FIRST DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 218804, August 06, 2018 ]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS.

LEONARDO QUIAPO @ "LANDO", ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

DECISION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

On appeal is the April 24, 2015 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R CR
HC No. 00669-MIN affirming with modification the September 5, 2008 Decision[2] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte, Branch 28 in Criminal
Case Nos. L-0098 to L-00103 convicting Leonardo Quiapo @ "Lando" (appellant) of one
count of attempted rape and five counts of consummated rape.

Antecedent Facts

Appellant was charged before the RTC of Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte, Branch 28 in six
separate Informations with rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and
were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. L-0098 to L-00103, inclusive.

The accusatory portions of the Informations read, as follows:

Criminal Case No. L-0098

That, in the afternoon, on or about the 20th day of September, 1996, in x x

x Zamboanga del Norte, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
said accused, moved by lewd and unchaste desire and by means of force,
violence and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously succeed in having sexual intercourse with one MMM,[3] an 11
year old child, against her will and without her consent.

CONTRARY TO LAW (Viol. of Art. 335, Revised Penal Code).[4]

Criminal Case No. L-0099

That, in the evening, on or about the 21st day of September, 1996, in x x x

Zamboanga del Norte, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
said accused, moved by lewd and unchaste desire and by means of force,
violence and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously succeed in having sexual intercourse with one MMM, an 11 year
old child, against her will and without her consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW (Viol. of Art. 335, Revised Penal Code).[5]

Criminal Case No. L-00100

That, in the morning, on or about the 18th day of April, 1996, in x x x

Zamboanga del Norte, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
said accused, moved by lewd and unchaste desire and by means of force,
violence and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously succeed in having sexual intercourse with one AAA, a 12 year old
child, against her will and without her consent.

CONTRARY TO LAW (Viol. of Art. 335, Revised Penal Code).[6]

Criminal Case No. L-00101

That, at noon, on or about the 18th day of April, 1996, in x x x Zamboanga

del Norte, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused,
move by lewd and unchaste desire and by means of force, violence and
intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously succeed
in having sexual intercourse with one AAA, a 12 year old child, against her
will and without her consent.

CONTRARY TO LAW (Viol. of Art. 335, Revised Penal Code).[7]

Criminal Case No. L-00102

That, in the evening, on or about the 18th day of April, 1996, in x x x

Zamboanga del Norte, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
said accused, moved by lewd and unchaste desire and by means of force,
violence and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously succeed in having sexual intercourse with one AAA, a 12 year old
child, against her will and without her consent.

CONTRARY TO LAW (Viol. of Art. 335, Revised Penal Code).[8]

Criminal Case No. L-00103

That, in the evening, on or about the 13th day of May, 1996, in x x x

Zamboanga del Norte, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
said accused, moved by lewd and unchaste desire and by means of force,
violence and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously succeed in having sexual intercourse with one AAA, a 12 year old
child, against her will and without her consent.

CONTRARY TO LAW (Viol. of Art. 335, Revised Penal Code).[9]

Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.

The CA and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) summarized the prosecution's
version of the incidents in the following manner:

Criminal Case Nos. L-0100, L-0101, L-0102 and L-0103:

Rapes committed on AAA:

In the summer of 1996, AAA stayed with x x x appellant Leonardo Quiapo,

and Aunt [BBB] Quiapo at their residence x x x, per request of AAA's Aunt
[BBB]. While living with the spouses, AAA helped out in the daily household
chores x x x. Everytime that [BBB] leaves the house, Leonardo would ask
her to come to him.

In the afternoon of 18 April 1996, while AAA was fetching water, Leonardo
followed and beckoned her to come to him x x x. At first, AAA did not
respond to Leonardo's call. x x x Eventually, [AAA] succumbed to
[appellant's] unrelenting request and came near him. Immediately
thereafter, Leonardo x x x [undressed AAA and threatened her] not to shout.

Terrified by the bolo [hanging] at the side of Leonardo and the threat of
killing her x x x, AAA yielded to [her] uncle's desire. Leonardo laid her on
the grass and took out his penis x x x and positioned himself on top of AAA.
However, Leonardo was not able to fully insert his penis into AAA's vagina.

Days after, Leonardo's second sexual attack on AAA took place at the
Quiapos['J house x x x. While AAA was sleeping together with her aunt and
cousins in the same room - which was dark because the light[s] were off -
Leonardo advanced towards AAA. Despite AAA's three (3) shouts for help,
her aunt [and cousins] did not wake up[.]x x x Leonardo succeeded in
penetrating her [causing her severe] pain and x x x vaginal bleeding. She
was sure that it was Leonardo because she recognized x x x his voice.

The third rape incident was committed in the grassy portion surrounding the
house of the Quiapos['] x x x while AAA was fetching water. Similarly, AAA
felt severe pain and vaginal bleeding resulting from Leonardo's penetration
of her.

For the fourth time, Leonardo raped AAA while she was sleeping together
with all the members of the Quiapo family in the same room. Her shouting twice
[at] the top of her voice did not wake her aunt or anybody in the room x x x.
Leonardo covered her mouth to prevent her from shouting further. He
succeeded in undressing and laying on top of AAA by threatening her that
[he] would kill her. Again, Leonardo successfully penetrated AAA resulting in
another episode of pain and vaginal bleeding on the part of AAA.

The fifth episode happened one morning while AAA was carrying palay from
the rice mill. Moments after reaching the house, AAA was commanded by
Leonardo to come close to him. When AAA did not accede, x x x Leonardo
grabbed her hand. At this point, [BBB] saw what her husband was doing to
her niece. [BBB] hurriedly went inside the house and a fight ensued
thereafter. [BBB] inquired from AAA what her husband did to her and AAA
confessed the sexual molestations made by appellant against her x x x. On
the same day, AAA was brought to her house x x x. She was also brought to
the doctor for medical examination and to the police for investigation.

xxxx

Dr. Joshua G. Brillantes, Rural Health Physician of Labason, Zamboanga del

Norte conducted the physical examination on AAA on May 29, 1997. During
the examination, Dr. Brillantes observed that there was a complete
laceration of hymenal membrane which [had] already healed[, which
laceration was] possibly caused by a penis inserted through the hymen
causing it to break.

On internal examination or manual examination, it was discovered that

AAA's vaginal womb readily admit[ted] the tip of the little finger without any
resistance[. This was] a result of the insertion of any object x x x to the
vagina which [had] caused the elasticity of the vaginal muscles. He testified
that the above mentioned findings indicated that a previous penetration
occurred prior to the examination.

xxxx

Criminal Case Nos. L-0098 and L-0099:

Rapes committed on MMM

Sometime in September 1996, MMM was invited by her Aunt [BBB] to stay
in the latter's house x x x to be a playmate to the latter's two children. MMM
would [be] sleeping [in] a small room beside her Aunt [BBB] who was, in
turn, lying beside Leonardo.

[In the evening] of 20 September 1996 [MMM] was sleeping inside her Aunt
[BBB] and Leonardo's bedroom. At that time, her aunt was not around.
While she was sleeping, appellant came to lie beside her, x x x. While MMM
tried to move away[,] Leonardo pulled her towards him x x x. Leonardo held
her hand, then shoulders, covered her mouth and undressed her. MMM
attempted to shout but Leonardo managed to cover her mouth.

Eventually, after successfully pulling down MMM's panty, Leonardo removed

his own clothes and [laid] on top of her. MMM suddenly felt much pain when
Leonardo inserted his penis into her vagina Maintaining such position,
Leonardo continued with a series of 'push and pull' movements until MMM
felt something x x x flowed inside her vagina.

After Leonardo was through, hex x x warned her that[,] if she [would] report
x x x what [had] happened, he [would] kill her and her mother. Leonardo
also promised to give MMM money. Driven by an overwhelming fear, MMM
 did as she was told. Leonardo was armed with an air gun beside him while
he was committing these acts.

The following day, 21 September 1996 at around 4:00 PM, while MMM was
[on a trail] through the nearby grassy portion, Leonardo shouted at [her]
and instructed her to come near him because he had something to tell her.
Thereat, Leonardo raped MMM for the second time [and] blood oozed out of
MMM's vagina after another painful sexual attack made by appellant.

MMM reported the sexual molestations caused to her by her uncle to the
police x x x [in] May 1997 or approximately eight (8) months when her
cousin AAA, who was also raped by her uncle, appellant Leonardo, reported
the matter to MMM's mother.

Dr. Brillantes was also the one who conducted the physical examination on
MMM on May 29, 1997. Dr. Brillantes observed that there was a complete
laceration of hymenal membrane which [had] already healed. He testified
that the above mentioned findings [indicated] that MMM was 'no longer a
virgin' at the time of the examination [and] the same result as that of his
examination with AAA.[10]

On the other hand, appellant relied on denial and alibi. He denied ever having carnal
knowledge of AAA and MMM as he was no longer a resident of the place where the
occurrences transpired. He alleged that the accusations against him were fabricated
and instigated by the complainants' grandmother who was driven by a grudge against
him.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

The RTC gave more credence to the testimonies of AAA and MMM. It rejected
appellant's defenses of denial and alibi applying the principle that these defenses
cannot prevail over the positive testimony and identification of the accused. The RTC
was not persuaded that the charges were just fabricated as it was not clearly
established that the grandmother of the complainants really had a grudge on him.
However, in Criminal Case No. L-0100, the RTC found appellant liable only for
attempted rape since the prosecution failed to prove that appellant's penis was able to
penetrate, however slight, AAA's vagina. Thus, on September 5, 2008, the RTC
rendered its Decision, the decretal portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court finds accused LEONARDO

QUIAPO alias Lando, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the following:

1. For the crime of Attempted Rape in Criminal Case No. L-0100 and
sentences [him] to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from
two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as
minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum
and to pay Victim - AAA x x x the sum of Php30,000.00 as civil indemnity;
Php25,000.00 as moral damages and Php10,000.00 as exemplary damages,
and
 2. For two (2) counts of Consummated Rape, in Criminal Case Nos. L-0098,
L-0099, and sentences him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua in
two (2) counts, and to pay the Victim - MMM x x x the sum of
Php75,000.00; Php25,000.00 as exemplary damages and Php75,000.00 as
moral damages, for each case.

3. For three (3) counts of Consummated Rape in Criminal Case Nos. L-0101,
L-0102, and L-0103 and sentences him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion
Perpetua in three (3) counts, and to pay the Victim - AAA x x x the sum of
Php75,000.00[,] Php25,000.00 as exemplary damages and Php75,000.00 as
moral damages, for each case.

SO ORDERED.[11]

Insisting on his innocence, appellant appealed to the CA.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The CA found the testimonies of AAA and MMM clear, candid and straightforward and
was convinced that appellant's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. It rejected
his defenses of denial and alibi holding that affirmative testimony was far stronger than
negative testimony especially when it comes from a reliable witness. The CA ruled that
appellant failed to prove his physical impossibility to be at the situs criminis at the time
and date the crimes were committed. The precise time and date when the rapes took
place had no substantial bearing on its commission. Moreover, the CA held that the
delay in reporting the incidents did not militate against the credibility of AAA and MMM
as they were threatened with death by appellant. Thus, on April 24, 2015, the CA
disposed of appellant's appeal, as follows:

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 28,
in Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte in Criminal Case Nos. L-0098, L-0099, L-0100,
L-0101, L-0102 and L-0103, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant
Leonardo Quiapo is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of:

(a) statutory rape under paragraph 1 (d), article 266A of the Revised Penal
Code in Criminal Case Nos. L-0098 and L-0099 and sentenced to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility of parole, and to further pay
the victim, MMM, for each count of rape the amounts of [a] P50,000.00 as
civil indenmity, [b] P50,000.00 as moral damages, and [c] P30,000.00 as
exemplary damages.

(b) simple rape under paragraph 1(a), Article 266-A of the Revised Penal
Code in Criminal Case Nos. L-0101, L-0102 and L-0103 and sentenced to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility of parole, and to
further pay the victim, AAA, for each count of rape the amounts of [a]
P50,000.00 as civil indenmity, [b] P50,000.00 as moral damages, and [c]
P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
 (c) attempted rape in Criminal Case No. [L-]0100 for which he is sentenced
to prison term of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision
correccional,as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor, as maximum. He is likewise ordered to pay the victim, MMM, the
amounts of [a] P30,000.00 as civil indenmity, [b] P25,000.00 as moral
damages, and [c] P10,000.00 as exemplary damages.

Upon finality of this decision, appellant is further directed to pay interest, at

the rate of 6% per annum, on all monetary awards for damages from the
date of finality until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.[12]

Hence, this appeal.

In our Resolution[13] dated August 5, 2015, we required the parties to submit their
respective supplemental briefs within 30 days from notice, if they so desired. The
parties filed their separate manifestations that they were no longer filing supplemental
briefs; instead, they were adopting their briefs filed before the CA.[14]

Our Ruling

The appeal is unmeritorious.

In assailing his conviction, appellant harps on the credibility of AAA and MMM
contending that their respective recollection of the events were conflicting and
contradictory regarding the details of the place, date and time of the incidents; and,
their delayed disclosure of the incidents to their parents.

Appellant explains that the Information in Criminal Case No. L-0100 stated that the
crime was committed in the morning on or about the 18th day of April, 1996; in
Criminal Case No. L-0101 stated that the crime was committed at noon or about the
18th day of April, 1996; in Criminal Case No. L-0102 stated that the crime was
committed in the evening on or about the 18th day of April, 1996; and; in Criminal
Case No. L-0103 stated that the crime was committed on or about the 13th day of May,
1996. However, AAA testified during the trial that she was sexually abused in the year
1996 but could not remember the dates and gave inconsistent testimonies on the
details. Appellant also avers that MMM could not state with consistency the place where
the incidents of rape happened on September 20 and 21, 1996. Moreover, appellant
posits that the delay in reporting the incidents hardly conforms to human experience.

Appellant's submissions are not tenable.

"[T]he date of the commission of the rape is not an essential element of the crime of
rape, for the gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge of a Inconsistencies and
discrepancies in details which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime are not
grounds for acquittal."[15] Thus, any discrepancy regarding the dates, place and time of
the incidents deserves scant consideration. In People v. Sarcia,[16] the Court "ruled,
time and again that the date is not an essential element of the crime of rape, for the
gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge of a woman. As such, the time or place of
commission in rape cases need not be accurately stated."

Neither the delay of AAA and MMM in reporting the incidents undermines their
credibility. We have already ruled that "delay in reporting rape incidents, in the face of
threats of physical violence, cannot be taken against the victim because delay in
reporting an incident of rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge and does not
necessarily cast doubt on the credibility of the complainant."[17]

The courts below correctly rejected appellant's defenses of denial and alibi. Well established
is the rule that "a mere denial, without any strong evidence to support it, can scarcely
overcome the positive declaration by the victim of the identity and involvement of appellant
in the crimes attributed to him."[18] The same is true with his claim of alibi. As observed
by the courts below, appellant failed to prove his physical impossibility to be at the crime
scene during their alleged commissions.

Anent appellant's ascription of ill-motive in filing the charges against him, the Court already
ruled that "motives such as resentment, hatred or revenge have never swayed this Court
from giving full credence to the testimony of a minor rape victim."[19]

Incidentally, appellant's contentions basically relate to the trial court's appreciation of

the evidence adduced by the prosecution and its factual findings based thereon
particularly the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.

The time-honored rule is that 'the issue of credibility of witnesses is a

question best addressed to the province of the trial court because of its
unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable
evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand While testifying, x x x
and absent any substantial reason which would justify the reversal of the
trial court's assessments and conclusions, the reviewing court is bound by
the former's findings, particularly when no significant facts and
circumstances are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded, which
when considered would have affected the outcome of the case. The rule
finds an even more stringent application where the said findings are
sustained by the CA.[20]

This Court is convinced that the courts below were correct in giving full credence to the
complainants.

The Court agrees with the CA that appellant should be held liable for statutory rape in
Criminal Case Nos. L-0098 and L-0099. The elements of the crime of statutory rape
under Article 266-A(1)(d) are: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman;
and (2) that such a woman is under 12 years of age or is demented.[21] Essentially, the
foregoing elements are the same as those provided under paragraph 3 of Article 335,
the law in force when the rapes on MMM transpired. Thus based on records, the
prosecution had established the element of carnal knowledge through the testimony of
MMM with her age of being under 12 years old supported by her Certificate of Live
Birth.

With respect to the rapes committed on AAA, the CA made a clear conclusion which we
quote:

However, with respect to AAA, the Court upholds the trial court in finding
appellant only liable for simple rape in Criminal Case Nos. L-0101, L-0102
and L-0103. While it may appear that AAA was under twelve (12) years old
at the time appellant raped her, the same was not properly alleged in the
Information. Consequently, due to the defect in the information charging
appellant of rape, he can only be made liable for simple rape even if it was
proven during trial that AAA was under twelve (12) years old at the time of
the commission of the crimes charged.[22]

In addition, the Court finds no compelling reason to deviate from the findings of the CA
affirming that of the trial court that appellant can only be made liable for attempted
rape in Criminal Case No. L-0100 in view of the absence of any showing of the slightest
penetration of appellant's penis inside AAA's vagina.

Consequently, the CA properly imposed on appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua

in Criminal Case Nos. L-0098, L-0099, L-0101, L-0102 and L-0103.

Recent jurisprudence[23] however, constrains us to modify the amount of damages

awarded by the CA. The awards of civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages have
to be modified and increased to P75,000.00 each in the aforenumbered cases, which
amounts shall bear interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of
this Decision until fully paid.

While we sustain the prison term of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of
prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor,
as maximum, imposed by the CA in Criminal Case No. L-0100 for attempted rape, we
find a need also for some modifications in the award of damages in line with recent
jurisprudence. The award of P30,000.00 as civil indemnity must be reduced to
P25,000.00 while the amount of P10,000.00 as exemplary damages is increased to
P25,000.00. The award of P25,000.00 as moral damages is retained. All the amounts
awarded shall bear interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this
Decision until fully paid.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed April 24, 2015 Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 00669-MIN is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATIONS:

1. In Criminal Case Nos. L-0098 and L-0099, the appellant is found GUILTY of
statutory rape and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count.
He is ordered to pay MMM P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages
and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count, all with interest at 6% per
annum from finality of this Decision until fully paid.
2. In Criminal Case Nos. L-0101, L-0102 and L-0103, the appellant is found GUILTY of
simple rape and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count.
He is ordered to pay AAA P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages
and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count, all with interest at 6% per
annum from finality of this Decision until fully paid.

3. In Criminal Case No. L-0100, the appellant is found GUILTY of attempted rape and
sentenced to a prison term of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision
correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as
maximum. He is ordered to pay AAA P25,000.00 as civil indemnity, P25,000.00 as
moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, all with interest of 6% per
annum from finality of this Decision until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.

Leonardo-De Castro,* Tijam, Reyes, Jr.,** and Gesmundo,*** JJ., concur.

* Per Special Order No. 2559 dated May 11, 2018.

** Designated as additional member per October 18, 2017 raffle vice J. Jardeleza who

recused due to prior action as Solicitor General.

*** Per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.

[1] CA rollo, pp. 211-229; penned by Associate Justice Edward B. Contreras and
concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo T. Lloren and Rafael Antonio M. Santos.

[2] Id. at 125-155; penned by Judge Oscar D. Tomarong.

[3] "The identity of the victim or any information which could establish or compromise

her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be
withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. 7610, An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence
And Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation And Discrimination, Providing
Penalties for its Violation, And for Other Purposes; Republic Act No. 9262, An Act
Defining Violence Against Women And Their Children, Providing For Protective Measures
For Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, And for Other Purposes; and Section 40 of
A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the Rule on Violence against Women and Their
Children, effective November 15, 2004." People v. Dumadag, 667 Phil. 664, 669
(2011).

[4] Records (Vol. 1), p. 1.

[5] Id. at 4.

[6] Records (Vol. 2), p. 1.

[7] Id. at 6.

[8] Id. at 11.

[9] Id. at 16.

[10] CA rollo, pp. 215-218.

[11] Id. at 152-153.

[12] Id. at 227-228.

[13] Rollo, p. 24.

[14] Id. at 46-47.

[15] People v. Arpon, 678 Phil. 752, 773 (2011).

[16] 615 Phil. 97, 116 (2009) citing People v. Purazo, 450 Phil. 651, 671 (2003).

[17] People v. Rusco, 796 Phil. 147, 157-158 (2016).

[18] People v. Pamintuan, 710 Phil. 414, 424 (2013).

[19] Id.

[20] People v. Biala, 773 Phil. 464, 480 (2015).

[21] People v. Pamintuan, supra note 18 at 422.

[22] CA rollo, p. 225.

[23] People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).

Source: Supreme Court E-Library

This page was dynamically generated
by the E-Library Content Management System (E-LibCMS)