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.
