CASE BRIEF NO. 2019-0076

“While there are some who may have found the courage early on to reveal the abuse they experienced, there are those who have opted to initially keep the harrowing ordeal to themselves and attempt to move on with their lives.”

CASE: People of the Philippines vs. Noel Navasero, Sr. y Hugo [G.R. No. 234240, February 06, 2019]

PONENTE: Justice Diosdado M. Peralta

SUBJECT:
A.       CRIMINAL LAW:
          a.   Article 266-A; Article 266-B/Rape– Elements
          b.   Qualified Rape

B.       Civil law:
          a.   Torts and Damages – Moral Damages; Exemplary Damages

FACTS:
In fifteen (15) separate Informations, Navasero was charged with fifteen (15) counts of qualified rape.

According to the victim (AAA), her biological father, Navasero, raped her from 2010 to 2013 for fifteen (15) times when she was still a minor, having been born on December 27, 1999. The alleged rapes were committed in 2010 to 2013. AAA recalled that after the last rape on September 17, 2013, she finally mustered enough courage to inform her mother about the ordeal she went through in the hands of her own father. As a result, her mother accompanied her to the DSWD and eventually to the police in order to file a case against Navasero. In the course of her testimony, AAA explained why she specifically remembered the respective dates when her father had carnal knowledge of her.

The RTC rendered its decision finding Navasero guilty of fifteen (15) counts of qualified rape. It also ordered Navasero to pay AAA the total amount of Php50,000.00 as moral damages.

On appeal, the CA affirmed with modification the RTC Decision, increasing the amount of moral damages to P100,000.00 for each count of rape, and ordering Navasero to pay civil indemnity in the amount of P100,000.00, exemplary damages in the amount of P100,000.00.

Navasero appealed to the Supreme Court (the Court). According to Navasero, AAA’s testimony should not be given weight for being too generalized and incredible. He maintains that the rape incidents narrated by AAA were almost identical that in all occasions, he would isolate her from her siblings, forcibly remove her clothes, kiss and touch her body, and insert his penis inside her vagina. Thus, he should be acquitted since the prosecution failed to prove that each rape instance is different from the other. Navasero also finds unbelievable the fact that AAA’s mother and other siblings had no idea of the ordeals she had been experiencing despite their presence in the family home.


ISSUES:
A.       What are the ways of committing the crime of rape? Qualified rape?
          a.       Are the elements of qualified rape present in this case?
          b.       Is there a need to prove the element of actual force, threat or intimidation in this case?

B.       Whether the testimonies of the victim regarding the alleged rape incidents are not credible.

C.       Whether the Court will give credit to Navasero’s contention that AAA’s testimony are doubtful because she took an unacceptable length of time before she finally reported the so-called incidents of abuse.

D.      Whether the CA was correct in modifying the RTC’s ruling as regard the award of damages.

RULING:
A.      
Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) provides that 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; b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or 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.” In relation to Article 266-B, par. 1 of the RPC, to raise the crime of rape to qualified rape, the twin circumstances of minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must concur.

In the instant case, AAA was under twelve (12), as well as below eighteen (18) years of age, when the alleged crimes occurred. In both cases, there need not be actual force, threat or intimidation because in the former, the absence of free consent is conclusively presumed when the victim is below the age of twelve (12), while in the latter, the fact that Navasero was AAA’s father is enough because his moral ascendancy or influence over her substitutes for violence and intimidation.

In view of the fact that the prosecution was able to discharge its burden of proving that Navasero had carnal knowledge of his own minor daughter, AAA, at the times when she was ten (10), eleven (11), twelve (12), and thirteen (13) years of age, the courts a quo committed no error in convicting him of fifteen (15) counts of qualified rape.


B.      
In rape cases, the credibility of the victim is almost always the single most important issue. If the testimony of the victim passes the test of credibility, which means it is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things, the accused may be convicted solely on that basis. The rule is settled that when the decision hinges on the credibility of witnesses and their respective testimonies, the trial court’s observations and conclusions deserve great respect and are accorded finality, unless the records show facts or circumstances of material weight and substance that the lower court overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated, and which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the case. This is so because trial courts are 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 their behavior in court. Trial judges, therefore, can better determine if such witnesses are telling the truth, being in the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies. The rule finds an even more stringent application where the said findings are sustained by the CA (People v. Descartin, Jr., G.R. No. 215195, June 7, 2017).

Here, both the trial court and appellate court found AAA’s testimony to be straight, candid, spontaneous and steadfast, even on cross-examination. But despite said findings, Navasero criticizes the testimony to be unworthy of belief for being too generalized and almost identical in all fifteen (15) occasions. The Court, however, cannot subscribe to Navasero’s contention. While it is true that AAA’s narrations would always include the fact that Navasero forcibly removed her clothes and inserted his penis inside her vagina, said fact alone does not necessarily belie her testimony for AAA was merely recounting the very acts that constitute the crime itself. But even if we assume that AAA’s repeated and almost identical narration of the fifteen (15) times Navasero penetrated her casts doubt on her credibility, a judicious review of her testimony reveals that she was able to describe not just the sexual intercourse but also the precise circumstances surrounding each rape incident. To the Court, AAA’s recollection of the unique and notable details before, during, and even after each act of abuse cannot simply be dismissed as fabricated.

The Court deems the testimony of AAA as an original and realistic account of her harrowing experience in the hands of her own father. This authenticity is further strengthened by the findings of the trial court insofar as its delivery in open court is concerned. In the words of the RTC, AAA’s demeanor while testifying evinced “the anguish of a very young woman seeking justice for the wrong done to her.” In the course of her testimony, she expressed how she came to regard Navasero as “demonyo,” “walang konsensya,” “hindi na po yata tao,” and “walang puso,” after the attacks on her became a habit. In fact, the trial court specifically noted the fact that AAA was weeping and crying almost the entire time she was relating “convincingly her pitiful situation and utter helplessness in the hands of her own father.” 


C.      
Time and again, the Court has held that there is no uniform behavior that can be expected from those who had the misfortune of being sexually molested. While there are some who may have found the courage early on to reveal the abuse they experienced, there are those who have opted to initially keep the harrowing ordeal to themselves and attempt to move on with their lives. This is because a rape victim’s actions are oftentimes overwhelmed by fear rather than by reason. The perpetrator of the rape hopes to build a climate of extreme psychological terror, which would numb his victim into silence and submissiveness. In fact, incestuous rape further magnifies this terror, for the perpetrator in these cases, such as the victim’s father, is a person normally expected to give solace and protection to the victim. Moreover, in incest, access to the victim is guaranteed by the blood relationship, magnifying the sense of helplessness and the degree of fear. Thus, the fact that it took AAA years before she was able to muster up the courage to confide in her mother does not make her story untrue, especially in view of Navasero’s threats and physical abuse.


D.
As to the award of damages, the CA was correct in modifying the RTC’s ruling such that Navasero is now ordered to pay, for each count of rape, civil indemnity in the amount of P100,000.00, moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00, and exemplary damages in the amount of P100,000.00, pursuant to People v. Jugueta  [783 Phil. 806 (2016)].

The fallo:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Decision dated June 23, 2017 of the Court of Appeals affirming, with modification, the Consolidated Decision dated July 20, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court of Calamba City, Branch 35, finding appellant Noel Navasero, Sr. y Hugo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of fifteen (15) counts of qualified rape, is AFFIRMED. Thus, appellant Navasero is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape, without eligibility for parole, and to pay, for each count of rape, civil indemnity in the amount of P100,000.00, moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00, and exemplary damages in the amount of P100,000.00, as well as a six percent (6%) interest per annum on all the amounts awarded reckoned from the date of finality of this Decision until the damages are fully paid.

Related Case Briefs:
a.       People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016)
b.       People v. Descartin, Jr., G.R. No. 215195, June 7, 2017
————————————————-

THINGS DECIDED:

A.       Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) provides that 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; b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or 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.” In relation to Article 266-B, par. 1 of the RPC, to raise the crime of rape to qualified rape, the twin circumstances of minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must concur.

B.       In rape cases, the credibility of the victim is almost always the single most important issue. If the testimony of the victim passes the test of credibility, which means it is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things, the accused may be convicted solely on that basis. The rule is settled that when the decision hinges on the credibility of witnesses and their respective testimonies, the trial court’s observations and conclusions deserve great respect and are accorded finality, unless the records show facts or circumstances of material weight and substance that the lower court overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated, and which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the case. This is so because trial courts are 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 their behavior in court.

C.       There is no uniform behavior that can be expected from those who had the misfortune of being sexually molested. While there are some who may have found the courage early on to reveal the abuse they experienced, there are those who have opted to initially keep the harrowing ordeal to themselves and attempt to move on with their lives.

‘Stand by things decided’ ~ Stare Decisis

LET US KNOW. Feel free to suggest edits/changes by commenting below or email us at stare101decisis@gmail.com

FOR MORE CASE BRIEFS visit us at Stare Decisis or like us on Facebook – @staredecisispage – and stay updated on latest Case Briefs.

KEEP IN TOUCH with us by following us on our official Twitter account – @ Stare_Decisis1.

======================