People v. XXX

 

People v. XXX

G.R. No. 240441

December 4, 2019

FACTS:

                The RTC and CA convicted accused for the crime of Rape under Art. 266-A of the RPC. In the afternoon of December 2, 2006, inside their house in Iriga City, the accused, in total disregard of the minority and naivety of the complainant, committed an act of lascivious conduct and had carnal knowledge of his stepdaughter, 14 years old, by pulling and removing the latters’ blanket, placing his hand under the said minor’s shirt and caressing her breast and legs and in another time, the accused while armed with a bolo and by means of force and intimidation, succeeded in having carnal knowledge.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the RTC

HELD:

                No. Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code enumerates the elements of rape as follows: 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 following circumstances: a) Through force, threat, or intimidation; b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.

                In the instant case, the Informations charge XXX with raping AAA twice. The first rape incident took place in April 1998 when AAA was merely 10 years old. AAA’s age was sufficiently established from her testimony, and confirmed through the presentation of her birth certificate.

                “In statutory rape, time is not an essential element except to prove that the victim was a minor below 12 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense.” Thus, what matter in the instant case is the fact that the prosecution established that AAA was definitely short of 12 years when she was raped.

                AAA’s behavior after the rape incidents and her failure to timely report the abuse she experienced do not destroy her credibility. XXX cannot attack AAA’s credibility by claiming that her behavior and actuations after the rape incident are atypical of a rape victim. To begin with, there is no such thing as a typical reaction or norm of behavior among rape victims. The workings of the human mind when placed under emotional stress is unpredictable. Some victims may shout, some may faint, while other may be shocked into insensibility. Not every victim can be expected to act with reason or conformably with the usual expectation of mankind. Certainly, it is unfair to expect and demand a rational reaction or a standard behavioral response from AAA, who was confronted with such startling and traumatic experience. Her failure to shout, or seek for help does not negate rape. Naither shall her refusal to get angry at XXX or leave her residence be taken against her.