People v. ZZZ

 



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.