PEOPLE vs. NATALIO HILARION y LALIAG, G.R. No. 201105, November 25, 2013

Facts:

1.    The RTC found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape under Article 266-A, in relation to Article 266-B, of the Revised Penal Code.

2.    It gave credence to the testimony of AAA³ that the appellant inserted his penis into her vagina. It further held that AAA’s testimony was corroborated by the medical findings of the Philippine National Police medico-legal officer stating that the victim had "deep healing laceration at 3 o’clock position"⁴ on her hymen.

3.     The RTC sentenced the appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to pay AAA P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.

4.    The CA decision affirmed in toto

5.    The CA held that AAA positively identified the appellant as the person who inserted his penis into her vagina in a grassy area;

6.    Her testimony was corroborated by Medico-Legal Report No. 3472-02 showing that AAA had deep-healing hymenal lacerations, and that her posterior fourchette had been "abraded." It further held that the victim's age had been sufficiently proven by the written and oral testimonies of AAA's mother, BBB. The CA also rejected the appellant's denial for his failure to substantiate his defense.

7.    In his brief,⁵ the appellant maintained that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of force and intimidation; he also claimed that the victim's age had not been proven with certainty.

Issues:

1.    Elements of force and intimidation

2.    Proof of victim’s age

Held:

1.    Affirmative:  As an element of rape, force, threat or intimidation need not be irresistible, but just enough to bring about the desired result."⁷ In the present case, AAA testified that she cried when the appellant inserted his penis into her vagina. As a child of tender years, she could not reasonably be expected to resist in the same manner that an adult would under the same or similar circumstances. Nonetheless, AAA's act of crying during the rape is sufficient indication that the appellant's act was against her will. AAA also revealed that the appellant threatened to kill her parents if she disclosed the incident to anyone.

2.    In People v. Buado Jr.,⁹ the Court reiterated the guidelines in appreciating the victim's age, either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance, thus:

In order to remove any confusion that may be engendered by the foregoing cases, we hereby set the following guidelines in appreciating age, either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance.

1. The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party.

2. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents such as baptismal certificate and school records which show the date of birth of the victim would suffice to prove age.

3. If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of the victim's mother or a member of the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the following circumstances:

a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 7 years old;

b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 12 years old;

c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 18 years old.

4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the testimony of the victim s mother or relatives concerning the victim s age, the complainant s testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused.

5. It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the offended party. The failure of the accused to object to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken against him.

6. The trial court should always make a categorical finding as to the age of the victim.

In the present case, the records are completely devoid of evidence that the certificates recognized by law have been lost or destroyed or were otherwise unavailable. The mother simply testified without prior proof of the unavailability of the recognized primary evidence. Thus, proof of the victim s age cannot be recognized, following the rule that all doubts should be interpreted in favor of the accused.