Legal Research People Vs Chingh GR No. 178323, Mar 16, 2011 CASE DIGEST 2011
Legal Research People Vs Chingh GR No. 178323, Mar 16, 2011 CASE DIGEST 2011
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
On March 19, 2005, an Information for Rape was filed against Armando
for inserting his fingers and afterwards his penis into the private part of
his minor victim, VVV,[2] the accusatory portion of which reads:
Contrary to law.[3]
Born on 16 September 1993, VVV was only 10 years old at the time of
the incident. On 11 March 2004 at around 8:00 p.m., along with five
other playmates, VVV proceeded to a store to buy food. While she was
beckoning the storekeeper, who was not then at her station, Armando
approached and pulled her hand and threatened not to shout for help or
talk. Armando brought her to a vacant lot at Tindalo Street, about 400
meters from the store. While in a standing position beside an unoccupied
passenger jeepney, Armando mashed her breast and inserted his right
hand index finger into her private part. Despite VVV's pleas for him to
stop, Armando unzipped his pants, lifted VVV and rammed his phallus
inside her vagina, causing her to feel excruciating pain.
Threatened with death if she would tell anyone what had happened,
VVV kept mum about her traumatic experience when she arrived home.
Noticing her odd and uneasy demeanor as well as her blood-stained
underwear, however, her father pressed her for an explanation. VVV
confessed to her father about her unfortunate experience. Immediately,
they reported the matter to the police authorities. After his arrest,
Armando was positively identified by VVV in a police line-up.
Armando denied that he raped VVV. Under his version, in (sic) the night
of 11 March 2004, he and his granddaughter were on their way to his
cousin's house at Payumo St., Tondo, Manila. As it was already late, he
told his granddaughter to just go home ahead of him while he decided to
go to Blumentritt market to buy food. While passing by a small alley on
his way thereto, he saw VVV along with some companions, peeling
"dalanghita." VVV approached him and asked if she could go with him
to the market because she will buy "dalanghita" or sunkist. He refused
her request and told VVV instead to go home. He then proceeded
towards Blumentritt, but before he could reach the market, he
experienced rheumatic pains that prompted him to return home. Upon
arriving home, at about 8:30 o'clock in the evening, he watched
television with his wife and children. Shortly thereafter, three (3)
barangay officials arrived, arrested him, and brought him to a police
precinct where he was informed of VVV's accusation against him.[5]
On April 29, 2005, the Regional Trial Court of Manila (RTC), Branch
43, after finding the evidence of the prosecution overwhelming against
the accused's defense of denial and alibi, rendered a Decision[6]
convicting Armando of Statutory Rape. The dispositive portion of which
reads:
SO ORDERED.
Aggrieved, Armando appealed the Decision before the CA, which was
docketed as CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01119.
SO ORDERED.[8]
In fine, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC, and considering that
the appeal opened the entire case for judicial review, the CA also found
Armando guilty of the crime of Rape Through Sexual Assault. The CA
opined that since the Information charged Armando with two counts of
rape: (1) by inserting his finger in the victim's vagina, which is classified
as Rape Through Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended; and (2) for inserting his penis in the
private part of his victim, which is Statutory Rape, and considering that
Armando failed to object thereto through a motion to quash before
entering his plea, Armando could be convicted of as many offenses as
are charged and proved.
The CA ratiocinated that coupled with the credible, direct, and candid
testimony of the victim, the elements of Statutory Rape and Rape
Through Sexual Assault were indubitably established by the prosecution.
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE
ACCUSED GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF RAPE UNDER ARTICLE
266-A, PARAGRAPH 1 (D) OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE IN
SPITE THE UNNATURAL AND UNREALISTIC TESTIMONY OF
THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT.
II
Armando insists that the RTC gravely erred in convicting him based on
the unrealistic and unnatural testimony of the victim. Armando claims
that VVV's testimony was so inconsistent with common experience that
it deserves careful and critical evaluation. First, it was so unnatural for
VVV to remain quiet and not ask for help when the accused allegedly
pulled her in the presence of several companions and bystanders;
second, VVV did not resist or cry for help while they were on their way
to the place where she was allegedly abused, which was 300 to 400
meters away from where he allegedly pulled her; third, VVV could have
run away while Armando was allegedly molesting her, but she did not;
fourth, Armando could not have inserted his penis in the victim's organ
while both of them were standing, unless the victim did not offer any
resistance.
Generally, the Court will not disturb the findings of the trial court on the
credibility of witnesses, as it was in the better position to observe their
candor and behavior on the witness stand. Evaluation of the credibility
of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial
court; it had the unique opportunity to observe the witnesses and their
demeanor, conduct, and attitude, especially under cross-examination. Its
assessment is entitled to respect unless certain facts of substance and
value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of
the case.[11]
Time and again, this Court has held that when the offended parties are
young and immature girls, as in this case, courts are inclined to lend
credence to their version of what transpired, considering not only their
relative vulnerability, but also the shame and embarrassment to which
they would be exposed if the matter about which they testified were not
true.[17] A young girl would not usually concoct a tale of defloration;
publicly admit having been ravished and her honor tainted; allow the
examination of her private parts; and undergo all the trouble and
inconvenience, not to mention the trauma and scandal of a public trial,
had she not in fact been raped and been truly moved to protect and
preserve her honor, and motivated by the desire to obtain justice for the
wicked acts committed against her.[18] Moreover, the Court has
repeatedly held that the lone testimony of the victim in a rape case, if
credible, is enough to sustain a conviction.[19]
On the other hand, Armando admitted that he saw VVV on the date of
the incident, but denied the accusations against him and merely relied on
his defense that he was watching TV with his family when barangay
officials arrested him.
Armando tendered nothing but his bare denial and contention that he
was elsewhere when the crime was committed. Aside from this, he
presented no more evidence to substantiate his claims. Jurisprudence
dictates that denial and alibi are the common defenses in rape cases.
Sexual abuse is denied on the allegation that the accused was somewhere
else and could not have physically committed the crime. This Court has
always held that these two defenses are inherently weak and must be
supported by clear and convincing evidence in order to be believed. As
negative defenses, they cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the
complainant.[23] Consequently, Armando's bare denial and alibi must
fail against the testimony of VVV and her positive identification that he
was the perpetrator of the horrid deed. Unmistakably, it has been proved
beyond reasonable doubt that Armando had carnal knowledge of VVV.
Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. (R.A.) 8353, or The Anti-
Rape Law of 1997.[24] From the Information, it is clear that Armando
was being charged with two offenses, Rape under paragraph 1 (d),
Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, and rape as an act of sexual
assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A. Armando was charged with
having carnal knowledge of VVV, who was under twelve years of age at
the time, under paragraph 1 (d) of Article 266-A, and he was also
charged with committing an act of sexual assault by inserting his finger
into the genital of VVV under the second paragraph of Article 266-A.
Indeed, two instances of rape were proven at the trial. First, it was
established that Armando inserted his penis into the private part of his
victim, VVV. Second, through the testimony of VVV, it was proven that
Armando also inserted his finger in VVV's private part.
xxxx
(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.[25]
In this case, the offended party was ten years old at the time of the
commission of the offense. Pursuant to the above-quoted provision of
law, Armando was aptly prosecuted under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353,[29] for Rape
Through Sexual Assault. However, instead of applying the penalty
prescribed therein, which is prision mayor, considering that VVV was
below 12 years of age, and considering further that Armando's act of
inserting his finger in VVV's private part undeniably amounted to
lascivious conduct, the appropriate imposable penalty should be that
provided in Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, which is
reclusion temporal in its medium period.
The Court is not unmindful to the fact that the accused who commits
acts of lasciviousness under Article 366, in relation to Section 5 (b),
Article III of R.A. No. 7610, suffers the more severe penalty of reclusion
temporal in its medium period than the one who commits Rape Through
Sexual Assault, which is merely punishable by prision mayor. This is
undeniably unfair to the child victim. To be sure, it was not the intention
of the framers of R.A. No. 8353 to have disallowed the applicability of
R.A. No. 7610 to sexual abuses committed to children. Despite the
passage of R.A. No. 8353,
R.A. No. 7610 is still good law, which must be applied when the victims
are children or those "persons below eighteen (18) years of age or those
over but are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect
themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination
because of a physical or mental disability or condition."[30]
SO ORDERED.
[3] Records, p. 1.
[4] Rollo, pp. 4-5.
[11] People v. Tormis, G.R; No. 183456, December 18, 2008, 574
SCRA 903.
[17] Flordelizv. People, G.R. No. 186441, March 3, 2010, 614 SCRA
225, 234.
[18] People v. Matunhay, G.R. No. 178274, March 5, 2010, 614 SCRA
307, 316.
[19] Id. at 317, citing People v. Quinanoia, 366 Phil. 390 (1999).
[24] Art. 266-A. Rape: When and How Committed. - Rape is committed
xxxx
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.
[28] Supra note 17, at 241, citing Navarrete v. People, 513 SCRA 509,
521-522 (2007); Olivarez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 163866, July
29, 2005, 465 SCRA 465, 473-474; People v. Bon, 444 Phil. 571, 584
(2003).
[29] R.A. No. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of (which took effect on
October 22, 1997) reclassified rape as a crime against person and
repealed Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. The new provisions on
rape are found in Articles 266-A to 266-D of the said Code.
[31] People v. Lindo, G.R. No. 189818, August 9, 2010, 519 SCRA 13.