Today is Friday, January 24, 2025

Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources AUSL Exclusive

Republic of the Philippines

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 196970 April 2, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

RESOLUTION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

Appellant Rene Santiago was charged with two counts of rape. The Informations1 read as follows:

Criminal Case No. 3541:

That on December 25, 2004 at around 12:30 in the morning in Brgy. Pingit, Municipality of Baler, Province of Aurora
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, by means of threats and intimidation, [have] carnal knowledge of "AAA",2 who was then an eleven[-]year
old girl, by inserting his penis into her vagina against her will and consent and effectively prejudicing her
development as a child.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Criminal Case No. 3542:

That on January 21, 2005 in Brgy. Zabali, Municipality of Baler, Province of Aurora and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by means of threats and
intimidation, [have] carnal knowledge of "AAA", who was then an eleven[-]year old girl, by inserting his penis into her
vagina against her will and consent and effectively prejudicing her development as a child.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

When arraigned on March 24, 2006, appellant entered a plea of not guilty.3 Appellant’s defense of denial and alibi
was not given any credence by the trial court for being self-serving and unsubstantiated and considering his positive
identification by "AAA". Consequently, on June 7, 2007, the Regional Trial Court of Baler, Aurora, Branch 96,
rendered a Joint Decision4 convicting appellant of two counts of simple rape, viz:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds accused Rene Santiago GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
two counts of the crime of RAPE, defined under Article 266-A(1)(a) and penalized under Article 266-B of the
Revised Penal Code, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each of the two
cases and to pay the victim "AAA", for said two counts of rape, the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos
(Php100,000.00) as civil indemnity, the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php100,000.00) as moral
damages, and Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00) as exemplary damages.

SO ORDERED.5

[Link] 1/24/25, 4 45 PM
Page 1 of 4
:
 Aggrieved, appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals.6 In its Decision7 of October 21, 2010, the appellate court
affirmed in toto the trial court’s ruling, viz:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision is wholly AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.8

Hence, this appeal.9

In a Resolution10 dated July 13, 2011, we required both parties to file their Supplemental Briefs. However, they opted
to adopt the briefs they filed before the Court of Appeals as their Supplemental Briefs.11

Appellant argues that "AAA" did not resist his sexual advances;12 neither were they against her will.13 Interestingly,
by arguing in this manner, appellant changed the theory of his defense, i.e., from denial and alibi to consensual
intercourse, to his utter detriment. As correctly observed by the Court of Appeals:

From a complete denial of the occurrence of the rape incidents when he testified before the trial court, appellant now
makes a sudden turn-around by admitting in the present appeal having had sexual intercourse with AAA that were,
however, consensual as the latter never resisted his advances. But he offered no reason why AAA would consent to
having sexual liaison with him.

Albeit, a change in theory merely accentuates the accused’s lack of credibility and candor. Changing the defense
1âwphi1

on appeal is an indication of desperation on the part of the accused-appellant, due to the seeming inadequacy of his
defense adopted in the first instance.14

Appellant next claims that the prosecution failed to establish that he intimidated or coerced "AAA" into having sexual
intercourse with him.

We are not persuaded.

Contrary to appellant’s contention, "AAA" testified that she was threatened, forced, and coerced into sexual
copulation. When "AAA" was placed on the witness stand, she categorically testified that during the first rape
incident, appellant threatened to hurt her if she would report the incident to anyone.15 As regards the second rape
incident, "AAA" declared that appellant consummated the dastardly act by pointing an "ice pick" at her.16 Admittedly,
these were not mentioned in "AAA’s" Sinumpaang Salaysay; however, they did not diminish her credibility. As
correctly held by the appellate court:

That AAA failed to mention in her Sinumpaang Salaysay what she narrated in open court about appellant’s threats
on her life and his use of an ice pick as he unleashed his perversity, hardly affects her credibility.

It is generally conceded that ex parte affidavits tend to be incomplete and inaccurate for lack of or absence of
searching inquiries by the investigating officer. It is not a complete reproduction of what the declarant has in mind
because it is generally prepared by the administering officer and the affiant simply signs it after it has been read to
him. Hence, whenever there is a variance between the statements in the affidavit and those made in open court by
the same witness, the latter generally [prevail]. Indeed, it is doctrinal that open court declarations take precedence
over written affidavits in the hierarchy of evidence.

Moreover, during re-direct examination, AAA explained that her fear of appellant lingered in her consciousness and
her young mind had yet to recover its bearings at the time she executed the Sinumpaang Salaysay leading to the
incomplete account she made therein. In any case, an errorless recollection of a harrowing incident cannot be
expected from a minor innocent rape victim, like AAA, especially when she was recounting details of an experience
so humiliating and so painful as forced copulation. What is important is that the victim’s declarations, both in her
sworn statement and her testimony in court, are consistent on basic matters constituting the elements of the crime
of rape and the positive identification of the culprit.17

Finally, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly convicted appellant of simple rape, instead of statutory
rape. "The elements of [statutory rape] are: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that the
woman is below 12 years of age x x x."18 In this case, although the Informations alleged that "AAA" was 11 years of
age when the rape incidents transpired, she was actually 13 years of age when the rape incidents transpired on

[Link] 1/24/25, 4 45 PM
Page 2 of 4
:
 December 25, 2004 and January 21, 2005, as her Certificate of Birth19 showed that she was born on March 10,
1991. Thus, appellant is guilty only of simple, not statutory rape for which he was properly imposed the sentence of
reclusion perpetua pursuant to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. However, it must be mentioned that
appellant is not eligible for parole pursuant to Section 320 of Republic Act No. 9346.21

The awards of ₱50,000.00 as moral damages and ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity are likewise proper. However, the
award of exemplary damages must be increased to ₱30,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.22 Also, interest
at the rate of 6% per annum shall be imposed from date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.

WHEREFORE, the October 21, 2010 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 02880 finding
appellant Rene Santiago guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of simple rape and sentencing him to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay "AAA" civil indemnity of ₱50,000.00 and moral damages of PS0,000.00
for each count is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS that appellant is not eligible for parole; the amount of exemplary
damages is increased to ₱30,000.00 for each count; and all damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of 6%
per annum from date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

ARTURO D. BRION JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned
to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court's Division.

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Footnotes
1
Records, pp. 1- 2.
2
"The real names of the victim and of the members of her immediate family are withheld pursuant to Republic
Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act) and
Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004.)" People v. Teodoro,

[Link] 1/24/25, 4 45 PM
Page 3 of 4
:
 G.R. No. 175876, February 20, 2013, 691 SCRA 324, 326.
3
Records, p. 18.
4
Id. at 169-182; penned by Judge Corazon D. Soluren.
5
Id. at 182.
6
Id. at 186-187.
7
CA rollo, pp. 173-190; penned by Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and concurred in by
Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier.
8
Id. at 190.
9
Rollo, p. 20.
10
Id. at 24-25.
11
Id. at 33-40.
12
CA rollo, p. 107.
13
Id. at 108.
14
Id. at 185.
15
TSN, July 7, 2006, p. 7.
16
Id. at 9.
17
CA rollo, p. 184.
18
People v. Amistoso, G.R. No. 201447, January 9, 2013, 688 SCRA 376, 383.
19
Records, pp. 5, 61.
20
Sec. 3. Person convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced
to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180, otherwise
known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.
21
AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES. Approved June
24, 2006.
22
People v. Vergara, G.R. No. 199226, January 25, 2014.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

[Link] 1/24/25, 4 45 PM
Page 4 of 4
: