GR 220718; (June, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 220718 . June 21, 2017. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. NICOLAS TUBILLO y ABELLA, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
The accused-appellant, Nicolas Tubillo y Abella, was charged with rape in relation to Republic Act No. 7610 . The Information alleged that on February 1, 2006, in Quezon City, Tubillo, by means of force, violence, and intimidation at knife point, had carnal knowledge of the victim, HGE, a 13-year-old minor, against her will. The prosecution established that HGE was sleeping alone when Tubillo forcibly entered the house, undressed her, and sexually assaulted her while threatening her with a knife. The medico-legal examination revealed a healed hymenal laceration consistent with penetrating trauma.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Tubillo of simple rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty, holding that since the charge was under R.A. No. 7610 , the proper penalty was under Section 5(b) of that law, imposing a prison term of 14 years and 8 months to 20 years. Tubillo appealed, arguing that the victim’s testimony was inconsistent and his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court gravely erred in finding the accused-appellant’s guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for simple rape under the Revised Penal Code but reinstated the penalty of reclusion perpetua and modified the damages. The Court held that all elements of rape through force or intimidation were present: Tubillo had carnal knowledge of the victim, and this was accomplished by force and intimidation as he threatened her with a knife, rendering her unable to resist. The victim’s candid and consistent testimony, corroborated by medical findings, constituted proof beyond reasonable doubt. The alleged inconsistencies in her testimony were deemed trivial and did not affect her credibility.
The Court rejected the Court of Appeals’ application of R.A. No. 7610 . It ruled that when the victim is above twelve years old, as in this case, and the facts constitute rape under the Revised Penal Code, the accused should be prosecuted and penalized under that law, not under the special law. The defense of bare denial was insufficient to overcome the positive identification and detailed account of the crime. Following People v. Jugueta, the Court awarded civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages of ₱75,000.00 each, with 6% interest per annum from finality until fully paid.