Republic of the Philippines

C o u r t of A p p e a l s
Manila

NINTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CA G.R. CR HC No. 0 9 5 0 6

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Members:

-versus- BRUSELAS, JR., Chairman,

GARCIA-FERNANDEZ, &
RODEL PEÑAFLORIDA Y FIEL-MACARAIG, JJ.
SIMON
Accused-Appellant. Promulgated: 12/20/18

DECISION

FIEL-MACARAIG, J.:

Before Us is an appeal from the Joint Decision1 dated 15

February 2017 rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City, Branch 89 (hereinafter, court a quo), in Crim. Case Nos. Q-10-
162768-69, for Rape. The assailed Joint Decision found accused-
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of
simple rape, viz:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds

accused Rodel Peñaflorida y Simon:

1. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of

simple rape under Art. 266-A paragraph 1 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by RA No. 8353, in Criminal Case
No. Q-10-162768. Accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua or 20 years and 1 day to 40 years
and to pay AAA P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as

1
Rollo, pp. 55-65.
C A G. R. CR HC NO. 0 9 5 0 6 P a g e 2 o f 16
Decision

moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, all

with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of
this judgment until fully paid; and

2. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of

simple rape under Art. 266-A paragraph 1 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by RA No. 8353, in Criminal Case
No. Q-10-162769. Accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua or 20 years and 1 day to 40 years
and to pay AAA P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as
moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, all
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of
this judgment until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.”2

The Facts

In this Decision, the real names of private complainant and

her immediate family members, as well as such other personal
circumstances or any other information tending to establish or
compromise their identity shall be withheld. 3 Private complainant
shall be designated by the initials ''AAA.''

On 08 February 2010, two Informations4 for Rape under Art.

266-A, par. 1 (d) of R.A. 83535 were filed against accused-
appellant Rodel Peñaflorida y Simon (hereinafter, appellant)
before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. The docket
numbers and the accusatory portions of the Informations read:

2
Rollo, pp. 64-65.
3
See People vs. Vergara, G.R. No. 199226, January 15, 2014, citing People vs. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703
(2006); Sec. 29 of Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as Special Protection of Children Against
Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act; Sec. 44 of Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known
as Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004; and Sec. 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC,
known as Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children effective 15 November 2004; See also
Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015, entitled "PROTOCOLS A.ND PROCEDURES IN THE
PROMULGATION, PUBLICATION, AND POSTING ON THE WEBSITES OF DECISIONS, FINAL
RESOLUTIONS, AND FINAL ORDERS USING FICTITIOUS NAMES/PERSONAL
CIRCUMSTANCES," dated September 5, 2017.)
4
Records, p. 2, 3.
5
Otherwise known as the “Anti-Rape Law of 1997.”
C A G. R. CR HC NO. 0 9 5 0 6 P a g e 3 o f 16
Decision

Crim. Case No. Q-10-162768

“That on or about the 16th day of September 2005 in

Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, have
carnal knowledge with [AAA], a minor, 13 years of age,
against her will and without her consent, to the damage and
prejudice of the said offended party.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”6

Crim. Case No. Q-10-162769

“That on or about the 20th day of November 2005 in

Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, have
carnal knowledge with [AAA], a minor, 13 years of age,
against her will and without her consent, to the damage and
prejudice of the said offended party.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”7

These cases were raffled to and consolidated before the

court a quo, which, upon a finding of probable cause, issued a
Warrant of Arrest.8

When arraigned on 27 July 2010, appellant entered a plea of

not guilty.9

At the pre-trial conference, the parties entered into

stipulations on the identity of appellant, the jurisdiction of the
court a quo over the case, and the minority of AAA on the alleged
date of the incident.10

6
Records, p. 2.
7
Id., at 3.
8
Id., at 52.
9
Id., at 63.
10
Id., at 72.
C A G. R. CR HC NO. 0 9 5 0 6 P a g e 4 o f 16
Decision

Thereafter, trial ensued.

Evidence of the Prosecution

The prosecution presented three (3) witnesses – private

complainant, AAA; her father, BBB; and Dr. Paul Ed Ortiz (“Dr.
Ortiz”).

On 25 January 2012, AAA testified that she was 13 years old

when the rape incidents happened. She also identified the
appellant in open court11 as the person who sexually abused her.

AAA recounted that on 16 September 2005, at around 9:00

in the evening, she was alone in their house as her mother and
siblings were at a wake and her father was at work. She claimed
that while she was sleeping inside the room, appellant, who was
their neighbor, entered the room, removed her short pants and
underwear, and inserted his penis into her vagina. She failed to
shout because appellant covered her mouth. After raping her,
appellant hurriedly left. She saw appellant's face through the light
emanating from outside of their house. The following morning, or
on 17 September 2005, she informed her mother of what appellant
did to her. Together with her parents, she proceeded to the
barangay hall and reported the rape incident. The Barangay
Tanod tried to locate appellant’s whereabouts, but failed.12

AAA further testified that on 20 November 2005, at around

11:00 in the evening, while she was once again alone in their
house and sleeping, appellant woke her up, removed her short
pants and forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina. Out of fear,
she was unable to offer any resistance. After raping her, appellant

11
TSN, 25 January 2012, pp. 6-8.
12
Id., at 7-16.
C A G. R. CR HC NO. 0 9 5 0 6 P a g e 5 o f 16
Decision

told her not to report the incident. However, the next day, she
reported to her parents that appellant raped her again. They then
proceeded to the barangay hall and the police station to report the
incident and file a complaint. On 22 November 2005, she
underwent a genital examination at the PNP Crime Laboratory.13

In the course her testimony, AAA affirmed and confirmed 14

the statements made in her Sinumpaang Salaysay 15 and Sagot sa
Kontra Salaysay.16

On 05 November 2013, Dr. Ortiz confirmed that he

conducted the medico-legal examination on AAA. He testified
that some time on 22 November 2005, he conducted physical and
genital examinations on AAA. He noted the presence of deep
healed lacerations on AAA's hymen at the 1 o'clock and 11 o'clock
positions and a shallow healed laceration at the 5 o'clock position,
as indicated in the Medico Legal Report No. M-4362-05 17 which he
prepared. He opined that the said lacerations could have been
caused by a blunt trauma, such as an erect male organ. 18 He,
however, testified that he has no personal knowledge as to the
circumstances surrounding the case.19

On 01 July 2014, BBB testified that AAA is her daughter. He

also affirmed and confirmed the statements made in his Judicial
Affidavit,20 which mainly corroborated the testimony of AAA.

13
TSN, 25 January 2012, pp. 16-23.
14
Records, pp. 24-26.
15
Id., at 142.
16
Id., at 19-21.
17
Id., at 131.
18
TSN, 18 February 2014, pp. 3-7.
19
Id., at 9-10.
20
Records, pp. 138-140.
C A G. R. CR HC NO. 0 9 5 0 6 P a g e 6 o f 16
Decision

The prosecution presented and formally offered21 the

following documentary evidence: AAA’s Birth Certificate [Exhibit
“A”];22 AAA’s Complaint Affidavit (Sinumpaang Salaysay)
[Exhibit “B”-“B-1”];23 AAA's Reply-Affidavit (Sagot sa Kontra
Salaysay) [Exhibit “C”-“C-1”];24 Medico-Legal Report No. M-
4362-05 [Exhibit “D”- “D-4”];25 and BBB’s Sinumpaang Salaysay
[Exhibit “E”-“E-1”];26

In its Order27 dated 07 October 2014, the court a quo

admitted all the documentary evidence of the prosecution over
the Opposition28 of appellant. Thereafter, the prosecution rested
its case.

Evidence of the Defense

The defense presented only one witness in the person of

appellant. He primarily denied the allegations leveled against
him and claimed that AAA liked him as evinced from the latter's
letter29 to him. He also averred that AAA's parents had a grudge
against him.30

Appellant, a garbage collector, testified that on 16

September 2005, at about 9:00 in the evening, he was already
collecting garbage in San Juan, near Camp Crame, with Carlos
Lescalo, Romulo Delda, Ronaldo Aresgado, Rafael Tan, and
Sonny Paraguelles. He went home around 12:00 midnight on that
21
Id., at 145-147.
22
Id., at 100.
23
Id., at 42.
24
Records, pp. 19-21.
25
Id., at 131.
26
Id., at 138-140.
27
Id., at 161.
28
Id., at 159-160.
29
Id., at 195.
30
TSN, 18 August 2015, p. 5.
C A G. R. CR HC NO. 0 9 5 0 6 P a g e 7 o f 16
Decision

day. Upon the other hand, on 20 November 2005, at around 7:00

in the evening, he was at the house of Carlos Lescalo, his brother-
in-law, together with Sally Peñaflorida, his sister. At around 7:30
in the evening, he left because his companions at work were
about to leave. He went to work at 9:00 in the evening in San Juan
and went home at 12:00 midnight and slept.31

Appellant also affirmed and confirmed the statements made

in his Counter-Affidavit32 and Katotohanan Laban Sa
Kasinungalingan ng Complainant sa Kanyang Sagot Kontra Salaysay.33

To support his defense, appellant formally offered34 his

documentary evidence consisting of: his payslip [Exhibit “1”]; 35
Letter [Exhibit “2”]; his Counter-Affidavit [Exhibit “3”-“3-a”];36
and Katotohanan Laban Sa Kasinungalingan ng Complainant sa
Kanyang Sagot Kontra Salaysay [Exhibit “4”].37 These pieces of
evidence were admitted by the court a quo sans comment. The
case was then submitted for decision.

The Court a quo's Decision

On 15 February 2017, the court a quo rendered the assailed

Joint Decision,38 finding appellant guilty of the crimes charged. In
so ruling, the court a quo gave more credence to AAA’s testimony
which it found to be straightforward, candid, credible, and duly
supported by the Medico-Legal Report No. M-4362-05. On the
other hand, the court a quo rejected appellant’s defense of alibi

31
Id., 10 February 2015, pp. 7-10.
32
Records, pp. 196-198.
33
Id., at 200.
34
Records, pp. 192-193.
35
Id., at 194.
36
Id., at 196-198.
37
Id., at 200.
38
Id., at 205-215.
C A G. R. CR HC NO. 0 9 5 0 6 P a g e 8 o f 16
Decision

as no corroborating witness was presented; neither did appellant

present any evidence to support his imputation of improper
motive against AAA and her family.

Insisting on his innocence, appellant filed a Notice of

Appeal,39 which was given due course by the court a quo in its
Order40 dated 20 February 2017.

Hence, this appeal.

The Issues

Appellant assails the Joint Decision of the court a quo based

on the following assigned errors:

“THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN

CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF
THE CRIMES CHARGED DESPITE THE PATENT
INCREDIBILITY AND INCONSISTENCY IN THE
PRIVATE COMPLAINANT’S TESTIMONY.

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN

CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF
THE CRIMES CHARGED DESPITE THE ILL-
MOTIVE OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT IN
FILING THE CASE.

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT

CONSIDERING APPELLANT’S
SUBSTANTIATED DEFENSES OF DENIAL AND
ALIBI.”41

39
Id., at 219-220.
40
Id., at 223.
41
Rollo, p. 37.
C A G. R. CR HC NO. 0 9 5 0 6 P a g e 9 o f 16
Decision

Arguments

Appellant contends that AAA’s testimony is highly

incredible considering the following circumstances: her uniform
description of the alleged rape incidents; her vague, general, and
inadequate version of the facts; her statements were inconsistent
with those given by BBB as regards the time when the latter was
informed of the alleged rape incidents; and, her unsubstantiated
claim that they reported the alleged rape incidents at the
barangay and eventually at the police station, as no documentary
evidence was presented to prove the same. Appellant further
argues that the charges against him were brought about by
AAA’s feelings of resentment, hatred and revenge when he failed
to heed to her request, as contained in her letter. Lastly, appellant
insists that his defense of denial and alibi is supported by AAA’s
letter acknowledging that he was on duty on 20 November 2005.

Appellee counters that the testimonial and documentary

evidence advanced by the prosecution proved beyond reasonable
doubt that appellant committed two (2) counts of rape against
AAA, who was then a minor. Appellee avers that appellant’s
denial and alibi cannot stand against the prosecution’s evidence.
Allegedly, appellant failed to show that the court a quo
overlooked, misunderstood and misapplied some facts,
circumstances, or any issue that might affect the veracity, or
detract from the essential credibility of the witnesses'
declarations. Also, appellant’s claim of improper motive against
AAA and her family is highly dubious and unworthy of belief.
C A G. R. CR HC NO. 0 9 5 0 6 P a g e 10 o f 16
Decision

This Court's Ruling

At the outset, it is well to note that the Informations 42 filed

against appellant are captioned Rape under Art. 266-A, par. 1 (d)
of R.A. 8353, when it should have been Rape under Art. 266-A,
par. 1 (a) of R.A. 8353, as can be gleaned from the recital of facts
in the body of these Informations. Notwithstanding this error,
however, it is settled that the caption of the information is
immaterial and purposeless, and that the facts stated in the body
of the pleading must determine the crime of which the defendant
stands charged and for which he must be tried.43

The pivotal issue brought to fore is whether or not the court

a quo erred in convicting appellant based on the evidence
presented by the prosecution vis-à-vis the defense of appellant.

We rule in the negative.

Article 266-A(1)(a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as

amended by R.A. 8353, provides:

“Art. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. – Rape

is committed –

1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a

woman under any of the following circumstances:

a. Through force, threat or intimidation;”

Pertinently, the elements of rape under the above-quoted

provision, as amended, are: (a) that the offender, who must be a

42
Records, pp. 2-3.
43
Cf. Gamaro vs. People, G.R. No. 211917, February 27, 2017.
C A G. R. CR HC NO. 0 9 5 0 6 P a g e 11 o f 16
Decision

man, had carnal knowledge of a woman, and (b) that such act is
accomplished by using force or intimidation.

All the elements of Rape are present.

A perusal of the records reveals that all the above-

mentioned elements were duly proven by the prosecution. Firstly,
AAA positively identified appellant in open court as her
perpetrator. She knew appellant because they were neighbors at
the time when the rape incidents occurred. AAA narrated that
appellant inserted his penis into her vagina on two occasions, on
16 September 2005 and 20 November 2005, respectively. Secondly,
force and intimidation were present. Considering AAA’s
minority, as she was only 13 years old as evidenced by her
Certificate of Live Birth,44 and the fact that appellant, based on the
records, was 36 years old at the time, their age disparity speaks
volumes about unequal power relationship.45 In this respect,
AAA, a defenseless young girl, not capable of fully
understanding or knowing the import of her actions, was
subdued into obedience and remained vulnerable to the
deception of appellant, whose stronger position enabled him to
force his will upon her. Also worth noting are appellant's
actuations wherein he covered AAA’s mouth to prevent her from
shouting during the first incident, and the menacing statement he
made that the incident on 20 November 2005 not be reported.
From the foregoing, it appears that AAA was so situated that she
could not give a valid consent which, under Article 266-D 46 of the

44
Records, p. 100.
45
See Fianza vs. People, G.R. No. 218592, August 02, 2017.
46
“Article 266-D. Presumptions. - Any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the
act of rape in any degree from the offended party, or where the offended party is so situated
as to render her/him incapable of giving valid consent, may be accepted as evidence in the
prosecution of the acts punished under Article 266-A.”
C A G. R. CR HC NO. 0 9 5 0 6 P a g e 12 o f 16
Decision

RA 8353, may be accepted as evidence that the carnal knowledge

was obtained by appellant without AAA's consent.

In assailing his conviction, appellant harps on the credibility

of AAA and questions AAA’s uniform narration of the two
incidents as well as the conflicting statements of AAA and BBB.

Credibility of witnesses is domain of the trial court.

It is settled that inconsistencies and discrepancies in details

which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime are not grounds
for acquittal.47 Ergo, conflicting statements not related to
elements, such as the time when the rape incidents were reported
to BBB, are of no moment, thus, deserves scant consideration.

Settled, too, that in addressing the issue of credibility of

witnesses on appeal, the following guidelines should be
observed, viz:

“First, the Court gives the highest respect to the RTC's

evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses, considering its
unique position in directly observing the demeanor of a
witness on the stand. From its vantage point, the trial court is
in the best position to determine the truthfulness of witnesses.

Second, absent any substantial reason which would justify the

reversal of the RTCs assessments and conclusions, the
reviewing court is generally bound by the lower court's
findings, particularly when no significant facts and
circumstances, affecting the outcome of the case, are shown to
have been overlooked or disregarded.”48

47
See People vs. Quiapo, G.R. No. 218804, August 06, 2018.
48
See People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 207946, September 27, 2017 citing People v. Pareja, 724 Phil.
759, 773 (2014).
C A G. R. CR HC NO. 0 9 5 0 6 P a g e 13 o f 16
Decision

Here, the court a quo found AAA's testimony to be

straightforward, candid, convincing and credible; it even noted
that AAA cried during her testimony. Hence, We find no reason
to depart from the said findings considering that the defense
failed to present any evidence to support its claim that probably
AAA had been coached or rehearsed into lying. Moreover, AAA's
account of the rape incidents was corroborated by the medical
findings of the examining doctor, Dr. Ortiz, who testified that
AAA’s hymen had deep-healed lacerations at 1 o'clock and 11
o’clock positions and a shallow healed laceration at 5 o’clock
position, which are suggestive of a remote history of blunt
penetrating force to the hymen, that could have been caused by
an erect male sex organ.49

Anent, appellant's ascription of improper motive in filing

the charges against him, We agree with the court a quo's
pronouncement that appellant’s allegation of improper motive is
not substantiated by any other evidence, and motives, such as
resentment, hatred and revenge, have never swayed the court
from giving full credence to the testimony of a minor victim.
Besides, good faith is always presumed, thus, absent any
evidence that the filing of the subject criminal charges was moved
by bad faith or ill motive, the presumption holds.

Defense of denial and alibi must be

substantiated by clear and convincing evidence.

As a last-ditch effort to exonerate himself, appellant opines

that his denial and alibi should be given weight and credence.
Time and again, it has been ruled that mere denial,
unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative
self-serving evidence which cannot be given greater evidentiary
49
TSN, 18 February 2014, pp. 3-7.
C A G. R. CR HC NO. 0 9 5 0 6 P a g e 14 o f 16
Decision

weight than the testimony of the complaining witness who

testified on affirmative matters.50 As aptly found by the court a
quo, appellant did not present other witnesses to corroborate his
claim that he was indeed working when the rape incidents took
place. Neither was he able to prove the physical impossibility for
him to be at the scene when the crimes happened. Thus, the court
a quo correctly rejected his defense of denial and alibi.

Based on the foregoing, We find no reason to deviate from

the findings of the court a quo as jurisprudence is replete with
rulings that an appellant can justifiably be convicted of rape
based solely on the credible testimony of the victim – as found by
the court a quo, who is in the best position to ascertain and
measure the sincerity and spontaneity of witnesses through their
actual observation of the witnesses’ manner of testifying, their
demeanor and behavior in court. We consider, too, that nothing in
the records indicates that the court a quo overlooked or failed to
appreciate facts that, if considered, would change the outcome of
the case.

Penalty and Pecuniary Liability

We now review the penalty imposed by the court a quo.

We affirm the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the

court a quo on each of the crimes committed and in holding
appellant not eligible for parole, as the same are in accord with
the second paragraph of Art. 266-B of the RPC, as amended, and
consistent with Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346,51 respectively.

50
See People vs. Wile, G.R. No. 208066, April 12, 2016.
51
“Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines”
C A G. R. CR HC NO. 0 9 5 0 6 P a g e 15 o f 16
Decision

Recent jurisprudence, however, constrains us to modify the

amount of damages awarded by the court a quo, particularly,
moral and exemplary damages. The awards of moral and
exemplary damages in favor of AAA have to be modified and
increased to Php75,000.00, in line with People vs. Jugueta.52

Finally, as to the damages awarded with interest at the rate

of six percent (6%) per annum upon finality until fully paid, the
same is affirmed, being in accordance with prevailing
jurisprudence.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The 15 February

2017 Joint Decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City, Branch 59, in Crim. Case No. 10-162768-69, is
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS that the amounts of
moral and exemplary damages, are each increased to
Php75,000.00 for each count of Simple Rape.

SO ORDERED.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
GERALDINE C. FIEL-MACARAIG
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ORIGINAL SIGNED
APOLINARIO D. BRUSELAS, JR.
Associate Justice

ORIGINAL SIGNED
MYRA V. GARCIA-FERNANDEZ
Associate Justice
52
G.R. No. 202124, 05 April 2016.
C A G. R. CR HC NO. 0 9 5 0 6 P a g e 16 o f 16
Decision

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 3 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.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
APOLINARIO D. BRUSELAS, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairman, Ninth Division