June 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > June 2008 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 172692 : June 16, 2008] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ABONDIO ACADEMIA:
[G.R. No. 172692 : June 16, 2008]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ABONDIO ACADEMIA
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 16 June 2008:
G.R. No. 172692 (People of the Philippines v. Abondio Academia)
For review is the December 23, 2005 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 00375 entitled People of the Philippines v. Abondio Academia, which affirmed the September 13, 2004 Decision[2] of the Tarlac City Regional Trial Court (RTC), Brach 65 in Criminal Case No. 12057 for acts of lasciviousness and Criminal Case No. 12056 for rape. The RTC found accused-appellant Abondio Academia guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged.
Sometime in 1996, AAA,[3] then seven years old, while playing in front of her aunt�s house, was suddenly picked up by accused-appellant, her aunt�s husband, and then given a ride on his bicycle. When they reached a sugarcane field, accused-appellant laid her down, removed her panty, and went on top of her. He then inserted his penis into her vagina and made a push and pull movement. Thereafter, he took her home and, before letting her go, threatened her with death should she tell anybody about the incident.[4] Afraid of his threat, she kept the molestation incident to herself.
On the night of September 23, 2001, AAA, then already 12 years old fell asleep while watching television. She woke up to discover accused-appellant fondling her cheeks and kissing her on the lips. He told AAA to turn-off television but the latter cried. He then left the house.[5]
AAA revealed to her grandmother about accused-appellant�s sexual molestation against her. Her grandmother, in turn, reported the matter to the barangay captain. Accompanied by her grandmother, AAA went through mental and physical examination. The physical examination revealed that AAA had superficial lacerations at 11 o�clock and 2 o�clock positions.[6]
Accused-appellant was then charged with rape and acts of lasciviousness in the following Informations:
As regards the rape, accused-appellant claimed that after AAA filed the cases, he was arrested along with a certain Zaldy Duque. During their detention, AAA confronted of raping her. Thus, he wondered why he was the one charged with rape and not Zaldy.[9]
On September 13, 2004, after trial, the RTC rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
After giving due course to accused-appellant�s notice of appeal, the CA elevated the records of the case to the Court for review. On July 12, 2006, the Court ordered the parties to submit a supplemental brief if they so desired. However, the parties manifested that they would no longer file any supplemental brief in support of their respective causes.
Accused-appellant, in his May 23, 2005 Brief filed with the CA, raised a lone issue for the appellate court�s consideration. We now adopt this issue in the instant appeal, thus:
Accused-appellant belabors to discredit the testimony of the complaining witness by claiming that her behavior after the alleged rape happened was not consistent with normal human behavior. He considers as �amazing�[13] the fact that AAA, who stays in a house beside his, continued to play outside his house and in the process regularly see her alleged abuser. Moreover, he faults AAA for not remembering the exact date when she was raped.
We are not convinced. There is no standard behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience.[14] Thus, children who have undergone traumatic experiences, like being raped, should not be judged according to the norms of behavior expected of adults under the same circumstances.[15] It must be remembered that the victim considers the accused-appellant as a family member, being the husband of her auntie. Understandably, she was hesitant to reveal the sordid assault on her honor and simply chose to suffer in silence.
Furthermore, the exact date of the sexual assault is irrelevant in proving the charge of rape. What is important is the fact of the commission of the rape[16] or that there is proof of the penetration of the female organ.[17] In this case, the testimony of AAA indicated with certainty that the penis of accused-appellant penetrated her vagina, thus:
As regards the award of damages, the appellate court�s affirmatory ruling should be modified to include an award of civil indemnity and exemplary damages. Civil indemnity is mandatory upon a finding of the fact
of rape,[19] and in order to protect young children from molestation and abuse by perverse elders, exemplary damages should be awarded.[20] Thus, civil indemnity in the amount of PhP 50,000 and exemplary damages in the amount of PhP 25,000 are proper.[21]
Moreover, for the crime of acts of lasciviousness, the offended party is entitled to moral damages in the same way that moral damages are awarded to victims of rape even without need of proof because it is assumed that they suffered moral injury.[22] Accordingly, moral damages in the amount of PhP 30,000 is imposed.[23]
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the RTC Decision as affirmed in toto by the December 23, 2005 CA Decision in CA-G.R. CR No. 00375 with MODIFICATIONS, as follows:
G.R. No. 172692 (People of the Philippines v. Abondio Academia)
For review is the December 23, 2005 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 00375 entitled People of the Philippines v. Abondio Academia, which affirmed the September 13, 2004 Decision[2] of the Tarlac City Regional Trial Court (RTC), Brach 65 in Criminal Case No. 12057 for acts of lasciviousness and Criminal Case No. 12056 for rape. The RTC found accused-appellant Abondio Academia guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged.
Sometime in 1996, AAA,[3] then seven years old, while playing in front of her aunt�s house, was suddenly picked up by accused-appellant, her aunt�s husband, and then given a ride on his bicycle. When they reached a sugarcane field, accused-appellant laid her down, removed her panty, and went on top of her. He then inserted his penis into her vagina and made a push and pull movement. Thereafter, he took her home and, before letting her go, threatened her with death should she tell anybody about the incident.[4] Afraid of his threat, she kept the molestation incident to herself.
On the night of September 23, 2001, AAA, then already 12 years old fell asleep while watching television. She woke up to discover accused-appellant fondling her cheeks and kissing her on the lips. He told AAA to turn-off television but the latter cried. He then left the house.[5]
AAA revealed to her grandmother about accused-appellant�s sexual molestation against her. Her grandmother, in turn, reported the matter to the barangay captain. Accompanied by her grandmother, AAA went through mental and physical examination. The physical examination revealed that AAA had superficial lacerations at 11 o�clock and 2 o�clock positions.[6]
Accused-appellant was then charged with rape and acts of lasciviousness in the following Informations:
For Statutory RapeAccused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the offenses charged against him. He claimed that on September 23, 2001, he entered the house of AAA�s grandmother and saw that she had fallen asleep while watching television. He woke her up and told her to sleep inside her grandmother�s room. He also ordered her to switch-off the television and the light before going to bed, then left.[8]
Crim. Case No. 12056
That sometime in the year 1996, in the City of Tarlac, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused Abondio Academia, uncle of herein private complainant, by means of violence and intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the complainant [AAA], a seven (7) years old child, against her will.
For Violation of RA 7610
Crim. Case No. 12057
That on or about the 23rd day of September 2001 in the City of Tarlac, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit child abuse and an act of lasciviousness upon the person of [AAA], 12 years old and a niece of accused, by then and there kissed her on her lips and touched her cheeks while [AAA] was sleepy, and against the latter�s will and by means of force and intimidation of which act of the accused is prejudicial to the normal development of the child.[7]
As regards the rape, accused-appellant claimed that after AAA filed the cases, he was arrested along with a certain Zaldy Duque. During their detention, AAA confronted of raping her. Thus, he wondered why he was the one charged with rape and not Zaldy.[9]
On September 13, 2004, after trial, the RTC rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, finding accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 12057 of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of 4 months of arresto mayor in its medium period as the minimum to three (3) years of prision correccional in its medium period as the maximum.On appeal, the CA, in its December 23, 2005 Decision, affirmed in toto the RTC Decision.[11]
In the case of rape as charged in Criminal Case No. 12056, pursuant to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to indemnify the offended party the amount of [PhP] 50,000.00 as moral damages.
SO ORDERED.[10]
After giving due course to accused-appellant�s notice of appeal, the CA elevated the records of the case to the Court for review. On July 12, 2006, the Court ordered the parties to submit a supplemental brief if they so desired. However, the parties manifested that they would no longer file any supplemental brief in support of their respective causes.
Accused-appellant, in his May 23, 2005 Brief filed with the CA, raised a lone issue for the appellate court�s consideration. We now adopt this issue in the instant appeal, thus:
The [Court of Appeals and] trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant of the crime charged despite the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[12]The appeal has no merit.
Accused-appellant belabors to discredit the testimony of the complaining witness by claiming that her behavior after the alleged rape happened was not consistent with normal human behavior. He considers as �amazing�[13] the fact that AAA, who stays in a house beside his, continued to play outside his house and in the process regularly see her alleged abuser. Moreover, he faults AAA for not remembering the exact date when she was raped.
We are not convinced. There is no standard behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience.[14] Thus, children who have undergone traumatic experiences, like being raped, should not be judged according to the norms of behavior expected of adults under the same circumstances.[15] It must be remembered that the victim considers the accused-appellant as a family member, being the husband of her auntie. Understandably, she was hesitant to reveal the sordid assault on her honor and simply chose to suffer in silence.
Furthermore, the exact date of the sexual assault is irrelevant in proving the charge of rape. What is important is the fact of the commission of the rape[16] or that there is proof of the penetration of the female organ.[17] In this case, the testimony of AAA indicated with certainty that the penis of accused-appellant penetrated her vagina, thus:
The Court likewise finds that the RTC and CA correctly held accused- appellant guilty of the crime of acts of lasciviousness; accused-appellant failed to give us a compelling reason to overturn their findings.
As regards the award of damages, the appellate court�s affirmatory ruling should be modified to include an award of civil indemnity and exemplary damages. Civil indemnity is mandatory upon a finding of the fact
of rape,[19] and in order to protect young children from molestation and abuse by perverse elders, exemplary damages should be awarded.[20] Thus, civil indemnity in the amount of PhP 50,000 and exemplary damages in the amount of PhP 25,000 are proper.[21]
Moreover, for the crime of acts of lasciviousness, the offended party is entitled to moral damages in the same way that moral damages are awarded to victims of rape even without need of proof because it is assumed that they suffered moral injury.[22] Accordingly, moral damages in the amount of PhP 30,000 is imposed.[23]
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the RTC Decision as affirmed in toto by the December 23, 2005 CA Decision in CA-G.R. CR No. 00375 with MODIFICATIONS, as follows:
WHEREFORE, finding accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 12057 of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of 4 months of arresto mayor in its medium period as the minimum to three (3) years of prision correccional in its medium period as the maximum, and to pay the offended party the amount of PhP 30,000 as moral damages.SO ORDERED.
In the case of rape as charged in Criminal Case No. 12056, pursuant to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the offended party the amount of PhP 50,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php 50,000 as moral damages and PhP 25,000 as exemplary damages. Costs de oficio.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-14. Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal De Leon and concurred in by Associate Justices Conrado Vasquez Jr. and Mariano Del Castillo.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 7-16. Penned by Judge Bitty Viliran.
[3] Pursuant to RA 9262, otherwise known as the �Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004� and its implementing rules, the real name of the victim, together with the names of her immediate family members, is withheld, and fictitious initials instead are used to represent her, to protect her privacy.
[4] Supra note 1, at 4.
[5] Rollo, p. 4.
[6] Id.
[7] Id. at 2-3.
[8] Id.
[9] Id. at 5.
[10] Supra note 2, at 16.
[11] Supra note 1, at 13.
[12] Supra note 2, at 35. Original in boldface.
[13] CA rollo, p. 36.
[14] People v. Tonyacao, G.R. No. 134531-32, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 433 SCRA 513, 529.
[15] People v. Villanueva, G.R. Nos. 146464-67, November 15, 2002, 391 SCRA 718, 729.
[16] People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 141899, June 29, 2004, 433 SCRA 102, 115.
[17] People v. Pandapatan, G.R. No. 173050, April 13, 2007.
[18] Supra note 1, at 7-9.
[19] People v. Colugui, G.R. No. 170566, March 3, 2006, 484 SCRA 76, 88.
[20] People v. Mantis, G.R. Nos. 150613-14, June 29, 2004, 433 SCRA 236, 250.
[21] People v. Malones, G.R. Nos. 124388-90, March 11, 2004, 425 SCRA 318.
[22] Amployo v. People, G.R. Nos. 157718, April 26, 2005, 457 SCRA 282, 298.
[23] People v. Orillosa, G.R. Nos. 148716-18, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 689.
