G.R. No. 185616
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ARNEL MACAFE y NABONG,
G.R. No. 185616, November 24, 2010
D E C I S I O N
BRION, J.:
x x x.
THE COURT’S RULING
After due consideration, we dismiss the appeal but increase the awarded exemplary damages from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00 for each count of rape.
Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence
Rape is defined and penalized under Article 335[21] of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, which provides:
ARTICLE 335. When and how rape is committed. – Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances.
1. By using force or intimidation;
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.
The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
Rape under paragraph 3 of this article 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.[22]
In her testimony, AAA positively identified the appellant as the one who raped her on three occasions, namely, September 10, 1997, September 15, 1997, and September 18, 1997. Her testimonies were clear and straightforward; she was consistent in her recollection of the details of her defloration. In addition, her testimonies were corroborated by the medical findings of Dr. Vasquez.
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 subjecting herself 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 as serious as rape if what she claims is not true.[23]
The prosecution, thus, positively established the elements of statutory rape under Article 335, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code. First, the appellant succeeded in having carnal knowledge of AAA on three occasions on September 1997. Second, AAA was below twelve years of age at the time of the incidents, as evidenced by her birth certificate and testimony showing that she was born on June 1, 1986.
The Appellant’s Defenses
The appellant denied having raped AAA, and insisted that AAA only filed the cases at the instigation of FFF, who was mad at him for failing to remit the money that BBB sent.
The appellant’s defense of denial must crumble in light of AAA’s positive and specific testimony. We have consistently held that the identification of the accused, when categorical and consistent, and without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying, should prevail over mere denial. In the context of this case, the appellant’s denial, unsupported by any other evidence, cannot overcome the victim’s positive declaration on his identity and involvement in the crime attributed to him.
We also find unmeritorious the appellant’s claim that FFF merely instigated AAA to file the complaints against him. We stress that it was not FFF but AAA’s grandparents who decided to file the case against the appellant. At any rate, the appellant’s claim that FFF convinced AAA to file fabricated rape charges because the appellant failed to give the money due her is too flimsy a reason for an aunt to subject her niece to humiliation and scandal.
The Proper Penalty and Indemnity
Under the second part of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, the death penalty shall be imposed when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.
As shown by her Certificate of Live Birth,[24] AAA was born on June 1, 1986; AAA also testified to this fact.[25] Clearly, AAA was only eleven years old when the three rapes happened in September 1997. Nonetheless, the CA was correct in reducing the death penalty to reclusion perpetua because the circumstance of relationship was not alleged in the complaints. None of the complaints alleged that the appellant was the stepfather of AAA.
We affirm the awards of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and moral damages, respectively, for each count of rape, as they are in accord with prevailing jurisprudence. Civil indemnity is awarded on the finding that rape was committed. Similarly, moral damages are awarded to rape complainants without the need of a pleading or proof of their basis; it is assumed that a rape complainant actually suffered moral injuries, entitling her to this award.[26]
However, we increase the amount of the awarded exemplary damages from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00 pursuant to established jurisprudence. The award of exemplary damages is justified, under Article 2229 of the Civil Code, to set a public example and serve as deterrent against elders who abuse and corrupt the youth.[27]
x x x.
