Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 185727 (People of the Philippines v. Jaime Rivera y Garganta). - We resolve the appeal, filed by accused Jaime G. Rivera (appellant), from the January 23, 2008 decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01837.^[1] The CA affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 211 of Mandaluyong City,^[2] which found the appellant guilty of rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.^[3]

In its May 13, 2003 decision, the RTC found the appellant guilty of the crime of rape committed against AAA,^[4] 14 years of age, on May 28, 2002. It gave full credence to AAA's testimony, made prior to her retraction, as rape victims of such young age and immaturity would not subject themselves to shame and humiliation if they had not, in fact, been raped. The RTC found no truth to AAA's retraction, for she was obviously cajoled by the other party to recant her testimony. It rejected AAA's belated claim that the appellant, who is her aunt's brother, was actually her boyfriend.

The RTC imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered the appellant to indemnify AAA the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages, and to pay the costs of suit.

On intermediate appellate review,^[5] the CA affirmed the appellant's guilt and the awarded indemnities. It found AAA's original testimony as more credible compared to her retraction. Also, the CA found nothing wrong or suspicious about AAA's behavior immediately after the rape was committed. It rejected the appellant's claim that AAA consented to the sexual intercourse because she did not put up a fight and went back to sleep in her house right after the incident.

Our Ruling

We affirm the appellant's conviction and additionally award exemplary damages.

After a careful review of the records, we see no reason to disturb the RTC findings, as affirmed by the CA. We find AAA's original testimony to be credible notwithstanding her subsequent retraction. Mere retraction by the complainant does not necessarily belie or render her original testimony useless.^[6] Further, courts look upon retractions with considerable disfavor because they are generally unreliable and can be easily secured from vulnerable witnesses by the use of threats, offer of money, or other machinations.^[7]

Also, the absence of a struggle between the appellant and AAA does not necessarily negate the commission of rape. The lack of physical resistance from the rape victim does not automatically mean that she consented to the sexual act, more so if such resistance would only be futile by reason of the intimidation or moral ascendancy exercised upon her by the appellant.^[8]

While we affirm the factual findings of the lower courts, we note that the RTC failed to apply the proper penal provisions. Since the rape incident happened on May 28, 2002, the applicable law is no longer Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, but Article 266-A of the same Code, by virtue of Republic Act No. 8353.^[9]

On the civil liabilities, we affirm the award to AAA of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages, based on prevailing jurisprudence.^[10] In addition, we award P25,000.00 as exemplary damages to AAA, to serve as deterrent to elders who abuse and corrupt the youth.^[11]

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated January 23, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01837, finding the appellant guilty of the crime of rape, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION through the additional award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Division Clerk of Court

By:

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Penned by Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas, and concurred in by Associate Justices Josefina Guevara Salonga and Ramon R. Garcia; rollo, pp. 4-16.

^[2] CA rollo, pp. 16-30.

^[3] The dispositive portion of which read:

WHEREFORE, finding the accused, JAIME RIVERA Y [GARGANTA], GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of having committed the offense of rape under the circumstances prescribed in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in relation to R.A. 7610, upon the person of minor, AAA, the court hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. (emphasis supplied)

^[4] The real name of the rape victim is withheld and, instead, fictitious initials are used to represent her (People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419).

^[5] The RTC forwarded the records of the case to the Court for automatic review. However, pursuant to People v. Mateo (G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640), we referred the case to the CA for intermediate appellate review; CA rollo, pp. 54-55.

^[6] People v. Ballabare, 332 Phil. 384, 397 (1996); Lopez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101507, December 29, 1994, 239 SCRA 562, 565; and People v. Dulay, G.R. No. 92600, January 18, 1993, 217 SCRA 103, 118.

^[7] People v. Gonzales, 393 Phil. 338 (2000); and People v. Junio, G.R. No. 110990, October 28, 1994, 237 SCRA 826.

^[8] People v. Agbayani, G.R. No. 122770, January 16, J 998, 284 SCRA 315, 340-341, citing People v. Grefiel, G.R. No. 77228, November 13, 1992, 215 SCRA 596, 608; People v. Matrimonio, G.R. Nos. 82223-24, November 13, 1992, 215 SCRA 613, 630; and People v. Pamor, G.R. No. 108599, October 7, 1994, 237 SCRA 462, 472.

^[9] Otherwise known as "The Anti-Rape Law of 1997," which became effective on October 22, 1997.

^[10] People v. Arcosiba, G.R. No. 181081, September 4, 2009, 598 SCRA 517; People v. Impas, G.R. No. 176157, June 18, 2009, 589 SCRA 565; and People v. Montesclaros, G.R. No. 181084, June 16, 2009, 589 SCRA 320.

^[11] People v. Layco, Sr., G.R. No. 182191, May 8, 2009, 587 SCRA 803, 808.

^[*] Sereno, J., on leave; Peralta, J., designated as Additional Member per Special Order No. 1067 dated August 23, 2011.

^[**] Reyes, J., on official leave; Mendoza, J., designated as Additional Member per Special Order No. 1066 dated August 23, 2011.