People v. ZZZ
G.R. No. 266706
June 26, 2024
FACTS:
There
are nine criminal cases filed against the accused-appellant ZZZ. The prosecution presented that ZZZ began
molesting AAA, his eldest daughter, when she was just 9 years old. The first
incident happened sometime in April 2009. AAA testified that one evening in
April 2009, while their entire family was asleep, ZZZ woke her up. He forced
her to sit down on his abdomen while he was lying down and inserted his finger
insider her vagina. She tried to resist him, but he threatened that he would
hurt her. In April 2011, ZZZ abused her again. She described this as the worst
incident. This happened one night sometime in April 2011 when she, her
siblings, and ZZZ were sleeping in their father’s house. Their mother EEE was
not with them at the time. AAA narrated that her father woke her up and tole
her that she should not have a boyfriend and that she should love him only. He
then made her undress. He tried to insert his penis into her mouth. He then
went on top of AAA and forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina and then
made a push and pull motion. Sometime between October and November 2012, while
they were at AAA’s grandparents’ house, ZZZ called AAA and ordered her to enter
the room where he was staying. She refused but he succeeded in pulling her
inside. He commanded her to lie down on the bed, surrender her cellphone, and
kiss him. Sometime later, he unbuckled his belt, held her hand tight, and
forced her to touch his penis. In November 2012, ZZZ raped AAA again. One
evening sometime in November 2012, AAA was asleep in her grandparents’ house.
She was with her youngest siblings CCC and DDD and their mother EEE. ZZZ slept
on the ground floor. AAA was awakened by ZZZ by tapping her feet. He then
ordered her to move beside him. AAA claimed that she obeyed because was afraid
that something bad might happen if she refused to follow him because he was
drunk at the time. ZZZ removed AAA’s pants and underwear and also removed his
own clothes. When they were both naked, he went on top of her and inserted his penis
into her vagina. He made several push and pull motions. He eventually stopped
after AAA repeatedly tried to push him away.
ZZZ
attempted to rape AAA again in 2015 but did not succeed because she resisted
and ZZZ was ill at the time. AAA further testified that ZZZ also physically
abused her mother EEE who is suffering from a psychological disorder. She
claimed that she once saw ZZZ drag EEE into a room while holding a gun. There
was also an instance when ZZZ attacked, kicked, and held EEE at gunpoint when
he was drunk. On September 19, 2017, AAA, her mother EEE, and her siblings BBB,
CCC, and DDD could not take any more abuse. AAA testified that in the afternoon
of September 19, 2017, she was at the kitchen of her grandparents’ house when
ZZZ, who was drunk, grabbed her cellphone. She went to the bathroom to try to
escape but he yelled at her and pushed the door open. She went to the bathroom
to try to escape but he yelled at her and pushed the door open. He violently
pulled her hair. Her sisters BBB and CCC tried to stop ZZZ, but he just pushed
them aside. He punched AAA in the abdomen and continued to punch and kick her
even after she fell to the floor. Despite hear pleas for him to stop, ZZZ beat
her and even slammed her on the ground. ZZZ also attacked BBB, CCC, DDD and
EEE.
He was
found guilty for sexual assault under Article 266-A, rape and slight physical injuries/maltreatment
under the RPC. The CA affirmed with modifications.
ISSUE:
Whether
or not the CA correctly affirmed the ruling of the RTC which found ZZZ guilty
of Rape by Sexual Assault under Article 266-A (2); two counts of Rape under
Article 266-A (1); three counts of Slight Physical Injuries under Article 266
of the RPC; and one count of Violation of Section 5 (a) of RA 9262.
HELD:
Yes. ZZZ
is guilty of the crime of Rape by Sexual Assault, two counts of Qualified Rape
and three counts of Slight Physical Injuries. However, he is acquitted of the
charge of violation of RA 9262. AAA was able to “narrate in a clear and
categorical manner” the repeated abuse that she was subjected to by her own
father.” AAA’s testimony is direct, consistent, sufficiently detailed, and
withstood the questioning of both the defense and the RTC. In an attempt to
discredit the testimony of his own daughter, ZZZ argued that AAA’s narration of
the abuses is not believable because she did not shout for help and did not
tell anyone. The Court takes this case as an opportunity to reiterate that in
cases penalized under Article 266-A of the RPC where the rape was committed
with force, threat or intimidation, proof of resistance is not necessary. If
the law is to be interpreted such that a woman claiming that she was raped must
satisfactorily establish that she resisted the sexual assault, we become
complicit in perpetuating the premise that men, as a general rule, are entitled
to free access to a woman's body at any given time and place because unless a
woman proves she resisted such act by actively resisting a man's advances, she
will be deemed to have consented to it. This is simply unacceptable in any
civilized society.
Nor can
ZZZ assail AAA's credibility by arguing that it is not believable that AAA
waited for years before she told anyone about the alleged sexual abuse. Delay
in reporting an incident of rape does not prove that the claim is a mere
fabrication. It does not necessarily cast doubt on the credibility of the
victim. The victim may choose to keep her silence rather than expose what
happened to her to public scrutiny. AAA categorically and convincingly
testified that ZZZ inserted his finger into her vagina. Her testimony also
satisfactorily established that this was done by force, threat, and
intimidation and certainly against her will. There is, therefore, no doubt that
the crime of Rape by Sexual Assault was also committed. The Court agrees with
the CA that the aggravating circumstances of minority and relationship were
established here. Thus, the nomenclature of the crime should be Qualified Rape.
ZZZ
deliberately attacked his own children not once but repeatedly over the course
of an afternoon with the clear intention of hurting them because, as he himself
admitted, he was angry at them. There is no mistaking his malice in severely
physically punishing his own children. This is not comparable to cases such as
Bagajo v. Marave where the Court found that the accused's act of whipping the
back of the legs of the victim to discipline her did not constitute a crime as
the intent to commit a crime was clearly absent. Here, ZZZ repeatedly slapped,
punched, hit, and kicked his own children even when they were already bleeding
and despite their pleas for him to stop. There is no mistaking his criminal
intent.
The
Court emphasizes that the RTC acquitted ZZZ in Criminal Case No. Criminal Case
No. 2017-1053-D for Violation of Section 5 (a) of Republic Act No. 9262.
However, the CA reversed this and convicted ZZZ. An examination of the CA
Decision shows that the CA did not discuss its reasons for reversing the
acquittal. Here, there are no allegations, let alone proof, that the proceeding
before the RTC is a nullity or that circumstances exist that would warrant the reopening
of ZZZ's acquittal. Thus, this acquittal became final, executory, and
unappealable upon the promulgation of the Joint Decision.
