full and graphic detail what she went through. The private complainant credibly testified on the details of her harrowing experiences from the first to the last time she was sexually molested by appellant. Absent any material or significant inconsistency in her testimony, the same can be accorded with great weight and credibility.Appellant further argues that AAA's testimony that she was raped on December 30, 2012 at the seashore is unbelievable, because there were many houses along the said area. Such argument is unconvincing. It is recognized that lust is no respecter of time and place; rape can, thus, be committed even in places where people congregate, in parks, along the roadside, within school premises, inside a house where there are other occupants, and even in the same room where other members of the family are also sleeping.[19]
In addition, appellant's contention that appellee harbored ill-feelings towards her father which motivated her to file charges for rape is unavailing. It is highly unthinkable for a victim to falsely accuse her father solely by reason of ill motives or grudge. Furthermore, motives such as resentment, hatred or revenge have never swayed this Court from giving full credence to the testimony of a minor rape victim. Ill motives become inconsequential if there is an affirmative and credible declaration from the rape victim, which clearly establishes the liability of the accused.[18]
In the case of People and AAA v. Court of Appeals, Carampatana, Opporto and Alquisola, the Supreme Court established the following doctrine:In addition, the qualification "without eligibility for parole" should be affixed to qualify reclusion perpetua pursuant to A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC.[23]Finally, the Court notes that although the prosecution filed only a single Information, it, however, actually charged the accused of several rapes. As a general rule, a complaint or information must charge only one offense, otherwise, the same is defective. The rationale behind this rule prohibiting duplicitous complaints or informations is to give the accused the necessary knowledge of the charge against him and enable him to sufficiently prepare for his defense. The State should not heap upon the accused two or more charges which might confuse him in his defense. Non-compliance with this rule is a ground for quashing the duplicitous complaint or information under Rule 117 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure and the accused may raise the same in a motion to quash before he enters his plea, otherwise, the defect is deemed waived. The accused herein, however, cannot avail of this defense simply because they did not file a motion to quash questioning the validity of the Information during their arraignment. Thus, they are deemed to have waived their right to question the same. Also, where the allegations of the acts imputed to the accused are merely different counts specifying the acts of perpetration of the same crime, as in the instant case, there is no duplicity to speak of.In the case at bar, since the prosecution was able to prove two counts of rape, the appellant must rightfully be charged with the same. Similarly, Section 3, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure further states that when two or more offenses are charged in a single complaint or information but the accused fails to object to it before trial, the court may convict him of as many offenses as are charged and proved, and impose upon him the proper penalty for each offense.
As the appellant failed to object and file a motion to quash the information based on the defective and incorrect recital of the facts stated in the same for the two (2) counts of rape, the effect is that he is deemed to have waived such defense. Hence, he can be charged and convicted for two (2) counts of rape.[22]
1) Civil Indemnity – P100,000.00WHEREFORE, the appeal of CCC is DISMISSED for lack of merit, and the Decision dated February 14, 2017 of the Court of Appeals affirming with modification the Judgment dated October 8, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, Gingoog City, Misamis Oriental in Criminal Case No. 2013-5130, and convicting appellant of two (2) counts of qualified rape, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION –
2) Moral Damages – P100,000.00
3) Exemplary Damages – P100,000.00
[24] 783 Phil. 806 (2016)
(1) x x x; and (2) When circumstances are present warranting the imposition of the death penalty, but this penalty is not imposed because R.A. 9346, the qualification of "without eligibility for parole" shall be used to qualify reclusion perpetua in order to emphasize that the accused should have been sentenced to suffer the death penalty had it not been for R.A. No. 9346. (Underscoring ours)