Today is Thursday, December 10, 2020

  Constitution
Statutes
Executive Issuances
Judicial Issuances
Other Issuances
Jurisprudence
International Legal Resources
AUSL Exclusive

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 219863

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee

vs.
RICHARD RAMIREZ y TULUNGHARI, Accused-Appellant

DECISION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

Assailed in this appeal is the October 30, 2014 Decision  of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05176
1

affirmed the February 3, 2011 Decision  of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 254, Las Piñas City, finding appell
2

Ramirez y Tulunghari guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of rape and acts of lasciviousness.

The Antecedent Facts

Appellant was charged with the crime of rape in two separate Informations which read:

Criminal Case No. 07-0589

That sometime on or about February 24, 2007, in the City of Las Piñas Philippines, and within 1he jurisdiction of this
Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge [of] o
["AAA"],  a six (6) year old minor, through force, or intimidation, and against her will and consent, thereby subjecting h
3

abuse and that the act complained of is prejudicial to the physical and psychological development of the complainant

Criminal Case No. 07-0284

That on or about the 18111 day of March 2007, in the City of Las Piñas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carna
knowledge of one ["AAA"], six (6) year[s] old and below 7 years of age, minor, through force and intimidation against
consent by licking the vagina and thereafter inserting his penis into the vagina of said ["AAA"], thereby subjecting her
abuse, and that the act complained of is prejudicial to the physical and psychological development of the complainan

During his arraignment, appellant entered a plea of not guilty.  Trial thereafter ensued.
6

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution’s version of the incidents is as follows:

AAA, born on September 7, 2000, was then only six (6) years old when she was raped and molested by the accused

The victin1 and the accused [were] neighbors in Las Piñas City. Accused. a stay-in construction worker in Baliwag, B
[was] also a friend of AAA's uncle who would usually sleep over at the victim’s house.

On Febniary 24, 2007, at or about 12:00 a.m., AAA was awakened by the accused when he removed her pajama and
placed himself on top of her. The accused licked her vagina before inserting his penis into it. She felt pain and cried.
accused threatened her with harm if she [told] the incident to anybody, she kept mum about it.

[O]n March 18, 2007, during the wee hours of the morning, or about 2:00 a.m., AA/\ was awakened by the shout of he
CCC. There, she saw accused standing at the corner of the house with her panty at the latter’s feet Realizing that she
naked, she instantly wore her short pants and ran and embraced her uncle. Thereafter, AAA, together with her grand
uncles, went to the police to report what happened. The medico legal examination of the private organ of AAA revea1
laceration in her hymen. 7

Version of the Defense

Appellant raised the defenses of denial and alibi, viz.:

x x x On February 24, 2007, he was working as a construction worker at NFA, Baliwag, Bulacan.  He worked there fr
1âwphi1

to Saturday. [On said date,] he was working until 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon in Bulacan.

On March 18, 2007, he was at home resting. At around 8:00 o'clock in the evening of that day, he went out to join his
Jonas Rabosa, Aron Rabosa, Jomari Magondayao, Randy Ramirez, Erma Bergancia and Bongbong in a drinking spr
of the house of AAA's aunt, BBB, where AAA a1so lived. The drinking spree lasted until 12:00 o'clock midnight when
vomiting. They slept at BBB's house. He, together with his friends, slept, side by side with each other in the living roo
before he fell asleep he noticed that AAA was sleeping on the sofa.

At around 2:00 o’clock in the morning, [he] was awakened by the punches thrown at him by AA.A's uncle, CCC, who
have seen him molesting the girl. He was surprised. Another uncle, DDD, followed suit and both clobbered him. His c
Randy Ramirez, intervened to pacify, and brought him home. At home, he narrated to his mother what [bad] happene
cried. Then, policemen arrived at their house to arrest him, although without showing any warrant of arrest. 8

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

In its Decision dated February 3, 2011, the RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape under Article
Revised Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 07-0284 and acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 in Criminal Case N
0589.  It held that:
9

On the first rape, AAA narrated that she was roused from sleep when accused was removing her pajama and panty.
removing he[r] pajama and panty, accused licked her vagina, [and] inserted something hard into [it]. [She later clarifie
appellant's penis that was inserted into her vagina.] She did not disclose this to anybody because accused told her no
anybody. 10

xxx

On the alleged [second rape incident], AAA narrated that she wm; roused from sleep when her uncle[,] CCC[,] was sh
angry words at the accused when they saw the latter lying on top of AAA. x x x It is clear from AAA's testimony that w
accused carried out the lecherous intent on March 18, 2007, he did not commit rape, consummated nor attempt[ed].
no indication that accused successfully penetrated, at least the labia of AAA. Accused should only be held liable for a
lasciviousness.11

Accordingly, the RTC sentenced appellant to suffer the penalty of a) reclusion perpetua and to pay "AAA" ₱75,000.00
indemnity, ₱75,000.00 as moral damages and ₱50,000.00 as exemplary damages in Criminal Case No. 07-0284;
and b) imprisonment of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
correccional, as maximum, and to pay "AAA" ₱30,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱30,000.00 as moral damages and ₱20,
exemplary damages in Criminal Case No. 07-0589. 12

Appellant thereafter appealed the RTC Decision before the CA.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The CA affirmed the RTC Decision in toto. Like the RTC, the CA found "AAA’s" testimony worthy of credence.  It also
13

"AAA" had "positively identified appellant as her abuser and her statements under oath were sufficient to convict appe
misdeeds]." 14

In addition, the CA held that appellant's defense of denial cannot prevail over "AAA’s" testimony as it was not properl
corroborated or substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. It likewise reiterated that the defense of denial could
over "AAA’s" positive identification of appellant as the perpetrator of the c1imes charged.
15

Aggrieved, appellant filed the present appeal.

The Issues

Appellant raises the following issues for the Court's resolution:

First, whether "AAA’s" testimony was credible and straightforward, given that: (a) she simply answered "yes" to almos
trial prosecutor’s leading questions;  and (b) the defense was able to prove that the alleged acts of rape could not ha
16

perpetrated by appellant, as there were other persons present when said acts were supposedly committed;  and,17

Second, whether the absence of hymenal lacerations on "AAA" casts doubt on appellant’s guilt. 18

The Court’s Ruling

After due consideration, we resolve to (a) affirm appellant's conviction in Criminal Case No. 07-0589, but modify the
of the crime committed; and (b) grant his appeal in Criminal Case No. 07-0284.

Elements of Rape in Criminal Case No. 07-0589 Established

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code provides:

ART. 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 is otherwise unconscious;

c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;

d. When theoffended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though
circumstances mentioned above be present. (Emphasis supplied)

xxxx

"Statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below 12 years of age regardless of her consent, or
it, to the sexual act."  Notably, the absence of free consent in cases of statutory rape is conclusively presumed and a
19

proof of force, intin1idation or consent is immaterial. 20

To convict an accused of statutory rape, the prosecution must prove: 1) the age of the complainant; 2) the identity of
accused; and 3) the sexual intercourse between the accused and the complainant. 21
In this case, the prosecution successfully established that the first rape incident on February 24, 2007 indeed took pla
"AAA" was only 6 years old,  and that appellant was the pe1petrator of the crime. The pertinent portion of "AAA’s" tes
22

detailing said rape incident is quoted below:

[PROS. JACOB M. MONTESA II]

Q: You said you were raped by Kuya Richard, is this true or not?

A: That's true, Sir.

Q: How did he rape you?

A: He placed himself on top of me, Sir.

Q: And what else did he do?

A: He inserted his penis into my vagina, Sir.

Q: What else?

A: He licked my vagina, Sir. 23

xxxx

Q: This Kuya Richard who raped you, is he here today?

A: Yes, Sir.

Q: Can you point to him?

A: That one, Sir. (Witness pointing to a person who when asked, answered by the name of Richard Ramirez.)

Q: Can you tell us what you felt when Kuya Richard was doing this? What was your reaction?

A: I was hurt, Sir.

Q: Did you cry?

A: Yes, Sir. 24

Notably, both the RTC and the CA found "AAA’s" testimony credible and convincing. We, too, see no reason to disbe
"AAA’s" testimony as regards the first rape incident, since it was not shown that the lower courts had overlooked,
misunderstood or misappreciated facts or circumstances of weight and substance which, if properly considered, woul
altered the result of the case. 25

We reject appellant’s contention that the presence of other persons during the commission of the first rape incident re
"AAA’s" testimony unbelievable. "It is not impossible or incredible for the members of the victim's family to be in deep
and not to be awakened while a sexual assault is being committed."  After all, "[i]t is settled that lust is not a respecte
26

place and rape is known to happen [even] in the most unlikely places." 27

We are likewise not persuaded by appellant's claim that the absence of lacerations on "AAA’s" hymen negated sexua
intercourse. "The rupture of the hymen is not an essential and material fact in rape cases; it only further confirms that
has been penetrated and damaged in the process."  Besides, as the CA correctly pointed out, the Initial Medico-Lega
28

Report  itself stated that although there was "no evident injury at the time of examination," the "medical evaluation ca
29

exclude sexual abuse."

Acts of lasciviousness not proven

beyond reasonable doubt

At this juncture, we draw attention to the unique nature of an appeal in a criminal case - the appeal throws the whole
for review and it is the duty of the appellate court to correct, cite and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whe
assigned or unassigned.  It is on the basis of such review that we find the present appeal partially meritorious.
30

The Information in Criminal Case No. 07-0284 alleged that appellant had carnal knowledge of "AAA" "on or about the
March, 2007." For precision and clarity, we quote "AAA’s" testimony on the incident that transpired on March 18, 200

[COURT:]

Q: You mentioned that you did not see the person who took off your pants, you mean you are not sure who h

A: No, [y]our Honor.

Q: You said you did not see him?

A: Because I was asleep at that time. l was awakened when my Uncle shouted.

Q: You did not wake up because somebody took off your shorts but because of the shouting of your Uncle?

A: Yes, [y]our Honor.

xxxx

Q: When you heard your uncle shouting, did you learn why he shouted?

A: Yes, [y]our Honor.

Q: Why?

A: According to him, BBB [(AAA’s aunt)] saw Richard on top of me, [y]our Honor.

Q: So when he was on top of you, you were not awakened?

A: No, [y]our Honor.  (Emphasis supplied)

31

Unfortunately, "AAA’s" testimony as regards the second rape incident is not sufficient to convict appellant of rape or e
lasciviousness sans the testimonies of "BBB" and "CCC" ("AAA’s" uncle) who supposedly witnessed firsthand what h
that fateful night. "AAA’s" narrative thereto clearly consisted of hearsayevidence which, "whether objected to or not, 
probative value unless the proponent can show that the evidence falls within the exceptions to the hearsay evidence

On this point, we deem it appropriate to reiterate our ruling in People v. Mamalias  where we emphasized that the ad
33

hearsay evidence in a criminal case would be tantamount to a violation of the rights of the accused, viz.:

x x x We have held that in criminal cases, the admission of hearsay evidence would be a violation of the constitutiona
that the accused shall enjoy the right to confront the witnesses testifying against him and to cross-examine them. A c
based alone on proof that violates the constitutional right of an accused is a nullity and the court that render
without jurisdiction in its rendition. Such a judgment cannot be given any effect whatsoever especially on the liber
individual.-  (Emphasis supplied)
34

Clearly, the RTC committed a grave mistake when it relied on hearsay evidence to convict appellant of the crime of a
lasciviousness. We also note the error in the fallo  of the RTC Decision where the trial court convicted appellant of ra
35

Criminal Case No. 07-0284 (the second rape incident) and acts of lasciviousness in Criminal Case No. 07-0589  (the 36

incident), when it should have been the other way around, based on the discussion in the body of said Decision.

The CA, too, is equally at fault for failing not only to recognize the glaring flaw in the prosecution's evidence, but also
the mistake in the fallo of the RTC Decision when the case was elevated on appeal.

The Crime Committed and the Proper

Penalty in Criminal Case No. 07-0589

As earlier discussed, sexual intercourse with a woman who is below 12 years of age constitutes statutory rape.  More 37
Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides that the death penalty shall be imposed "when the vi
child below seven (7) years old." 38

In this case, "AAA" was only six years old at the time of the incident, as evidenced by her Certificate of Live Birth  sho
39

she was born on September 7, 2000. Consequently, the crime committed by appellant is qualifiedstatutoryrape und
266-B. Since the death penalty cannot be imposed in view of Republic Act No. 9346, or An Act Prohibiting the Imposi
Death Penalty in the Philippines, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.40

We likewise modify the amounts awarded to "AAA" in view of our ruling in People v. Gaa  imposing a minimum amou
41

₱100,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱100,000.00 as moral damages, and ₱100,000.00 as exemplary damages "in cases
proper penalty for the crime committed by accused is death but where it cannot be imposed because of the enactmen
9346," as in this case.

Thus we increase the award of civil indemnity from ₱75,000.00 to ₱100,000.00; moral damages from ₱75,000.00 to
₱100,000.00; and exemplary damages from ₱50,000.00 to ₱100,000.00. Moreover, "a legal interest of 6% per annum
imposed on the total amount of damages awarded to "AAA" counted from the date of the finality of this judgment until

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision dated October 30, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in
CR-HC No. 05176 convicting appellant Richard Ramirez y Tulunghari is AFFIRMEDwiththefollowingMODIFICATIO

(a) appellant is found GUILTY of QUALIFIED STATUTORY RAPE in Criminal Case No. 07-0589, and
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole;

(b) the amounts of the civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages in Criminal Case No.
are increased to ₱100,000.00, respectively; and,

(c) appellant is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. 07-0

SO ORDERED.

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

(On Leave)
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Chief Justice

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO NOEL GIMENEZ TIJAM

Associate Justice Associate Justice
ALEXANDER G. GESMUNDO
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decisionhad been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the opinion of the Court’s Division.

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to the Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the
in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of t
Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Acting Chief Justice 43

Footnotes

*
On leave.

**
 Per Special Order No. 2540 dated February 28, 2018

 Designated as additional member per Ocrober 18, 2017 raffle vice J. Jardeleza who recused due to
***

as Solicitor General.

 Rollo, pp. 2-10; penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. and concurred in by Associate J
1

Magdangal M. De Leon and Stephen C. Cruz.

2
 CA rollo, pp. 82-89; penned by Presiding Judge Gloria Butay Aglugub.

3
 "The identity of the victim or any information which could establish or compromise her identity, as we
of her immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. 7610,
Providing for Stronger Deterrence And Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation And Disc
Providing Penalties for its Violation. And for Other Purposes; Republic Act No. 9262, An Act Defining
Against Women And Their Children, Providing For Protective Measures For Victims, Prescribing Pena
Therefor, And for Other Purposes; and Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-1 l-SC, known as the Rule on Vi
against Women and Their Children, effective November 15, 2004." People v. Dumadag, 667 Phil. 664
(2011).

4
 Information dated June 14, 2007, records, p. 1.

5
 Information dated March 20, 2007, id. at 64.

6
 id. at 21 and 86.

7
 CA rollo, 109-110.

8
 Id. at 68.

9
 Id. at 89.

10
 Id. at 86-87.

11
 ld. at 88.

 Id. at 89. In the dispositive portion of the RTC’s Decision. Crim. Case No. 07-0589 was inadvertently
12

Crim. Case No. 07-0585.

13
 Rollo, p. 8.

14
 Id. at 9.

15
 Id.

16
 CA rollo, p. 69.

17
 Id. at 74.

18
 Id. at 75-76.

19
 People v. Gaa, G.R. No. 212934, June 7, 2017.
  Id.
20

 Id.
21

 See "AA.A’s" Certificate of Live Birth, records, p. 12.

22

 TSN, August 12, 2008, pp. 10-11.

23

 Id. at 14.
24

 People v. Espino, Jr., 577 Phil. 546, 562 (2008).

25

 People v. Bangsoy, 778 Phil. 294, 303 (2016)

26

 Id.
27

 Id. at 304.
28

 Records, p. 11; prepared by PSI Marianne S. Ebdane, M.D.

29

 People v. Kamad, 624 Phil, 289, 310 (2010)

30

 TSN, December 9, 2008, pp. 8-10.

31

 Republic v. Galena, G.R. No. 215009, January 23, 2017. Italics supplied.

32

 385 Phil. 499 (2000).

33

 ld. at 513.
34

 CA rollo, p. 89.
35

 Also erroneously stated as Crim. Case No. 07-0585.

36

 People v. Gaa, supra note 19.

37

 REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 266-8, par. 5.

38

 Records, p. 12.
39

 People v. Gaa, supra note 19.

40

 Id.
41

 2 Id.
42

 Per Special Order No. 2539 dated February 28, 2018.

43

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

 THIRD DIVISION

September 20, 2017

G.R. No. 214762

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee

vs.
ROMMEL RONQUILLO, Accused-Appellant

DECISION

MARTIRES, J.:

"I don't even know her" is the usual excuse of a rapist who expects a reprieve from conviction, as if
knowing the victim is a precondition to carnal desire. And while abhorrent in all instances, lust
manifested through rape is especially reprehensible when committed against a child. Thus, our law
on statutory rape demands only the requisite proof of the victim's age and of carnal knowledge with
the accused to sustain his conviction.

For review is the Decision  dated 11 November 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-
1

H.C. No. 05077 affirming the Decision  dated 23 November 2010 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
2

of Angeles City, Branch 60, in Criminal Case No. 01-817, finding accused-appellant Rommel
Ronquillo guilty of statutory rape under Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal
Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8353.

Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence,  the real name and identity of the victim in this case is
3

withheld and fictitious initials are used to represent her. In this regard, the rape victim is referred to
as "AAA."

THE FACTS

On 15 November 2001, accused-appellant was charged with statutory rape before the RTC. The
accusatory portion of the Information reads:

That on or about the 4th day of October 2001, in the Municipality of x x x, Province of x x x
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused Rommel
Ronquillo, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with lewd design, by means of
force, threat and intimidation, have carnal knowledge with "C,"  eleven (11) years old, a minor, by
4

then and there inserting his penis into her vagina, against the latter's will and consent. 5

On 9 August 2002, accused-appellant was arraigned and he pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, trial
ensued with the prosecution presenting the testimonies of AAA and Dr. Stella Guerrero-Manalo (Dr.
Guerrero-Manalo) of the Child Protection Unit of the University of the Philippines-Philippine General
Hospital (UP-PGH) in Manila. The defense, on the other hand, presented the lone testimony of
accused-appellant.

Version of the Prosecution

On 3 October 2001, at about 5 :00 o'clock in the afternoon, AAA, then eleven (11) years old,
watched, with her friend Minia Antigo (Minia), an amateur singing contest held at the basketball court
of Barangay XXX. When AAA and Minia parted ways at around 12:00 o'clock midnight, AAA
proceeded to the house of her other friend, Jenny Sanchez (Jenny), as they had agreed that she
would spend the night at Jenny's house. While about to cross the road towards Jenny's house, AAA
noticed accused-appellant standing at a nearby waiting shed, fanning himself with a handkerchief
and looking at her. AAA was familiar with accused-appellant because the latter had chased her
several times, asking for her name, when AAA was still studying at an elementary school in her
barangay. Accused-appellant then approached AAA, telling her that he would accompany her. AAA
did not respond, prompting accused-appellant to follow her and ask where she was going. When
AAA did not reply, he asked if she wanted him to escort her on her way home. AAA refused the offer
and proceeded to Jenny's house. When she looked back at accused-appellant, she saw him return
to the waiting shed.

After reaching Jenny's house, AAA waited for an hour for Jenny to come out; but Jenny did not
awake, so she decided to head home. While walking home, she noticed that someone was following
her. When she looked back, a man poked a gun at her and pushed her against a wall. AAA fought
back and tried to wrestle the gun away from her attacker. She tried to shout, but the man choked
her. The man then cocked his gun and told her to calm down, follow him, or he would shoot her.
Afraid that the man would kill her, AAA told him that she would follow all his orders.

Thereafter, the attacker brought AAA to an isolated place and pressed her against a wall. The man
then told her to remove her shorts and panty and to raise her blouse up to her head so that she
would not be able to see him. Then he started kissing AAA all over her body and then told her to lie
down. He parted her thighs, inserted his penis into her vagina, and made push and pull movements.
AAA felt intense pain and cried. While she was being raped, AAA' s hands were tucked inside her
shirt which was raised over her head to prevent her from recognizing the rapist. Her attacker, on the
other hand, had covered his face with a red hankerchief.

Shortly, the man let AAA up and told her to get dressed. While the man himself was getting dressed,
AAA noticed that the maong pants he was wearing were the same pants she saw worn by accused-
appellant at the waiting shed earlier. She also recognized accused-appellant as her attacker when
the red handkerchief covering his face fell off. AAA then rushed home and related the rape incident
to her parents, who immediately reported it to the authorities.

On 5 October 2001, AAA was brought to the UP-PGH Child Protection Unit for medical examination.
Dr. Guerrero-Manalo then issued a Provisional Medico-Legal Report, which showed that "physical
findings of genital area are definitive for recent penetrating injury."
6

Dr. Guerrero-Manalo testified that she observed some fresh lacerations on AAA' s external genitalia
which could have been inflicted within twenty-four (24) to seventy-two (72) hours prior to her
examination. Further, she said she also found fresh lacerations at 6 o'clock position on AAA's
hymen, consistent with a recent penetration injury caused by a pointed object or a penis. 7

Version of the Defense

Accused-appellant claimed that on 3 October 2001, he attended a barrio fiesta at Barangay XXX,
with six (6) friends. He and his friends sang at a videoke in a carnival and later watched an amateur
singing contest at the basketball court. In both instances, accused-appellant saw AAA for short
periods.  However, he claimed not to have known her name until the time he was charged in court.
8 9

The RTC Ruling

In its 23 November 2010 Decision,  the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable
10

doubt of the crime of statutory rape. Accordingly, the trial court sentenced him to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity and another ₱75,000.00 as
moral damages. 11

The RTC held that AAA gave a detailed and credible narration of the incident, which positively
identified the accused-appellant as the perpetrator and sufficiently established that the crime of rape
was committed against her. The RTC further ruled that this prevails over the bare denial of accused-
appellant. It also gave credence to the medical findings of Dr. Guerrero-Manalo, which confirmed
that AAA was physically and sexually violated.

Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed before the CA.

The CA Ruling

In its 11 November 2013 Decision,  the CA affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellant with
12

modification as to the award of damages. It reduced the amount of civil indemnity and moral
damages to ₱50,000.00, but it ordered the additional award of ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages,
as well as the imposition of interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) from the date of finality of the
decision until fully paid.  The CA held that accused-appellant did not present any evidence to
13
substantiate his alibi and thus his defense of denial and alibi rests on shaky grounds, in stark
contrast to the detailed declarations of AAA. It further held that there is sufficient foundation to
conclude the existence of carnal knowledge since the victim's testimony is corroborated by the
physician's finding of penetration.

Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE

The essential issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not the accused-appellant's conviction
should be upheld.

THE COURT'S RULING

The Court finds no reason to deviate from the findings and conclusions of the RTC, as affirmed by
the CA. However, the amount of damages awarded should be modified, consistent with prevailing
jurisprudence.

The prosecution was able to prove

beyond reasonable doubt the existence
of all the elements of statutory rape.

The elements necessary in every prosecution for statutory rape are: (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 or grave abuse of authority. It is enough that the age of the
victim is proven and that there was sexual intercourse. 14

In People v. Arpon,  citing People v. Macafe,  the Court explained that consent is immaterial, and
15 16

force and intimidation are not necessary in every prosecution for statutory rape, viz:

Rape under paragraph 3 of [Article 335] is termed statutory rape as it departs from the usual modes
of committing rape. What the law punishes in statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a woman
below twelve years old. Hence, force and intimidation are immaterial; the only subject of
inquiry is the age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge took place. The law presumes
that the victim does not and cannot have a will of her own on account of her tender years; the
child's consent is immaterial because of her presumed incapacity to discern evil from
good.  (emphasis in the original and underlining supplied)
17

The requisite elements were proven in the present case. As to the first element, AAA' s age at the
time of the commission of the offense is uncontroverted. Her birth certificate, which was duly
presented and offered in evidence, shows that she was born on 9 November 1989.  Thus, AAA was
18

only 11 years and 11 months old at the time she was raped.

Accordingly, this Court only needs to contend with the sufficient establishment of the second
element-that is, whether accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of the victim.

Carnal knowledge was proven

through AAA 's categorical testimony,
corroborated by medical findings.

AAA rendered a detailed narration of her ordeal. As found by the RTC and affirmed by the CA, she
recounted, in a steadfast and unequivocal manner,  the circumstances clearly showing that
19

accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of her: (1) she was followed by a man while she was
walking home from her frietjd's house; (2) the man thereafter pointed a gun at her and told her that
he would shoot her if she did not follow his orders; (3) she agreed to follow his orders out of fear for
her life; (4) she was taken to an isolated place, where she was ordered to remove her clothing and to
cover her face with her blouse to conceal the assailant's face from her view; and (5) she felt her
thighs being parted, where the assailant then inserted his penis into her vagina, causing her intense
pain. AAA also positively identified accused-appellant as her assailant by recounting that after the
commission of the rape, she noticed that her attacker was wearing the same maong pants that
accused-appellant wore when she saw him earlier. She further confirmed his identity when the
handkerchief he used to cover his face fell off, giving AAA a clearer glimpse of his face. 20
AAA' s testimony is sufficient to convict accused-appellant of statutory rape. The nature of the crime
of rape often entails reliance on the lone, uncorroborated testimony of the victim, which is sufficient
for a conviction, provided that such testimony is clear, convincing, and otherwise consistent with
human nature. 21

The trial court found AAA's testimony to be detailed, credible, and unwavering. Jurisprudence is
22

replete with cases where the Court ruled that "questions on the credibility of witnesses should best
be addressed to the trial court because of its unique position to observe that elusive and
incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying which is denied
to the appellate courts. x x x The rule is even more stringently applied if the appellate court has
concurred with the trial court."  Here, both the RTC and the CA found AAA's testimony to be credible
23

and convincing.

Nevertheless, the trial court's conviction resulted not only from AAA's testimony but was also based
on the corroborative testimony of Dr. Guerrero-Manalo, who examined AAA after the commission of
the rape. AAA's testimony relative to the sexual assault against her is consistent with Dr. Guerrero-
Manalo's medical report and testimony that AAA's genitalia had some fresh lacerations which could
have been inflicted by the penetration of a pointed object or a penis within twenty-four (24) to
seventytwo (72) hours prior to examination.  Considering that it is undisputed that the incident
24

happened on 3 October 2001 and the medical examination upon AAA was conducted on 5 October
2001, the fresh lacerations found, indicating penetration within the last 24 to 72 hours, were
consistent with her testimony that she was raped on the said date. There is thus greater reason to
believe the veracity of her statements, as to both the fact of rape and the identity of the assailant.

The Court has held that "hymenal lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best evidence of
forcible defloration. And when the consistent and forthright testimony of a rape victim is consistent
with medical findings, there is sufficient basis to warrant a conclusion that the essential requisites of
carnal knowledge have been established." 25

Accused-appellant attempts to cast aspersions on AAA's credibility and character by questioning her
decision to stay out late at night by herself.  Accused-appellant argues that no young Filipina would
1âwphi1

still be out alone on the streets in the middle of the night. He also questions AAA's failure to call out
to her friend Jenny upon reaching the latter's house but, instead, chose to remain outside and do
nothing.26

Accused-appellant's arguments are too flimsy to merit consideration. AAA' s alleged series of unwise
actuations on the night in question is an inconsequential matter that has no bearing on the elements
of the crime of statutory rape. The decisive factor in the prosecution of rape is whether its
commission has been sufficiently proven.  As previously discussed, the prosecution sufficiently
27

established that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA, who was only eleven (11) years
old at the time of commission.

Moreover, the Court has explained that the testimonies of young rape victims deserve full credence,
to wit:

This Court has held time and again that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature
deserve full credence, considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a
story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being
subject to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong
committed against her. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth. It is highly improbable
that a girl of tender years, one not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to any man a
crime so serious as rape if what she claims is not true.  (emphasis and underlining supplied)
28

Notably, accused-appellant did not even establish any ill motive that could have compelled private
complainant to falsely accuse him of rape.

Accused-appellant's defense
of denial and alibi are
inherently weak.

It is well-settled that denial is an "intrinsically weak defense which must be supported by strong
evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility."  Alibi, on the other hand, is the "weakest of all
29

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." 30

Accused-appellant was unable to establish any of the foregoing elements to substantiate his alibi.
He merely claimed that he could not have committed the offense because he was asleep at his
house, with his friends, at the time of the commission. This testimony is uncorroborated. For some
reason, he did not even present any of the six (6) friends who he claimed were with him at the time
of the incident in question. In contrast to AAA's direct, positive, and categorical testimony, accused-
appellant's testimony will not stand.

Based on the foregoing, it is clear that all the elements of statutory rape have been proven in the
instant case. The conviction of accusedappellant must be upheld.

Kinds and amount of damages

In rape cases where the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua to death, the Court generally
awards three kinds of damages: civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages. 31

Civil indemnity proceeds from Article 100 of the RPC, which states that "every person criminally
liable is also civilly liable." Its award is mandatory upon a finding that rape has taken place.

Moral damages are awarded to "compensate one for manifold injuries such as physical suffering,
mental anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, and social humiliation.
These damages must be understood to be in the concept of grants, not punitive or corrective in
nature, calculated to compensate the claimant for the injury suffered."  In rape cases, once the fact
32

of rape is duly established, moral damages are awarded to the victim without need of proof, in
recognition that the victim necessarily suffered moral injuries from her ordeal. 33

Finally, exemplary damages may be awarded against a person to punish him for his outrageous
conduct. It serves to deter the wrongdoer and others like him from similar conduct in the future. The
award of this kind of damages in criminal cases stems from Articles 2229  and 2230  of the Civil
34 35

Code. While Article 2230 provides that they may be imposed when the crime was committed with
one or more aggravating circumstances, the Court has held that being corrective in nature,
exemplary damages can be awarded not only in the presence of aggravating circumstances but also
where the circumstances of the case show the highly reprehensible conduct of the offender. In a
number of cases, the Court awarded exemplary damages to set a public example, to serve as
deterrent to elders who abuse and corrupt the youth, and to protect the latter from sexual abuse. 36

In People v. Jugueta,  the Court addressed in detail the award of damages in criminal cases where
37

the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua to death. It held that "when the circumstances
surrounding the crime call for the imposition of reclusion perpetua only, there being no ordinary
aggravating circumstance, the Court rules that the proper amounts should be ₱75,000.00 as civil
indemnity, ₱75,000.00 as moral damages, and ₱75,000.00 exemplary damages."

Thus, the Court increases the award of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to
₱75,000.00. In line with current policy,  the Court also imposes interest at the legal rate of six
38

percent (6%) per annum on all monetary awards for damages, from date of finality of this Decision
until fully paid.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The 11 November 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05077 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION as to the amount of damages.
Accused-appellant Rommel Ronquillo is GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of
STATUTORY RAPE as defined in Article266-A and penalized in Article 266-B of the Revised Penal
Code. Appellant is ordered to pay AAA the following amounts: civil indemnity of ₱75,000.00, moral
damages of ₱75,000.00, and exemplary damages of ₱75,000.00. All monetary awards for damages
shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this Decision
until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.

SAMUEL R. MARTIRES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice
Chairperson

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN

Associate Justice Associate Justice

(On Official Leave)

ALEXANDER G. GESMUNDO *

Associate Justice

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.

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to the 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.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Acting Chief Justice

Footnotes

*
 On Official Leave.

1
 Rollo, pp. 2-18; penned by Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, and concurred
in by Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier.

2
 Records, pp. 407-422.

3
 People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 (2006).

 While the Information refers to the minor using the initial "C,'' this decision designates said
4

minor as "AAA" consistent with prevailing jurisprudence.

5
 Records, p. 2.

6
 Rollo, pp. 6-7; records, p.19.

7
 Id.

8
 Records, pp. 412-413.

9
 Id. at 413.

10
 Id. at 407-422.

11
 Id. at 422.
  Rollo, pp. 2-18.
12

 Id. at 17-18.
13

 People v. Deliola, G.R. No. 200157, 31 August 2016.

14

 678 Phil. 752 (2011).

15

 650 Phil. 580, 588 (2010).

16

 People v. Arpon, supra note 15 at 773.

17

 Records, p. 236.
18

 Rollo, p. 10.
19

 Id. at 5.
20

 People v. Olimba, 645 Phil. 468, 480 (2010).

21

 Records, p. 41 9.
22

 People v. Barcela, 734 Phil. 332, 342-343 (2014).

23

 Rollo, p. 7.
24

 People v. Sabal, 734 Phil. 742, 746 (2014), citing People v. Perez 595 Phil. 1232, 1258
25

(2008).

 CA rollo, p. 55.
26

 People v. Deliola, supra note 14.

27

 People v. Closa, 740 Phil. 777, 785 (2014), citing People v. Pangilinan, 547 Phil. 260, 285-
28

286 (2007).

 People v. Deliola, supra note 14.

29

 Id.
30

 People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, 5 April 2016, 788 SCRA 331, 357.
31

 Id., citing Del Mundo v. CA, 310 Phil. 367, 376 (1995).

32

 People v. Delabajan, 685 Phil. 236, 245 (2012).

33

 ART. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or

34

correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or
compensatory damages.

 ART. 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be
35

imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Such
damages are separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended party.

 People v. Veloso, 703 Phil. 541, 556 (2013).

36

 Supra note 31 at 373.
37

 People v. Dion, 668 Phil. 333 (2011 ).

38
 THIRD DIVISION

September 6, 2017

G.R. No. 208625

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
RAMON FRANCIA y NAVALTA, Accused-appellant

DECISION

LEONEN, J.:

No amount, especially not the ₱50.00 paid by the accused for sexually abusing his 11 -year-old
victim, will ever compensate for her trauma. The depravity of a grown man in taking advantage of a
child's trust and innocence and her family's poverty to repeatedly rape her rightfully deserves
condemnation and the most severe punishment that can be meted out under the law.

This Court is asked to review the February 22, 2013 Decision  of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
1

CR-HC No. 03929. This Decision affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant Ramon Francica
(Francica) for three (3) counts of statutory rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, in relation to Republic Act No. 7610, and imposed the
penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape. 2

This Court restates the facts as found by the lower courts.

On February 3, 2005, in Criminal Case No. 05-1287-FC-H, an Information  was filed against
3

Francica before Branch 209, Regional Trial Court, Mandaluyong City. This Information read:

That on or about the 2nd day of February 2005, in the city of Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place
within the jurisdiction of [this Honorable Court,] the above-named accused, being the neighbor of the
victim, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with [AAA], a
girl eleven (11) years of age, by then and there inserting his private part into [the] latter's vagina, all
against the latter's will, which acts [sic] debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity
of the victim (a child) as a human being.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 4

When arraigned,  Francica pleaded not guilty to the crime charged against him.
5

On September 20, 2005, in Criminal Case Nos. MCOS-1483-FC-H and MCOS-1484-FC-H, two (2)
additional Informations were also filed against Francica before Branch 209, Regional Trial Court,
Mandaluyong City. The second Information read:

That on or about the 19th day of January 2005, in the city of Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place
within the jurisdiction of [this Honorable Court,] the above-named accused, motivated by carnal lust
and by means of force, threat and intimidation, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
have carnal knowledge with [AAA], a girl eleven (11) years of age, a child within the meaning of R.A.
7610, by then and there inserting his private part into the latter's vagina, all against the latter's will,
which acts [sic] debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of the victim (a child)
as a human being.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 6

The third Infonnation read:

That sometime in the month of March 2004, in the City of Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place within
the jurisdiction [of this Honorable Court,] the above-named accused, motivated by carnal lust and by
means of force, threat and intimidation, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have
carnal knowledge with [AAA], a girl eleven (11) years of age, a child within the meaning of R.A.
7610, by then and there inserting his private part into the latter's vagina, all against the lattev's will,
which acts [sic] debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of the victim (a child)
as a human being.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 7

On October 26, 2005, the trial court ordered the consolidation of the three (3) charges of rape. 8

Francica also pleaded not guilty to the two (2) other charges of rape agamst him. 9

Trial on the merits ensued.

The prosecution presented the child victim, AAA, who was then 11 years old and a Grade 6 student
at a public school in Nueve de Pebrero in Mandaluyong City. 10

AAA testified that she lived with her parents and five (5) siblings in Mandaluyong City near Cardinal
Sin. AAA claimed that she knew Francica because he was their neighbor. 11

AAA testified that Francica was a good person because he would sometimes give her money
whenever he touched her.  When asked how Francica touched her, AAA answered that he licked
12

her breasts and inserted his penis into her vagina.13

She claimed that Francica started touching her sometime in March 2004 and that this went on many
times. He would sometimes even give her ₱50.00 after touching her. 14

The next prosecution witness was BBB, AAA's grandmother. BBB testified that AAA lived on the
ground floor of her house in Nueve de Pebrero while she lived on the second floor. BBB claimed to
know Francica because he had been her neighbor for many years. 15

BBB testified that she had two (2) bathrooms at the back of her house.  In the afternoon of February
16

2, 2005, she was using one (1) of them when she heard a voice say, "May tao. Si Mamang yata yun"
from inside the other lavatory.  When she went out, she saw someone run out of the other
17

bathroom. She quickly looked inside the washroom and saw AAA. She ran after the other person
and when he looked backed, she recognized him as Francica. 18

She was unable to catch Francica and when she returned to her house, she saw her other
grandchild, CCC, talking with AAA. CCC was outside the bathrooms when the commotion happened
and CCC told BBB that she saw AAA pulling up her underwear inside the lavatory after Francica ran
out.
19

BBB claimed that she had heard rumors that Francica and AAA regularly had sexual intercourse and
that she had confronted AAA about this before, but AAA never confirmed these rumors. 20

After she saw AAA and Francica inside the bathroom, BBB told Josephine, AAA's aunt, about what
happened. AAA and Josephine then went to the barangay hall to report the incident. 21

BBB testified that she was summoned to the barangay hall later that afternoon to confront Francica.
She claimed that Francica admitted the accusation against him, for which he was mauled inside the
barangay hall.  After the barangay investigation, BBB and AAA went to the police station to execute
22

their respective affidavits.

23

BBB testified that AAA's family was very poor and that AAA's mother could not look after her children
because she had a gambling problem. BBB admitted that she would prefer that AAA be placed
under the custody of the Department of Social Welfare and Development because she was already
overtaxed with looking after and providing for several other grandchildren and could no longer take
care of AAA. 24

The third prosecution witness was Carlos C. Gojo (Gojo), a member of Task Force Anti-Vice. He
testified that after BBB reported AAA's rape, Task Force Anti-Vice teamed up with Bantay Bayan of
Addition Hills that same day to arrest Francica. The two (2) groups went to Francica's house where
they found and arrested him. Gojo attested that Francica was informed of his constitutional rights to
be silent and be represented by a lawyer during his arrest.25
Gojo admitted that they had no warrant of arrest when they arrested Francica since they relied on
the complaint lodged against Francica. 26

Both parties agreed to stipulate  on the testimony of POI Jocelyn Samson, who investigated the
27

case and endorsed the complaint against Francica to the Office of the City Prosecutor.

The trial court then ruled that the prosecution waived its right to present as its witness medico-legal
PSI Pierre Paul Carpio, M.D. (PSI Carpio), who examined AAA, because of his repeated failure to
attend the hearings. 28

The last prosecution witness was Court Social Worker Leonor Laureles (Laureles), who conducted
the Social Case Study Report  on AAA upon the trial court's directive.  Laureles testified that she
29 30

interviewed AAA, who opened up about the abuse she underwent because of Francica.  Laureles31

also averred that she had recommended that AAA be referred to an institution as she was neglected
by her parents. 32

Francica was the only witness for the defense and he denied that he ever had sexual intercourse
with AAA. He claimed that he was only set up by AAA's family after he found out from Nora, AAA's
other aunt, that AAA had a relationship with her uncle. Francica stated that he told AAA's parents
about her relationship with her uncle, but they ignored him. Francica further claimed that he was
made a scapegoat after he revealed AAA's relationship with her uncle. 33

Francica did not deny being inside the bathroom with AAA, but he claimed that it was a common
facility and that he was urinating when AAA went inside to wait for her tum to use the toilet. It was at
this point when AAA's cousin and BBB saw them inside the lavatory. 34

On March 3, 2009, the trial court rendered judgment  finding Francica guilty of three (3) counts of
35

statutory rape and meting out the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count. 36

The trial court ruled that all the elements of statutory rape were established with AAA's credible and
candid testimony, corroborated by BBB's testimony. 37

The trial court also held that it was immaterial that the prosecution failed to present the testimony of
medico-legal PSI Carpio, since "a medical examination is not indispensable to the prosecution of
rape as long as the evidence on hand convinces the court that conviction for rape is proper." 38

The dispositive portion of the trial court's decision read:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds the accused RAMON FRANCICA y NAVALTA
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of Statutory Rape and he is hereby sentenced
to suffer the penalty of three (3) reclusion perpetua to be served successively. The accused is
further ordered to pay the victim, for each count of rape, the amount of ₱50,000.00 as civil
indemnity, ₱25,000.00 as exemplary damages, and ₱50,000.00 as moral damages.

COSTS against the accused.

SO ORDERED. 39

Francica filed a Notice of Appeal.  In his appeal,  he claimed that the prosecution's failure to present
40 41

medico-legal PSI Carpio was fatal to the prosecution's case because there were matters that should
be clarified by the examining physician. 42

On February 22, 2013, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision  affirming Francica's conviction.
43

The Court of Appeals held that AAA's Sinumpaang Salaysay and her testimony in court were
consistent in showing that she repeatedly had sexual intercourse with Francica, sometimes in
exchange for ₱50.00. 44

In upholding the trial court's assessment on the credibility of the witnesses, the Court of Appeals
stated that "the trial judge enjoys the peculiar advantage of observing firsthand the deportment of
witnesses while
testifying, and is, therefore, in a better position to form accurate impressions and conclusions." 45

The Court of Appeals emphasized that a conviction for rape based on the sole testimony of the
victim is possible, as long as the victim's testimony is competent and credible. 46

Finally, the Court of Appeals asserted that a medical examination of a rape victim is not
indispensable to the prosecution of a rape case, as it is merely corroborative in nature. 47

The fallo of the Court of Appeals Decision read:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision of the
court a quo dated 3 March 2009 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.  (Emphasis in the original)

48

On March 21, 2013, Francica filed a Notice of Appeal  with the Court of Appeals, which was given
49

due course in the Resolution  dated April 23, 2013. Hence, this appeal was instituted.
50

In the Resolution  dated October 23, 2013, this Court notified the parties that they may file their
51

respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired. However, both parties manifested  that they were
52

dispensing with the filing of their supplemental briefs.

In his appellant's brief:  Francica denies the accusations of rape against him and insists that he was
53

merely made a fall guy to cover up AAA's sexual relationship with her uncle. 54

Francica also claims that the lower courts erred in declaring that the prosecution's failure to present
the medico-legal officer was not fatal to the case since it affects the reliability of AAA's allegations. 55

Francica points out that the alleged rape on February 2, 2005 happened at 1:30 p.m. and AAA was
examined that same day at 5:53 p.m.  However, the initial medico-legal report submitted by PSI
56

Carpio showed shallow healed lacerations at 3:00 and 9:00 positions.  Francica maintains that if
57

AAA was indeed raped that afternoon, the lacerations should either be fresh bleeding laceration or
"fresh healing with fibrin formation and with edema of the surrounding tissue"  and not healed
58

lacerations as stated in the medico-legal report.

Francica likewise asserts that not all lacerations in the vagina are caused by sexual acts because
normal activities like jumping and running can also lead to lacerations or injury. He opines that the
initial medico-legal report failed to describe the degree and location of the laceration, thereby
creating doubt that the laceration was indeed caused by a sexual act. 59

On the other hand, the prosecution emphasizes that given the nature of rape cases, conviction
usually rests on the sole testimony of the victim.  The prosecution contends that AAA's credibility as
60

a witness survived strict scrutiny since she was credible and straightforward during her testimony.
She positively identified Francica and testified with specificity what transpires between them. 61

The prosecution underscores that jurisprudence is consistent that when a child victim says that she
has been raped, her testimony should be given full weight and credence. 62

Finally, the prosecution contends that the filing of a healed laceration instead of a fresh bleeding or
fresh healing laceration is irrelevant, as this Court ruled in People v. Espino  that full penile
63

penetration of the vagma is not an element of rape. 64

The only issue to be resolved by this Court is whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that accused-appellant was guilty of statutory rape as defined under Article 266-A(l
)(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353,  in relation to Republic Act
65

No. 7610. 66

This Court affirms Francica's conviction.

I
This Court notes that in the Information  dated February 3, 2005, Francica was charged with rape
67

under Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, in relation
to Republic Act No. 7610, while he was charged with rape under Article 266-A(l) under the two (2)
other Informations. 68

Rape is defined in Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code 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 ofthe 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.

For a charge of rape under Article 266-A(l) to prosper, it must be proven that "(1) the offender had
carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) he accomplished such act through force or intimidation, or
when she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she was under 12 years of age
or was demented." 69

On the other hand, rape under Article 266-A(2) is described in Ricalde v. People  as "'instrument or
70

object rape,' 'gender-free rape,' or 'homosexual rape.' The gravamen of rape through sexual assault
is 'the insertion of the penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object,
into another person's genital or anal orifice."' 71

Francica was charged with rape under Article 266-A(2) in the Information dated February 3, 2005,
yet even a cursory reading of this Information shows that the allegations and the acts or omissions
complained of pertain to rape under Article 266-A(l)(d) or carnal knowledge of a girl below 12 years
of age:

That on or about the 2nd day of February 2005, in the city of Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place
within the jurisdiction of [this Honorable Court,] the above-named accused, being the neighbor of the
victim, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with [AAA], a
girl eleven (11) years of age, by then and there inserting his private part into [the] latter s vagina, all
against the latter's will, which acts [sic] debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity
of the victim (a child) as a human being.  (Emphasis supplied)
72

It is well-established that the nature of a criminal charge is determined "by the recital of the ultimate
facts and circumstances in the complaint or information"  and not by the caption of the information or
73

the provision of the law claimed to have been violated.  Thus, the lower courts did not err in treating
74

and trying all charges against Francica as rape through carnal knowledge under Article 266-A(1)(d).

II

Rape under Article 266-A(l)(d) is also called statutory rape as "it departs from the usual modes of
committing rape."  The child victim's consent in statutory rape is immaterial because the law
75

presumes that her young age makes her incapable of discerning good from evil.  People v.
76

Gutierez  explained the elements of statutory rape:

77

Statutory rape is committed when (1) the offended party is under 12 years of age and (2) the
accused has carnal knowledge of her, regardless of whether there was force, threat or intimidation;
whether the victim was deprived of reason or consciousness; or whether it was done through fraud
or grave abuse of authority. It is enough that the age of the victim is proven and that there was
sexual intercourse. 78

The defense did not dispute the fact that AAA was 11 years old at the time of the incidents. Her birth
certificate  was presented into evidence before the trial court and was not questioned by the
79

defense. What only needs to be proven, therefore, is whether AAA and Francica had sexual
intercourse.

AAA testified as follows:

Q [FISCAL TRONCO]: Kilala mo ba iyong akusado sa kasong ito si

Ramon Fran[c]ica?

A: Opo.

Q: Bakit mo siya kilala?

A: Kapit-bahay po namin.

....

Q: Mabait ba siya sa 'yo?

A: (Witness nodded in the positive).

....

Q: Bakit sinabi mo mabait siya sa 'yo?

A: Kasi po binibigyan niya ako ng pera.

Q: Palagi ka ba niyang binibigyan ng pera?

A: Minsan lang po.

Q: Ito bang perang binibigay niya sa 'yo may kapalit?

A: Opo.

Q: Ano ang kapalit noon?

A: No answer.

Q: Naiintindihan mo ba iyong tanong o gusto mong ibahin? Bakit ka niya binibigyan ng pera?

A: Ginagalaw niya po ako.

Q: Binibigyan ka ba niya ng pera dahil ginagalaw ka niya?

A: Opo.

Q: Magkano ang binibigay niya sa 'yo?

A: ₱50.00 po.

Q: Sa natatandaan mo, ilang beses ka na niyang ginagalaw at binibigyan ng pera.

A: Marami na po.
Q: Alam mo ba kung kailan nagsimula iyon? Alam mo ba na kailangan mo dito na magsabi ng
katotohanan lamang at bawal magsinungaling?

A: Opo.

Q: So, yung sinasabi mo ngayon totoo yan lahat?

A: Opo.

Q: Kailan nga nagsimula yung paggalaw niya sa 'yo?

A: Mga March 2004 po.

Q: 'Pag sinabi mong "ginalaw ka niya'' ano ang ginalaw niya sa 'yo?

A: Dede ko po at ari kop o [sic].

Q: Paano niya ginagalaw yung dede mo?

A: Dinidilaan po niya.

Q: Eh yung ari mo paano naman niya ginagalaw?

A: Pinapasok po niya yung ari niya 88

AAA's testimony is consistent with her Sinumpaang Salaysay:  81

T: Bakit ka na ririto [sic] sa amin[g] opisina?

S: Para po sabihin yung ginawa sa akin ni Amon (victim refer[r]ing to suspect identified as one
Ramon Francisca) [sic]

T: Ano ba ang ginawa sa iyo ni Amon?

S: Dinidilaan niya po yung dede ko po at yung ari po nya ay pinapasok niya sa pepe ko.

T: Kailan nangyari ang insidente?

S: Kanina lang po, mga 1 :30 po sa banyo po.

T: May sinabi ka sa akin kanina na matagal nya nang gin[a]gawa sa iyo ito. Naaalala mo pa ba kung
kailan nag sinmula [sic]?

S: Opo. Noon pong March 2004 po.

T: Sabihin mo nga sa akin kung paano nagsimula ang insedente?

S: Nandoon po ako sa Bulatao (Bulatao Compound) at naglalaro, lumapit siya (Ramon Francisca)
[sic] sa akin at sinabi niya na punta ka na <loon sa banyo. Nagpunta naman po ako[,] tapos po ay
pinapasok nya ako sa loob ng banyo at pumasok din sya. Tapos po ay dinilaan nya ako sa dede ko
tapos po yung ari nya ay ipinasok nya sa pepe ko. Umiyak po ako sa sobrang sakit. Nang matapos
po ay binigyan nya ako ng pera. Tapos po ay naging madalas na po.

T: Magkano naman ang ibinigay nyang pera sa iyo?

S: Fifty pesos (50.00Php) po.

T: Kailan naman yung mga sumunod na insedente.

S: Yung iba po ay hindi ko na matandaan pero noong January 19[,] 2005 ng gabi ay tinawag nya uli
ako at pinapunta nya sa bahay nya at ginawa nya uli yung ginagawa nya sa akin.
T: Hindi ka ba nag sumbong sa magulang mo?

S: [N]agsumbong po ako sa mama ko pero hindi po sya naniniwala sa Akin

T: Yung insedente kanina, maari mo bang sabihin sa akin?

S: Kanina naman po ay nasa Bulatao uli ako at naglalaro tinawag nya po ako pinapunta nya ako sa
banyo at dinilaan nya ang dede ko at pinasok ang ari nya sa pepe.   (Emphasis in the original)
82

As shown by her testimony, AAA was able to narrate in a straightforward and categorical manner
what transpired between her and Francica. In a long line of cases,   this Court has given full weight
83

and credence to the testimony of child victims, holding that their "[y ]outh and immaturity are
generally badges of truth and sincerity."  Compared to AAA's candid and categorical testimony,
84

Francica's defense of denial must fail. Imbo v. People  emphasized that the selfserving defense of
85

denial falters against the "positive identification by, and straightforward narration of the victim."  This
86

Court has likewise repeatedly held that the lone yet credible testimony of the offended party is
sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. 87

Francica's defense that he was merely set up to become the fall guy so that AAA's family can hide
her sexual relationship with her uncle is not worthy of belief. Additionally, Francica's expose is
primarily hearsay in character since it was supposedly relayed to him by AAA's aunt Nora, who was
not presented as a witness before the trial court to corroborate his testimony. Thus, this Court
concurs with the trial court when it held that "[t]he 'secret' is too specious a motive for one to file not
only one but three serious charges of rape against the accused." 88

BBB also corroborated AAA's testimony on the sexual abuse committed on February 2, 2005:

Q: What did you see inside the bathroom which is being done to your granddaughter, Madam
Witness?

A: When I was inside the bathroom which is just beside the other room, I heard noise inside that
bathroom.  I don't know whose [sic] inside. My other grandchild who was about to throw or dispose
1âwphi1

something at that time [was] standing at that time, and when I went out [of] the bathroom that was
also the time that someone who was inside the other bathroom also went out, ma'am.

Q: What did you see when you got out of the bathroom?

A: When I went out of the bathroom that was the time that the person went out of the bathroom and
that person who went out of the bathroom ran but I saw my grandchild inside the bathroom and then
I ran after the person who ran and then when we were running looked back and then I saw the
person's face, and then I uttered, "Walang hiya ka ikaw pala!"

Q: What did you exactly see your grandchild doing at that particular time, Madam Witness?

A: She was standing but when I asked my other grandchild who was outside at that time what my
grandchild saw, she told me that she was pulling up her underwear, ma'am.

Q: Just for clarification, Madam Witness, the grandchild that you saw inside the bathroom, are you
referring to the victim in this case?

A: Yes, Ma'am. Her name is [AAA]. 89

The trial court found AAA's testimony to be worth believing, being both positive and credible, thus:

(AAA] is a credible witness. She has not obtained enough experience and maturity to concoct such a
story of rape. Her testimony, considering her very young age, was straightforward and candid. Thus,
it is sufficient to convict the accused. 90

The Court of Appeals likewise found that "AAA made sensible, straightforward and categorical
answers to the substantial, relevant and material questions." 91
The rule is settled that the trial court's factual findings and evaluation of witnesses' credibility and
testimony should be entitled to great respect unless it is shown that the trial court may have
"overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied any fact or circumstance of weight and substance." 92

Francica's argument that the presence of healed hymenal lacerations belies AAA's accusation that
he sexually abused her on February 2, 2005 must fail in light of the fact that hymenal laceration is
not an element of rape. People v. Araojo  expounds on the evidentiary weight of a hymenal
93

laceration in a charge of rape:

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.  (Citations
94

omitted)

Despite the absence of the medico-legal officer as a witness, the presence of healed lacerations
corroborates AAA's testimony as it "is the best physical evidence of forcible defloration." 95

It is well-established that "[p ]hysical evidence is evidence of the highest order. It speaks more
eloquently than a hundred witnesses."  The physical evidence of the healed lacerations in AAA's
96

vagina strongly corroborates her testimony that she was sexually abused by Francica.

Beyond reasonable doubt, Francica took advantage of AAA's youth and naivete to repeated1y
sexually abuse her.

Article 266-B  of the Revised Penal Code provides that the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be
97

imposed in cases of rape stated in the first paragraph of Article 266-A where there are no
aggravating or qualifying circumstances present. This corresponds with Section 5(b) of Republic Act
No. 7610, which also provides for the penalty of reclusion perpetua if the rape victim is below 12
years old:

Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. -

....

(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in
prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the victim is under twelve (12)
years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and
Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as
the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve
(12) years of age

shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period[.] (Emphasis supplied)

The lower courts correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of statutory
rape. However, this Court increases the amount of civil indemnity of ₱50,000.00 to ₱75,000.00,
moral damages of ₱50,000.00 to ₱75,000.00, and exemplary damages of ₱25,000.00 to ₱75,000.00
pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence. 98

In addition, interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum

shall be imposed on all damages awarded from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid. 99

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated February 22, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC
No. 03929, finding accused-appellant Ramon Francica y Navalta guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
three (3) counts of statutory rape is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The accusedappellant is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of three (3) reclusion perpetua to be served successively and is
ordered to pay AAA, for each count of rape, the amount of ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity,
₱75,000.00 as moral damages, and ₱75,000.00 as exemplary damages.
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.

Costs against accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO JR.

Associate Justice
Chairperson

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN SAMUEL R. MARTIRES

Associate Justice Associate Justice

ALEXANDER G. GESMUNDO
Associate Justice

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.

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO JR.

Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to the 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.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Acting Chief Justice

Footnotes

 Rollo, pp. 2-11. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta and
1

concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Angelita A. Gacutan of the
Tenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.

2
 Id. at 10.

3
 RTC records, pp. 1-2.

4
 Id. at 1.

5
 Id. at 13.

6
 Id. at 49.

7
 d. at 58.
8
 Id. at 69.

9
 Id. at 71-72.

10
 TSN dated August 30, 2005, pp. 3-4, 6-7.

11
 Id. at 5-7.

12
 Id. at 7-9.

13
 Id. at 9-10.

14
 Id. at 9.

15
 Id. at 11-12.

16
 Id. at 23.

17
 Id. at 17.

18
 ld. at 13-17.

19
 Id. at 14-15.

20
 Id.atl7-18.

21
 Id. at 19.

22
 Id. at 20-21.

23
 Id. at 22; RTC records, pp. 4-5.

24
 Id. at 25-26.

25
 TSN dated August 9, 2006, pp. 3-6.

26
 Id. at 9.

27
 RTC records, pp. 221-222.

28
 Id. at 255-256.

29
 CA rollo, pp. 3 8-41.

30
 TSN dated August 6, 2008, pp. 4-5.

31
 Id. at 7-8.

32
 Id. at 12-15.

33
 TSN dated October 22, 2008, pp. 5-8 and TSN dated November I 9, 2008, p. 4.

34
 TSN dated November 19, 2008, pp. 8-9.

 RTC records, pp. 311-321. The Decision in Crim. Case Nos. MC05-l 287-FC and MCOS-
35

1483-4-FCH was penned by Presiding Judge Monique A. Quisumbing-Ignacio of Branch

209, Regional Trial Court, Mandaluyong City.

36
 Id. at 321.
  Id.at317-319.
37

 Id. at 319.
38

 Id. at 321.
39

 Id. at 324.
40

 CArollo, pp. 79-91.

41

 Id. at 87.
42

 Rollo, pp. 2-11.

43

 Id. at 7-9.
44

 Id. at 6.
45

 Id. at 9.
46

 Id. at 10.
47

 Id.
48

 CArollo, pp. 155-156.

49

 Id. at 161.
50

 Rollo, p. 17-17-A.
51

 Id. at 18-20 and 22-23.

52

 CA rollo, pp. 79-91.

53

 Id. at 84-85.
54

 Id. at 86-87.
55

 Id. at 88.
56

 Id. at 87.
57

 Id. at 88.
58

 Id. at 89.
59

 Id. at 122.
60

 Id. at 124-125.
61

 Id. at 126.
62

 Id. at 127-128.
63

 Id. at 128.
64

 Anti-Rape Law of 1997

65

 Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act 67 RTC
66

records, pp. 1-2.

  Id. at 49-50 and 58-59.
68

 People v. Dalan, 7 36 Phil. 298, 300(2014) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].

69

 75 l Phil. 793 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

70

 Id. at 804.
71

 RTC records, p. l.
72

 Piefago v. People, 706 Phil. 460, 470 (2013) [Per .J. Reyes. First Division]
73

 Id.atd.70.
74

 People v. Teodoro, 622 Phil. 328, 337 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
75

 Id. at 337.
76

 731 Phil. 352 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division]. 78 Id. at 357. 79 CA rollo, p. 42.
77

 TSN dated August 30, 2005, pp. 7-10.

80

 CA Rollo, p. 33. 82 Id.

81

 See Pielago v. People, 706 Phil. 460, 471(2013) [Per J. Reyes, First Division]; Campos v.

83

People, 569 Phil. 658, 671 (2008) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, Third Division], citing People v.
Capareda, 473 Phil. 301, 330 (2004) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division]; People v.
Galigao, 443 Phil. 246, 260 (2003) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, En Banc].

 People v. Oliva, 616 Phil. 786, 792 (2009) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division].
84

85
 G.R. No. 197712, April 20, 2015 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurifil2tudence/20l5/april2015/197712.pgf> [Per J. Perez, First Division].

 Id. at 5.
86

 Ricalde v. People, 751 Phil 793, 807 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division]; Garingarao
87

v. People, 669 Phil. 512, 522 (2011) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division]; People v. Tagaylo, 398
Phil. 1123, 1131-1132 (2000) [Per CJ Davide, Jr, First Division].

 CA rollo, p. 52.
88

 TSN dated August 30, 2005, pp. 13-15.

89

 CA rollo, p. 50.
90

 Rollo, p. 9.
91

 People v. De Jesus, 695 Phil. 114, 122 (2012) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
92

 616 Phil. 275 (2009) (Per J. Velasco, Third Division].

93

 Id. at 288.
94

 People v. Noveras, 550 Phil. 871, 887 (2007) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Third Division].
95

 Peoplev. Sacahin, 156 Phil 707, 713 (1974) [Per.T. Fernandez, Second Divisionl.
96

 REV. PEN. CODE, art. 266-8 provides: Article 266-B. Penalty. - Rape under paragraph 1 of
97

the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

  People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016 <
98

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/20l6/april2016/202124.pdf
> [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].

 Ricalde v. People, 751 Phil 793, 816 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
99