G.R. No. 176102               November 26, 2014 organ failure overwhelming infection.

He, further, stated that the

underlined cause of death was a stab wound.
ROSAL HUBILLA y CARILLO, Petitioner, 
vs. The appellant, in his testimony, narrates his statement of facts in this
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. manner:

RESOLUTION He testified that around seven inthe evening or so of March 30, 2000,
he was at the Dalupaon High School campus watching the high school
graduation rites. At half past seven, while walking towards the gate of
BERSAMIN, J.:
Dalupaon High School on his way home, he was ganged up by a group
of four (4) men.
The Court recognizes the mandate of Republic Act No. 9344 (Juvenile
Justice and Welfare Act of 2006) to protect the best interest of the child
The men attacked and started to box him. After the attack he felt dizzy
in conflict with the law through measures that will ensure the
and fell to the ground. He was not able to see or even recognize who
observance of international standards of child protection,1 and to apply
attacked him, so he proceeded home. Shortly after leaving the
the principles of restorative justice in all laws, policies and programs
campus, however, he met somebody whom he thought was one of the
applicable to children in conflict with the law.2 The mandate
four men who ganged up on him. He stabbed the person with the knife
notwithstanding, the Court will not hesitate or halt to impose the
he was, then, carrying. When asked why he was in possession of a
penalty of imprisonment whenever warranted on a child in conflict with
knife, he stated that he used it in preparing food for his friend, Richard
the law.
Candelaria, who was graduating that day. He went home after the
incident.
Antecedents
While inside his house, barangay officials arrived, took him and
The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Camarines Sur charged the brought him to the barangay hall, and later to the Pasacao PNP. On his
petitioner with homicide under the following information docketed as way to the town proper, he came to know that the person he stabbed
Criminal Case No. 2000-0275 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), was Jason Espinola. He felt sad after hearing it.4
Branch 20, in Naga City, to wit:
Judgment of the RTC
That on or about the 30th day of March, 2000 at about 7:30 P.M., in
Barangay Dalupaon, Pasacao, Camarines Sur, Philippines, and within
After trial, the RTC rendered its judgment finding the petitioner guilty of
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with intent to
homicide as charged, and sentenced him to suffer the indeterminate
kill, and without any justifiable cause, did then and there willfully,
penalty of imprisonment for four years and one day of prision
unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and stab one JAYSON
correccional, as minimum, to eight years and one day of prision mayor,
ESPINOLA Y BANTA with a knife , inflicting upon the latter mortal
as maximum; and to pay to the heirs of the victim ₱81,890.04 as actual
wounds in his body, thus, directly causing his death, per Death
damages for medical and funeral expenses, and ₱50,000.00 as moral
Certification hereto attached as annex "A" and made an integral part
damages.5
hereof, to the damage and prejudice of the deceased’s heirs in such
amount as may be proven in court.
Decision of the CA
Acts Contrary to Law.3
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the petitioner’s
conviction but modified the penalty and the civil liability through the
The CA summarized the facts established by the Prosecution and the
decision promulgated on July 19, 2006,6 disposing thus:
Defense as follows: Alejandro Dequito testified that around seven in
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Regional Trial
the evening or so of March 30, 2000, he, together with his compadre
Court of Naga City, Branch 20, in Criminal Case Number 2000-0275,
Nicasio, was at the gate of Dalupaon Elementary School watching the
finding appellant Rosal Hubilla y Carillo, guilty beyond reasonable
graduation ceremony if the high school students. While watching, his
doubt of Homicide is, hereby, AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS.
cousin Jason Espinola, herein victim, arrived. Later, however, appellant
Appellants (sic) sentence is reduced to six months and one day to six
approached the victim and stabbed the latter. When asked to
years of prision correccionalas minimum, to six years and one day to
demonstrate in open court how the appellant stabbed the victim, this
twelve years of prision mayor as maximum.
witness demonstrated that with the appellant’s left arm around the neck
of the victim, appellant stabbed the victim using a bladed weapon.
The civil aspect of the case is MODIFIED to read: The award of actual
damages in the amount of Php 81,890.04, representing expenses for
He aided the victim as the latter was already struggling to his feet and
medical and funeral services, is reduced to Php 16,300.00. A civil
later brought him to the hospital.
indemnity, in the amount of Php 50,000.00, is awarded to the legal
heirs of the victim Jason Espinola. Weaffirm in all other respects.
Nicasio Ligadia, witness Dequito’s companion at the time of the
incident, corroborated the testimony of Dequito on all material points.
SO ORDERED.

Marlyn Espinosa, the mother of the deceased, testified that her son
On motion for reconsideration by the petitioner, the CA promulgated its
was stabbed in front of the [elementary] school and later brought to the
amended decision on December 7, 2006, decreeing as follows:7
Bicol Medical Center. She stated that her son stayed for more than a
month in the hospital. Thereafter, her son was discharged. Later,
however, when her son went back to the hospital for a check-up, it was WHEREFORE, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is PARTIALLY
discovered that her son’s stab wound had a complication. Her son was GRANTED. Our decision promulgated on July 16, 2006, which is the
subjected to another operation, but died the day after. She, further, subject of the instant motion is, hereby AMENDED such that the
stated that the stabbing incident was reported to the police authorities. judgment shall now read as follows:
She, likewise, stated the amounts she incurred for the wake and burial
of her son.

Robert Casin, the medico legal expert, testified that the cause of death
of the victim, as stated by Dr. Bichara, his co-admitting physician, was
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Regional Trial restrictions on the personal liberty of the child shall be limited to the
Court of Naga City, Branch 20, in Criminal Case Number 2000-0275, minimum.11Consistent with this principle, the amended decision of the
finding appellant Rosal Hubilla y Carillo, guilty beyond reasonable CA imposed the ultimate minimums of the indeterminate penalty for
doubt of Homicide is, hereby, AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. homicide under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. On its part, Republic
Appellant is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six months and Act No. 9344 nowhere allows the trial and appellate courts the
one day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one discretion to reduce or lower the penalty further, even for the sake of
(1) day of prision mayor. enabling the child in conflict with the law to qualify for probation.

The civil aspect of the case is MODIFIED to read: The award of actual Conformably with Section 9(a) of Presidential Decree 968,12 which
damages in the amount of Php 81,890.04, representing expenses for disqualifies from probation an offender sentenced to serve a maximum
medical and funeral services, is reduced to Php 16,300.00. A civil term of imprisonment of more than six years, the petitioner could not
indemnity, in the amount of Php 50,000.00, is awarded to the legal qualify for probation. For this reason, we annul the directive of the CA
heirs of the victim Jason Espinola. We affirm in all other respects. to remand the case to the trial court to determine if he was qualified for
probation.
The case is, hereby, remanded to the Regional Trial Court of Naga,
Branch 20, for appropriate action on the application for probation of, Although Section 38 of Republic Act No. 9344 allows the suspension of
herein, appellant. the sentence of a child in conflict with the law adjudged as guilty of a
crime, the suspension is available only until the child offender turns 21
years of age, pursuant to Section 40 of Republic Act No. 9344, to wit:
SO ORDERED.
Issues
Section 40. Return of the Child in Conflict with the Law to Court.– If the
court finds that the objective of the disposition measures imposed upon
The petitioner has come to the Court imputing grave error to the CA for
the child in conflict with the law have not been fulfilled, or if the child in
not correctly imposing the penalty, and for not suspending his sentence
conflict with the law has wilfully failed to comply with the conditions of
as a juvenile in conflict with the law pursuant to the mandate of
his/her disposition or rehabilitation program, the child in conflict with
Republic Act No. 9344. In fine, he no longer assails the findings of fact
the law shall be brought before the court for execution of judgment.
by the lower courts as well as his conviction, and limits his appeal to
the following issues, namely: (1) whether or not the CA imposed the
correct penalty imposable on him taking into consideration the If said child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen (18) years of
pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 9344, the Revised Penal age while under suspended sentence, the court shall determine
Codeand Act No. 4103 (Indeterminate Sentence Law); (2) whether or whether to discharge the child in accordance with this Act, to order
not he was entitled to the benefits of probation and suspension of execution of sentence, or to extend the suspended sentence for a
sentence under Republic Act No. 9344; and (3) whether or not certain specified period or until the child reaches the maximum age of
imposing the penalty of imprisonment contravened the provisions of twenty-one (21) years.
Republic Act No. 9344 and other international agreements.
We note that the petitioner was well over 23 years of age at the time of
his conviction for homicide by the RTC on July 19, 2006. Hence, the
suspension of his sentence was no longer legally feasible or
Ruling of the Court
permissible.

Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code prescribes the penalty of

Lastly, the petitioner posits that condemning him to prison would be in
reclusion temporalfor homicide. Considering that the petitioner was
violation of his rights as a child inconflict with the law as bestowed by
then a minor at the time of the commission of the crime, being 17
Republic Act No. 9344 and international agreements.1avvphi1 A
years, four months and 28 days old when he committed the homicide
review of the provisions of Republic Act No. 9344 reveals, however,
on March 30, 2000,8 such minority was a privileged mitigating
that imprisonment of children in conflict with the law is by no means
circumstance that lowered the penalty to prision mayor.9
prohibited. While Section 5 (c) of Republic Act No. 9344 bestows on
children in conflict with the law the rightnot to be unlawfully or arbitrarily
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of the deprived of their liberty; imprisonment as a proper disposition of a case
indeterminate sentence should be within the penalty next lower than is duly recognized, subject to certain restrictions on the imposition of
the imposable penalty, which, herein, was prision correccional (i.e., six imprisonment, namely: (a) the detention or imprisonment is a
months and one day to six years). For the maximum of the disposition of last resort, and (b) the detention or imprisonment shall be
indeterminate sentence, prision mayor in its medium period – eight for the shortest appropriate period of time.Thereby, the trial and
years and one day to 10 years – was proper because there were no appellate courts did not violate the letter and spirit of Republic Act No.
mitigating or aggravating circumstances present. Accordingly, the CA 9344 by imposing the penalty of imprisonment on the petitioner simply
imposed the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six months and because the penalty was imposed as a last recourse after holding him
one day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight years and one to be disqualified from probation and from the suspension of his
day of prision mayor, as maximum. sentence, and the term of his imprisonment was for the
shortestduration permitted by the law.
The petitioner insists, however, that the maximum of his indeterminate
sentence of eight years and one day of prison mayor should be A survey of relevant international agreements13 supports the course of
reduced to only six years of prision correccional to enable him to apply action taken herein. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for
for probation under Presidential Decree No. 968. the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing Guidelines), 14 the United
Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (Riyadh
Guidelines) and the United Nations Rules for the Protection of
The petitioner’s insistence is bereft of legal basis. Neither the Revised
Juveniles Deprived of Liberty15 are consistent in recognizing that
Penal Code, nor Republic Act No. 9344, nor any other relevant law or
imprisonment is a valid form of disposition, provided it is imposed asa
rules support or justify the further reduction of the maximum of the
last resort and for the minimum necessary period.
indeterminate sentence. To yield to his insistence would be to impose
an illegal penalty, and would cause the Court to deliberately violate the
law. Lastly, following Section 51 of Republic Act No. 9344, the petitioner,
although he has to serve his sentence, may serve it in an agricultural
camp or other training facilities to be established, maintained,
A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC10 (Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law)
supervised and controlled by the Bureau of Corrections, in coordination
provides certain guiding principles in the trial and judging in cases
with the Department of Social Welfare and Development, in a manner
involving a child in conflict with the law. One of them is that found in
consistent with the offender child’s best interest. Such service of
Section 46 (2), in conjunction with Section 5 (k), whereby the
sentence will be in lieu of service in the regular penal institution.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari; appellant and Ml\1M were neighbors; (6) that MMM was then a grade
AFFIRMS the amended decision promulgated on December 7, 2006 in school pupil; and (7) that accused-appellant was not attending school
C.A.-G.R. CR No. 29295, but DELETING the order to remand the at the time of the submitted incidents giving rise to these criminal
judgment to the trial court for implementation; and DIRECTS the actions. Trial on the merits ensued afterwards.
Bureau of Corrections to commit the petitioner for the service of his
sentence in an agricultural camp or other training facilities under its
The Facts
control, supervision and management, in coordination with the
Department of Social Welfare and Development.
The facts culled from the records and as summarized by the Court of
Appeals, are as follows:
No pronouncement on costs of suit.

When the crime was committed, MMM was 11 years old, 8 while the
SO ORDERED.
accused-appellant, MMM's uncle,9 was 15 years old. 10 The
prosecution submits that sometime in the first week of June 2002, at
G.R. No. 200157 about three o'clock in the afternoon, MMM went to the nipa plantation
to defecate but before she was able to do so, accused-appellant,
armed with a knife, suddenly appeared. He approached MMM, poked a
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee 
knife at her neck, ordered her to bend over, and took off her shorts and
vs.
underwear. Fearing for her life, MMM obeyed the orders of accused-
JOERY DELIOLA Y BARRIDO, A.K.A. "JAKE DELIOLA", Accused-
appellant. MMM tried to resist but accused-appellant was still able to
Appellant
force his penis inside MMM' s vagina. MMM felt pain and cried. After
satisfying his lust, accused-appellant put on his briefs and shorts then
DECISION left. When she got home, MMM immediately took a bath and noticed
bloodstain on her underwear. Afraid of accusedappellant's threats of
killing her, MMM kept mum and did not disclose to anyone the tragedy
PEREZ, J.: that happened to her that day. 11

On appeal is the 29 June 2011 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in On or about the 1st day of July 2002, MMM was at the nipa plantation
CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC NO. 00435, affirming the 22 December 2005 again when accused-appellant suddenly arrived. He poked MMM's
Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 69, Silay City, Negros back with a knife and threatened to stab her unless she followed
Occidental, in Criminal Case Nos. 5214-69 and 5215-69, which found accusedappellant' s orders. MMM was fearful and was left with no
accused-appellant Joery Deliola y Barrido guilty beyond reasonable choice but to submit to accused-appellant's commands. She was
doubt of two (2) counts of Statutory Rape, and sentencing him to suffer directed to bend over and to lower down her shorts and underwear.
the penalty of reclusion perpetua in both cases. While MMM was bending over and half naked, accused-appellant held
the victim's waist and inserted his penis into MMM's private part. MMM
Accused-appellant was charged with two (2) counts of Statutory Rape. could not do anything but cry. Before leaving, he again threatened to
The accusatory portions of the Informations narrate: kill MMM if she would reveal what happened between them. 12

Criminal Case No. 5214-69 MMM still remained silent about her ordeal. However, about two.
weeks after the second rape, MMM' s grandmother noticed that there
was something unusual in the way MMM was walking. This prompted
That sometime in the month of June, 2002, in the Municipality of her to confront MMM. 13Upon learning of what happened to MMM, the
Manapla, Province of Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the victim's aunt, brought the former to the Municipal Health Office of
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, 15 Manapla, Negros Occidental for examination, 14 and thereafter to the
years old, with the use of a bladed weapon, through force, threat and police authorities, before whom the victim executed her sworn
intimidation, with the attendant qualifying aggravating circumstances of statement. 15
relationship and minority, the accused being the uncle of herein victim
who was less than eighteen (18) years of age, did then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one Dr. Edbert Jayme (Dr. Jayme), the Municipal Health Officer who
[MMM],3 a minor, 11 years old, against her will, to the damage and conducted a physical and internal examination upon MMM, testified as
prejudice.4 an expert witness for the prosecution. Dr. Jayme's internal findings
showed that the victim had positive hyperemia of the vulva or
congestion, redness, and swelling around the area, which may have
Criminal Case No. 5215-69 been caused by a blunt object such as the finger of the human being or
an erect penis. The victim was also found to have a positive incomplete
That on or about the 1st day of July, 2002, in the Municipality of hymenal laceration at 3:00 and 7:00 positions, which was similarly
Manapla, Province of Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the caused by a blunt object such as the finger of the human being or an
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, 15 erect penis. 16 According to Dr. Jayme, the lacerations may have been
years old, with the use of a bladed weapon, through force, threat and inflicted within two weeks prior to the examination since the lacerations
intimidation, with the attendant qualifying aggravating circumstances of were fresh. 17 Dr. Jayme also found that the victim's vagina could admit
relationship and minority, the accused being the uncle of herein victim two (2) fingers with ease, which is unusual for an 11-year old. 18 A
who was less than eighteen (18) years of age, did then and there, Medical Certificate 19dated 12 July 2002 was issued by the Municipal
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one Health Center of Manapla.
[MMM], a minor, 11 years old, against her will, to the damage and
prejudice. 5 As lone witness for the defense, accused-appellant denied raping the
victim and claimed that he was fishing with his grandfather during the
On arraignment, accused-appellant entered a plea of NOT times MMM was raped. 20 He testified that he is MMM's uncle and that
GUILTY. 6 At the joint pre-trial 7 of the he was only fifteen years old when the alleged crime occurred.

cases, the following stipulation of facts were admitted: (1) that the court Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
has jurisdiction over the case (2) the identity of accused-appellant as
the accused in the two criminal cases; (3) that accusedappellant is the On 22 December 2005, the RTC rendered a Decision finding accused-
uncle of MMM; (4) that MMM, was 11 years old when the incidents appellant guilty of two counts of Statutory Rape. The dispositive portion
giving rise to the present criminal actions were allegedly committed; (5) of the decision reads:
that at the time of the incidents on June and 1 July 2002, accused-
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, in Criminal Cases Nos. Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Cod, as amended by
5214-69 and 5215-69, this Court finds accused, JOERY DELIOLA Y Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8353. 25 define and punish Statutory Rape as
BARRIDO, AK.A. "JAKE DELIOLA", Guilty of the crimes of Rape, as follows:
defined in A1iicle 266-A in relation to Article 266-B, paragraph 5,
subparagraph 1, of Republic Act No. 8353, as his guilts had been
Art. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed.- Rape is committed-
established by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt.

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

Taking into consideration the privilege mitigating circumstance of
minority, this Court, in Criminal Case No. 5214-69, sentences accused,
Joery Deliola y Barrido, a.k.a. Jake Deliola, to suffer the penalty of xxxx
Reclusion Perpetua, the same to be served by him at the National
Penitentiary, Muntinlupa City, Province of Rizal, Philippines. Accused,
d) when the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is
Joery Deliola y Barrido, a.k.a. Jake Deliola, is, further, ordered by this
demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above
Court to pay minor, [MMM], the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
be present.
(P50,000.00) as Moral Damages, and the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND
PESOS (P50,000.00), all in Philippine Currency, as Exemplary
Damages. Art. 266-B. Penalties. - Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding
article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
In Criminal Case No. 5215-69, this Court likewise sentences accused,
Joery Deliola y Barrido, a.k.a. Jake Deliola, to suffer the penalty of xxxx
Reclusion Perpetua, the same to be served by him at the National
Penitentiary, Muntinlupa City, Province of Rizal, Philippines. Accused,
Joery Deliola y Barrido, a.k.a. Jake Deliola, is, likewise, ordered by this The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is
Court to pay minor, [MMM], the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying
(₱50,000.00) as Moral Damages, and the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND circumstances:
PESOS (P50,000.00), all in Philippine Currency, as Exemplary
Damages. 1) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the
offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by
Accused, Joery Deliola y Barrido, a.k.a. Jake Deliola, is remanded to consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-
the custody of the Jail Warden of the Provincial Jail of Negros law spouse of the parent of the victim;
Occidental, until he is finally committed to the National Penitentiary at
Muntinlupa City, Rizal. xxxx

In the service of the sentences imposed on him by this Court, accused Statutory rape is committed when the prosecution proves that: (l) the
named shall be given full credit for the entire period of his detention offended party is under 12 years of age and (2) the accused had carnal
pending trial. 21 knowledge of the victim, regardless of whether there was force, threat
or intimidation; whether the offended party was deprived of reason or
Ruling of the Court of Appeals consciousness; or whether it was done through fraudulent machination
or grave abuse of authority. It is enough that the age of the victim is
proven and that there was sexual intercourse.26
The Court of Appeals, in its assailed Decision dated 29 June 2011,
affirmed the judgment of conviction of the RTC. The dispositive portion
of the decision reads: The two elements were proven in the present case. The age of MMM
was uncontested. In her Birth Certificate,27presented and admitted in
open court, 28 it was indicated that she was born on 5 March 1991 and,
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision insofar as the finding of guilt thus, only eleven years old when the crime was committed. The only
beyond reasonable doubt of accused-appellant Joery B. Deliola of the controversy left qefore us is whether or not accused-appellant had
two crimes of rape in Criminal Cases No. 5214-69 and 5215-69 is carnal knowledge of the victim.
AFFIRMED. However, as accused-appellant Joery Deliola y Barrido is
a child in conflict with the law, the pronouncement of his sentence is
hereby SUSPENDED and the case is REMANDED to the Regional Credibility of Witness
Trial Court,6th Judicial Region, Branch 69, Silay City, Negros
Occidental, for appropriate disposition in accordance with Section 38 of Accused-appellant tried to dispute MMM' s credibility by pointing out
Republic Act No. 9344. Accused-appellant is CONDEMNED to pay the several inconsistencies in her testimony. He argued that the victim
victim MMM: 1) In Criminal Case No. 5214-69, the amounts of testified that on the alleged second incident of rape, on 1 July 2002,
₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱75,000.00 for moral damages, and she felt no pain and her vagina did not bleed. Accused-appellant
₱30,000.00 for exemplary damages; and 2) In Criminal Case No. maintains that such statement is inconsistent with MMM's
5215-69, the amounts of ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱75,000 for grandmother's claim that MMM was walking with great difficulty and
moral damages and P30,000.00 for exemplary damages. 22 pain. Accused-appellant likewise argues that given the tender age of
the victim, she could have felt pain, if not suffered bleeding, even on
Accused-appellant timely filed a Notice of Appeal. In a the second incident of rape.
Resolution23 dated 27 February 2012, we required the parties to submit
their respective supplemental briefs. However, both parties We disagree. It is carnal knowledge, not pain nor bleeding, which is
manifested24 that they are dispensing with the filing of supplemental essential to consummate rape. 29 It is also possible for physiological
briefs and, instead, adopting their respective briefs as supplemental manifestations of rape, such as pain, to appear only after the incident.
briefs in this case. More importantly, the testimony of MMM's grandmother was just an
observation on the victim's manner of walking. It is baseless and
Our Ruling unreasonable to put the victim's and the grandmother's testimonies
side by side and claim them to be inconsistent. Moreover, as
consistently held by this Court, discrepancies and inconsistencies in
We find no reason to deviate from the findings and conclusions of the the testimony of a witness referring to minor details, and not in actuality
trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. His defenses of denial touching upon the central fact of the crime, do not impair her credibility.
and alibi are bereft of merit. If at all, they serve as proof that the witness is not coached or
rehearsed. 30
Statutory Rape
Accused-appellant also points out that Dr. Jayme's findings are not sincerity.40 No young woman would admit that she was raped, make
conclusive and that the non-intact hymen of the victim could be public the offense and allow the examination of her private parts
congenita This argument is bereft of merit. The prime consideration in undergo the troubles and humiliation of a public trial and endure the
the prosecution of rape is the victim's testimony, not necessarily the ordeal of testifying to all gory details, if she had not in fact been
medical findings. Assuming arguendo that the non-intact hymen of the raped.41
victim is congenital, this Court has consistently held that the absence
of laceration in the hymen does not negate rape. 31Apart from the
Denial and Alibi as Inherently Weak Defenses
findings of Dr. Jayme, MMM was steadfast in testifying that accused-
appellant raped her twice. When a rape victim's testimony is
straightforward and consistent despite grueling examination, it In contrast to MMM's direct, positive and categorical testimony and
deserves full faith and confidence.32 The victim's testimony alone, if identification of her assailant, accused-appellant's bare denial and alibi
credible, is sufficient to convict.33 could not prevail. This Court has consistently held that: "denial is an
intrinsically weak defense which must be supported by strong evidence
of non-culpability to merit credibility. No jurisprudence in criminal law is
Accused-appellant likewise argues that the victim's claim that she was
more settled than that alibi is the weakest of all defenses, for it is easy
penetrated from behind is contrary to human experience. We are not
to contrive and difficult to disprove and for which reason it is generally
persuaded.1âwphi1 As correctly cited by the Court of Appeals, the
rejected. For the alibi to prosper, it is imperative that the accused
animal in man may come out when he commits rape such that it is not
establishes two elements: (1) he was not at the locus delicti at the time
unlikely that in the process of his immersion and transformation into
the offense was committed; and (2) it was physically impossible for him
another character, he would prefer to mate in the way lower creatures
to be at the scene at the time of its commission. 42 "Accused-appellant
do. 34
failed to establish these elements. His claim that at the time of the
alleged crime, he was at sea fishing with his grandfather was
Accused-appellant further questions the fact that the v1ctnn did not uncorroborated. For some reason, he did not even present his
attempt to escape from her captor or even shout or call for help, and grandfather Clemente Gabayeron to testify in court. As opposed to
that she did not report the alleged rape to anyone after its occurrence. MMM' s convincing recital of facts, accused-appellant's denial and alibi
However, as held in the case of People v. Rosales: 35 will not stand.

At any rate, it is an oft-repeated principle that not every witness to or Time of commission
victim of a crime can be expected to act reasonably and conformably to not an essential element
the usual expectations of everyone. People may react differently to the to establish rape
same situation. One person's spontaneous, or unthinking or even
instinctive, response to a horrible and repulsive stimulus may be
Lastly, accused-appellant argues that the Information 43 stating that the
aggression, while another's may be cold indifference. Yet, it can never
first crime of rape was committed "sometime in the month of June
be successfully argued that the latter are any less sexual victims than
2002" is not sufficiently explicit and certain as to inform him of the date
the former. 36
on which the criminal act was alleged to have been committed.

Given the nature of the crime of rape, the credible, natural, and
Accused-appellant is mistaken. This Court has repeatedly held that it is
convincing testimony of the victim alone may be sufficient to convict
not incumbent upon the victim to establish the date when she was
the accused, more so, when the testimony is supported by the medico-
raped for purposes of convicting the perpetrator.44 The date of
legal findings of the examining physician. 37
commission is not an essential element of the crime of rape; what is
material is its occurrence. Thus, there is no need to prove the exact
MMM's testimony, positively identifying accused-appellant as the date of comm1ss1on; an approximation thereof will suffice.45
person who raped her is believable. We uphold the ruling of the trial
court on the credibility of MMM and the truthfulness of her testimonies,
Moreover, the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that accused-appellant's
to wit:
belated objection to the Information cannot prosper, to wit:

[MMM], though a minor, thirteen (13) years old at the time she took the
Moreover, accused-appellant's counsel took active part in the trial by
stand, demonstrated to this Court her capacity of observation,
cross-examining the prosecution witnesses on the particular dates and
recollection, and communication. She showed that she can perceive,
circumstances of the two offenses of rape as alleged in the
and perceiving, can make known her perception to this Court as she
informations without prior objection to the validity or propriety of the
clearly and capably related the details of her sad and horrible
informations. It is now too late in the day for the accused-appellant to
experiences at the hands of the accused. She withstood a thorough
claim that any of the Informations was defective. Objections relating to
and exhaustive examination. There is no doubt that she is a competent
the form of the complaint or information cannot be made for the first
witness. (Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 349 SCRA 451, G.R. No.
time on appeal. If the appellant had found the Information insufficient,
116372 January 18, 2001; People vs. Rama, 350 SCRA 266, G.R. No.
he should have moved before arraignment either for a bill of
136304, January 25, 2001). [MMM] gave a clear, straightforward,
particulars, for him to be properly informed of the exact date of the
spontaneous, frank and consistent narrative. It was a positive and
alleged rape, or for the quashal of the Information, on the ground that it
credible account she presented before this Court. There was not a
did not conform with the prescribed form. 46
motive ascribed or, in the very least, suggested by the defense that
might have raised doubt on her credibility and on the credibility of the
statements she made before this Court.38 Penalty and Damages

We find no reason to disturb the trial court's appreciation of MMM's To determine the appropriate penalty, we refer to the pertinent law on
testimony. Deeply entrenched in our jurisprudence is the rule that the the matter. According to R.A. No. 9344,47 as amended:48
assessment of the credibility of witnesses is a domain best left to the
trial court judge because of his unique opportunity to observe their
SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. - x x x
deportment and demeanor on the witness stand, a vantage point
denied appellate courts; and when his findings have been affirmed by
the Court of Appeals, these are generally binding and conclusive upon A child is deemed to be fifteen (15) years of age on the day of the
this Court.39 fifteenth anniversary of his/her birthdate.

Furthermore, testimonies of child victims are given full weight and

credit, for when a woman or a girl-child says that she has been raped,
she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed
committed. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and
A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age WHEREFORE, the 29 June 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals in
shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC NO. 00435 is AFFIRMED with
intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in MODIFICATION.· Appellant JOERY DELIOLA Y BARRIDO, A.K.A.
which case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate "JAKE DELIOLA," is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two
proceedings in accordance with this Act. (2) counts of Qualified Statutory Rape and is sentenced to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape. Appellant
is ORDERED to indemnify MMM the amounts of ₱75,000.00 as civil
The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not
indemnity for each count of rape, ₱75,000.00 as moral damages for
include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in
each count of rape, and ₱75,000.00 as exemplary damages for each
accordance with existing laws.
count of rape. All monetary awards for damages shall earn interest at
the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of
To reiterate, the law says that a minor is fifteen (15) years of age on this judgment until fully paid.
the day of the fifteenth anniversary of his/her birth date. In A.M. No. 02-
l-18- SC49 dated November 24, 2009, the Supreme Court likewise
The case is hereby REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court, Silay City,
defined the age of criminal responsibility as the age when a child,
Branch 69 for its appropriate action in accordance with Section 51 of
fifteen (15) years and one (1) day old or above but below eighteen (18)
Republic Act No. 9344.
years of age, commits an offense with discernment.

SO ORDERED.
Accused-appellant testified that he was born on 14 April
1987, 50 making him 15 years and 2 months old when the crime was
committed. We are now left with the question of whether or not
accused-appellant acted with discernment. In People v. Jacinto, 51 we
explained that discernment is the mental capacity of a minor to fully
grasp the consequences of his act, known and determined by taking
into account all the facts and circumstances presented by the records
in each case.

That the accused-appellant acted with discernment when he raped the

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

Considering that the qualifying circumstances of minority and

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

Although it is acknowleged that accused-appellant was qualified for

suspension of sentence when he committed the crime, Section 40 of
R.A. 934455 provides that the same extends only until the child in
conflict with the law reaches the maximum age of twenty-one (21)
years old. Nevertheless, in extending the application of RA No. 9344 to
give meaning to the legislative intent of the said law, we ruled
in People v. Jacinto, 56 as cited in People v. Ancajas,57 that the
promotion of the welfare of a child in conflict with the law should extend
even to one who has exceeded the age limit of twenty-one (21) years,
so long as he/she committed the crime when he/she was still a child.
The offender shall be entitled to the right to restoration, rehabilitation
and reintegration in order that he/she may be given the chance to live a
normal life and become a productive member of the
community. 58 Thus, accused-appellant is ordered to serve his
sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular penal institution, in an
agricultural camp and other training facilities, in accordance with
Section 51 59 of R.A. 9344.

Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, 60 we modify the award of

damages of the lower courts.1âwphi1 Accused-appellant is hereby
ordered to indemnify MMM, the amounts of ₱75,000.00 as civil
indemnity for each count of rape, ₱75,000.00 as moral damages for
each count of rape, and ₱75,000.00 as exemplary damages for each
count of rape. The damages awarded shall earn interest at the legal
rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this
judgment until fully paid. 61
 That on or about the 16th day of September 1997
in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named
accused with force and intimidation did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit
acts of sexual assault at knifepoint upon the
person of [AAA] his own niece a minor 9 years of
age by then and there laying her on the chairs
inside the bathroom, then blindfolded her and then
removed her shorts and underwear then accused
inserted his penis inside her vagina and thereafter
had carnal knowledge of her against her will and
without her consent.6

4. Crim. Case No. Q-00-91970:

That on or about the 20th day of March 1998 in

Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named
accused with force and intimidation did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit
acts of sexual assault at knifepoint upon the
person of [AAA] his own niece a minor 10 years of
age by then and there laying her down on a bed
inside his grandparents’ room then blindfolded her,
then removed her shorts and underwear, then
G.R. No. 200793               June 4, 2014 accused inserted his penis inside her vagina and
thereafter had carnal knowledge of her against her
will and without her consent.7
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, 
vs.
MILAN ROXAS y AGUILUZ, Accused-Appellant. 5. Crim. Case No. Q-00-91971:

DECISION That on or about the 11th day of May 1998 in

Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named
accused with force and intimidation did then and
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit
acts of sexual assault at knifepoint upon the
This is an appeal from the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. person of [AAA] his own niece a minor 10 years of
CR.-H.C. No. 03473 dated August 16, 2011, which affirmed with age by then and there removing her shorts and
modification the Judgment2 of Branch 94, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of underwear and inserting his penis inside her
Quezon City dated December 11, 2007 in Criminal Case Nos. Q-00- vagina and thereafter had carnal knowledge of her
91967 to Q-00-91971 finding accused-appellant Milan Roxas y Aguiluz against her will and without her
guilty of five counts of rape against AAA, 3 a minor who was 9 years old consent.8 Accused-appellant Roxas entered a plea
at the time of the first rape and 10 years old at the time of the of Not Guilty to all the crimes charged.9
succeeding four rapes.
The prosecution’s factual account based on the testimony of AAA was
Five Informations were filed against accused-appellant Roxas, concisely stated by the Office of the Solicitor General in its Appellee’s
charging him as follows: Brief, as follows:

1. Crim. Case No. Q-00-91967: That on or about the 9th day On 16 September 1997, [AAA], who was then 9 years of age, was at
of August 1998 in Quezon City, Philippines, the above- her grandmother [CCC]’s house located on [XXX], Quezon City. In the
named accused with force and intimidation did then and morning of said date, she was at the dirty kitchen with her aunt [ZZZ]
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit acts of who was then washing clothes. Her aunt asked her if she had already
sexual assault at knifepoint upon the person of [AAA] his taken a bath, she replied in the negative.
own niece a minor 10 years of age by then and there
blindfolding her, then removed her shorts and underwear Her uncle, accused-appellant, overheard their conversation so he
then accused inserted his penis inside her vagina and volunteered to give [AAA] a bath. Subsequently, he brought her
thereafter had carnal knowledge of her against her will and upstairs to the bathroom.
without her consent.4

While inside the bathroom, accused-appellant told [AAA] to turn

2. Crim. Case No. Q-00-91968: around. After she complied with his directive, he blindfolded her. [AAA]
started to wonder what the accused-appellant was doing so she told
That on or about the 28th day of July 1998 in him that he was supposed to give her a bath. Accused-appellant told
Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named her that they would play first for a while.
accused with force and intimidation did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit He turned her around three (3) times and then, removed her shorts and
acts of sexual assault at knifepoint upon the underwear. After that, he sat on a chair, which was inside the
person of [AAA] his own niece a minor 10 years of bathroom, and raised both of her legs.
age by then and there blindfolding her and
removing her shorts and underwear and inserting
his penis inside her vagina and thereafter had Thereafter, she felt him on top of her. She also felt accused-appellant’s
carnal knowledge of her against her will and penis enter her vagina which she found painful.
without her consent.5
She cried and shouted the name of her aunt, but accused-appellant got
3. Crim. Case No. Q-00-91969: angry and poked a sharp instrument on her neck. [AAA] did not report
the incident because accused-appellant threatened to cut her tongue tell his father that the accused was raping his sister, [AAA]. Upon
and to kill her and her mother. prodding of his maternal aunt, [DDD],who was only eight (8) years old
then, told his father that he saw the accused rape his sister. His father
ran amuck which led to the filing of the instant case.
[AAA] was raped again on 20 March 1998 while she was at the same
house of her paternal grandparents. She was on the terrace on the
second floor of the house when accused-appellant, who was in her On subsequent days, while [DDD]and [AAA] were in a grocery store
grandparents’ bedroom at that time, called her. She hesitated to go buying something, their [Tito XXX], [Tito WWW] and [Tita YYY] arrived
near him because she was afraid that he might rape her again. on board an FX vehicle. [Tita YYY] told [DDD] that they will be going to
buy toys. [DDD] said that he will first ask permission from his
grandfather, but [Tita YYY] said that it would only take a few minutes
Accused-appellant then went to the terrace and dragged her to the
and they will bring them home afterwards. [AAA] was brought to SSDD,
bedroom of her grandparents. She could not run anymore nor shout for
a place under the administration of the DSWD, while [DDD] was
help because aside from the fact that there was nobody else in the
brought to Caloocan. On the following day, he was brought to Muñoz,
room, accused-appellant was holding a pointed weapon.
in a rented house of his [Tita YYY] and her husband. [DDD] stayed
there for almost a year. He was forbidden to go outside as the door
While [AAA] and accused-appellant were inside the room, he was always locked. When [his Tita VVV] arrived from Japan they went
blindfolded her, removed her shorts and underwear, and then laid her to Tarlac where his paternal grandmother fetched him.
down the bed. Thereafter, he moved on top of her and inserted his
penis in her vagina. Again, she did not report the incident because of
[EEE], brother of herein private complainant, likewise testified that
accused-appellant’s threats should she report the incident to anybody.
when [his Tita VVV] arrived, they went to North Olympus, Quezon City
where [his] maternal relatives reside. On one occasion, he saw his
Another incident of rape took place on 11 May 1998while [AAA] was sister, [AAA] and his maternal uncle [Tito XXX] entered one of the
again at her paternal grandparents’ house. On the said date, she was bedrooms. He tried to open the door to see what the duo were doing,
alone in the living room on the second floor of the house when but it was locked. [EEE] looked for a wire and was able to open the
accused-appellant called her. She did not accede to his bidding door. He saw private complainant on top of his [TitoXXX], both naked.
because she was scared of him. Thereafter, he shouted at her and When the duo saw him, private complainant and his [Tito XXX] stood
demanded that she come near him, so she went to him. up. The latter threatened him not to tell anybody or he will cut off his
tongue.
He brought her inside her grandmother’s bedroom and upon reaching
the room, he immediately blindfolded her and poked a bladed weapon On November 26, 1999, [BBB], mother of the private complainant
on her neck. He turned her around three (3) times, removed her shorts testified that her two (2) children, [AAA] and [DDD], were missing. She
and underwear, laid her down the bed, moved on top of her, and looked for them, but to no avail. So she went to the police station to
inserted his penis in her vagina. Again, the accused-appellant have it blottered. Later did she know when she called her sister who
threatened her so she did not report what had happened. resides in Project 6, Quezon City that [DDD] was brought to Ilocos and
[AAA] at the SSDD in Kamuning by her 3 brothers and sister. She filed
a case of kidnapping against his brother [Tito WWW]. [Tito WWW],
[AAA]’s ordeal did not stop there. She was raped for the fourth time on however, promised to return her children if she will have the said case
28 July 1998 at her paternal grandparents’ house.1âwphi1 She and the dismissed which she did.
accused were incidentally alone in the living room on the second floor
of the house. He asked her to go with him inside the bedroom of her
grandparents, but she did not get up from her seat. So accused- She denied the allegations that[her] brother-in-law, herein accused,
appellant pulled her toward the bedroom. She tried to free herself, but raped her daughter, [AAA]. In fact, before the filing of the present rape
he poked a pointed instrument at her. cases there was one rape case filed on September 22, 1999 which
was dismissed because [AAA] retracted her statements. As told to
[BBB] by her daughter [AAA], she was not raped by herein accused.
Accused-appellant committed the same acts he had perpetrated on She told a lie and made the false accusation against the accused,
[AAA] during her three [previous] rape incidents: he removed her because she does not want to put the blame on any of her maternal
shorts and underwear, laid her on the bed, moved on top of her and relatives. [AAA] was greatly indebted to her maternal grandmother and
thereafter, inserted his penis in her vagina. She was again threatened her maternal uncles and aunts because they had taken care of her
by the accused-appellant not to tell anybody about the incident or else since she was three (3) years old.
he would cut her tongue and kill her and her mother.

Dr. Agnes Aglipay, Regional Psychiatrist of the Bureau of Jail

The fifth and last incident of rape happened on 09 August 1998. At that Management and Penology testified that based on her examination of
time, [AAA] was at the terrace on the second floor of her paternal the accused, she concluded that he is suffering from a mild mental
grandparents’ house; and accused-appellant also happened to be retardation with a mental age of nine (9) to ten (10) years old. She
there. He pulled her and brought her inside the room, blindfolded her, observed that the subject was aware that he was being accused of
and turned her around three (3) times. He employed the same method rape, but he had consistently denied the allegations against
in raping her: he removed her shorts and underwear, laid her on the him.11 (Citations omitted.)
bed and moved on top of her. She tried to push him and raise her
shorts and panty, but she did not succeed because he poked a pointed
instrument on her neck. Thereafter, he inserted his penis in her vagina. The RTC of Quezon City rendered its Judgment on December 11,
Again, she did not report the incident to anyone because she was 2007, finding accused-appellant Roxas guilty as charged in each of the
scared of his threats.10 (Emphases supplied, citations omitted.) five Informations filed against him. The dispositive portion reads:

In contrast, the defense presented four witnesses: AAA’s mother WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered
(BBB), AAA’s two brothers (DDD and EEE), and Dr. Agnes Aglipay, finding the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt in all five (5)
Regional Psychiatrist of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology. counts of rape as recited in the information[s] and sentences accused
The defense’s statement of the antecedent facts as contained in the MILAN ROXAS:
Appellant’s Brief is reproduced here:
1) In Crim. Case No. Q-00-91967 – to suffer the penalty of
Accused Milan Roxas denied having raped [AAA] on all the five (5) reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the offended party [AAA] the
counts of rape. sum of Php75,000.00, to pay moral damages in the sum of
Php50,000.00, and to pay the costs;
[DDD], brother of herein private complainant, testified that his aunt in
the maternal side, [Tita YYY], induced him by giving toys if he would
 2) In Crim. Case No. Q-00-91968 – to suffer the penalty of experience, human nature and the natural course of things. 16 Accused-
reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the offended party [AAA] the appellant Roxas likewise points out that under Republic Act No. 9344
sum of Php75,000.00, to pay moral damages in the sum of or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, minors fifteen (15)
Php50,000.00, and to pay the costs; years old and below are exempt from criminal responsibility. Accused-
appellant Roxas claims that since he has a mental age of nine years
old, he should also be "exempt from criminal liability although his
3) In Crim. Case No. Q-00-91969 – to suffer the penalty of
chronological age at the time of the commission of the crime was
reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the offended party [AAA] the
already eighteen years old."17
sum of Php75,000.00, to pay moral damages in the sum of
Php50,000.00, and to pay the costs;
In the matter of assigning criminal responsibility, Section 6 of Republic
Act No. 934418 is explicit in providing that:
4) In Crim. Case No. Q-00-91970 – to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the offended party [AAA] the
sum of Php75,000.00, to pay moral damages in the sum of SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. — A child fifteen (15)
Php50,000.00, and to pay the costs; and years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall
be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected
to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.
5) In Crim. Case No. Q-00-91971 – to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the offended party [AAA] the
sum of Php75,000.00, to pay moral damages in the sum of A child is deemed to be fifteen (15) years of age on the day of the
Php50,000.00, and to pay the costs. fifteenth anniversary of his/her birthdate.

To credit in favor of the herein accused the full period of his detention A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age
in accordance with law. Resultantly, all pending incidents are deemed shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an
moot and academic.12 intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in
which case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate
proceedings in accordance with this Act.
The RTC held that accused-appellant Roxas is not exempt from
criminal responsibility on the ground that he cannot be considered a
minor or an imbecile or insane person, since Dr. Aglipay merely The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not
testified that he was an eighteen-year old with a mental development include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in
comparable to that of children between nine to ten years old. The RTC accordance with existing laws. (Emphasis supplied.)
found the testimony of AAA credible, and found the testimonies of the
defense witnesses to be "flimsy."
In determining age for purposes of exemption from criminal liability,
Section 6 clearly refers to the age as determined by the anniversary of
Accused-appellant Roxas elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, one’s birth date, and not the mental age as argued by accused-
where the case was docketed as CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03473. appellant Roxas. When the law is clear and free from any doubt or
Accused-appellant Roxas submitted the following Assignment of Errors ambiguity, there is no room for construction or interpretation. Only
in the appellate court: when the law is ambiguous or of doubtful meaning may the court
interpret or construe its true intent.19
I
On the matter of the credibility of AAA, we carefully examined AAA’s
testimony and found ourselves in agreement with the assessment of
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL
the trial court and the Court of Appeals. As observed by the appellate
WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE PRIVATE
court:
COMPLAINANT’S TESTIMONY.

We note that she recounted her ordeal in a logical, straightforward,

II
spontaneous and frank manner, without any artificialities or pretensions
that would tarnish the veracity of her testimony. She recalled the tragic
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING experience and positively identified accused-appellant as the one who
ACCUSEDAPPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE ravished her on five occasions. Her testimony was unshaken by a
DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED.13 grueling cross-examination and there is no impression whatsoever that
the same is a mere fabrication. For her to come out in the open and
publicly describe her harrowing experience at a trial can only be taken
On August 16, 2011, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed as a badge of her sincerity and the truth of her claims.20
Decision, modifying the Judgment of the RTC as follows:

We further underscore that AAA was merely 14 years old at the time
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Judgment dated 11 she testified.21 We have repeatedly held that testimonies of child-
December 2007 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 94, victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl,
in the case entitled People of the Philippines vs. Milan Roxas y particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in
Aguiluz", docketed therein as Criminal Case Nos. Q-00-91967 to Q-00- effect all that is necessary to show that rape has in fact been
91971, is AFFIRMED with modification that accused-appellant is committed. When the offended party is of tender age and immature,
ordered to pay private complainant on each count civil indemnity in the courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired,
amount of ₱75,000.00, moral damages in the amount of ₱75,000.00, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to
and exemplary damages in the amount of ₱30,000.00, for each count which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not
of rape.14 Hence, accused-appellant Roxas interposed this appeal, true. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and
where he, in his Supplemental Brief, presented an Additional sincerity.22
Assignment of Error:

It is likewise axiomatic that when it comes to evaluating the credibility

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN of the testimonies of the witnesses, great respect is accorded to the
AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION GIVING CREDENCE findings of the trial judge who is in a better position to observe the
TO THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT’S TESTIMONY.15 demeanor, facial expression, and manner of testifying of witnesses,
and to decide who among them is telling the truth. 23 As the trial court
Accused-appellant Roxas claims that the testimony of AAA is replete further observed, the defense witnesses were not eyewitnesses. A
with inconsistencies and narrations that are contrary to common witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal
knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception, except
as provided in the Rules of Court.24 AAA’s mother and brothers were xxxx
not present when the five rapes allegedly occurred, and therefore any
testimony on their part as to whether or not the complained acts
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is
actually happened is hearsay.
committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying
circumstances:
We shall now discuss the criminal liability of accused-appellant Roxas.
As stated above, the trial court imposed the penalty of reclusion
1) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the
perpetua for each count of rape.
offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-
The first rape incident was committed in July 1997, and therefore the law spouse of the parent of the victim[.]
law applicable is Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended
by Republic Act No. 7659 which provides:
While it appears that the circumstance of minority under Article 335
(old rape provision) and Article 266-B was sufficiently proven, the
ART. 335. When and how rape is committed. — Rape is committed by allegation of the relationship between AAA and accused-appellant
having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following Roxas is considered insufficient under present jurisprudence. This
circumstances: Court has thus held:

1. By using force or intimidation; However, as regards the allegation in the Information that appellant is
an uncle of the victim, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the
same did not sufficiently satisfy the requirements of Art. 335 of the
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise
Revised Penal Code, i.e., it must be succinctly stated that appellant is
unconscious; and
a relative within the 3rd civil degree by consanguinity or affinity. It is
immaterial that appellant admitted that the victim is his niece. In the
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is same manner, it is irrelevant that "AAA" testified that appellant is her
demented. The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion uncle. We held in People v. Velasquez:
perpetua.
However, the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty on
Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly accused-appellant, applying Section 11 of Republic Act No.
weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion 7659.1âwphi1 We have consistently held that the circumstances under
perpetua to death. the amendatory provisions of Section 11 of R.A. No. 7659, the
attendance of which could mandate the imposition of the single
indivisible penalty of death, are in the nature of qualifying
xxxx circumstances which cannot be proved as such unless alleged in the
information. Even in cases where such circumstances are proved, the
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is death penalty cannot be imposed where the information failed to allege
committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: them. To impose the death penalty on the basis of a qualifying
circumstance which has not been alleged in the information would
violate the accused's constitutional and statutory right to be informed of
1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-
law spouse of the parent of the victim. While the informations in this case alleged that accused-appellant is
the uncle of the two victims, they did not state that he is their relative
within the third civil degree of consanguinity or affinity. The testimonial
The succeeding counts of rape were committed after the effectivity of evidence that accused-appellant's wife and Luisa de Guzman are
Republic Act No. 8353 on October 22,1997, which transported the rape sisters is immaterial. The circumstance that accused-appellant is a
provision of the Revised Penal Code to Title 8 under Crimes against relative of the victims by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil
Persons, and amended the same to its present wording: degree must be alleged in the information. In the case at bar, the
allegation that accused-appellant is the uncle of private complainants
Article 266-A. Rape, When And How Committed. — Rape is committed was not sufficient to satisfy the special qualifying circumstance of
— relationship. It was necessary to specifically allege that such
relationship was within the third civil degree. Hence, accused-appellant
can only be convicted of simple rape on two counts, for which the
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua in each case.25
of the following circumstances:

In the case at bar, the allegation that AAA was accused-appellant

a) Through force, threat or intimidation; Roxas’s "niece" in each Information is therefore insufficient to
constitute the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship.
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or is Instead, the applicable qualifying circumstance is that of the use of a
otherwise unconscious; deadly weapon, for which the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death.
Since there was no other aggravating circumstance alleged in the
Information and proven during the trial, the imposed penalty of
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape is nonetheless proper even
authority; and as we overturn the lower courts’ appreciation of the qualifying
circumstances of minority and relationship.
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age
or is demented, even though none of the circumstances For consistency with prevailing jurisprudence, we reduce the awards of
mentioned above be present. civil indemnity and moral damages to ₱50,000.00 each, for each count
of rape. The award of exemplary damages in the amount of
Article 266-B. Penalties. — Rape under paragraph 1 of the next ₱30,000.00 for each count, on the other hand, is in line with recent
preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. jurisprudence.26 WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03473 dated August 16, 2011 is hereby
AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the amount of civil indemnity
Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by and moral damages awarded to the complainant are reduced to
two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. ₱50,000.00 each, for each count of rape, plus legal interest upon the
amounts of indemnity and damages awarded at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of finality of this judgment.

SO ORDERED.