Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

SPECIAL FOURTEENTH DIVISION

THE PEOPLE OF THE CA G.R. CR-HC No. 09728

PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, Members:

LOPEZ, M.V.,
-versus- Chairperson
GALAPATE-LAGUILLES, and
*MARTIN R.R.B., JJ.

NORMAN LIGSA y
TUAZON,
Accused-Appellant. Promulgated:
December 17, 2018
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

D E C I S I O N

LOPEZ, J.:

Accused-appellant Norman Ligsa is charged with rape

committed against a minor, AAA,1 in the following
Information dated January 18, 2016, to wit:

That on or about the 15th of January 2016, in

Valenzuela City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
through force, threat or intimidation and with lewd and
lust [sic] designs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously have carnal knowledge with his 8 year old
* Acting Junior Member, as per Office Order No. 592-18-RFB dated November 29, 2018.
1 As decreed in People of the Philippines v. Cabalquinto (G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006),
the complainant’s real name, as well as those of their immediate family or household members, are
withheld to effectuate the provisions of R.A. No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against
Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act) and its implementing rules, R.A. No. 9262
(Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004) and its implementing rules, and
A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC (Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children).
CA -G.R. CR-HC No. 09728
DECISION
Page 2 of 9______________

niece [AAA] against the will and without the consent of

the said minor.

CONTRARY TO LAW.2

When arraigned, Ligsa pleaded “NOT GUILTY”. 3 Trial

then ensued.

The facts as summarized by the Office of the Solicitor

General are as follows:

At around 9 o’clock in the evening of January 15,

2016, AAA went to her godmother’s house … to get
loombands. Upon entering the house, AAA notice[d] her
mother’s cousin, herein accused-appellant, who is [sic]
doing something with his bag. AAA went upstairs to get
the loombands. Shortly after, accused-appellant followed
AAA, entered the room where AAA was, locked the door
and told AAA, “Hubarin mo and [sic] shorts mo.” AAA
replied, “Ayaw ko, kukunin ko lang ang loombands ko.”

When AAA was about to leave, accused-appellant

pulled her to the bed and thereafter removed her shorts
and panty. Accused-appellant ordered AAA to bend down.
He positioned himself at the back of AAA, took off his
shorts, knelt and held AAA’s hips. When accused-
appellant was forcibly inserting his penis inside AAA’s
vagina, AAA felt so much pain and she asked accused-
appellant to stop. Accused-appellant stopped only when
CCC, AAA’s cousin, entered the room. When CCC noticed
that AAA was wearing her clothes in reverse, she asked
the two what they were doing. AAA told CCC that
accused-appellant undressed her. With this, CCC cursed
accused-appellant and went downstairs with AAA. When
asked, AAA narrated that it was not the first time
accused-appellant did that to her.

CCC informed DDD, one of their relatives, about

what she saw. When BBB, AAA’s mother, learned about
it, she and AAA, immediately proceeded to the Women
and Children Protection Desk in Valenzuela City Police
Station to report the incident. There, AAA gave her
statement before Police Officer 2 Ma. Johna T. Guacin. ....
....
At 2:10 in the afternoon of January 16, 2016, upon
the request of the Valenzuela City Police Station, AAA was
2 Records, p. 2.
3 Id., p. 22.
CA -G.R. CR-HC No. 09728
DECISION
Page 3 of 9______________

subjected to physical and genital examination by PCI

Escaro. The findings were reduced into Initial Medico-
Legal Report and Medico-Legal Report No. R16-014N,
both indicating the thinning of the hymen or attenuation
at the 7 o’clock position, showing clear evidence of blunt
force trauma to the hymen.4

Ligsa denied having sexual congress with AAA. 5 He

claimed that he was at the same house where AAA was
because there was a Christening party at that time. Ligsa
also asserted that he was implicated in the rape because of
his mother’s unpaid debt to AAA’s aunt.6

On June 28, 2017, the Regional Trial Court rendered a

Decision7 finding Ligsa guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of rape. The pertinent portion of the decision
reads:

The court had seen the demeanor of AAA while she

testified in court, and the court is fully convinced that the
prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable
doubt that on January 15, 2016, the accused ... had
carnal knowledge of AAA. The testimony of AAA was
straightforward and consistent, and the Official Medico-
Legal Report of PCI Escaro, which states: “thinning of the
hymen/Attenuation at 7 o’clock position”, substantiated
her testimony. ....

That the penis of the accused penetrated the vagina

of AAA was also established with AAA’s testimony when
she testified that she felt pain in her vagina when the
accused touched his penis. In short, accused’s [sic] penis
did not only touch AAA’s vagina, but actually it
penetrated her vagina[.]

The defense of the accused is bare denial, which is

a weak defense. As against the positive assertion of AAA
and her positive identification of the accused, accused’s
[sic] defense of denial cannot be given any weight.
Defense’ allegation that the filing of the case was ill-
motivated because AAA’s aunt … was angry with
accused’s mother for failure of the latter to pay her debt
… is incredible and should not be given consideration.
4 Rollo, pp. 74-76.
5 TSN, April 21, 2017, pp. 4-5.
6 Id., p. 7. See also TSN, May 10, 2017, pp. 3-4.
7 Records, pp. 68-72.
CA -G.R. CR-HC No. 09728
DECISION
Page 4 of 9______________

AAA was only 8 years old when the incident

happened. It was held that youth and immaturity are
generally badges of truth and sincerity. All throughout
her testimony, AAA remained firm on what happened to
her despite the cross-examination of the defense counsel
and the questioning of the court. Her account is
straightforward and candid and is corroborated by
medical findings of the examining physician.

WHEREFORE, the court finds the accused

NORMAN LIGSA y TUAZON guilty beyond reasonable
doubt, as principal of the crime of Rape, and he is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of
Reclusion Perpetua, and he is ordered to pay AAA the
amount of Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity,
Php50,000.00 as moral damages and Php30,000.00 as
exemplary damages. All damages shall bear interest of six
[percent] (6%) per annum from the time of finality of the
decision until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.8

In this appeal, Ligsa contends that the trial court

erred in convicting him. AAA’s testimony is incredible for
the following reasons: (1) AAA failed to testify as to matter
she stated in her affidavit made before the police; (2) there
is doubt in AAA’s testimony whether there is penetration to
consider the crime consummated; (3) AAA did not shout
during the incident; (4) AAA had ill-motive to implicate
Ligsa; and (5) the medical report cannot be considered as
corroborative evidence.9

The appeal has no merit.

Rape is committed by a man who shall have carnal

knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:

(a) Through force, threat or intimidation;

(b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or

8 Id., pp. 71-72.
9 Rollo, pp. 31-44. Accused-appellant Ligsa submits the following assignment of errors for
resolution:
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
DESPITE THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT’S INCREDIBLE TESTIMONY.
CA -G.R. CR-HC No. 09728
DECISION
Page 5 of 9______________

otherwise unconscious;

(c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of

authority; and

(d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of

age or is demented even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above be present.10

For the charge of rape to prosper, the prosecution

must prove that (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a
woman; and (2) he accomplished such act through force,
threat or intimidation, when she was deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious, or when she was under 12 years of
age or was demented. Carnal knowledge of a woman under
12 years of age is rape. Proof of force or intimidation is not
necessary, as the minor is not capable of giving consent to
a sexual act. What needs to be proven are the facts of
sexual congress between the accused and the victim, and
the minority of the latter.11

Here, AAA was able to vividly narrate the manner and

circumstances of the sexual congress between her and the
accused, to wit:
Q May naaalala ka bang ginawa sayo si Tito Norman?
A (witness nodded)

Q Ano yun?
A Hinubaran niya po ako.
....
Q Sino kasama mo doon sa loob ng bahay ni ninang?
A Kaming dalawa lang po.

Q Ano ba suot mo noon?

A Naka short saka sando.

Q Tapos anong ginawa niya nun hinubaran ka niya?

A Pinatuwad niya po ako.

Q Tapos anong ginawa niya nung pinatuwad ka niya?

A Hinubad niya din po yung short niya.

Q Tapos, ano sumunod na nangyari nung hinubad

10 Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 – The Anti-Rape
Law of 1997.
11 People of the Philippines v. Bangsoy, G.R. No. 204047, January 13, 2016.
CA -G.R. CR-HC No. 09728
DECISION
Page 6 of 9______________

niya din yung short niya?

A Inano niya po yung ari niya sa akin.
....
Q Ano yun inano para malinaw? Pwede mo bang
idemonstrate? Kunwari ito yung ari, ano ginawa?
A Nilusot niya po dito.
INTERPRETER - The witness pointing to a vagina of a
female anatomical doll while the doll was facing the
ground.
Q Paano ginawa?
A Nilusot niya po dito yung ari niya.

Q Hanggang saan niya nilusot?

A Hanggang dito lang po.
INTEPRETER - The witness is pointing to the upper
part of the vagina.
....
Q Sinasabi mo na ipinasok mismo sa loob?
A Konti lang po, tumusok po.
....
Q Ano naramdaman mo nung dumikit yung ari niya
sa pepe mo?
A Masakit po.
....
Q Masakit na masakit ba o masakit lang?
A Masakit na masakit po.

COURT Pinipilit niya bang ipasok yung ari niya sa ari

mo?
A Opo.

COURT Inuuga uga ba yung ari niya sa ari mo?

A (witness nodded)12

It is established, and Ligsa does not dispute, that AAA

was 8 years of age at the time of the sexual abuse as shown
by her birth certificate showing that she was born on
September 5, 2007.13 In view of the proof that sexual
intercourse between Ligsa and AAA took place and the
latter’s minority, the crime of rape was committed.

Nevertheless, Ligsa belabors to impugn the credibility

of AAA when she made allegedly incredible statements
during her testimony. He insists that there was no
consummated crime since AAA failed to narrate the details
12 TSN, June 7, 2016, pp. 3-6.
13 Records, p. 14.
CA -G.R. CR-HC No. 09728
DECISION
Page 7 of 9______________

of actual penetration of her vagina, and that it was very

unlikely for AAA not to shout during the incident. We are
not swayed. The Supreme Court has repeatedly
emphasized that rape victims are not expected to make an
errorless recollection of the incident so humiliating and
painful that they might in fact be trying to obliterate it from
their memory.14 There is no clear-cut behavior that can be
expected of a person being raped or has been raped. It is
likewise settled that failure of the victim to shout or seek for
help does not negate rape. Even lack of resistance will not
imply that the victim has consented to the sexual act,
especially when that person was intimidated into
submission by the accused. In cases where the rape is
committed by a relative such as a father, stepfather, uncle,
or common law spouse, moral influence or ascendancy
takes the place of violence.15

We emphasize that the matters raised by Ligsa are

basically issues of credibility. In this regard, We maintain
the trial court's assessment of AAA's credibility in accord
with the consistent ruling that this assessment deserves
great respect in the absence of any attendant grave abuse of
discretion. The trial court had the advantage of actually
examining the real and testimonial evidence, including the
conduct of the witnesses, and is in the best position to rule
on the matter.16 When a victim's testimony is credible and
sufficiently establishes the elements of the crime, it is
enough basis to convict an accused of rape. 17

Moreover, medical evidence corroborates AAA’s

testimony. The medico-legal report indicated that AAA had
thinning of the hymen or attenuation at the 7 o’clock
position, and concluded that there is clear evidence of blunt
force trauma to the hymen.18 PCI Charyl Escaro, M.D.
explained that thinning of the hymen, in children’s cases, is
caused by full penetration because children are not yet
14 People of the Philippines v. Rubio, G.R. No. 195239, March 7, 2012 citing People v. Balbarona,
G.R. No. 146854, April 28, 2004.
15 People of the Philippines v. Pareja, G.R. No. 202122, January 25, 2014 citing People v. Pacheco,
G.R. No. 187742, April 20, 2010 .
16 People of the Philippines v. Suansing, G.R. No. 189822, September 2, 2013.
17 People of the Philippines v. Quintos, G.R. No. 199402, November 12, 2014.
18 Records, p. 13.
CA -G.R. CR-HC No. 09728
DECISION
Page 8 of 9______________

menstruating and are not suited for the penetration of any

blunt object.19 Considering that AAA’s testimony is
consistent with medical findings, there is sufficient basis to
warrant a conclusion that the essential requisites of carnal
knowledge have been established.20

Against the overwhelming prosecution evidence, Ligsa

tendered nothing but his bare denial, a negative defense,
which must fail.21 Denial is an inherently weak defense
which is unavailing in the face of positive identification by
the victim of the accused-appellant as the violator of her
honor.22 Affirmative testimony is stronger than a negative
one, especially when it comes from the mouth of a credible
witness.23 All told, We agree with the trial court that the
prosecution has proven the gravamen of the crime of rape.
The penalty imposed – reclusion perpetua – is likewise
upheld.

However, We modify the award of damages. In line

with prevailing jurisprudence,24 AAA is entitled to
Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php75,000.00 as moral
damages, and Php75,000.00 as exemplary damages. The
amounts awarded shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from date of finality of the judgment until fully
paid.25

FOR THE STATED REASONS, the June 28, 2017

Decision of the Regional Trial Court is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION in that accused-appellant Norman Ligsa y
Tuazon is ordered to pay the offended party Php75,000.00
as civil indemnity, Php75,000.00 as moral damages, and
Php75,000.00 as exemplary damages; all with 6% annual
legal interest computed from the date of finality of this
judgment until fully paid.

19 TSN, August 10, 2016, pp. 8-9.

20 People of the Philippines v. Sabal, Jr., G.R. No, 201861, June 2, 2014.
21 See People of the Philippines v. Matunhay, G.R. No. 178274, March 5, 2010.
22 People of the Philippines v. Libeta, G.R. No. 139231, April 12, 2002 citing People v. Elpedes, G.R.
Nos. 137106-07, January 31, 2001.
23 Id. citing People vs. Brigildo, 323 SCRA 631 (2000).
24 People of the Philippines v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016.
25 People of the Philippines v. Dadao, et al., G.R. No. 201860, January 22, 2014 citing Avelino v.
People, G.R. No. 181444, July 17, 2013.
CA -G.R. CR-HC No. 09728
DECISION
Page 9 of 9______________

SO ORDERED.

MARIO V. LOPEZ
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ZENAIDA T. GALAPATE-LAGUILLES
Associate Justice

RONALDO ROBERTO B. MARTIN

Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is

hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned
to the writer of the opinion of the Court.

MARIO V. LOPEZ
Chairperson
Special Fourteenth Division