9/21/2020 G.R. No.
209590
Today is Monday, September 21, 2020
Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 209590 November 19, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
GABRIEL DUCAY y BALAN, Accused-Appellant.
RESOLUTION
REYES, J.:
For review is the Decision1 dated June 7, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 0
which affirmed with modification the Judgment2 dated November 11, 2009 of the Regional Trial Cour
Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 37, in Criminal Case No. 2001-279, finding accused-appellant Gabriel Duc
(accused-appellant) guilty of Rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
The criminal information that spawned the herein proceedings and to which the accused-appellant ple
Guilty" read as follows:
That on or about June 10, 2001 at more or less 11:20 o’clock in the evening at the Seashore of Purok 3,
Puerto, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abo
accused, with the use of force, threat and intimidation with lewd design, did then and there willfully, unla
feloniously have carnal knowledge of the undersigned complainant, [AAA,]3 12 years old, single and agai
of the latter.
That the accused voluntarily surrendered to the authorities dated June 12, 2001 [sic].
Contrary to Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code as amended.4
During the pre-trial conference,the prosecution and the defense stipulated that AAA was more than 12 y
the time the crime was committed.5 Trial thereafter ensued.
The prosecution presented the testimonies of AAA, Charlene Cagadas (Charlene), and Dr. Marie Hazel C
Talja). Culled from their narrations are the following events:
AAA was born in Tikala, Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon and thereat took her Grades 1 to 5 elementary stud
she reached Grade 6, she transferred to Puerto, Cagayan de Oro City and lived in the house of her unc
Cagalawan (Carlito). On June 10, 2001, the birthday of Carlito’s grandchildren, who were also Charlene’s
celebrated. The accused-appellant, being one of the neighbors, was invited as a guest. After the affair,
11:20 p.m., AAA and Charlene went out to buy sugar. Along the way, they passed by the accused-
house.6
The accused-appellant followed the two girls, called them and volunteered to run the errand for them sin
also going to buy cigarettes. Charlene acceded and gave him the money. He forthwith walked ahea
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_209590_2014.html 1/9
9/21/2020 G.R. No. 209590
7
towards the store.
The two then stayed outside a church. A few minutes later, the accused-appellant appeared and instructed
to send AAA to get the sugar from him because he still had to buy cigarettes.8 He was about five houses
where AAA and Charlene stood and it was dark in the area where he waited.9
AAA obliged and moved towards him. Upon approaching, the accused-appellant grabbed AAA and co
mouth with a towel. He tied her hands with a ropeand walked her over to the coconut trees at the seas
accused-appellant then made AAA lie on the sand, and, with her hands still tied at her back, he remove
and shorts then squeezed her breasts. The accused-appellant thereafter removed his shorts and brief, lai
AAA and inserted his penis into her vagina twice. After satisfying his lust, he put his shorts back on. As the
appellant turned his back, AAA crawled slowly away from him. He did not notice her until a dog barked
which pointAAA started running. He gave her a chase but was unable to catch up. AAAkept running
reached the plaza in Agora. She was thereafter brought to the police station by a barangaycaptain.10
Meanwhile, when AAA failed to return, Charlene proceeded to the spot where AAA met the accused
Unable to find her, Charlene went home and told her parents and sister about AAA’s disappearance. She
to the accused-appellant’shouse at 12:00 midnight but he was not there. The accused-appellant’s
accompanied her to look for AAA but they failed. At dawn of June 11, 2001,Charlene found the accused-a
his house. Whenasked as to the whereabouts of AAA, the accused-appellant answered that hedid not
then he ran away.11 On the night of June 11, 2001, they finally found AAA at the Plaza of Agusan, Cagay
City which isfour kilometers away from Puerto. AAA was sitting near a tree and her short pants had bloo
When asked about what happened to her, AAA, who looked stunned, embraced Charlene and said tha
raped by the accused-appellant.13
On June 12, 2001, AAA was examined by Dr. Talja of the Northern Mindanao Medical Center. Her medic
yielded the following results:
"GENITAL EXAMINATION
Genitalia: (+) fresh laceration with minimal blood at 6, 9 & 11 o’clock positions. Admits 1 finger with e
closed, corpus not enlarged, adnexae no mass/tenderness, discharge scanty whitish discharge."14
Dr. Talja explained that because there is still evidence of blood coming from the hymen, although mi
considered it a fresh laceration.15
The accused-appellant raised denial and alibifor his defense. He claimed that, on June 10, 2001, h
Charlene’s house to help slaughter a goat and cook caldereta for the birthday celebration of Charlene’s
The accused-appellant claimed not to have seen AAA at the house. He went home at around 7:00 p.m
then brought him some of the caldereta. He ate dinner at around 8:00 p.m. and thereafter watched tele
his live-in partner, Chuchi Denaword.16
At around 11:00 p.m., Charlene knocked at the door of the accused-appellant’s house asking if his sto
milk available for sale. Charlene had no companion. Since his store ran out of milk and other nearby s
already closed, Charlene requested the accused-appellant to buy milk for her. The accused-appellant h
request. He came back 30 minutes later unable to buy milk so he returned the 60.00 Charlene gave him.17
The following day, June 11, 2001, Charlene went to the accused-appellant’s house again inquiringabou
told her to check if she was at the house of his neighbor since he had an inkling that AAA and his neig
together. On June 12, 2001, upon the request of his cousin, the accused-appellant went to the Chief o
Puerto Police Station and thereupon learned that AAA was accusing him of rape. The accused-appellan
that he knew nothing about the rape incident.18
The accused-appellant went back to the police station on June 13, 2001 and saw AAA together with her m
uncle Carlito. AAA’s mother almost stabbed the accused-appellant with an umbrella.19 Meanwhile, Carlito
to pay ₱50,000.00 rather than be sentenced to death penalty. The accused-appellantrefused to pay becau
innocent of the accusations against him. He also revealed to the court that Carlito demanded money
because Carlito knew that the house where he was staying was already sold for ₱45,000.00 and the m
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_209590_2014.html 2/9
9/21/2020 G.R. No. 209590
about to be paid. Carlito wanted to buy the same house for ₱30,000.00. Sometime in June 2005, Carlit
him and asked for his forgiveness but he could no longer testify to confirm that as he is already dead.20
Eugene Suarez (Suarez) was also presented as a defense witness. Suarez testified that at around 10:
June 10, 2001, he saw AAA with Raphy Mercado and six other teenagers in his store. He again saw them
12:00 midnight while hewas on his way home. The group even invited him to go to Agusan, but he decline
In its Judgment22 dated November 11, 2009, the RTC accorded more weight and credence to the evide
prosecution and based thereon found that all the elements of rape were established beyond reasona
Accordingly, the RTC adjudged the accused-appellant guilty and sentenced him as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds accused Gabriel Ducay y Balan guilty beyond reaso
of the crime of rape against the victim, and said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty o
perpetua. Moreover, the accused is sentenced to pay the minor offended party the sum of Fifty Thousa
(₱50,000.00) as moral damages and another Fifty Thousand Pesos (₱50,000.00) by way of civil indemnity
SO ORDERED.23
On appeal, the CA upheld the RTC’s findings but modified the award of damages. The CA Decision24 dat
2013 thus read:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Judgment dated 11 Novem
rendered by the RTC, Branch 37 of Cagayan de Oro City, finding the accused-appellant Gabriel Duca
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
In addition to the damages already imposed by the trial court, said accused-appellant is hereby sentenc
the victim the exemplary damages in the amount of ₱30,000.00 plusthe interest rate of 6% per annum
damages awarded from the date of the finality of this judgment until fully paid. All other disposition i
Judgment, remains. No cost.
SO ORDERED.25
Hence, the present review. In a Resolution26 dated December 11, 2013, the Court required the parties t
supplemental briefs within 30 days from notice. In their respective Manifestations,27 the parties waived t
the same and instead adopted the briefs filed before the CA. As submitted before the CA, the Court shall r
following arguments proffered by the accused-appellant for his acquittal:
(I) The accused-appellant’s guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt due to: (a) the co
versions of the prosecution’s witnesses as to how AAA was found after the alleged rape incident; a
date of incident stated in the Living Case Report of Dr. Talja is different from AAA’s testimony.
(II) The testimony of defense witness Suarez showed that AAA did not go home for two days be
was wandering around with her friends and notbecause she was afraid to go home after the all
incident.28
The Court affirms the accused-appellant’s conviction.
There exists no compelling reason todeviate from the findings of the courts a quo.
The irregularities imputed by the accused-appellant actually pertain to the issue of assessment of the cr
witnesses and their testimonies. It is a well-entrenched rule that, when credibility is in issue, the Cour
defers to the findings of the trial court. Its factual findings and evaluation on the credibility of witnesses,
when affirmed by the appellate court, are accorded the highestdegree of respect and are generally conc
binding. Having had the first hand opportunity to hear the witnesses and observe their demeanor, co
attitude during their presentation, the task of assigning values to their testimonies and weighing their c
best left to the trial court.29
"[Its] findings will be re-opened for review only upon a showing of highly meritorious circumstances suc
the court’s evaluation was reached arbitrarily, or when the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_209590_2014.html 3/9
9/21/2020 G.R. No. 209590
certain facts or circumstances of weight and substance, which, if considered, would affect the result of th
None of these exceptional instances obtain in the present case.
It is likewise well-settled rule that when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says she has been raped,
effect, all that is necessary to prove that rape was committed. Courts give greater weight to the testimon
who is a victim of sexual assault, especially a minor, for it is most unnatural for a young and immat
fabricate a story as sordid as her own defilement, allow a medical examination of her genitalia, subject h
public trial and expose herself to public ridicule for no reason other than her thirst for justice.31
Based on the foregoing guiding principles, the Court upholds the RTC in giving full faith and credence
testimony rather than the mere denial and alibiof the accused-appellant. AAA’s clear, straightforward a
narration sufficiently established the fact of rape and the identity of the accused-appellant as the perpetrat
Q: What happened when you meet (sic) Gabriel Ducay at the road?
A: He volunteer (sic) that he will be the one to buy sugar.
xxxx
Q: If he is in Court can you point to him?
x x x x A: Yes, (witness pointing to the man wearing yellow T-shirt, and when asked of his name answered
Ducay.
Q: You said a while ago that Gabriel Ducay was able tobuy sugar, did he came from where you were?
A: He was in my back, according to him he will give the sugar but he was not able to buy the sugar then h
me and covered my mouth.
xxxx
Q: After he grabbed you, did you happened (sic) to go near him, what happened next?
A: He grabbed me to the seashore (sic) behind that coconut tree.
Q: Going away from your ate?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: Did you shout?
A: I could not shout becausehe covered my mouth.
xxxx
Q: Did he touch you?
A: Yes.
Q: Where?
A: (Witness pointing to her breast)
Q: What else did he touch?
A: My vagina. (Witness pointing to her vagina).
Q: Do you remember of him on top of you? (sic)
A: Yes, ma’am.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_209590_2014.html 4/9
9/21/2020 G.R. No. 209590
xxxx
Q: And you said also that he madeyou lie on the sand, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you remember what happened when you were lying already?
A: He remove my short, my t-shirt and that is all I could remember.
Q: You said a while ago that he touched your breast, did he touch softly or squeeze it[?]
A: He squeeze it. [sic]
Q: When he remove your short, did he also remove his clothing?
A: He remove his clothes. [sic]
Q: After he remove your clothes, he got his? [sic]
A: Yes.
xxxx
Q: Can you remember what did he do to you while he was on top of you?
A: Yes.
Q: What happened?
A: He remove (my) panty and he remove also his brief.
Q: And what happened?
A: He then laid on top of me.
Q: What happened, did he place inside of you or what? [sic]
A: Yes.
Q: What did he put inside of you?
A: His penis.
Q: To where?
A: (witness is crying) In my vagina, (whispered to the interpreter.)
Q: After that, what happened?
A: He put on his short and he turn his back to (sic) me, that was the time I ran away.32
AAA further recounted that: "A towel was tied around [her] mouth and nose. She walked ahead becaus
hands weretied behind her with a rope. She attempted to shout, but she could not do so [a]nd the
appellant] made her lie on the sand. He laid on top of her, and then [s]he felt his penis was inserted in
[sic]. At this moment, her hands were still tied behind her back. Heinserted his penis into her vagina twic
time he inserted his penis into her vagina, [she] was able to shout because it was very painful. When she
head on one side, the towel loosened and [it] dropped from her mouth and at [that] moment she w
shout."33
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_209590_2014.html 5/9
9/21/2020 G.R. No. 209590
The foregoing declarations, corroborated by Dr. Talja’s findings of penetration on AAA’s genitals, estab
moral certainty the following elements of rape, viz: (1) the accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AA
it was accomplished through the use of force.34
When the victim’s testimony is corroborated by the physician’s finding of penetration, there is sufficient fou
conclude the existence of the essential requisite ofcarnal knowledge. Laceration is the best physical e
forcible defloration.35 Force, on the other hand, is evident in the manner by which the accused-appellant
coerced AAA to submit to his dastardly desires. After grabbing her, the accused-appellant tied AAA’s han
her and covered her mouth and nose with a towel. She remainedso bound and gagged while he was cons
the felonious coitus such that any attempt on her part to resist his depraved deed was futile.
The discrepancy in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses as to the place where AAA was eventually f
mere trivial matters since they pertain to events that occurred after the fact of rape. "[W]hat is dec
prosecution for rape is whether the commission of the crime has been sufficiently proven. Inconsiste
discrepancies on minor details that are irrelevant to the constitutive elements of the crime cannot be c
grounds for acquittal."36 Moreover, minor inconsistencies actually tend to buttress, rather than weaken,
credibility, asthey indicate that the testimony was not contrived.37
Neither can the discrepancy in the date of incident written in Dr. Talja’s Living Case Report and the alleg
commission of the crime convincingly reverse a finding of guilt.When she took the witness stand, Dr. Ta
that the date June6, 2001 indicated in her report is a clerical error that should be corrected to June 10, 200
The testimony of defense witness Suarez was insufficient to negate the commission of the crime. His de1âwphi1
were uncorroborated by the persons with whom AAA was supposedly seen. Even if it were true, AAA’s
going with her friends after the commission of the rape should not be taken against her. Rape victims,
minor victims, should not be expected to act the way mature individuals would when placed in such a situ
not proper to judge the actions of children who have undergone traumatic experience by the norms o
expected from adults under similar circumstances. "The range of emotions shown by rape victims is
captured even by the calculus. It is thus unrealistic to expect uniform reactions from rape victims."39
All told, the courts a quo were correct in convicting the accused-appellant with rape and sentencing him to
penalty of reclusion perpetua in accordance with Article 266-A in relation to 266-B of the Revised P
(RPC).40 Further, the accused-appellant shall not be eligible for parole pursuant to Section 3 of Repub
934641 which states that "[p]ersons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sen
be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for paroleunder Act No. 4180,
known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended."42
The reason for such non-eligibility was explained in People v. Gardon43 in this wise: Reclusion perp
indivisible penalty without a minimum or maximum period. Parole, on the other hand, is extended onl
indivisi
sentenced to divisible penalties asis evident from Sec. 5 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, which provid
only after "any prisoner shall have served the minimum penalty imposed on him" that the Board of Ind
Sentence may consider whether such prisoner may be granted parole.44 (Citation omitted and italics in the
Recently, in People of the Philippines v. Rogelio Manicat y De Guzman,45 the Court clarified that the phras
eligibility for parole'' does not exclusively apply to qualified rape. Article 266-B of the RPC is explicit
committed through force, threat, or intimidation is punishable by reclusion perpetua. Resolution No. 24-4-
Board of Pardons and Parole also states that those convicted of offenses punishable by reclusion pe
disqualified for parole.
Lastly, the damages and civil indemnity awarded by the courts a quo were in accord with prevailingjurispru
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing considered, the Decision dated June 7, 2013 of the Court of Appeals i
CR-HC No. 00792-MIN is hereby AFFIRMED and MODIFIED to read: Accused-appellant Gabriel Ducay
found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of RAPE and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
without eligibility for parole and ordered to pay victim AAA the amounts of ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱
as moral damages and ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages. The award of damages shall earn legal inte
rate of six percent ( 6o/o) per annum from the finality of this judgment until fully paid.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_209590_2014.html 6/9
9/21/2020 G.R. No. 209590
SO ORDERED.
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA*
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was
to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Chairperion, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I cert
conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to th
the opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Chief Justice
Footnotes
*
Additional member per Raffle dated October 1, 2014 vice Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza.
1
Penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles, with Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and
Francisco, concurring; CA rollo, pp. 72-87.
2
Issued by Judge Jose L. Escobido; id. at 38-46.
3
The real name of the victim, her personal circumstances and other information which tend to e
compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, sh
disclosed to protect her privacy and fictitious initials shall, instead, be used, in accordance with
Cabalquinto (533 Phil. 703 [2006]), and A.M. No. 04-11-09-SC dated September 19, 2006.
4
CA rollo, p. 38.
5
Id.
6
Id. at 39.
7
Id.
8
Id. at 39-40.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_209590_2014.html 7/9
9/21/2020 G.R. No. 209590
9
Id. at 74.
10
Id. at 40, 74.
11
Id. at 41.
12
Id. at 29.
13
Id. at 41.
14
Id. at 42.
15
Id. at 75.
16
Id. at 42.
17
Id.
18
Id. at 42-43.
19
Id. at 43.
20
Id. at 75-76.
21
Id. at 76.
22
Id. at 38-46.
23
Id. at 46.
24
Id. at 72-87.
25
Id. at 86.
26
Rollo, p. 24.
27
Id. at 25-28, 30-31.
28
CA rollo, pp. 16-36.
29
People v. Bacatan, G.R. No. 203315, September 18, 2013, 706 SCRA 170, 184.
30
Id.
31
People v. Montemayor, 444 Phil. 169, 185-186 (2003).
32
CA rollo, pp. 79-82.
33
Id. at 40.
34
Revised Penal Code, Article 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 circumstances:
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machinations or grave abuse of authority; and
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_209590_2014.html 8/9
9/21/2020 G.R. No. 209590
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though no
circumstances mentioned above be present.
35
Supra note 31, at 185.
36
People v. Manalo, 444 Phil. 654, 665 (2003).
37
People v. Montejo, 407 Phil. 502, 520 (2001).
38
Rollo, p. 6.
39
Supra note 31, at 186.
40
People v. Sabadlab, G.R. No. 175924, March 14, 2012, 668 SCRA 237, 249.
41 42
AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES Supr
at 186; People v. Dejillo, G.R. No. 185005, December 10, 2012, 687 SCRA 537, 556.
43
534 Phil. 894 (2006).
44
Id. at 911.
45
.R. No. 205413, December 2, 2013.
46
RE: Amending and Repealing Certain Rules and Sections of the Rules on Parole and Amended
for Recommending Executive Clemency of the 2006 Revise Manual of the Board of Pardons and Pa
xxxx
RULE 2.2. Disqualifications for Parole - Pursuant to Section 2 of Act No. 4103, as amended,
known as the "Indeterminate Sentence Law," parole shall not be granted to the following inma
xxxx
i. Those convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences were
reclusion perpetua by reason of Republic Act No. 9346 enacted on June 24, 2006, amendin
Act No. 7659 dated January 1, 2004[.]
47
Supra note 29, at 186-187.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_209590_2014.html 9/9
